sproulman

Charlie P

You could do a study with out someone elses data you just couldn't do it on as large a scale.

Take a WMU and do a study on the overall herd in that area and if it's as low as you say you could then argue you are an "independent" source of data.

How can you argue your right and they are wrong with nothing to back it up.

In Ny I kept fishing diaries as did some of my buddies that were used by the state.

So how mnay biologists and wildlife managers do you have in your ranks?

BTBowhunter

The USP could indeed do their own research. But they won't. They spend their money on publicity to spin the facts and frivilous lawsuits.

The USP leadership likley knows that If they USP didtheir own research and did it using credible, independent methods, they wouldn't get theresults they want.They chose to spend their money on propaganda instead.

Most of us are well familiar with other organizations that get theirsupport by using propagandarather than real facts. PETA HSUS, and HCIare just a few that come to mind

Cornelius08

"The USP leadership likley knows that If they USP didtheir own research and did it using credible, independent methods, they wouldn't get theresults they want.They chose to spend their money on propaganda instead."

If they did things in a credible manner, there is no way they COULDNT find that pgcs deer plan was completely unbased in science. How muchmore research is actually necessarywhen Pgcs OWN doesnt support the program?? DECLINING reproductive rates. DECLINING embryos per doe.DECLINING percentage of adult does bred, and NO CHANGE in breeding window..

ALL of these things were supposed to bethe cornerstone of this program and all were supposed to IMPROVE. Nuff said. Failed program. Butfunny, I see no changes as were promised. It was said we would change thingsup if these predictions werentcoming true (pgc not working, but same thing). That tells me the only thing this is based on from the very beginning waslessdeer,less deer less deer. For their compadres in timber industry andtreehugging audubon society. When these types are picking our commissioners and thesitting commissioners have ties to these organizations, what else would you expect??

"Most of us are well familiar with other organizations that get theirsupport by using propagandarather than real facts."

Absolutely The Pennsylvania GameCommission comes to mind first andforemost.

BTBowhunter

So why hasn't the USP or anyone else come up with their own research if they and you are so sure of the results?

The breeding rates and embryo studies do show cause to take another look but there are not enough samples yet nor enough of a sustained change to draw a responsible scientific conclusion.

Game agencies and biologists across the country have continually shown their support for the PGC's methods and game management but no one in the USP etc crowd has an answer as to why all those professionals are "wrong".

Why not try and support your position with some real facts? By that I mean facts that come from credible profesional sources. Maybe because there are none?

Cornelius08

"So why hasn't the USP or anyone else come up with their own research if they and you are so sure of the results?"

What I think of the matter makes zero difference. I have no idea what usp is thinking and sure cannot speak forthem. From MY perspective, I see that PGC OWN data doesnt support them. Ipersonally have little problemwith how much of the data is obtained. I have a problem withhow its implemetent. Especially when The data shows what it does, and no changes are made as promised. This plan was explained and the most basic of details we were given are not being adhered to as promised, and predictions are all false. = failed program. Ive also "studied" their data and information as well as that from states across the country for many years. My conclusion? You already know it.

"The breeding rates and embryo studies do show cause to take another look but there are not enough samples yet to draw a responsible scientific conclusion."

THANK YOU!!! For at least giving a inch! Regardless of the reasons for the data being what it is, this program is several years in, and if that data doesnt show what it was supposed to have (regardless of reason) then we are going BLIND!!! After all this time and all the extremes we've been forced to accept!...and yet still no change.

"Game agencies and biologists across the country have continually shown their support for the PGC's methods and game management but no one in the USP etc crowd has an answer as to why all those professionals are wrong. "

I don't know if they have or have not. IF they have, more power to them. IF they have not, then they are complete fools.

"Why not try and support your position with some real facts? By that I mean facts that come from credible profesional sources. "

You distort my position. My position adresses pgcs own data. I see what I see. I dont need it explained. Pgc made the mess. They should fix it. Its not up to ME or anyone else to pay more to have the job done right when we are already paying pgc and they refuse to fulfill their duty. Time for quick and severelegislative action.

WestVirginiaBrent

Does the PGC/DCNR/Etc.. manage the public hunting land well? As in timber some of it out, create new browse, maybe even control burn a few spots, anything? Are the public lands where people are complaining about mostly hardwoods?

bluebird2

What would be the goal of that study? How would they obtain breeding data or harvest data when they have no authority to examine roadkills or force hunters to report their kill?

The strongest case the USP can make will be by using the PGC's own data to show that he plan decreased breeding rates and productivity and failed to double the number of 2.5+ buck or 8 pt. buck. The USP can also show that the forest health in 2F and 2G are still rated poor after over 10 years of herd reduction.
No state game agency has shown support for the PA plan by implementing it in their state. No state has implemented a plan that reduced their buck harvest by 46%. No state has issued a report in support of the PA deer management plan. None of the experts support ARs as the best method for improving the age structure. No state that has implemented ARs,except PA, has failed to release the data on rack sizes of 2.5+ buck.
BTB is just making up the support for the PGC plan , but he can't back up his claims with facts.

sproulman

yes,that is what is happening.

we used to have a lot of oaks, now we have a lot of MAPLES.

maples shade ground and very little grows under them.

trees have become the place money is made ,not deer.

dcnr says the trees are not ready to cut yet, in about 75 years or so, they will be .

pgc does do a good job on gamelands on deer habitat, best in world but NO DEER.

on the stateforestland, DCNR runs that.

THEY DO NOTHING TO HELP DEER, THEY HATE DEER.