bawanajim

Most private land is select harvested every 20 - 25 years, this maintains all stages of growth and allows sunlight to reach the ground.It also allows for Oak and cherry to develop in areas where maple would other wise over take a forest.
I understand that much of the land under control of the P.G.C. is poor quality maple in pole timber stage, this provides nothing for wildlife andit hasvery little market value ,but leaving stand for 60-70 more years is just insane.
Cutting 1 % per year at a time when 10-15 % would benefit all wildlife just seems ludicrous.

explorer_Jack

Yes,Very true there.

DougE

Jack,what do you think they're hiding?The pendingaudit has nothing to do with their finances.The pending audit is an audit on the deer management prgram.The PGC is a state agency and it's finances are alreadyvery heavily autited.

Asfar as R.S.B's comments go.I know R.S.B personally and I took his comments the way he meant them.His words were directed at those hunters that are constantly trying to handcuff the PGC(YOU KNOW,THEUSP TYPES)in an attempt for the PGC to provide more deer.You won't meet a person more dedicated to the sport of hunting and thehealth of the wildlife than R.S.B.

Jim,think about what you're saying.If they cut 10% of the timber each year.That would mean the state would would have all of it's timber cut down over the next 10 years.Things would be great until about 12 years later when the entire state was a pile pf pole timber,supporting alot less deer than it can now.It would also halt all timber revenue for the next several decades.Have you ever been involved with a large scale timbering project.The amout of science that both the PGC and DCNR put into it is amazing.It's not just a matter of letting the Hatfields and Mccoys loose with their chainsaws.

bawanajim

Doug the timbered land that the P.G.C. owns is a very small percentage of the states forested land. If you don't like the 10 % number drop it to 5 % a revolving 20 year plan of select harvested trees would benefit all wildlife and hunters to boot.
I'm not talking clear cutting except in areas over run with maple. For years the P.G.C. has been cutting oak trees on game lands yet we are ask to believe that their foresters are working for our benefit.I'm not thinking that any thing was benefiting except some ones pocket.

DougE

Jim,you should really go out and meet with a land manager and discuss the management plan they have for that particular gamelands.A 20 year plan would only benefit the wildlife for a little over 40 years.It costs money to go in and cut timber that isn't ready to be cut.Guess what though,they actually do that on our game lands.problem is,our game lands are a very small piece of our total land mass,as you pointed out.Cutting right now really isn't economically feasible.Timber prices are down so low,they aren't even getting bids.

Why shouldn't you cut an oak tree?

explorer_Jack

Your whole head is brown and smells, That is how far you got your head up someones. His statements was against the hunter and for the tree huggers as everyone else has seen. Your not biased at all are you Douge? How you see something different than the rest of us is really amazing. Even BTB understood exactly what RSB was implying. How much clearer could RSB say that he could care less about the hunters than from his recent posts. He was refering to all hunters. You can't spin it Douge. Nice try though.
Atleast we all can say that the USP type are actually looking out for us hunters and not every tree hugger. USP actually care about our game animals that we are allowed to hunt. Maybe they should take over the game animals and let the PGC cater to the tree huggers and DCNR and birdy watchers.

lost horn

Here you go Doug, the DCNR deer management plan, and a lot of it is now being used by the PGC.

Potential Deer Management Tools:
1. Early, Extended Rifle Hunting: The modern centerfire rifle is the most effective tool for harvesting deer in Pennsylvania. The current season for Adult hunters is limited to a two-week period in late November / early December. This season includes two weekend days and 10 weekdays. For many hunters, this is not enough "free" time to harvest multiple deer, especially on separate areas. Also, this season occurs at a time of the year when road conditions accessing much of the State Forest system deteriorates rapidly, with severe icing and snow accumulation in most years. An earlier, much longer season is needed to provide ample time for hunters to fit more hunting into their schedules. "Recent analyses from other states have documented that a high-intensity, short-duration hunt followed by a recovery period, then another high-intensity, short-duration hunt is most effective for harvesting deer" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication). Since days off are at a premium for most working people, a maximum number of weekend days open to rifle deer hunting are a necessity. The two-week season is a remnant of the days when hunters went to camp and stayed an entire week or two, just to hunt, and that time was used just to harvest one deer in most cases. Today's culture does not allow that much time in one block. Instead, most people can fit one or two days in here or there, so maximizing the opportunity to flexibly arrange their hunting excursions will make the harvest of multiple antlerless deer more possible for hunters.
The idea of an early rifle season was tested, first with the early one-week muzzleloader season, then with the early three-day rifle season for Junior and Senior hunters (not Adult hunters, our most effective group). These tests were designed to assess whether or not an early season posed a safety issue or a conflict with other hunting seasons. Neither problem was apparent.
The option of an early, extended rifle season is a tool that could be used on a limited basis, not across all State Forests, or perhaps even across all State Forest DMAP areas, but on those areas where we have evidence that this additional tool is required for adequate harvest. An evaluation of whether or not opening some DMAP areas later than others, versus opening early should be assessed. Either way, this tool should make each DMAP permit more effective at producing a harvested deer, and should allow the Bureau to harvest more deer with fewer permits and fewer hunters. This should help treat more areas simultaneously with the program.
An extended rifle season would be especially useful in those areas with high WMU-wide antlerless license allocations, where permits would present greater time flexibility, whereas the WMU-wide licenses provide greater spatial flexibility. The timing of these extended seasons prior to other hunting seasons would be an added incentive for many hunters to focus on these high-priority areas first.
The major downside of this option would be that rifle hunting would be occurring at the same time as other hunting seasons, hence a perceived conflict. This has not occurred with the early rifle or muzzleloader seasons.
2. Multiple Permits per Hunter per DMAP Area: Currently, hunters are restricted to two permits per DMAP Area. This was imposed to ensure equitable distribution of permits to all willing hunters. Since the inception of the DMAP, several areas have not exhausted allotted coupons. It is very likely that if individual hunters were able to obtain more than two permits in an individual Area, some would avail themselves of that option. Many hunters are limited by hunting time and the amount of time they can travel from one area to another, scout new areas, and coordinate with hunting companions. Allowing hunters to take more than two (or several) deer in one location would likely increase the harvest and the effectiveness of each individual permit. It would allow a hunter to concentrate scouting and hunting effort on one area, where that person would become more effective.
This could still allow equitability in distribution if multiple permits were available to the individual only after a certain date, allowing all hunters equal chance of obtaining a permit up until that time.
3. Eliminate the Tagging Requirement before Harvesting Multiple Deer: Currently successful hunters are required to tag the first deer they harvest before attempting to harvest a subsequent deer. This reduces effectiveness of hunters who have the willingness, opportunity, and required permits to harvest multiple deer. This restriction was imposed to respond to the perception that individual hunters would get all the opportunities, while others would miss out on the opportunity to harvest a deer. The areas identified for use of these tools, however, are areas in need of deer reduction. That has to be the underlying goal of deer management on these lands. Again, this would not need to apply to areas of the state or lands where it was determined that deer were a limited resource.
4. Information and Education Program on Venison Care and Preparation: Harvesting multiple deer for those who use meat processors is a very costly endeavor. Also, some hunters who don't come from a strong hunting heritage have not been trained on the proper care of venison in the field. An I & E program could be developed in conjunction with both governmental and nongovernmental partners to better inform hunters on how to properly treat venison, both in the field and beyond. This could include information or workshops on how to butcher a deer at home. Another helpful facet of the program would be cooking with venison. This healthy meat represents a gourmet product, if prepared properly. Venison can also represent a large economic savings for families who know how to butcher and prepare it as a part of the regular diet. Additionally, the educational program could increase the value of the white-tailed deer in our culture.
5. Information and Education (and possible regulatory change) on Packing Venison out of the Field: The current practice upon harvesting a deer in Pennsylvania is to field dress the deer, then drag the entire carcass out to an access point. In the more remote parts of our country this is not done. Instead, hunters either quarter or debone the carcass, then pack out the edible portions and leave behind the inedible parts for the scavengers. This is not widely done in Pennsylvania, partly because of the tradition focusing on buck hunting only, where a big emphasis was placed on bringing out the entire trophy. With doe hunting in remote areas, the willingness of hunters (and ability) to drag out an entire deer, or multiple deer is limiting. Instead, if hunters were taught (and allowed) to debone the deer and pack out just the meat, then it would be possible for hunters to hunt farther from the road and bring out more than one deer. It is unclear whether or not this practice is legal at this time in Pennsylvania, with the current tagging requirements. This could be changed through information and education, and in regulation, if necessary.
6. Concessions with Outfitters to take Hunters In & Deer Out: An option to allow greater access to remote areas, while controlling for pressure and preserving the character of these areas, would be to grant (or lease) concessions to outfitters to provide access to hunters. This would both provide economic stimulus in some of our rural areas, and help to solve the access issue in remote land deer management. Outfitters could be permitted to set up base camps and have exclusive but highly controlled access within gated areas. With such a system it would be easy to keep watch over erosion issues, and the Bureau of Forestry would know whom to contact if there were other problems. This is already available, but not widely known.
7. Party Hunting: Some other states allow party hunting - allowing a group of hunters to harvest deer for each other's permits until all permits are filled. This is a very nontraditional (but often illegally practiced) method for Pennsylvania. It would go far, however, to increase the effectiveness of reducing deer in overbrowsed areas. Social acceptance of this technique could be difficult. This is definitely a tool that should be studied more deeply with good human dimensions research before implementation would be suggested. Also, it would not be necessary if individual hunters could get multiple permits for an area.
8. Unlimited Permits: In areas where all else has failed to reduce deer overbrowsing, and hunters appear unwilling to enter in large enough numbers to facilitate the needed reduction, the area could be designated as "unlimited harvest" for a period of time. This would be a sort of "last resort" to allow those hunters who may be willing to hunt non-accessible, remote areas the ultimate flexibility and accommodation. This tool probably could not be used on a wide scale basis in the State Forest system, however, may be the only effective tool for certain areas. Also, "areas/states with a bag limit that is "high" often take more deer than areas with an unlimited bag limit. In reality, few people take multiple deer, but the perception is that the manager is trying to "kill all the deer," and hunters and nonhunters often don't support or assist much with unlimited harvest. A bag limit, albeit high, is often a better strategy" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication).
9. Incentive System to Have Individuals or Hunting Groups Responsible for Specific Areas: Provide special incentives like additional buck permits to specific groups to become responsible for meeting antlerless deer harvest "quotas" for areas where hunting pressure is negligible. This has been done in other states by what is known as "Earn Your Buck," and has been highly successful in some areas. Once again, the equitability issue would be raised, but if all hunters are given equal opportunity to harvest antlerless deer on these areas, then it is a moot point. The opportunity to take a second buck would provide a unique opportunity for hunters in Pennsylvania, who are limited to one antlered buck per year. This could be a very useful incentive to gain additional antlerless deer harvest. The benchmark for earning the extra buck permit could be based upon the prerequisite of harvesting one, two, or any specified number of antlerless deer from the area in question. Also, the extra buck permits could be limited to be used in the same season the antlerless deer were harvested, or they could carry over across subsequent hunting seasons with a "point-based" system. This could be very workable, but would require significant human dimensions research first to determine public acceptance.
10. Use of Bait to Entice Deer: This option is currently legal and practiced in many states, and has been suggested numerous times when the discussion of new tools comes up. The Bureau of Forestry, based on the possibility of disease transmission, is not willing to pursue this option at this time.
11. Night Hunting: This option, too, has been suggested in the discussion of additional deer management tools. Once again, the Bureau of Forestry will not pursue this option for safety reasons. This has been used successfully to control deer in highly managed situations with professional sharpshooters, but requires very specialized training to provide for safety. Night hunting is used for predators in Pennsylvania, but deer hunting is a much larger endeavor than the relatively specialized group who engage in predator hunting.
12. Other Tackle: Many states allow the use of semi-automatic sporting rifles or buckshot in shotguns for deer hunting. Often these states have lower hunter densities than many areas of Pennsylvania, and denser forests. This option could be evaluated, but would not increase effectiveness enough to make it a high priority tool to be sought immediately. Buckshot is currently used in the Special Regulations areas of southeastern Pennsylvania, and is a very effective tool in densely forested situations. As our forests recover, this tool may become more necessary.
13. Dogs: Several of the southern states allow the use of dogs in deer hunting. This is highly nontraditional for Pennsylvania. In the very dense cover of the southern river swamps, dogs are often the only way to get deer out of the cover enough to harvest them during daylight hours. Most of our forests are not that dense, and many of our areas are too large and roadless for effective use of dogs in hunting. Dog hunting requires that a large number of hunters post along the perimeter of an area with the dogs released inside, encouraging the deer to exit past the hunters. This just is not operable across most of the State Forest system in Pennsylvania.
14. Professional Control of Deer: This option, while highly effective methodologically, is certainly not cost effective, nor is it socially acceptable in Pennsylvania. This tool is useful on very limited areas, like urban communities, where a high level of control to ensure human safety requires the use of professionals to remove excess deer.
Other Tools:
1. Surveys of Deer: To monitor harvest effectiveness on representative areas like research sites, the Bureau of Forestry has and will continue to use a variety of tools to assess local deer populations and browsing effects. Forward Looking InfraRed (FLIR) has been used to corroborate other measures of deer density, and may be a cost effective means of providing site-specific deer population estimates on a several areas statewide. The effectiveness of broad scale FLIR implementation may be limited by time, cost, and dense evergreen cover. These more intensive monitoring sites could be used to test the effectiveness of hunting strategies being used across the State Forests. FLIR is being evaluated to determine the long-term use and applicability of the technology to State Forest situations. Other survey tools that can be used on a limited basis include infrared-triggered trail camera surveys, visual (daytime or spotlight) transects, browsing pressure transects, and deer pellet group transects. In most instances the density of deer or the local population parameters are secondary to the browsing effects on the habitat, so that will be the matrix of choice for determining management strategies.
2. Check Stations (Fixed or Mobile): "Check stations are extremely valuable and could be done on a statewide basis . . . They are not costly and states such as Wisconsin employ them (WI has high deer harvest like PA). PGC and/or DCNR could and should still do biochecks on deer, but biochecks would be easy to do if there was a statewide deer registration/check program" (Kip Adams, Quality Deer Management Association, personal communication). Check stations provide excellent opportunities to educate hunters on the basics of deer management, and train them to age deer, etc. They also work well at monitoring deer condition (biochecks) as an indicator of habitat quality. Mobile deer checking done by a trained individual following a set route may be more cost effective for gathering deer condition data, but less effective as an educational tool. Check stations are an excellent opportunity to cooperate with local or statewide groups to educate hunters and collect data.

bawanajim

Timber prices are down now but they have been very high for the last7-10 years,just another opportunity wasted.
Why in the world would you cut down an oak tree when your supposed mission is to wildlife? The thousands of pounds of food produced far out weighs the benefits received from a one time pay check. There are plenty of other species of trees that do little for wildlife and should be cut to open the canopy and allow for some of the uneaten mast crop to germinate and produce more food and cover for game.

sproulman

RSB, that was not nice statements you made about hunters.

only the USP wants to see the PGC stay ,AS IS.
strange,isnt it.

most want to see the PGC merged with DCNR.

PGC wastes money too.

i see those big trucks with 1 person in them,you know how much could be saved on gas and repairs by buying a smaller vehicle,MILLIONS OF DOLLARS COULD BE SAVED.


same with DCNR, full size suburban vehicles that get 12 miles per gallon with 1 ranger riding around with air conditioner blowing on him,WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY.

could not that ranger use a blazer that gets 22 miles per gallon ,half cost of repairs and TURN AIR CONDITIONER OFF IN WOODS AND OPEN WINDOW.[:@]

i will be talking to rep hanna soon in feb or march meeting, i will ask him what is happening .

as for my opinion, I CANT GIVE YOU ONE, WITH ALL THIS DOE KILLING ,VERY FEW WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PGC.
most dont hate a local WCO, its the BIRDWATCHING,POLITICAL COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE HATED AND THEY ARE DRAGGING DOWN THE PGC WITH THEM..........

maybe thats what they want, to do away with PGC.

Cornelius08

To address rsbs question on funding, its really quite simple. There is no big mystery. The system would be fine and there wouldnt be a problem as is if pgc would manage responsibly and have hunters as A PRIORITY somewhere down the line!!! Is the system of funding via license fees perfect? No. But a helluva lot closer to it than the alternatives unless you are an eco-warrior idiot. PGc needs to be more hunter friendly from top to bottom wether they want to or not. If they don't, get people in there that will. There is absolutely no excuse for the rediculous level of hunter dissatisfaction and NO its NOT in the name of "science". Most if not all other states utilize "science" and nowhere in the nation is there as much disgust as Pa.

Alternate funding simply will not fly. Too many fingers DEEPER into the pot, not to mention the fact it would effectively circumvent ANY system of checks and balances designed to prevent a pgc "tyranny" from doing anything it like any time it likes for whomever it likes. That is 100% unacceptable. You cant give ANY agency that amount of undiluted power over anything!!!