Cornelius08

"First of all the WMU are designed, and laid out, to work for nearly all of the hunted wildlife species not just deer. Therefore, they are set up by habitat types, land ownership (public verse private) soil types, population centers and more are all taken into consideration. "

No reason to believe other species wouldnt benefit from smaller management units as well.

"Now with that said smaller management units would make for better management provided there was enough wildlife provided data to make wise scientifically supported management. The professionals simply have to have enough scientifically supported data because everything has to be supported with sound data in today’s world."

They didnt have one shred of scientific datain regards to exactly what needed done etc. before jumping feet first into the whole deer program nonsense in the first place, so dont try and tell us tweaking aint possible now!!!! If the current system exactly as is isnt conducive to smaller wmus....CHANGE THE &*^% system! It works in many other states!!!

We dont need to hear lame excuses. There are none valid. Pgc wants no change. They want widescale blanket reduction and thats b.s.


"I do believe that in time, provided sufficient scientifically sound deer data can be obtained, there will be deer management sub-units within some of the present wildlife management units. "

We dont need a handful of"subunits", (which you are only guessing at anyway and the exact opposite has been stated by ROsenberry who want the large wmus) we need large scale RESTRUCTURE!! SMALLER UNITS. There is no reason not to. It would be an incredible outreach from pgc to the hunters of the state, and better management as well.

R.S.B.

Being referred to as WILDLIFE Management Units is NOT something new. They have been referred to as Wildlife Management Units since their inception in 2003.

Even the Hunter/Trapper Digest that everyone gets with their hunting license has clearly told anyone that took the time to look at it that the units are used to manage all game species, except elk, waterfowl and migratory game birds.

If you want to see that in print go to page 42 of this years Digest. After you read that you should turn to page 64 and read through the Hunting Annual to see ,ore about how the WMUs are used for managing some of the game species.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

That is just another of your biased opinion with no supporting facts.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

Once again you are flat out wrong. WNU 2G and 2F are rated the same for herd health and forest health yet 2G is managed at 9 DPSM while 2f is managed at 19 DPSM. those are the fcts which are apparently above your level of comprehension.

explorer_Jack

Again,Show us other states that have huge WMUs as PA does? Look at the size of those monster areas. 2F runs from NY border down to the center of PA. 2G is atleast 1 and 1/3rd larger than 2F and yet less deer PSM there is wanted by the PGC? Why even have any WMUs if they are this large to begin with other than justification for the millions of tags given out for the mighty $.

2F:

From New York/PA state line, US Rt. 219 south to I-80 near

DuBois. I-80 west to US Rt. 322 near Corsica. US Rt. 322

west to PA Rt. 8 at Franklin. PA Rt. 8 north to PA Rt. 27 at Titusville.

PA Rt. 27 north to US Rt. 6 at Pittsfield. US Rt. 6 east to US Rt. 62

near Warren. US Rt. 62 north to New York/PA state line.

2G:

US Rt. 15 south to US Rt. 220 at

Williamsport. US Rt. 220 west to I-80 to US Rt. 219 near

DuBois. US Rt. 219 north to US Rt. 6 at Lantz Corners.










Given the potential to fall far short of issuing enough antlerless licenses to get a desirable harvest, Game Commission staff is now proposing longer antlerless deer seasons. The rationale is: Longer seasons will increase hunter success and reduce the required number of antlerless licenses. To get a feel for how season length affects hunter success, consider this:
[ul][*]
A 3-day season would require 1,121,000 licensesto kill 301,000 antlerless deer.[*]
A 6-day season would require 866,400 licenses to kill the same number of deer.[*]
A 12-day season would require 595,850 licensesto kill the same number of deer.[:'(]
[/ul]
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=159995&pp=12&n=1

From the above,The PGC is trying to wipe out the deer herd completely with their million+ doe allocation tags given out since when for 12 day seasons. They have no clue or are intentionally killing off all the deer. I bet other states woulddrop their jawsin disbelief if they seen how the deer management is being run in PA. I say intentionaly.

Cornelius08

""Why all of a sudden there is talk about other wildlife?''

Someecoweiners got on the boc and hired new"biodiversity extremist" biologists. That was thanksto suggestion by Pa Audubon. Interestingly they also are accepted into pgcs "go to for a yes" sportsmens group, Penn Fed Sportsmen & CONSERVATIONISTS. Also "conservationists"are now onthe governors advisory council for fishing hunting AND CONSERVATIONthat is instrumental in picking our pgc commissioners.

"I mean deer was the main hunters target in PA and the deer herd was allways looked after by the PGC before the HR came into play. Now all of a sudden it is all about other wildlife talk and less about deer."

Now all you hear about is birds thanks toaudubons influence. They also were very instrmental in the deer plan configuring. Its also pretty funny to see the nimrods on hpa practically demanding that we hunters look to squirrel and other small game, that webasically are crazy for wanting to target mostly deer! (LOL)(LOL) You can spot those rediculous extreme ecoweiners a mile away.

"What or who is the influence of the change here. Nothing about other wildlife then all of a sudden it's about all wildlife.Something fishy going on there in PA. Smells like tree huggers and the ecos infiltrated the PGC. "

Believe it. Ive follow these ugly politics for a while now, and the treehuggers have their claws in deep here in Pa. Until several years ago Id never have believed some of the nonsense that goes on in places like Jersey and California would be happening right here in Pa.

sproulman

bluebird, I LIKE WAY YOU ANSWERED,THAT A BOY.

sproulman

BOY, YOU GUYS ARE ACTING VERY PROFESSIONAL, I MAY LET KIDS READ THIS STUFF

R.S.B.

Obviously you didn’t understand much of what you just read concerning the data you just posted.

I’ll try to help those who have the ability to learn have a better understanding though, even if it is too complex for some people to grasp.
Some states do have more and even smaller management units but that really doesn’t mean they have better or even different management objectives or goals then what we have right here in Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania we have twenty-two different management units that range in size from 835.45 square miles to as large as 4114.04 square miles. The size of those units is based on the basic consistency of the habitat, land ownership, soil types, human densities and various other factors being pretty much the same with only minor variances. Since some parts of Pennsylvania has large areas of consistent habitat types that isn’t heavily fragmented with other habitat types we don’t have to have as many small units as states that do have more fragmented habitat types to accomplish the same objectives.

That fragmentation of habitat and population areas is what makes it necessary and desirable for some states to use more and sometimes smaller management units but it still doesn’t mean they have any more management goals or objectives within those units. What really occurs is that all of the like habitat units are managed with the same data and management objectives even though the size of the individual units under that management objective might vary in size. That is pretty much the same thing that Pennsylvania used to do when we had county management unit boundaries. What we all need to understand is that just having a lot of smaller units, that are managed with the same management data and objectives, isn’t going to result in any major changes in the management direction or the management results.

There aren’t millions of tags given out either, that is nothing more then nonsense promoted by people that want misrepresent the truth to promote a misguided agenda.

Throughout the history of deer management in this state the number of antler less license allocated within the state has been increasing because the deer herd has been expanding into all areas of the state and in many of those areas the deer populations had become very high. That means the statewide allocations had to increase to keep up with the ever increasing deer populations within a few areas of the state. In other areas of the state the antler less allocations have not increased and had instead actually been decreasing for some time prior to recent years of fewer deer.

I am going to post the units where the antler less allocations were at their highest over twenty years ago with the allocations per square in the counties that presently make up those units.

Unit……….88-92.………...93-97.……..…..98-02.…………..03-07.………....08
1B………..19.62.………….18.46.………… 19.04.……………14.83.…………14.17
2F………..20.99.………….19.96.………… 20.43.……………14.44.…………11.61
2G………..16.21.………….13.08.………… 12.30.…………….8.65.…………..6.32
3C………..16.56.………….13.19.………… 16.29.……………15.11.…………12.51
4D………..17.02.………….14.13.………… 14.56.……………16.97.…………14.57

As you can see the big woods units were issuing more antler less licenses twenty years ago then they have during any period since. You can also see that the number of antler less license in unit 2G have been in a steady state of decline for over twenty years, yet hunters say there are few deer in that unit. Based on that alone shouldn’t a reasonable person be starting to recognize that fewer license and low antler less harvests hasn’t worked to build higher deer numbers? It should also be pretty obvious that the line about it only being about money must be purely horse-puckey.

I also want to point out that the statewide allocations today are not as high as the allocation of some past periods even though the deer populations had increased in many areas of the state during those earlier time periods.

Years…….Statewide allocation…………hunter success rate/license to harvest one deer
1996.…………831,658.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.21
1997.…………736,190.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.34
1998.…………889,900.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.54
1999.…………882,200.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.79
2000.…………874,900.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..2.90
2001.…………779,500.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..2.76
2002.………..1,028,600.…………………… ……….2.92
2003.………..1,104,000.…………………… ……….3.42
2004.………..1,039,000.…………………… ……….3.65
2005.…………879,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.76
2006.…………859,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.80
2007.…………865,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.04
2008.…………849,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..N/A

From this data, combined with the above data showing the reduced allocations in the big woods and mountainous units, should be proof for any reasonable person that antler less allocations are neither excessive or about money.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

But any reasonable person would also recognize that when harvests exceed recruitment ,it takes fewer antlerless tags and lower harvests to continue to reduce the herd. That is exactly what happened in 2G and it is why 2G has the lowest harvest rates in the state even though it is the one WMU where the PGC has been successful in reducing the herd to less than 10 DPSM. even with the reduced allocations in 2007 the harvest still reduced the herd by 23% in 2g.