bluebird2

And there is nothing to indicate that they are doing any better than hunters were doing in the same area before ARs.

BTBowhunter

Oh really? Maybe you need to study the benefits of planting food plots. A decent food plot on marginal soil will still produce hundreds of times the forage as timber on the same ground. Easy and cheap to estabish? No, but possible on some of our public ground? certainly.

Of course we all know that according to Bluetwist, nothing can be done and never will be done. Acording to Bluetwist, there's no point in hunting any more. The only thing he wants is to sit at his terminal and complain for the balance of his days

BTBowhunter

Kind of a weak desperate shot don't you think?

Can you explain how they do so well on public groundif things areas bad as you claim? I have the answer but why don't you try?

bluebird2

Only a poor uninformed fool would make that comment. The PGC doesn't consider the improved habitat value of food plots when determining antlerless allocations for a WMU. they don't care if a SGL can support 60 DPSM, the allocation will be based on the percent regeneration of forested habitat, rather than on the number and quality of the food plots.

BTBowhunter

You are just annegativejackass on all fronts arent you? The context of the post was in the spirit ofsomething that could be done on game lands. It is done now just not nearly enough. But of course you dont want to hear anything positive. You only have negatives to spew. Nothing will work according to Bluejob. Bluejob only wants to dwell on problems not talk about solutions.

Cornelius08

You never want to hear the solutions either. So what makes the diff.?

R.S.B.

If you did more research instead of just all your snotting around you might have known that Pennsylvania has still been leading the nation in the number of deer harvested per square of land mass.

Here are the five averages for the past five years (2002-2006) I could find for all of the states.

Ranking……State…………….…………deer harvest/square mile
1.…………Penna…………………………⠀¦9.41
2.…………Maryland………………………. .9.25
3.…………Wisconsin……………………… .8.64
4.…………New Jersey………………………8.29
5.…………Michigan………………………. .8.03
6.…………W.Virginia……………………†¦7.60
7.…………Delaware………………………. .6.63
8.…………Virginia………………………⠀¦5.62
9.…………Ohio…………………………†¦.5.21
10.………..New York………………………4.82

Your nonsense about Pennsylvania not being worth hunting for deer just doesn’t hold water after all. Have you ever heard what they say about those that laugh last?

R.S. Bodenhorn

BTBowhunter

Thanks RSB, I knew we were up there but didn't realize we were still ranked first.

Cornelius08

"If you did more research instead of just all your snotting around you might have known that Pennsylvania has still been leading the nation in the number of deer harvested per square of land mass. "

And if youd quit trying to misrepresent the facts, youd own up to the fact we'vebeen killingfar too many and thats the problem.

That is VERY convenient year groupings.... Using THE HIGHEST DEER HERD years included with post reduction years. MUCH more accurate would be the 3 year period from 2005 to, say 2007.

"Your nonsense about Pennsylvania not being worth hunting for deer just doesn’t hold water after all. Have you ever heard what they say about those that laugh last? "

I guess that would mean I am laughing loudest. Unless you can explain to me how having the rediculously high deer herd of 2002 that you included in your cute little bundles of years,has anything to do with hunting NOW? It is COMPLETELY skewing your statisticsto do so.You were including completely unsustainable harvests the likes of which we no longer have. We had a 200,000 plus buck harvest in 2001 just prior to 2002 and ar, and a higher doe harvest than current. We had 109k buck harvestlast year. Nuff said.

Your either dumber'n I gave you credit for, or you think we readers of your postare, enough so to buy complete false garbage..

BTW, my analysis of being a crap state had to do with BOTH the quantity and the quality currently.


BTW, I didnt rank our hunting as "among the best in the nation" previously either. But having around the same quality with less deer to boot didnt help one bit. In fact in some areas the plan hurt BOTH. Saying "among the best in the country" is just a flat out rediculous assessement.

Cornelius08

oh yeah, I forgot to laugh loudest: HA HA HA!