Cornelius08

Now we can hurl insults as you seem to prefer doing, or you can get back on topic and tell me why this guy is a good or bad candidate in your opinion and why. Or any other candidate... If you have no opinion on the topic, I dont see why you even jumped in, just to insult everyone.

Maverick 1

Gee Cornelius, You're a tiger!


You have fought off the wolves and defended yourself quite well. The next time someone is trying to bully themselves around, we just need to let you loose and the rest of us can sit back and watch.I mean that as a compliment. Thanks.

R.S.B.

It is not only obvious that you don’t know much of anything about any of the Commissioners, past or present and that you really don’t believe in the democratic system in which people vote on a common direction for the good of the future.

The reason there is a Board of Commissioners is to prevent one or two people from making decisions that aren’t the direction the majority want for the future.

As near as I can see, and I am confident most readers beyond you and the other handful of malcontents and other USP sympathizers, agree that what you are apposed to is anyone that has enough knowledge to understand the inter-relationships between wildlife populations and their habitats and food supplies. In other words you are opposed to anyone that is willing to do the right thing by listening to the management professionals instead of the least educated people concerning deer management or other environmental management issues.

But, since you claim you really wanted to talk about facts, why don’t you go ahead and post some. So far I can’t recall nay facts you posted. As I already pointed out your opinions are not facts anywhere accept in your own head.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08

"It is not only obvious that you don’t know much of anything about any of the Commissioners, past or present and that you really don’t believe in the democratic system in which people vote on a common direction for the good of the future. "

LMAO AGAIN! lol. I know P-L-E-N-T-Y about our fine commissioners....AND unfortunately the not so fine ones as well. I believe 100% in a democratic society. Thats why I and 900,000 other hunters would like to be heard for a change. Our ballot has seemingly come up missing these days. Given to a small group of extremists who are reveling in their newfound tyranny.

"The reason there is a Board of Commissioners is to prevent one or two people from making decisions that aren’t the direction the majority want for the future."

And exactly what good is it when over half are hand picked to achieve a commonpredetermined goal!! Thats EXACTLY what has happened,and that "goal" has nothing to do with the welfare of our sport. Those pushing the agenda see our hunting lifestyle as nothing more than a necessary evil. Use the hunter to pay thebills and kil the deerto create a rediculous biodiversity extremetreehugger utopia.

"As near as I can see, and I am confident most readers beyond you and the other handful of malcontents and other USP sympathizers, agree that what you are apposed to is anyone that has enough knowledge to understand the inter-relationships between wildlife populations and their habitats and food supplies. "

Rsb, That concept can only carry your arguement and support for the plan so far. I agree 100% with the basic concepts of the relationships of wildlife an habitat. I also know these basic concepts have been stretched past their breaking point as an excuse to go to extremes. PGC's data bears this out, and you are more than aware of the things of which i speak.


"In other words you are opposed to anyone that is willing to do the right thing by listening to the management professionals instead of the least educated people concerning deer management or other environmental management issues. "

I am opposed to people who support the notion that deer are "mountain maggots" and I am opposed to people coming in that I pretty much know for a fact are going to be "antideer" which in some cases is quite clear from day 1.

"But, since you claim you really wanted to talk about facts, why don’t you go ahead and post some. So far I can’t recall nay facts you posted. As I already pointed out your opinions are not facts anywhere accept in your own head. "

About what? What do you need an explanation on?? I believe thusfar Ive been more than clear.

But to summarize.... Fact-- this guy is associated with BOTH ruffed grouse society and pf. BOTH of which have supported pgc antideer crusade, and signed off on letters written by pfsc and audubon in regards to our deer plan.... They also have partnered in antideer propaganda campaigns with pgc and of all people THE AUDUBON SOCIETY. There are also several grouse society jokers on hpa and every one Im aware of speaks out 100% in support of deerslaughter.
FACT-- This guys HERO and mentor did NOT think highly of deer, calling them "MOUNTAIN MAGGOTS"....
FACT-- This guy has worked with pgc according to himself often, and has worked with wmi as well as dep, usfw, and department of ag...and others on his resume' who ARE ALL ANTIDEER...

Now for cryin' out loud...after lookin over those FACTS, How much more need there be to pause and say...Hmmm This isnt looking so good, maybe we can find another person not so highly biased ,as it appears to be the case anyway, against deer! Thats why these people give resume's so it can be evaluated. After evaluating, this is NOT a guy I think I would want to take a chance on for the next SIXTEEN YEARS! I also dont believe that the majority of our states hunters who are fed up would want "more of the same" if they were to all know what was going on here.

R.S.B.

Right there is the perfect of example of just how biased and wrong you and the other like minded people are.

None of those groups is anti-deer as you claim. They do all support sound management principles that benefit all wildlife species, including deer, though instead of just demanding nothing but deer and all else be dammed. The reason they support the sound management principles and practices isn’t because they are don’t like deer or that they are anti-hunting or anti-hunter. They support those sound management practices because they have enough knowledge to know that those sound management practices and principles are also what will provide the most deer for the long term future, even though it might mean having fewer then the maximum number of SHORT TERM deer numbers.

What people like you can’t seem to understand is that you can’t keep more deer then the habitat can support without causing harm to that habitat for more then short term periods of time. If you do carry more then the habitat can support for the long term all you are doing is allowing those extra deer to damage the habitat and food supply so that NATURE is guaranteeing that you will have fewer deer in the future.

Just like in you home area of unit 2A the deer numbers were reduced because the deer and their food supply were both showing signs of over population for their habitat. Therefore, any responsible wildlife manager would attempt to reduce that number so it can continue to support high deer numbers long into the future even though that number might be slightly less then it had been. If those responsible management professionals don’t reduce populations when the deer and habitat data show signs of over population then I can tell you with 100% certainty that you would have even fewer deer in your future then you end up with the slight reduction that occurs from harvesting a few more to get them back in balance with their habitat.

You also have to remember that 2A is an area where the human population is growing and continuously taking a bigger bite out of the habitat. Every time someone builds a new home, a new highway, a new shopping mall or business or even if they just expand the area they affect it takes away some habitat that was available to wildlife. That means the wildlife gets crowded into a smaller area and you have to accept the fact there will be les wildlife as a result.

I know you don’t like those facts and I also know you will not accept them because you don’t like them. But, sticking your head in the sand and pretending the factsaren't alsoreality does nothing more then prevent you from seeing the reality that surrounds you. It is about the same as the ostrich sticking his head in the sand to avoid seeing the lion that is about to attack him. Just like the ostrich with your head in the sand you aren’t protected from anything other then the knowledge of reality and what your future might be of you don't open your eye.

There is no conspiracy, by any of those groups or the Game Commission, to do anything that harms the future of hunting or deer populations, in fact it is quite the contrary. Those groups you keep bad mouthing simply have an interest in protecting the deer from destroying themselves and their future by destroying their food supply. Some hunters though simply don’t seem to understand that or just don’t have the capacity to accept the reality of it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

ManySpurs

I think I'm gonna head back out fishing.

bluebird2

But we haven't been carrying more deer than the habitat could support for at least the last 28 years. If we had the herd would not have increased to 1.6M PS deer and it wouldn't have required over 1M tags to reduce the herd.
But the WMUs the most development are the very WMUs that have the highest harvest rates and highest deer densities because of all the fringe habitat created by development.

There is no question that the herd is being managed for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry and not for the benefit of the deer or the hunters.

BTW,what evidence can you provide to support your theory that we have been carrying more deer than the habitat can support?

Cornelius08

"None of those groups is anti-deer as you claim."

I understand you are desparate to counter that in the name of damage control. But They are. And anyone who knows anything about them, andnot trying to hide an agenda knows and will admit to it.

"They do all support sound management principles that benefit all wildlife species, including deer, though instead of just demanding nothing but deer and all else be dammed."

Nope. Again, you are STRETCHING a basic concept FAR beyond its limits. They are concerned with the habitat + having exactly "X" amount of trillium....EXACTLY "x" number of thrush,....Andon and on.... And DEER be damned...

"The reason they support the sound management principles and practices isn’t because they are don’t like deer or that they are anti-hunting or anti-hunter. They support those sound management practices because they have enough knowledge to know that those sound management practices and principles are also what will provide the most deer for the long term future, even though it might mean having fewer then the maximum number of SHORT TERM deer numbers."

LMFAO!!! Yeah. Those, many of whom dont even deer hunt...or hunt at all in the case of some of the "conservation" groups... Really care about having as many deer as we can NOW or in the FUTURE! (LMAO) Who the hell are you trying to kid?? IF it meant having two more trillium per square acre, or the grouse society could have two more thunder chickens per 10 square miles, they wouldnt give a damn if the deer density was 5 dpsm across the entire state!

"Just like in you home area of unit 2A the deer numbers were reduced because the deer and their food supply were both showing signs of over population for their habitat."

No actually they werent....But thats another argument altogether, and as you know, its not mine, yet you cannot counter me, so you argue against something that isnt even my position. You know I do not support or ask for deer numbers over the habitats capacity to support. I can agree that the numbers couldve used trimmed, but not because they were unhealthy, because they were not. But because the potential was there with those numbers in place....

However....The numbers were cut ALREADY to address that. The goals sincewere supposedly stabilization. The numbers show the herd has NOT been stabilized but is declining STILL. IF allocations arent dropped now, it will be 1000% proof of irresponsible management and fraud on their part. PERIOD.

"I can tell you with 100% certainty that you would have even fewer deer in your future then you end up with the slight reduction that occurs from harvesting a few more to get them back in balance with their habitat. "

Youre a liar who has zero clue about the wmu.. The reduction overwinter was 50+%. NOT SLIGHT from its all time high in late 90's. And as I said, we did need SOME. Problem is, we are now getting reduction.... AGAIN...And not because of "bringing them into balance with habitat. What it was is too many tags, and error on their part in trying to get the herd stabilized. Common sense should dictate they be adjusted that being the case. You need to pull your head out of your backside and understand that!! THE goal was and isstabilization. The goal was and isstabilization. The goal was and isstabilization. Get it now??

Hey RSB....Didnt forget did you? OUR GOAL IS AND WAS STABILIZATION......and we are not.

"You also have to remember that 2A is an area where the human population is growing and continuously taking a bigger bite out of the habitat."

Most of southwestern pa has a DECLINING population. Its mainly because of the industries having left and its basically a "depressed" areas. You have absolutely rediculous excuses for every single damn thing your crooked agency does, and this is no exception. The human population is NOT exploding across most of the wmu our population compared to years ago iS DOWN quite a bit.....Yet in the last 2 years, harvest dropped like a rock, thanks to FURTHER reduction of our herd that was not supposed to have occurred.. PGc said ehd had little effect and in fact said guys not hunting the area the year before due to ehd SAVED DEER! (LMao) Now that is some frigging CROOKS for you!! Now the buck harvest was the same even though pgc had bragged up the area, and ALOT of guys were out and about + Fine weather....Same harvest...

Wether they blame it on their rediculous allocations, ehd or both, it need addressed NOW. Because the herd WILL be lower next year in 2A thanks to many tags tearing into a smaller herd from ehd the year before etc... How the hell far are we expected to let it drop!!????

TIME FOR ADJUSTMENTS NO ANDS IFS OR BUTS

You think I dislike pgc treehugging policyand their rediculous antideer nonsense NOW? Wait and see what Im like if that rediculous allocation in this wmu isnt lowered as it should have been already...

Cornelius08

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_605320.html

And speaking strictly of recent years and Greene county in particular, the human population in 1990 was 39,550. The population in 2007 was 39,503. http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?geo_id=05000US42059&_state=0400 0US42&pctxt=cr
.....Cough!...Cough!....Ahem.... Now...About those deer.

R.S.B.

That is just an opinion, with no supporting facts.

The deer themselves have proven that there were more in many areas then the habitat could support, thus the reason their numbers declined even while hunters were harvesting fewer of them.

The counties that make up units 2G, 3A, 3C and 4D all had their highest antler less deer harvests between fifteen and twenty years ago while 3D had its highest harvests ever more then ten years ago. The deer population in those units seems to have been in a state of decline since those years long ago even though hunters keep harvesting fewer then they did back then.

It seems the deer are telling a different story then the one you like to tell.



Though those units have the highest populations and harvest toady it is because the professionals were smart enough years ago to keep increasing the harvests in those units as the deer populations increased, thus protecting the deer habitat and food supply.

This is the harvest history results for those most metropolitan areas of the state.

During the past fifteen years antler less harvests in the counties that make up 2A have increased 67.4% yet it is still the third highest harvest unit in the state. Unit 2B has increased 114.95 in the same time period and presently still has the highest deer harvests in the state. Unit 5C increased 115.2% over the past fifteen years and is still the second highest harvest unit in the state. Unit 5D increased 95.9% and presently ranks number seven in antler less deer harvests.

Based on the harvest history facts it certainly appears that it is much more important to harvest enough deer to protect the deer food supply instead of over protecting the deer. If you protect the deer food by harvesting as many deer as hunters can find it certainly seems that the deer numbers will stay high, maybe forever. It also appears that harvesting fewer deer does nothing more then result in having less deer food and fewer deer in the future.

That is what they deer themselves are proving. Based on the facts the deer have provided who do people think the professionals should listen to, the facts from the deer or you?



That is nothing more then an opinion that isn’t supported with any facts. In my opinion there is absolutely no question that your opinion is wrong.



I already did, by presenting what they deer are proving, and have been doing so for years.

R.S. Bodenhorn