Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
04-15-2009, 07:34 PM
#51
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
"If the habitat is able to improve it WILL result in higher fawn recruitment during more years unless there is a really adverse winter"
Despite mass herd reduction, the breeding rate declined. The embryo count declined, and the plan is a proven failure.
Despite mass herd reduction, the breeding rate declined. The embryo count declined, and the plan is a proven failure.
04-15-2009, 07:48 PM
#52
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"I think what Audubon is saying only scares those that have the least amount of knowledge about how nature actually works."
Makes no sense. Because you arent "scared". I have plenty of knowledge in that regard, and am not "scared" anyway. If anything, Id say po-ed that they have been given the okto run Pa deer management and hunting straight into the ground.
They aren’t the ones running hunting into the ground. They are trying to help save the deer habitat so we can have the best possible deer numbers and deer hunting for the future.
It is those screaming for more deer then the habitat can long term sustain that have been, and still are, doing their best to runhunting and the futureinto the ground.
"I am very much a hunter, always have been and always will be. During the deer, turkey and pheasant hunting seasons I spend about every free hour I can find hunting, "
If you say so. Though for 7 years on hpa board I never heard you mention it till relatively recently when you were accused of being a "borderline" anti, with comments like "HUNTERS SHOULD TAKE THEIR MONEY AND TAKE A FLYING LEAP". As well as many others through the years similarly hunter "unfriendly." Id always taken you as "environmentalist" more than hunter. I could be mistaken, but I doubt it.
I have been a very avid hunter since I was old enough to hunt and have always spent much of my time either hunting or thinking about hunting.
So far I have harvested 59 Pennsylvania white-tails and a bunch of turkeys, not to even mention the small game. I have kept a record of the harvesteddeer for many years now, but I would have to stop and spend some time in serious thought and checking journals to count all of the turkeys I have harvested. I figure on adding at least a couple more of each to the lists this year too. In fact, Iplan to start adding onto those turkey harvestsin just another couple weeks.
As for my thoughts toward hunters; I have all the respect in the world for hunters that don’t stand in the way of sound wildlife managementor the best possible future for hunting. But, I surely don’t agree with the attitudes of all hunters. I have seen thatall to many hunters refuse to become educated about far too many issues and have actually done more harm to the future of hunting and our resources then anti-hunters have ever been able to do. I will continue to stand against those hunters that refuse to become more educated because they are a significant threat to the future of both hunting and the resources I and the other knowledgeable hunters cherish.
"yet I pretty much agree with a good bit of what Audubon had to say in that report."
There never was a doubt in my mind.
Not because you agree with them....
...but Audubon are fruitcakes and thats a fact. When speaking of "extreme" no players in this "game" are moreso. They are also not friends to hunters and that is a fact.
Actually they are the best thing hunters have going for them. They are helping to protect the future of the resources so hunters can enjoy them long into the future. They also understand and support the need for hunting as a wildlife management tool for both today and the future. in fact they might understand that better then some of the people posting in opposition to them.
It is actually a small minority number ofunder educated and disgruntled hunters that are really damaging their own future and the future of our resources.
"I think what Audubon is saying only scares those that have the least amount of knowledge about how nature actually works."
Makes no sense. Because you arent "scared". I have plenty of knowledge in that regard, and am not "scared" anyway. If anything, Id say po-ed that they have been given the okto run Pa deer management and hunting straight into the ground.
They aren’t the ones running hunting into the ground. They are trying to help save the deer habitat so we can have the best possible deer numbers and deer hunting for the future.
It is those screaming for more deer then the habitat can long term sustain that have been, and still are, doing their best to runhunting and the futureinto the ground.
"I am very much a hunter, always have been and always will be. During the deer, turkey and pheasant hunting seasons I spend about every free hour I can find hunting, "
If you say so. Though for 7 years on hpa board I never heard you mention it till relatively recently when you were accused of being a "borderline" anti, with comments like "HUNTERS SHOULD TAKE THEIR MONEY AND TAKE A FLYING LEAP". As well as many others through the years similarly hunter "unfriendly." Id always taken you as "environmentalist" more than hunter. I could be mistaken, but I doubt it.
I have been a very avid hunter since I was old enough to hunt and have always spent much of my time either hunting or thinking about hunting.
So far I have harvested 59 Pennsylvania white-tails and a bunch of turkeys, not to even mention the small game. I have kept a record of the harvesteddeer for many years now, but I would have to stop and spend some time in serious thought and checking journals to count all of the turkeys I have harvested. I figure on adding at least a couple more of each to the lists this year too. In fact, Iplan to start adding onto those turkey harvestsin just another couple weeks.
As for my thoughts toward hunters; I have all the respect in the world for hunters that don’t stand in the way of sound wildlife managementor the best possible future for hunting. But, I surely don’t agree with the attitudes of all hunters. I have seen thatall to many hunters refuse to become educated about far too many issues and have actually done more harm to the future of hunting and our resources then anti-hunters have ever been able to do. I will continue to stand against those hunters that refuse to become more educated because they are a significant threat to the future of both hunting and the resources I and the other knowledgeable hunters cherish.
"yet I pretty much agree with a good bit of what Audubon had to say in that report."
There never was a doubt in my mind.
Not because you agree with them....
...but Audubon are fruitcakes and thats a fact. When speaking of "extreme" no players in this "game" are moreso. They are also not friends to hunters and that is a fact.Actually they are the best thing hunters have going for them. They are helping to protect the future of the resources so hunters can enjoy them long into the future. They also understand and support the need for hunting as a wildlife management tool for both today and the future. in fact they might understand that better then some of the people posting in opposition to them.
It is actually a small minority number ofunder educated and disgruntled hunters that are really damaging their own future and the future of our resources.
04-16-2009, 05:09 AM
#53
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
It's ok to disagree with R.S.B.I disagreed with him quite a bit and for quite a while.In fact,I tried real hard to prove many of my cases but in the end,I usually had to swallow my pride because he was right,the majority of the time.I actually appreciate the amount of patience he had with withme because I was probably just as critical of him as you are.
Disagreeing is one thing but I have the advantage of knowing R.S.B personally and have spend a fair amount of time in the field with him.I can honestly say,he is one of the most dedicated people I've ever met and he's as far from an anti-hunter as you can get.I can also say he's a phenominal outdoorsman that truly undertsands how the habitat and all wildlife are linked.he's also a very successful hunter and gets way less time to hunt than the vast majority of hunters.He actually donates more time and even money to the resources that we all enjoy morethan anyone I know.
For a while,I honestly though Dick was an eco-nutjob,just like you do.I couldn't have been more wrongand to this day,I still feel bad about some of the conversations we had.
Disagreeing is one thing but I have the advantage of knowing R.S.B personally and have spend a fair amount of time in the field with him.I can honestly say,he is one of the most dedicated people I've ever met and he's as far from an anti-hunter as you can get.I can also say he's a phenominal outdoorsman that truly undertsands how the habitat and all wildlife are linked.he's also a very successful hunter and gets way less time to hunt than the vast majority of hunters.He actually donates more time and even money to the resources that we all enjoy morethan anyone I know.
For a while,I honestly though Dick was an eco-nutjob,just like you do.I couldn't have been more wrongand to this day,I still feel bad about some of the conversations we had.
04-16-2009, 06:07 AM
#54
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
"They aren’t the ones running hunting into the ground. They are trying to help save the deer habitat so we can have the best possible deer numbers and deer hunting for the future."
I disagree. The plan has nothing to do with deer herd. They are simply an inconvenience to them and their agenda.
"It is those screaming for more deer then the habitat can long term sustain that have been, and still are, doing their best to runhunting and the futureinto the ground. "
Hardly. I dont see MOST asking for that. We are far from that point across most of the state. And it doesnt matter, because they arent being heard or appeased anyway so its a nonissue anyway. So that leaves one entity running hunting into the groung....Pgc.
"I have been a very avid hunter since I was old enough to hunt and have always spent much of my time either hunting or thinking about hunting. "
Not saying you arent RSB. There are also audubon and other environmentalist whohave "different" ways of thinking and some of them hunt. Take Tim Shaeffer for example. A bigger eco-nut there never was. Audubon ex-kingpin,yet claims to hunt.... That sure doesnt mean alot towards the acceptability of his extremeviews toward deer management.
"As for my thoughts toward hunters; I have all the respect in the world for hunters that don’t stand in the way of sound wildlife managementor the best possible future for hunting. But, I surely don’t agree with the attitudes of all hunters. I have seen thatall to many hunters refuse to become educated"
The problem is,anyone who disagrees you label "uneducated" and thats far from the truth. in fact, given what is known itcould very accurately be pointed out that it is YOU who refuse to "be educated" and acceptwhat is going on as the truth. I dont believe you are a "dumb" man, and Im sure you are more than aware there are some ugly politics involved, and you also arent dumb enough to believe the entire state needed such drastic reduction and basically now unending reduction, taking us to densities more reminiscent of MAINE, than Pa!!
"Actually they are the best thing hunters have going for them. They are helping to protect the future of the resources so hunters can enjoy them long into the future. They also understand and support the need for hunting as a wildlife management tool for both today and the future. in fact they might understand that better then some of the people posting in opposition to them. "
Audubon is nofriend of the hunter. The fact you make ridiculousclaims about their intent and their "friendship" knowing what is best for us is utterly absurd. They are known ecoextremists and their agenda goes WAAAAAAAAY above and beyond anydeer health or habitat issues.Not even in theBall park.
Doug, I dont know what you may have been "wrong" about with RSB, but thats not the case with me. I believe in being "educated" on the subject BEFORE arguing it. I once supported Pgc and argued FOR the deer plan from the very beginning arguing strongly against BT and otherson hpa etc. Since then, Ive seen all is FAR from advertised and its a 1st class sham that is being pulled. When I found out who the real players are, how extreme and how theyve basically taken over our wildlife management, Id be a damn fool to support. And so would anyone else. That is unless they arent loosely affiliated with the agenda themselves, in denial, or just way too trusting for their own good.
I disagree. The plan has nothing to do with deer herd. They are simply an inconvenience to them and their agenda.
"It is those screaming for more deer then the habitat can long term sustain that have been, and still are, doing their best to runhunting and the futureinto the ground. "
Hardly. I dont see MOST asking for that. We are far from that point across most of the state. And it doesnt matter, because they arent being heard or appeased anyway so its a nonissue anyway. So that leaves one entity running hunting into the groung....Pgc.
"I have been a very avid hunter since I was old enough to hunt and have always spent much of my time either hunting or thinking about hunting. "
Not saying you arent RSB. There are also audubon and other environmentalist whohave "different" ways of thinking and some of them hunt. Take Tim Shaeffer for example. A bigger eco-nut there never was. Audubon ex-kingpin,yet claims to hunt.... That sure doesnt mean alot towards the acceptability of his extremeviews toward deer management.
"As for my thoughts toward hunters; I have all the respect in the world for hunters that don’t stand in the way of sound wildlife managementor the best possible future for hunting. But, I surely don’t agree with the attitudes of all hunters. I have seen thatall to many hunters refuse to become educated"
The problem is,anyone who disagrees you label "uneducated" and thats far from the truth. in fact, given what is known itcould very accurately be pointed out that it is YOU who refuse to "be educated" and acceptwhat is going on as the truth. I dont believe you are a "dumb" man, and Im sure you are more than aware there are some ugly politics involved, and you also arent dumb enough to believe the entire state needed such drastic reduction and basically now unending reduction, taking us to densities more reminiscent of MAINE, than Pa!!
"Actually they are the best thing hunters have going for them. They are helping to protect the future of the resources so hunters can enjoy them long into the future. They also understand and support the need for hunting as a wildlife management tool for both today and the future. in fact they might understand that better then some of the people posting in opposition to them. "
Audubon is nofriend of the hunter. The fact you make ridiculousclaims about their intent and their "friendship" knowing what is best for us is utterly absurd. They are known ecoextremists and their agenda goes WAAAAAAAAY above and beyond anydeer health or habitat issues.Not even in theBall park.
Doug, I dont know what you may have been "wrong" about with RSB, but thats not the case with me. I believe in being "educated" on the subject BEFORE arguing it. I once supported Pgc and argued FOR the deer plan from the very beginning arguing strongly against BT and otherson hpa etc. Since then, Ive seen all is FAR from advertised and its a 1st class sham that is being pulled. When I found out who the real players are, how extreme and how theyve basically taken over our wildlife management, Id be a damn fool to support. And so would anyone else. That is unless they arent loosely affiliated with the agenda themselves, in denial, or just way too trusting for their own good.
04-16-2009, 06:12 AM
#55
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
"For a while,I honestly though **** was an eco-nutjob"
I stop short of calling him that, though I believe his extreme views of imhorediculous things like wishing to see unlimited tags, most areas need MORE hr, and supporting the friggin audubon society for christ sake is FAR out in left field. And Im sorry, but those actions speak louder than your words of support.
04-16-2009, 06:38 AM
#56
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
I can also say he's a phenominal outdoorsman that truly undertsands how the habitat and all wildlife are linked.he's also a very successful hunter and gets way less time to hunt than the vast majority of hunters.He actually donates more time and even money to the resources that we all enjoy more than anyone I know.
04-16-2009, 10:02 AM
#57
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
I don't know what kind or how serious of a hunter Alt was.I know what kind of a hunter R.S.B. is.Alt didn't know crap about the habitat and he admitted itwhen Cindy Dunn had to show him what a browsline looked like.
I defend R.S.B. becauseI've spent time with him in the field.I've witnessed what he talks about.I hate to speak for R.S.B. but like me,I doubt he believes the entire northern tier could possibly be reduced to 8-10 dpsm.
I defend R.S.B. becauseI've spent time with him in the field.I've witnessed what he talks about.I hate to speak for R.S.B. but like me,I doubt he believes the entire northern tier could possibly be reduced to 8-10 dpsm.
04-16-2009, 10:28 AM
#58
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
I really believe that the "if your not with us then you must be against us" mindset is the driving force behind these deer wars.
Neither side cares what they other has to say,to each other all that is heard is.
Blah blah no deer andthe reply is blah blah regeneration.
Neither side cares what they other has to say,to each other all that is heard is.
Blah blah no deer andthe reply is blah blah regeneration.
04-16-2009, 10:41 AM
#60
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"They aren’t the ones running hunting into the ground. They are trying to help save the deer habitat so we can have the best possible deer numbers and deer hunting for the future."
I disagree. The plan has nothing to do with deer herd. They are simply an inconvenience to them and their agenda.
"It is those screaming for more deer then the habitat can long term sustain that have been, and still are, doing their best to runhunting and the futureinto the ground. "
ue anHardly. I dont see MOST asking for that. We are far from that point across most of the state. And it doesnt matter, because they arent being heard or appeased anyway so its a nonissyway. So that leaves one entity running hunting into the groung....Pgc.
"I have been a very avid hunter since I was old enough to hunt and have always spent much of my time either hunting or thinking about hunting. "
Not saying you arent RSB. There are also audubon and other environmentalist whohave "different" ways of thinking and some of them hunt. Take Tim Shaeffer for example. A bigger eco-nut there never was. Audubon ex-kingpin,yet claims to hunt.... That sure doesnt mean alot towards the acceptability of his extremeviews toward deer management.
"As for my thoughts toward hunters; I have all the respect in the world for hunters that don’t stand in the way of sound wildlife managementor the best possible future for hunting. But, I surely don’t agree with the attitudes of all hunters. I have seen thatall to many hunters refuse to become educated"
The problem is,anyone who disagrees you label "uneducated" and thats far from the truth. in fact, given what is known itcould very accurately be pointed out that it is YOU who refuse to "be educated" and acceptwhat is going on as the truth. I dont believe you are a "dumb" man, and Im sure you are more than aware there are some ugly politics involved, and you also arent dumb enough to believe the entire state needed such drastic reduction and basically now unending reduction, taking us to densities more reminiscent of MAINE, than Pa!!
"Actually they are the best thing hunters have going for them. They are helping to protect the future of the resources so hunters can enjoy them long into the future. They also understand and support the need for hunting as a wildlife management tool for both today and the future. in fact they might understand that better then some of the people posting in opposition to them. "
Audubon is nofriend of the hunter. The fact you make ridiculousclaims about their intent and their "friendship" knowing what is best for us is utterly absurd. They are known ecoextremists and their agenda goes WAAAAAAAAY above and beyond anydeer health or habitat issues.Not even in theBall park.
Doug, I dont know what you may have been "wrong" about with RSB, but thats not the case with me. I believe in being "educated" on the subject BEFORE arguing it. I once supported Pgc and argued FOR the deer plan from the very beginning arguing strongly against BT and otherson hpa etc. Since then, Ive seen all is FAR from advertised and its a 1st class sham that is being pulled. When I found out who the real players are, how extreme and how theyve basically taken over our wildlife management, Id be a damn fool to support. And so would anyone else. That is unless they arent loosely affiliated with the agenda themselves, in denial, or just way too trusting for their own good.
"They aren’t the ones running hunting into the ground. They are trying to help save the deer habitat so we can have the best possible deer numbers and deer hunting for the future."
I disagree. The plan has nothing to do with deer herd. They are simply an inconvenience to them and their agenda.
"It is those screaming for more deer then the habitat can long term sustain that have been, and still are, doing their best to runhunting and the futureinto the ground. "
ue anHardly. I dont see MOST asking for that. We are far from that point across most of the state. And it doesnt matter, because they arent being heard or appeased anyway so its a nonissyway. So that leaves one entity running hunting into the groung....Pgc.
"I have been a very avid hunter since I was old enough to hunt and have always spent much of my time either hunting or thinking about hunting. "
Not saying you arent RSB. There are also audubon and other environmentalist whohave "different" ways of thinking and some of them hunt. Take Tim Shaeffer for example. A bigger eco-nut there never was. Audubon ex-kingpin,yet claims to hunt.... That sure doesnt mean alot towards the acceptability of his extremeviews toward deer management.
"As for my thoughts toward hunters; I have all the respect in the world for hunters that don’t stand in the way of sound wildlife managementor the best possible future for hunting. But, I surely don’t agree with the attitudes of all hunters. I have seen thatall to many hunters refuse to become educated"
The problem is,anyone who disagrees you label "uneducated" and thats far from the truth. in fact, given what is known itcould very accurately be pointed out that it is YOU who refuse to "be educated" and acceptwhat is going on as the truth. I dont believe you are a "dumb" man, and Im sure you are more than aware there are some ugly politics involved, and you also arent dumb enough to believe the entire state needed such drastic reduction and basically now unending reduction, taking us to densities more reminiscent of MAINE, than Pa!!
"Actually they are the best thing hunters have going for them. They are helping to protect the future of the resources so hunters can enjoy them long into the future. They also understand and support the need for hunting as a wildlife management tool for both today and the future. in fact they might understand that better then some of the people posting in opposition to them. "
Audubon is nofriend of the hunter. The fact you make ridiculousclaims about their intent and their "friendship" knowing what is best for us is utterly absurd. They are known ecoextremists and their agenda goes WAAAAAAAAY above and beyond anydeer health or habitat issues.Not even in theBall park.
Doug, I dont know what you may have been "wrong" about with RSB, but thats not the case with me. I believe in being "educated" on the subject BEFORE arguing it. I once supported Pgc and argued FOR the deer plan from the very beginning arguing strongly against BT and otherson hpa etc. Since then, Ive seen all is FAR from advertised and its a 1st class sham that is being pulled. When I found out who the real players are, how extreme and how theyve basically taken over our wildlife management, Id be a damn fool to support. And so would anyone else. That is unless they arent loosely affiliated with the agenda themselves, in denial, or just way too trusting for their own good.