MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
03-24-2009, 05:13 PM
#112
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
You are also correct that the hunter/politician forced plan of lower license allocations to create more deer in those northern tier units has been a failure. Hunters were sure that if they could force the Game Commission to reduce the allocations they would have more deer for the future. The Game Commission listened to those hunters and did reduce the allocation and antler less harvests, but it sure didn’t result in having more deer. So you are correct that too was a failure since the intent was to give the hunters what they wanted. The problem is that giving hunters what they want isn’t really what they want since most of the hunters have no idea about the inter-relationship between the deer food and the deer numbers of the future.
That is a flat out lie. the antlerless allocations in 2G reduced the herd to half of the OWDD goal of 15 DPSM and that is the only reason 2G has the lowest harvest rate in the state even tough it is 90% forested and has more public land than any other WMU.
03-24-2009, 05:57 PM
#113
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
That is a flat out lie. the antlerless allocations in 2G reduced the herd to half of the OWDD goal of 15 DPSM and that is the only reason 2G has the lowest harvest rate in the state even tough it is 90% forested and has more public land than any other WMU.
You are also correct that the hunter/politician forced plan of lower license allocations to create more deer in those northern tier units has been a failure. Hunters were sure that if they could force the Game Commission to reduce the allocations they would have more deer for the future. The Game Commission listened to those hunters and did reduce the allocation and antler less harvests, but it sure didn’t result in having more deer. So you are correct that too was a failure since the intent was to give the hunters what they wanted. The problem is that giving hunters what they want isn’t really what they want since most of the hunters have no idea about the inter-relationship between the deer food and the deer numbers of the future.
That is a flat out lie. the antlerless allocations in 2G reduced the herd to half of the OWDD goal of 15 DPSM and that is the only reason 2G has the lowest harvest rate in the state even tough it is 90% forested and has more public land than any other WMU.
I would think that you would know better by now then to challenge the data facts I post.
You are simply full of bologna about the antler less allocations and the harvests being increased that being what reduced the 2G deer population. An increased allocation and harvest simply didn’t happen.
I already posted the harvest history and showed how the antler less harvests continuous declined in the counties that make up unit 2G. Now I will also post the historic antler less allocations, per square mile, for the counties that make unit 2G to show everyone that you are wrong.
Unit 2G county and unit historic antler less allocations per square mile of land mass. Just to help show the change I have also posted the percentage of change for each period.
83-87.…………88-92………….93-97.……………98-02.………….03-07.………….2008
12.60.…………16.21.………….13.08.……⠀¦â€¦â€¦12.30.…………..8.65.……………6. 32
N/A…………(+ 28.7%)………(- 19.3 %)………(- 6.0 %)……….(- 29.7 %)………( - 26.9 %)
Ok now see if you can twist that into increased allocations that would reduce the deer populations. Like I said the allocations and harvests have been in a continuous state of decline the past fifteen years or longer and the allocation and harvest history fact prove that.
I know you don’t like those facts but that doesn’t change the truth of those facts. It is time for you to face up to the fact that you are wrong and realize that harvesting fewer deer simply doesn’t result in having more deer for the long term unless you first get the habitat recovered to the point it can support a deer population increase. Reducing the allocations and deer harvests doesn’t work and the deer in 2G have proven that point, even if you don’t want to accept that fact.
I guess since you and Cornelius like to call others a liar, when they post facts that disprove your nonsense, we can now see just who the liars really are.
R.S. Bodenhorn
03-24-2009, 06:49 PM
#114
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
Actually you are correct that the plan has failed.
The plan in those special regulations areas was to implement unlimited antler less license and allow hunters to harvests as many deer as they could in order to reduce the deer herd and human conflicts around the major metropolitan areas.
That plan did fail the deer proved that where they had sufficient food supplies hunters couldn’t over harvest their ability to recruit even more deer then hunters could kill. Even when hunters were killing almost five times as many deer per square mile, city streets includes, as what hunters were killing in the big woods habitat damaged areas the hunters couldn’t reduce the deer populations.
You are also correct that the hunter/politician forced plan of lower license allocations to create more deer in those northern tier units has been a failure. Hunters were sure that if they could force the Game Commission to reduce the allocations they would have more deer for the future. The Game Commission listened to those hunters and did reduce the allocation and antler less harvests, but it sure didn’t result in having more deer. So you are correct that too was a failure since the intent was to give the hunters what they wanted. The problem is that giving hunters what they want isn’t really what they want since most of the hunters have no idea about the inter-relationship between the deer food and the deer numbers of the future.
If hunters had allowed the Game Commission professionals to keep issuing more antler less license in these northern units decades ago and up through current seasons I am confident we would have a lot more deer in those areas today then want we have. If hunters had the professionals to do the right thing hunters would not only have been harvesting more deer but they would still have a lot more deer.
Hunters should learn something from those two totally separate management directions and then allow the professionals to use the method that is proven to result in increasing deer numbers instead of demanding the method that is proven to result in lower deer numbers for the future.
At least you are helping to make it easier to illustrate and profile those two different management directions and how they have both failed to produce the result hunters expected.
R.S. Bodenhorn
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Thank you once again for shoving every one what a disaster the current seer management plan really is. In you units where the plan was successful in reducing the herd as intended (2G-4D , buck harvests steadily decreased since bonus tags were implemented in 1988. But in 2B , 5C and 5D where the plan failed to reduce the herd buck harvests continued to increase and in the case of 5B and 5C more than doubled despite declining deer habitat due to development.
I couldn't have done a better job of blowing your theory to bits , than you did yourself . Nice work once again!!
I must be slipping since I almost forgot to add the icing on the cake that makes RSB's dessert even more delightful. When the PGC switched to WMUs they told us that the goal for 2B was 10DPSM, 5C was 6 DPSM and they didn't even set a goal for 5D since they said there was o suitable deer habitat in 5D. Could it be that the deer are telling the PGC biologists that really don't know squat about the CC of the habitat.
Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2G……………5.48.………………..4.66.… ………………..2.35.……………………. 2.21
3A……………6.52.………………..6.08.… ………………..6.07.……………………. 4.97
3C……………6.22.………………..6.11.… ………………..5.49.……………………. 3.38
4D……………5.25.………………..4.90.… ………………..4.03.……………………. 3.39
Now let’s compare the same data for the units that have had unlimited antler less harvests where hunters could get as many license as they wanted and harvest as many antler less deer as they wanted over the past twenty years.
Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2B……………4.98.………………..8.39.… ………………..10.70.…………………..1 1.23
5C……………3.69.………………..5.84.… …………………7.94.…………………… 9.31
5D……………2.69.………………..5.30.… …………………5.27.…………………… 5.39
When looking at this data remember that the harvests are by square miles of land mass, including the city streets and buildings. The top units have very little developed area while the bottom three units include the cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
Now after seeing the deer harvest facts, one group of four WMU where deer harvests have been reduced with lower allocations verse another group of three units (the second ones) where they have had unlimited harvests, which area obviously has the management style that results in increasing deer numbers?
2G……………5.48.………………..4.66.… ………………..2.35.……………………. 2.21
3A……………6.52.………………..6.08.… ………………..6.07.……………………. 4.97
3C……………6.22.………………..6.11.… ………………..5.49.……………………. 3.38
4D……………5.25.………………..4.90.… ………………..4.03.……………………. 3.39
Now let’s compare the same data for the units that have had unlimited antler less harvests where hunters could get as many license as they wanted and harvest as many antler less deer as they wanted over the past twenty years.
Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2B……………4.98.………………..8.39.… ………………..10.70.…………………..1 1.23
5C……………3.69.………………..5.84.… …………………7.94.…………………… 9.31
5D……………2.69.………………..5.30.… …………………5.27.…………………… 5.39
When looking at this data remember that the harvests are by square miles of land mass, including the city streets and buildings. The top units have very little developed area while the bottom three units include the cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
Now after seeing the deer harvest facts, one group of four WMU where deer harvests have been reduced with lower allocations verse another group of three units (the second ones) where they have had unlimited harvests, which area obviously has the management style that results in increasing deer numbers?
I couldn't have done a better job of blowing your theory to bits , than you did yourself . Nice work once again!!
I must be slipping since I almost forgot to add the icing on the cake that makes RSB's dessert even more delightful. When the PGC switched to WMUs they told us that the goal for 2B was 10DPSM, 5C was 6 DPSM and they didn't even set a goal for 5D since they said there was o suitable deer habitat in 5D. Could it be that the deer are telling the PGC biologists that really don't know squat about the CC of the habitat.
Actually you are correct that the plan has failed.
The plan in those special regulations areas was to implement unlimited antler less license and allow hunters to harvests as many deer as they could in order to reduce the deer herd and human conflicts around the major metropolitan areas.
That plan did fail the deer proved that where they had sufficient food supplies hunters couldn’t over harvest their ability to recruit even more deer then hunters could kill. Even when hunters were killing almost five times as many deer per square mile, city streets includes, as what hunters were killing in the big woods habitat damaged areas the hunters couldn’t reduce the deer populations.
You are also correct that the hunter/politician forced plan of lower license allocations to create more deer in those northern tier units has been a failure. Hunters were sure that if they could force the Game Commission to reduce the allocations they would have more deer for the future. The Game Commission listened to those hunters and did reduce the allocation and antler less harvests, but it sure didn’t result in having more deer. So you are correct that too was a failure since the intent was to give the hunters what they wanted. The problem is that giving hunters what they want isn’t really what they want since most of the hunters have no idea about the inter-relationship between the deer food and the deer numbers of the future.
If hunters had allowed the Game Commission professionals to keep issuing more antler less license in these northern units decades ago and up through current seasons I am confident we would have a lot more deer in those areas today then want we have. If hunters had the professionals to do the right thing hunters would not only have been harvesting more deer but they would still have a lot more deer.
Hunters should learn something from those two totally separate management directions and then allow the professionals to use the method that is proven to result in increasing deer numbers instead of demanding the method that is proven to result in lower deer numbers for the future.
At least you are helping to make it easier to illustrate and profile those two different management directions and how they have both failed to produce the result hunters expected.
R.S. Bodenhorn
not being smart but i dont believe we would have more deer if we would have reduced deer years ago to levels we have now.
i do agree with you habitat is not great for any animal and i dont believe the habitat will get better because of lack of deer.
if trees are not cut so sunlight can hit ground and leaves burned off so things can grow,i cant see things getting better .
trees are so thick i cant use my GPS at times in summer,too many maples shading ground for anything to try to grow.
03-24-2009, 07:06 PM
#115
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
rsb, bluebird in my opinion is right on that point.
when all tags came out ,our numbers of doe went down fast.old doe are almost gone.
i am not good at figures but i know what i saw happen in clinton/potter countys.
in my opinion the habitat did not kill off those doe,hunters did.
after all the killing i saw in about 2 years,deer just never recovered.
now was it habitat,or bears,coyotes killing fawns.
from what i saw,coyotes were doing a number on fawns bigtime and still are.
i do agree if habitat was better as you said, those fawns would get away.
but their not, they are being killed last week of may and first week on june.
i hear it all time and wish i could stop it.
15 years ago we did not have coyotes like now, dont ever let anyone say we did.
we had fawns,yes feed was better and that could be reason but we had 3 times deer then and had fawns but no coyotes .
i have picture of mother /fawn on my moultrie.
those 2 coyotes went after them most likely to kill the fawn.
until we find a way to get rid of these coyotes,i cant see fawns making it if your point of habitat is bad and fawn is weak or no cover to hide.
killing deer off in my opinion is not going to bring habitat back unless some kind of food plots areas are made and i dont see any way dcnr is going to spend money to do that.
controlled burning and using 4 wheelers with spades would bew a big improvement but if sunlight cant get to ground,its not going to work.
when all tags came out ,our numbers of doe went down fast.old doe are almost gone.
i am not good at figures but i know what i saw happen in clinton/potter countys.
in my opinion the habitat did not kill off those doe,hunters did.
after all the killing i saw in about 2 years,deer just never recovered.
now was it habitat,or bears,coyotes killing fawns.
from what i saw,coyotes were doing a number on fawns bigtime and still are.
i do agree if habitat was better as you said, those fawns would get away.
but their not, they are being killed last week of may and first week on june.
i hear it all time and wish i could stop it.
15 years ago we did not have coyotes like now, dont ever let anyone say we did.
we had fawns,yes feed was better and that could be reason but we had 3 times deer then and had fawns but no coyotes .
i have picture of mother /fawn on my moultrie.
those 2 coyotes went after them most likely to kill the fawn.
until we find a way to get rid of these coyotes,i cant see fawns making it if your point of habitat is bad and fawn is weak or no cover to hide.
killing deer off in my opinion is not going to bring habitat back unless some kind of food plots areas are made and i dont see any way dcnr is going to spend money to do that.
controlled burning and using 4 wheelers with spades would bew a big improvement but if sunlight cant get to ground,its not going to work.
03-24-2009, 07:22 PM
#116
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
"I guess since you and Cornelius like to call others a liar, when they post facts that disprove your nonsense, we can now see just who the liars really are. '
YES... YOU!...and its BEEN you for several long years now.
I havent been speaking on 2G. Not my argument and I dont havent been taking part at the moment, yet you drag me in trying pathetically to discredit me when its impossible pal. Everything Ive said in regards to other wmus, statewide data and conclusions etc. has been 100% spot on....and at times you've been made to look so stupid, I actually felt embarrassed for you...and other times, ALMOST sorry for you... Yourdenying of the truthis completely meaningless and only shows your rediculous bias for you employer. Whats funny, you even go above and beyond the shoveling that THEY do! (LMAO) Only other ones I know that do that are ecoextreme nuts at audubon and other "conservationists" Since you are CLEARLY not concerned with hunters, and in fact borderline ANTI-HUNTER according to many comments you've made, Im guessing you have some dubious ties that you dont care to share.
YES... YOU!...and its BEEN you for several long years now.
I havent been speaking on 2G. Not my argument and I dont havent been taking part at the moment, yet you drag me in trying pathetically to discredit me when its impossible pal. Everything Ive said in regards to other wmus, statewide data and conclusions etc. has been 100% spot on....and at times you've been made to look so stupid, I actually felt embarrassed for you...and other times, ALMOST sorry for you... Yourdenying of the truthis completely meaningless and only shows your rediculous bias for you employer. Whats funny, you even go above and beyond the shoveling that THEY do! (LMAO) Only other ones I know that do that are ecoextreme nuts at audubon and other "conservationists" Since you are CLEARLY not concerned with hunters, and in fact borderline ANTI-HUNTER according to many comments you've made, Im guessing you have some dubious ties that you dont care to share.
03-24-2009, 07:55 PM
#117
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"I guess since you and Cornelius like to call others a liar, when they post facts that disprove your nonsense, we can now see just who the liars really are. '
YES... YOU!...and its BEEN you for several long years now.
I havent been speaking on 2G. Not my argument and I dont havent been taking part at the moment, yet you drag me in trying pathetically to discredit me when its impossible pal. Everything Ive said in regards to other wmus, statewide data and conclusions etc. has been 100% spot on....and at times you've been made to look so stupid, I actually felt embarrassed for you...and other times, ALMOST sorry for you... Yourdenying of the truthis completely meaningless and only shows your rediculous bias for you employer. Whats funny, you even go above and beyond the shoveling that THEY do! (LMAO) Only other ones I know that do that are ecoextreme nuts at audubon and other "conservationists" Since you are CLEARLY not concerned with hunters, and in fact borderline ANTI-HUNTER according to many comments you've made, Im guessing you have some dubious ties that you dont care to share.
"I guess since you and Cornelius like to call others a liar, when they post facts that disprove your nonsense, we can now see just who the liars really are. '
YES... YOU!...and its BEEN you for several long years now.
I havent been speaking on 2G. Not my argument and I dont havent been taking part at the moment, yet you drag me in trying pathetically to discredit me when its impossible pal. Everything Ive said in regards to other wmus, statewide data and conclusions etc. has been 100% spot on....and at times you've been made to look so stupid, I actually felt embarrassed for you...and other times, ALMOST sorry for you... Yourdenying of the truthis completely meaningless and only shows your rediculous bias for you employer. Whats funny, you even go above and beyond the shoveling that THEY do! (LMAO) Only other ones I know that do that are ecoextreme nuts at audubon and other "conservationists" Since you are CLEARLY not concerned with hunters, and in fact borderline ANTI-HUNTER according to many comments you've made, Im guessing you have some dubious ties that you dont care to share.
03-25-2009, 01:58 AM
#118
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
I know you don’t like those facts but that doesn’t change the truth of those facts. It is time for you to face up to the fact that you are wrong and realize that harvesting fewer deer simply doesn’t result in having more deer for the long term unless you first get the habitat recovered to the point it can support a deer population increase. Reducing the allocations and deer harvests doesn’t work and the deer in 2G have proven that point, even if you don’t want to accept that fact.
Only problem is with a owdd so low, even a low harvest still exceeds recruitment. Throw in the high predation rate of 2G, and shorter growing season, harsher winters, and the scenario looks a bit different now than the suburban deer you keep comparing them to.
03-25-2009, 01:58 PM
#119
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: MORE OF THE SAME PGC BOC NOMINEE?
I would think that you would know better by now then to challenge the data facts I post.
You are simply full of bologna about the antler less allocations and the harvests being increased that being what reduced the 2G deer population. An increased allocation and harvest simply didn’t happen.
You are simply full of bologna about the antler less allocations and the harvests being increased that being what reduced the 2G deer population. An increased allocation and harvest simply didn’t happen.
You claim increased allocations and harvests didn't happen in 2G but I can prove you are wrong and show how those increased allocations reduced the herd. You stated that from 98-02 allocations in 2G were 12.3 tags/SM. That allocation and harvests reduced the herd from 15DPSM in 2000 to 12 OW DPSM in 2003. But, even after the herd was reduced by 3 DPSM the PGC issued 52,000 tags for 2003 and 2004 which was an increase to 12.6 tags PSM, which resulted in a harvest of 4.03 antlerless deer in 2003. The harvests in 2003 and 2004 in 2G reduced the herd to a level where there were only 12 PS DPSM in 2005.
It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the habitat reduced the herd in 2g from 15 OW DPSM in 2000 to 12 PS deer PSM in 2005 when the harvests during that period exceeded recruitment.