Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
12-29-2008, 01:41 PM
#51
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
Show us where that's a fact.If you claim they have to rubber stamp the candidate before they get approved,you're also saying that they have final say.Once again,show us some proof.
Byron Shissler was the one at DCNR who was asking for these extreme messures.I've spokenwith Byron personally and can tell you that he was dead serious about those requests.
You talk about the excessive reduction on state forest land.How many different state forests have you hunted on?I hunt on them all the time.I see excessively poor habitat accross much of them,especially those with poor deer numbers.There are areas with,food cover and better habitat.I routinely hunt,see and harvest deer in these areas with very little effort.
Byron Shissler was the one at DCNR who was asking for these extreme messures.I've spokenwith Byron personally and can tell you that he was dead serious about those requests.
You talk about the excessive reduction on state forest land.How many different state forests have you hunted on?I hunt on them all the time.I see excessively poor habitat accross much of them,especially those with poor deer numbers.There are areas with,food cover and better habitat.I routinely hunt,see and harvest deer in these areas with very little effort.
12-29-2008, 01:51 PM
#52
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
They got dmap and the ability to use those tags throughout rifle season.The PGC did not cave in on any of those other requests.
12-29-2008, 01:55 PM
#53
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
No they didn't have to cave.DMAP is a great tool and it's being utilized.Cornelius,like many others,including youare trying to make it look like DCNR is running deer management in Pa.That simply isn't the case.If it was,all of those other things would be implemented.I'm glad you're now admitting that the state forests are being managed at a lower dd than the rest of the state.
12-29-2008, 02:23 PM
#54
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
I'm glad you're now admitting that the state forests are being managed at a lower dd than the rest of the state.
BTW, you completely dodged my question regarding why the PGC decided to make a concerted effort to reduce the herd if it wasn't about forest certification. Obviously , it is because there was no other reason to mount such an extensive , expensive and destructive campaign to reduce the herd by 50%.
12-29-2008, 02:35 PM
#55
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
I can't answer your first questions completely.I can say that I know for a fact that some areas of the Quehanna wild area had deer densities as low as 2 dpsm in some of the most rugged and remote areas.Hunters didn't reduce the deer in these areas,the poor state of the habitat did.Those old old forests have terriblehabitat and therefore few deer.I wouldn'timagine dmap would even be necessary.
All that matters is that they state forests have thousands of more tags plus another week to fill them.Obviously those lands are being managed for less deer than the rest of the state.How can you even argue about that?
I never dodged any question.The answer is simple.We had to many deer for too long and the habitat sudffered as a result.Other areas were not at that point because they didn't have those high deer densities for as long but they were on their way down the same path.
The sins of our pastare very obvious accross the traditional range of the state were we used to have the highest deer densities.You should really come out and see it some time.
You may think the deer denities are way too low but not everyone feels that way.I know alot of hunters that hunt 2G(WHERE WE HAVE THE LOWEST DD IN THE STATE)that are completely satisfied with theoverall deer hunting experience.None of the guys I hunt with would ever want to go back to the way it used to be.If my deer hunting is considered poor,the rest of the state has to be much better.
All that matters is that they state forests have thousands of more tags plus another week to fill them.Obviously those lands are being managed for less deer than the rest of the state.How can you even argue about that?
I never dodged any question.The answer is simple.We had to many deer for too long and the habitat sudffered as a result.Other areas were not at that point because they didn't have those high deer densities for as long but they were on their way down the same path.
The sins of our pastare very obvious accross the traditional range of the state were we used to have the highest deer densities.You should really come out and see it some time.
You may think the deer denities are way too low but not everyone feels that way.I know alot of hunters that hunt 2G(WHERE WE HAVE THE LOWEST DD IN THE STATE)that are completely satisfied with theoverall deer hunting experience.None of the guys I hunt with would ever want to go back to the way it used to be.If my deer hunting is considered poor,the rest of the state has to be much better.
12-29-2008, 02:51 PM
#56
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
"Show us where that's a fact.If you claim they have to rubber stamp the candidate before they get approved,you're also saying that they have final say.Once again,show us some proof. "
You dont need proof Doug. You know it to be fact every bit as much as I do. How do I know this? Because you took part in this exact same discussion on several message boards already, including the one you got booted from. You want the info, apparently you are quite cozy with dcnr employees....Ask Diberdanis.
"Byron Shissler was the one at DCNR who was asking for these extreme messures.I've spokenwith Byron personally and can tell you that he was dead serious about those requests."
They simply gave suggestions which is a reasonable part of filing their proposal to pgc. Fact remains, they wanted ONE THING and that was FAR FEWER DEER, and it didnt matter if their general suggestions--each and every single one-- were implemented or not. They got their wish.
"You talk about the excessive reduction on state forest land.How many different state forests have you hunted on?I hunt on them all the time."
SF land? a few times a year. Not often. Usually just predator hunting...Once in awhile bear. Deer, rarely through the years...
"I see excessively poor habitat accross much of them,especially those with poor deer numbers.There are areas with,food cover and better habitat.I routinely hunt,see and harvest deer in these areas with very little effort. "
Then on the other end of the spectrum, some of the very best habitat in the state, public and open to anyone private have far fewer deer than they could or should have as shown BY THE VERY SCIENCE THIS "PLAN" WAS SUPPOSED TO UTILIZE! Thats the rediculous blanket effect of our reduction.In WMUS wheresome was needed, we got gross overkill. Where none was needed...didnt matter...we got it anyway.
You dont need proof Doug. You know it to be fact every bit as much as I do. How do I know this? Because you took part in this exact same discussion on several message boards already, including the one you got booted from. You want the info, apparently you are quite cozy with dcnr employees....Ask Diberdanis.
"Byron Shissler was the one at DCNR who was asking for these extreme messures.I've spokenwith Byron personally and can tell you that he was dead serious about those requests."
They simply gave suggestions which is a reasonable part of filing their proposal to pgc. Fact remains, they wanted ONE THING and that was FAR FEWER DEER, and it didnt matter if their general suggestions--each and every single one-- were implemented or not. They got their wish.
"You talk about the excessive reduction on state forest land.How many different state forests have you hunted on?I hunt on them all the time."
SF land? a few times a year. Not often. Usually just predator hunting...Once in awhile bear. Deer, rarely through the years...
"I see excessively poor habitat accross much of them,especially those with poor deer numbers.There are areas with,food cover and better habitat.I routinely hunt,see and harvest deer in these areas with very little effort. "
Then on the other end of the spectrum, some of the very best habitat in the state, public and open to anyone private have far fewer deer than they could or should have as shown BY THE VERY SCIENCE THIS "PLAN" WAS SUPPOSED TO UTILIZE! Thats the rediculous blanket effect of our reduction.In WMUS wheresome was needed, we got gross overkill. Where none was needed...didnt matter...we got it anyway.
12-29-2008, 02:56 PM
#57
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
"If my deer hunting is considered poor,the rest of the state has to be much better. "
Absolutely most of the state is better than the very worst area(one would think that pretty much common sense?). But far worse than it could be or should be, and for no good reason. Seems past incidents of Pa employees needing to wear BULLET PROOF VESTS!!(LOL) to currentlyhunters quitting at over double the national average, pgc being HATED by nearly everyone, legislators having to step in, deer wars, pgc all time low credibility,pgc not getting license fee increase, forcing an audit and whatever all else....
Says that the fact you speak with dcnr employees who give the hunting in Pa the thumbs up doesnt mean much comparatively. Actions need taken and they are. Will they be successful? Only time will tell.
Absolutely most of the state is better than the very worst area(one would think that pretty much common sense?). But far worse than it could be or should be, and for no good reason. Seems past incidents of Pa employees needing to wear BULLET PROOF VESTS!!(LOL) to currentlyhunters quitting at over double the national average, pgc being HATED by nearly everyone, legislators having to step in, deer wars, pgc all time low credibility,pgc not getting license fee increase, forcing an audit and whatever all else....
Says that the fact you speak with dcnr employees who give the hunting in Pa the thumbs up doesnt mean much comparatively.
Actions need taken and they are. Will they be successful? Only time will tell.
12-29-2008, 03:05 PM
#58
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
I found this on the net, explains it pretty well, even though the writer isgenerally known as a thorn in the "treehugger/ecoextremists" sides,Douge.LOL
http://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/art303.html
LOLhttp://www.outdoortalknetwork.com/art303.html
12-29-2008, 03:28 PM
#59
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Do you agree with extent of Herd Reduction in Pa?
All that matters is that they state forests have thousands of more tags plus another week to fill them.Obviously those lands are being managed for less deer than the rest of the state.How can you even argue about that?
I never dodged any question.The answer is simple.We had to many deer for too long and the habitat sudffered as a result.Other areas were not at that point because they didn't have those high deer densities for as long but they were on their way down the same path.