PA hunting
01-08-2009, 04:32 PM
#21
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: PA hunting
Doug , your post shows what I'm saying, they increased our tags from last year. Sure they are still under the starting number before any herd reduction took place, but it would take a fool to believe that the increase from last year to this yearis a huge increase when looked at from a % of original deer numbers to the % of what we have left.[&:]
Those two thousand tags in my area alone represent $ 12,000.00 that went some where.
1A & 1B five thousand tag increase = $ 30,000.00 it went some where.
Those two thousand tags in my area alone represent $ 12,000.00 that went some where.
1A & 1B five thousand tag increase = $ 30,000.00 it went some where.
01-08-2009, 04:37 PM
#22
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA hunting
"I still want someone to post some evidence that the commissioners and PGC employees have done this out of greed and benefitted financially."
Thats not my contention. I know exactly why theyve done what theyve done. Its the bidding of dcnr, audubon society and timber interests and that a fact. The governor and dcnr are very instrumental in picking the commissioners and unless that stops, the same agenda will STAY in place. And thats a fact.
Thats not my contention. I know exactly why theyve done what theyve done. Its the bidding of dcnr, audubon society and timber interests and that a fact. The governor and dcnr are very instrumental in picking the commissioners and unless that stops, the same agenda will STAY in place. And thats a fact.
01-08-2009, 05:00 PM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: DougE
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 40000 37000 32000 27000
3d 58000 50000 38000 38000
As you can see with the exception of the SRA'S and 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.
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 40000 37000 32000 27000
3d 58000 50000 38000 38000
As you can see with the exception of the SRA'S and 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.
In 2001 780K tags and a harvest of 283K antlerless and reduced the herd by 8% and the antlered to antlerless ratio was 1:1.39.
In 2007 869K tags produced a harvest of 213K antlerless and the antlered to antlerless ratio was 1:1.95.
Now can you please explain why a harvest ratio of 1:1.39 in 2001 reduced the herd by 8%, but a much higher harvest ratio in 2007 ,kept the herd stable?
From 2001 to 2007 the herd has been reduced from 1.6 M to less than 1M deer which is a reduction of around 38%. During the same period antlerless allocations were reduced by 13%. If you ad 30K DMAP tags to the 2007 allocation you have 899K tags which is approximately 100K less than the total number of PS deer in the state.
01-08-2009, 06:02 PM
#25
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central PA
Posts: 829
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: DougE
What exactly do you mean about restoring these small game populations?Are the present bag limits too high?Should the habitat be improved?Who will pay for it?Does the same aplly to 80% of Pa that's private land?
In some species like the pen raised pheasant that the Game commission stocks-Yes! I live in an area where there used to be a bunch of wild born pheasants and they could be seen all year long. The habitat in that area is the same as it always has been and now you can walk those fields for Miles and not find one. All that money put into purchasing pen raised birds who have come to rely on their handler feeding them and having little to no survival skills will not reestablish a wild pheasant population. But let's stay on course even though the efforts are wasted. TYPICAL
There are CRP lands where some of those stocked pheasants survive the season but not long after that. Some areas where habitat is still suitable could benefit from reduced hunting. I have seen guys following the stocking truck just like in trout season waiting to kill every bird they are able to before the truck pulls out and moves onto the next stocking spot. I feel it's a waste of money stocking game if the goal isn't to establish a wild population. Some stocking is needed or there wouldn't be any reason to pheasant hunt in Pa. But there has to be limits put in place in order to one day have a population that can sustain itself. The hawks are a huge issue and efforts need to be made by the PAGC to do what is necessary to create opportunities to manage their populations being that those hawks are threatening the populations of other species that they are responsible for managing.
How are any emloyees pensionsat the PGC benfitting from herd reductions?Do you even know that they're under a state contract?
The PAGC needs those antlerless sales to help offset the loss of earnings due to loss of licenses. They will always allocate the maximum tags they can to make $
So you think all the whining customers as you call them,should be satisfied at the expense of the habitat?Brilliant.
What are you talking about? I never said anything about neglecting habitat. An agency chosen by the hunters who is for the hunters will do that. An agency chosen by the agency and who is for the agency will always do what benefits the agency most financially. That is why we have50 yr old pine timber whih provides absolutely no benefit to the game species we hunt not being harvested until maximum timber profit can be attained. Now that is Brilliant from a management standpoint!
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?
Wrong! The biologists recommendations are taken into CONSIDERATION. They are not the sole basis for their decision making. Do you honestly believe the PAGC Higher ups aren't benefitting from other organizations with agendas not in the best interest of hunters??? I guess that's "brilliant" too, huh?
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.
Sounds like you work for the PAGC. Blame the hunters, we are the dumb lazy ones. Right??? The PAGC never does wrong in your eyes do they? You are ridiculous!
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.
You ask that like kickbacks are posted annually. I and other hunters who don't have their eyes level with Commissioner Roe's pants zipper and belt buckle can see what's going on. But hey keep doing what you do he loves guys like you for it.
What exactly do you mean about restoring these small game populations?Are the present bag limits too high?Should the habitat be improved?Who will pay for it?Does the same aplly to 80% of Pa that's private land?
In some species like the pen raised pheasant that the Game commission stocks-Yes! I live in an area where there used to be a bunch of wild born pheasants and they could be seen all year long. The habitat in that area is the same as it always has been and now you can walk those fields for Miles and not find one. All that money put into purchasing pen raised birds who have come to rely on their handler feeding them and having little to no survival skills will not reestablish a wild pheasant population. But let's stay on course even though the efforts are wasted. TYPICAL
There are CRP lands where some of those stocked pheasants survive the season but not long after that. Some areas where habitat is still suitable could benefit from reduced hunting. I have seen guys following the stocking truck just like in trout season waiting to kill every bird they are able to before the truck pulls out and moves onto the next stocking spot. I feel it's a waste of money stocking game if the goal isn't to establish a wild population. Some stocking is needed or there wouldn't be any reason to pheasant hunt in Pa. But there has to be limits put in place in order to one day have a population that can sustain itself. The hawks are a huge issue and efforts need to be made by the PAGC to do what is necessary to create opportunities to manage their populations being that those hawks are threatening the populations of other species that they are responsible for managing.How are any emloyees pensionsat the PGC benfitting from herd reductions?Do you even know that they're under a state contract?
The PAGC needs those antlerless sales to help offset the loss of earnings due to loss of licenses. They will always allocate the maximum tags they can to make $
So you think all the whining customers as you call them,should be satisfied at the expense of the habitat?Brilliant.
What are you talking about? I never said anything about neglecting habitat. An agency chosen by the hunters who is for the hunters will do that. An agency chosen by the agency and who is for the agency will always do what benefits the agency most financially. That is why we have50 yr old pine timber whih provides absolutely no benefit to the game species we hunt not being harvested until maximum timber profit can be attained. Now that is Brilliant from a management standpoint!
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?
Wrong! The biologists recommendations are taken into CONSIDERATION. They are not the sole basis for their decision making. Do you honestly believe the PAGC Higher ups aren't benefitting from other organizations with agendas not in the best interest of hunters??? I guess that's "brilliant" too, huh?
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.
Sounds like you work for the PAGC. Blame the hunters, we are the dumb lazy ones. Right??? The PAGC never does wrong in your eyes do they? You are ridiculous!
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.
You ask that like kickbacks are posted annually. I and other hunters who don't have their eyes level with Commissioner Roe's pants zipper and belt buckle can see what's going on. But hey keep doing what you do he loves guys like you for it.
01-09-2009, 06:28 AM
#26
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16
RE: PA hunting
Thanks for the replys that dealt with the original topic-
I think if we all scroll back and look at where this thread started and where it is now you can see exactly what I was talking about. Every post, no matter what its original topic, degenerates into name calling or bashing.
In that regard I suppose it could be considered successful in that it provides a forum for showcasing the bitterness, but we need to find some groundwork for common ground and civility or we'll be all marching a different beat played by a different band.
I think if we all scroll back and look at where this thread started and where it is now you can see exactly what I was talking about. Every post, no matter what its original topic, degenerates into name calling or bashing.
In that regard I suppose it could be considered successful in that it provides a forum for showcasing the bitterness, but we need to find some groundwork for common ground and civility or we'll be all marching a different beat played by a different band.
01-09-2009, 06:59 AM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: PA hunting
Cornelius and Jim,there's only three WMU's that had an increase in allocations from 2003-2007.2A which has the highest dd in the entire state and 2b&5c which are special reg areas.
BT,You are definately twisting factsif you start at 1.6 million deer.The PGC flat out admitted that that number was flawed,yet you still use it.
BT,You are definately twisting factsif you start at 1.6 million deer.The PGC flat out admitted that that number was flawed,yet you still use it.
01-09-2009, 07:09 AM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: PA hunting
4ever,your post is simply ridiculous.
You honestly think the habitat is the same?That's ridiculous.There's no more wild pheasants and less small game because modern farming practices changed the habitat.Once again,whop is going to pay for these habitat improvements?
The PGV has no authority over hawks.They're federally protected.Don't they have hawks and coyotes in south Dakota?
Show me one piece of evidence that any PGC "HIGHER UP"is getting a cutback from anyone.posting that nonsense isirrspobisble slander unless you have even the slightest amount of evidence.Tell me when the commissioners voted against the recommendations of the biologists and increased the harvest.
I don't work for the PGC andI disagree with alot that they've done.It just so happens that reducing the herd to improve the habitat isn't one of those things.
What you've posted is a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.You obviously have no idea why the small game populations have gone down and you have no idea why the deerherd had to be reduced.You also have no idea what it will take to fix the habitat issues.On top of that,you turn around and without any proof what soever,post slanderish nonsense on a public website.
You honestly think the habitat is the same?That's ridiculous.There's no more wild pheasants and less small game because modern farming practices changed the habitat.Once again,whop is going to pay for these habitat improvements?
The PGV has no authority over hawks.They're federally protected.Don't they have hawks and coyotes in south Dakota?
Show me one piece of evidence that any PGC "HIGHER UP"is getting a cutback from anyone.posting that nonsense isirrspobisble slander unless you have even the slightest amount of evidence.Tell me when the commissioners voted against the recommendations of the biologists and increased the harvest.
I don't work for the PGC andI disagree with alot that they've done.It just so happens that reducing the herd to improve the habitat isn't one of those things.
What you've posted is a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.You obviously have no idea why the small game populations have gone down and you have no idea why the deerherd had to be reduced.You also have no idea what it will take to fix the habitat issues.On top of that,you turn around and without any proof what soever,post slanderish nonsense on a public website.
01-09-2009, 07:13 AM
#29
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: PA hunting
BT,You are definately twisting facts if you start at 1.6 million deer.The PGC flat out admitted that that number was flawed,yet you still use it.
Please don't accuse me of twisting the facts when you don't understand the facts.
01-09-2009, 07:20 AM
#30
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: PA hunting
I'm asking because I have no idea what the numbers are , What was the pre HR state wide estimate of deer numbers.
And what percent of that number was the goal in reducing deer numbers to?
If the plan is to reduce deer numbers until no sign of a deers presents isfound on our forestor on ourhighways we are following the right path. Its a crooked one but we're on it.
And what percent of that number was the goal in reducing deer numbers to?
If the plan is to reduce deer numbers until no sign of a deers presents isfound on our forestor on ourhighways we are following the right path. Its a crooked one but we're on it.