PA hunting
01-08-2009, 03:09 PM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA hunting
"its to late to go back ar hr if they did away with them there would still be fighting "
Thats pure nonsense. The biggest problem most have is with the extent hr has gone to. You arent gonna get ANYONE to believe that if that situation was fixed that as many hunters would be mad as there are currently. [:'(] Thats utterly rediculous. Ar might be debatable, hr isnt.
That is the biggest problem most can agree with, and it should be addressed.
Thats pure nonsense. The biggest problem most have is with the extent hr has gone to. You arent gonna get ANYONE to believe that if that situation was fixed that as many hunters would be mad as there are currently. [:'(] Thats utterly rediculous. Ar might be debatable, hr isnt.
That is the biggest problem most can agree with, and it should be addressed.
01-08-2009, 03:17 PM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: 4evrhtn
Great post. Speaking personally, my feelings are this... Our Game Comission has promoted the excessive slaughter of our deer herd. Alot of us are upset with the direction the Pagc policies have taken us. I havea conservative mindset in which I want to see more deer in the wmu's surrounding where I live. We have come to the point where we need to bond together not for our own personal interest but for the overall benefit of the experience and more importantly thegame animalswe hunt. This is a double edged sword- save our sport and get others into hunting but also stabilizing or maintaining the deer populations. More hunters = more deer killed. The trend has been oppositemeaning- less deer killed = less hunters purchasing licenses. I feel having an AR is necessary for managing bucks however, the current system is flawed and while I am seeing bigger bucks thedecrease in the population due to Herd Reductions is beginning to make me wonder if the trade-off is worth it. Anyone reading that last statement and has read my prior AR posts will see this is the first time I have ever written anything that would show me having doubt in AR.And that is only because of the way the PAGChasimplemented it.I mainly hunt private land because the PAGC's policies have less impact on the areas I manage on my own. I do not have faith in our Game Commission to do anything other than what is best for their pockets and pensions. I feel the Game Commission needs to get their s#!+ together and worry about managing wildlife instead of implementing new methods of killing more animals that we do not have. Let's work on restoring rabbit , pheasant, woodcock and other species to a self sustaining population before killing off more deer and continuing to let these other species dwindle in numbers reducing the desire for current hunters to continue hunting. TRY TO SATISFY YOUR CURRENT and HISTORICALLY LOYAL CUSTOMERS BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO GET NEW ONESBY LURING THEM WITHNEW LIBERAL WEAPON SCHEMES. Fix what you have broken before creating a bigger hole in your sinking ship. The sad part is you know as well as I do the hunters will never join together in great enough numbers for anything to be done. We each have our own "special interest" that we feel is more important while others want to fight against us to get their "special interest" met. It's a losing battle for us when we have to deal with an organization which is independent and members of which are chosen from inside and not chosen by us who pay for their greed guided agendas. I would love to see the whole Commission get scrapped from top down and rebuilt by an electoral process. The dead weight has done nothing good for long enough, time for an overhaul!
Great post. Speaking personally, my feelings are this... Our Game Comission has promoted the excessive slaughter of our deer herd. Alot of us are upset with the direction the Pagc policies have taken us. I havea conservative mindset in which I want to see more deer in the wmu's surrounding where I live. We have come to the point where we need to bond together not for our own personal interest but for the overall benefit of the experience and more importantly thegame animalswe hunt. This is a double edged sword- save our sport and get others into hunting but also stabilizing or maintaining the deer populations. More hunters = more deer killed. The trend has been oppositemeaning- less deer killed = less hunters purchasing licenses. I feel having an AR is necessary for managing bucks however, the current system is flawed and while I am seeing bigger bucks thedecrease in the population due to Herd Reductions is beginning to make me wonder if the trade-off is worth it. Anyone reading that last statement and has read my prior AR posts will see this is the first time I have ever written anything that would show me having doubt in AR.And that is only because of the way the PAGChasimplemented it.I mainly hunt private land because the PAGC's policies have less impact on the areas I manage on my own. I do not have faith in our Game Commission to do anything other than what is best for their pockets and pensions. I feel the Game Commission needs to get their s#!+ together and worry about managing wildlife instead of implementing new methods of killing more animals that we do not have. Let's work on restoring rabbit , pheasant, woodcock and other species to a self sustaining population before killing off more deer and continuing to let these other species dwindle in numbers reducing the desire for current hunters to continue hunting. TRY TO SATISFY YOUR CURRENT and HISTORICALLY LOYAL CUSTOMERS BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO GET NEW ONESBY LURING THEM WITHNEW LIBERAL WEAPON SCHEMES. Fix what you have broken before creating a bigger hole in your sinking ship. The sad part is you know as well as I do the hunters will never join together in great enough numbers for anything to be done. We each have our own "special interest" that we feel is more important while others want to fight against us to get their "special interest" met. It's a losing battle for us when we have to deal with an organization which is independent and members of which are chosen from inside and not chosen by us who pay for their greed guided agendas. I would love to see the whole Commission get scrapped from top down and rebuilt by an electoral process. The dead weight has done nothing good for long enough, time for an overhaul!
How are any emloyees pensionsat the PGC benfitting from herd reductions?Do you even know that they're under a state contract?
So you think all the whining customers as you call them,should be satisfied at the expense of the habitat?Brilliant.
Grred guided agenda?Exactly what is meant by that?the commissioners vote based on the recommendationsfrom the biologists?In what way are these voluntary postions being greedy?
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and your attitude along with many others on this thread are the exact reason why there's division.You refuse to look at facts and speculate about every conspiracy theory out there.
Please,specifically spell out exactly how the commissioners are employees of the PGC are benefitting financially from any of this.Who's paying them money?Lets see some solid proof now.So far all any of you have posted in meaningless slander.
01-08-2009, 03:31 PM
#13
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: PA hunting
There really seems to be no middle of the road,for every one guy that you have saying that we need take a break on heard reduction we have a guy that says he bought the tags and he gonna fills every one. Does the P.G.C. plan on the filling of every tag,of course not. Yet as the herd have decreased have the tag numbers declined proportionately, same answer ,of course not.
We will never have more 3-1/2 year old bucks if we kill them at 6 months of age. [:@]Its really not that hard to understand.
There really can be no doubt that money is the root of the problem. But I don't see more money as the savior. On one hand we are told to listen to the biologist they only have whats in the best for all of our wildlife in mind while implementing these controversial programs.[:-] Yet we protect avian predators under the guise that they are good at keeping vermin in check,yea right.
Can any one of you tell me that you've ever been hunting any thing and flush a Norway rat?[8D] Damn them hawks must be good. Funny how many dead rabbit parts I find, piles of pheasant feathers but never have I even once come across a dead rat in the woods.[&:]
We listen to the biologist when they say what we want to hear.
I think if any of themwould take a minute to listen, what they would hear would be the sound of frustration.
We will never have more 3-1/2 year old bucks if we kill them at 6 months of age. [:@]Its really not that hard to understand.There really can be no doubt that money is the root of the problem. But I don't see more money as the savior. On one hand we are told to listen to the biologist they only have whats in the best for all of our wildlife in mind while implementing these controversial programs.[:-] Yet we protect avian predators under the guise that they are good at keeping vermin in check,yea right.
Can any one of you tell me that you've ever been hunting any thing and flush a Norway rat?[8D] Damn them hawks must be good. Funny how many dead rabbit parts I find, piles of pheasant feathers but never have I even once come across a dead rat in the woods.[&:]We listen to the biologist when they say what we want to hear.
I think if any of themwould take a minute to listen, what they would hear would be the sound of frustration.
01-08-2009, 03:41 PM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: PA hunting
The PGC does not have jurisdiction over birds of prey.You'll have to take that argument up with the feds.
Tags have been greatly slashed in the wmu's with the lowest deer densities.Both 2G and 2F have way less tags than they did 3-5 years ago and they cover a huge part of the northcenral part of the state.Does that not constitute a reduction along with the herd being reduced?
Tags have been greatly slashed in the wmu's with the lowest deer densities.Both 2G and 2F have way less tags than they did 3-5 years ago and they cover a huge part of the northcenral part of the state.Does that not constitute a reduction along with the herd being reduced?
01-08-2009, 03:48 PM
#15
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA hunting
Jim, Im a bit more optimistic as to wether there could be middle ground. It is pgc who refuses to budge PERIOD. There way as is, no talking, thats it and thats that.
They know darn well that hunters want some things that are VERY acheivable and NOT counter to science. Smaller wmus, more efficient management allowing more deer where they can and should be...
They absolutely refuse any and all input from hunters even though doing otherwise would mean better management for 460+ species both game and non due to better funding. Better pgc/hunter relations would also resultand they still flatly refuse. Its all because of WHO is currently on the boc and the certain biologists that have been hired for the sole purpose of herd wrecking. Treehuggers have had the most input into the deer program from its inception. No conspiracy. Its a big problem. One that will not go away by ignoring it. If 3 commissioners with strong hunting interests replace the 3 antideer eco-exttremists that are leaving, all will be well. If not, it will be another long 16 year term.
They know darn well that hunters want some things that are VERY acheivable and NOT counter to science. Smaller wmus, more efficient management allowing more deer where they can and should be...
They absolutely refuse any and all input from hunters even though doing otherwise would mean better management for 460+ species both game and non due to better funding. Better pgc/hunter relations would also resultand they still flatly refuse. Its all because of WHO is currently on the boc and the certain biologists that have been hired for the sole purpose of herd wrecking. Treehuggers have had the most input into the deer program from its inception. No conspiracy. Its a big problem. One that will not go away by ignoring it. If 3 commissioners with strong hunting interests replace the 3 antideer eco-exttremists that are leaving, all will be well. If not, it will be another long 16 year term.
01-08-2009, 03:50 PM
#16
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: PA hunting
Thats two W.M.U. the herd has been reduced in ALL but in the cities. I'm in 1B on the boarder of 1A.
Theres been damn little tag reduction here.[:-]
I have never herd a W.C.O. admit to the devastation that hawks &owls do,yet a deer may as well be the Antichrist.[
]
Theres been damn little tag reduction here.[:-]
I have never herd a W.C.O. admit to the devastation that hawks &owls do,yet a deer may as well be the Antichrist.[
]
01-08-2009, 03:51 PM
#17
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA hunting
"Does that not constitute a reduction along with the herd being reduced? "
No. IT takes darn few tags to keep a herd that low down. Pgcs mission accomplished.
Many other areas are STILL being raped unnecessarily, some even though the claim is herd stabilization. The current allocations and history of the allocations in those wmus along with comparing herd size = LIES.
No. IT takes darn few tags to keep a herd that low down. Pgcs mission accomplished.
Many other areas are STILL being raped unnecessarily, some even though the claim is herd stabilization. The current allocations and history of the allocations in those wmus along with comparing herd size = LIES.
01-08-2009, 04:19 PM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: PA hunting
Simply not true.
wmu 01-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
1a 44000 48000 40000 42000
1b 37000 33000 27000 30000
2c 65000 75000 53000 49000
3c 4000037000 32000 27000
3d 58000 50000 38000 38000
As you can see with the exception of the SRA'Sand several more units with high deer densities,including 2A allocation have been reduced.This year,the antlerless season has been cut almost in half in several wmu's and the biggest day for harvests has been taken away.Adjustments have been made
I still want someone to post some evidence that the commissioners and PGC employees have done this out of greed and benefitted financially.
wmu 01-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
1a 44000 48000 40000 42000
1b 37000 33000 27000 30000
2c 65000 75000 53000 49000
3c 4000037000 32000 27000
3d 58000 50000 38000 38000
As you can see with the exception of the SRA'Sand several more units with high deer densities,including 2A allocation have been reduced.This year,the antlerless season has been cut almost in half in several wmu's and the biggest day for harvests has been taken away.Adjustments have been made
I still want someone to post some evidence that the commissioners and PGC employees have done this out of greed and benefitted financially.
01-08-2009, 04:21 PM
#19
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 3c pa
Posts: 1,212
RE: PA hunting
you would have the ppl who want less deer complain
the herd is getting to big they would worry bout there
racks thats why i say even if they fix the hr ar there
would still be fighting
thats why i dont think its pure nonsence even thou
i agree hr has gone to far and i wouldnt be mad if they
did away ar either even thou i grown to be alright with
the current ar`s
the herd is getting to big they would worry bout there
racks thats why i say even if they fix the hr ar there
would still be fighting
thats why i dont think its pure nonsence even thou
i agree hr has gone to far and i wouldnt be mad if they
did away ar either even thou i grown to be alright with
the current ar`s
01-08-2009, 04:29 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA hunting
Doug you posted NOTHING and you know it. Those are select wmus that you posted, and not only that, even they dont show the relationship between allocation and herd size.
For example 2A has far too many tags. Why? Because the goal is stated as STABILIZATION. Why isnt it stabilization? Because we have had 55,000 tags 3 out of the last 4 years and 60,000 last year.
How were those years stabilization when according to pgc annual report, the last year of supposed reduction (7% approx) we only had 45,000 tags??? And only 16,500 antlerless harvest. Yet the goal is now and has been for 4 years 18,000!!
BULL-SQUAT! It doesnt take an Einstein to see it doesnt take 10-15000 more tags to STABILIZE a smaller herd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:'(][:'(][:'(]
Now that is a very obvious example and there are others less obvious where tags actually were cut, but not nearly enough to discontinue reduction. Or in some areas enough just to stabilize a rediculously low herd. Not exactly more acceptable. You dont drop a wmus deer herd by 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60%, then drop the allocation there by 3 4 or5k and expect anyone to be fooled!
"including 2A allocation have been reduced."
It was raised to an ALL TIME HIGH last year to a rediculous unthinkable unsupportable level, just so they could put it right back where it has been at a deer ripping 55k. Same allocation as 3 of the last 4 years, and higher than they acually used to reduce the herd! Not to mention they didnt or nearly didnt even sell all the tags at 60k so it was past saturation point anyway with tags left at leastlate into hunting seasonupon my last checking last year.... There was also an estimated 3000+ deer dead due to ehd in 2007...And still, no reasonable allocation for this past season or allowance made.
For example 2A has far too many tags. Why? Because the goal is stated as STABILIZATION. Why isnt it stabilization? Because we have had 55,000 tags 3 out of the last 4 years and 60,000 last year.
How were those years stabilization when according to pgc annual report, the last year of supposed reduction (7% approx) we only had 45,000 tags??? And only 16,500 antlerless harvest. Yet the goal is now and has been for 4 years 18,000!!
BULL-SQUAT! It doesnt take an Einstein to see it doesnt take 10-15000 more tags to STABILIZE a smaller herd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:'(][:'(][:'(]
Now that is a very obvious example and there are others less obvious where tags actually were cut, but not nearly enough to discontinue reduction. Or in some areas enough just to stabilize a rediculously low herd. Not exactly more acceptable. You dont drop a wmus deer herd by 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60%, then drop the allocation there by 3 4 or5k and expect anyone to be fooled!
"including 2A allocation have been reduced."
It was raised to an ALL TIME HIGH last year to a rediculous unthinkable unsupportable level, just so they could put it right back where it has been at a deer ripping 55k. Same allocation as 3 of the last 4 years, and higher than they acually used to reduce the herd! Not to mention they didnt or nearly didnt even sell all the tags at 60k so it was past saturation point anyway with tags left at leastlate into hunting seasonupon my last checking last year.... There was also an estimated 3000+ deer dead due to ehd in 2007...And still, no reasonable allocation for this past season or allowance made.