Cornelius08

"I do however,support the basic fundamentals of balancing the herd with the habitat."

As do i. And thats not what I see occurring.

"I see less deer today than I used but that hasn't effected by success or hunting experience in a nagative way.Even though I hunt where the deer densities are extremely low,compared to most other parts of the state,I still can't see whyhunters feel the hunting is poor. "

I donno why you make such a statement. It seems only obvious if LESS deer are available and LESS big buck than could be, naturally satisfaction is not going to be as high. I cant even fathom what has you confused about that. Kinda like someone stealing afew grand from you, then looking you in the eye and saying What are you mad about? You still have$50 in the bank...that should be more than enough!

"the regeneration is responding very favorably in many areas where the herd has been reduced.I don't have a report to prove it but I've walked through enough areas with professionals to see that it's happening."

And many areas that have been reduced arent. Also many areas were never poor to begin with. Yet everything is being painted with the same ridiculously broad brush. And imho we all know why.

"More and bigger bucks?That was a ridiculous and irresponsible statement for anyone to make.That kind of nonsense is what me have reservations about all of this at the beginning.It simply couldn't come true if you reduced the herd by approx 50% "

I agree. But we didnt know it was gonna be reduced to the extreme. The impression was given often that the "cuts" would be more reasonable than 50% and continuing....But if the herd was reduced LESS, a reasonable amount as it should have been in most areas, the prediction would have been very likely.

Screamin Steel

Agreed. Reasonable herd reduction coupled with antler restrictions, could have potentially set the stage for high hunter satisfaction and suppport, not to mention a license increase or two. Some reduction was needed in some places. No one, I believe, has denied that much. If they had gone about it differently (that meaning if they gave a rat about hunters and had reasonable goals other than extreme biodiversity or commercial timber) we would be in a good place right now for hunting, the habitat, and everything else.

DougE

When I go out hunting,I can only kill one deer.Why do I need to see fifty?I suppose if I hunted for weeks without seeing any in dozens of different places,I'd be upset.That isn't the case though.I hunt where I expect to find them and generally do.Not always but most of the time.I want and expecthunting to be a challenge.

I think we can agree that Alt's predictions were nothing short of assinine.I knew they were wrong.BB knew they were and I have to doubt that you were much smarter to think otherwise.I specifically recall him saying the goal was to reduce the herd 5% per year for 10 years.That's a 50% reduction in my book,although it did happen faster than he predicted.He was a putz.

I still believe in the basic goals of the plan.We got hit the hardest with reductions around hereand adjustments have definately been made.I agree that some areas most certainly have been overharvested.That was always the case though.It tough to control pressure,even when tags are lowered.Still,I have confidence that the necessary adjustments will be made everywhere when needed.Is it perfect?Nope but it was far from perfect before.

bluebird2

But that was not the goal of this plan and it hasn't been the goal for the past 28 years. The goal has been to reduce the herd to the level that allows the preferred amount of regeneration of commercially valuable tree species. If the herd in 2G was being managed based on the long term carrying capacity of the habitat , it would be managed at over 20 OWD PSM instead of 8 OWD PSM. The data I posted for ELK Co, shows that the long term carrying capacity of the habitat was over 24 DPFSM and the SCI Report stated the MSY carrying capacity of northern hardwoods was over 40 DPSM.
Then why haven't they increased the allocations in 2F to reduce the herd to 8 DPSM like in 2G, since regeneration is worse in 2F and productivity is lower.

Screamin Steel

And that, BB is exactly what is so frustrating about the whole mess. NOTHING makes a lick of sense, and there is NO method to the madness. They say it is about herd health and habitat, then when you look at the data and call them out, it becomes about regeneration, then when regeneration starts looking better, they change the criteria to make it look worse. Then they set incredibly low DD goals for each WMU, then abandon them when the hunters call them out. Then they claim stabilization mode, ony to issue more tags then previously were used to reduce the herd substantially. If there was one solitary ounce of science being utilized to govern the direction of deer mgt in PA, there would surely be a systematic, logical plan outlined with specific goals and strategies, a far cry from the chaotic, ever changing deer circus we have come to know.

Cornelius08

"When I go out hunting,I can only kill one deer.Why do I need to see fifty?I suppose if I hunted for weeks without seeing any in dozens of different places,I'd be upset.That isn't the case though.I hunt where I expect to find them and generally do.Not always but most of the time.I want and expecthunting to be a challenge. "

Lets keep things in proper perspective Doug, noone taking part in this conversation said they need or want to see fifty.Fact is, more deer equal more successful hunters.Then too, I dont see why "quality of hunt" should be solely determined by how easy you can go out and shoot adoe!More buck born as well. More existing = more saved with ar. More and bigger buck doug. And its also far more enjoyable while hunting for that 1 buck to harvest to actually see "decent" numbers of deer as should only be expected. As for doe, its a damn shame when many of the states hunters wont even shoot one due to the herd level not being where it should be. I for one and family used to like hunting for doe during flinter season. No more. Now most years we dont even go unless someone hasnt filled their buck tag. would you say that has effected my satisfaction level as well as others???[:'(] Doesnt have to be that way. But it is. Im also an archer first and foremost.... Watching a few deer make long hours and many days on stand alot more bearable. Even those I have no intention at all of shooting.

Also More and bigger buck + more successful hunters overallis far better than less and smaller buck along with far lower than need be deer densities . I cannot believe I even have to defend this viewpoint to another "hunter". LOL

"I still believe in the basic goals of the plan.We got hit the hardest with reductions around hereand adjustments have definately been made.I agree that some areas most certainly have been overharvested.That was always the case though."

No, it doesnt have to be the case. There is no reason entire wmus should be reduced to such ridiculous average densities...NONE. The best areas of the state can and should have more than 25 owdpsm NOT LESS as we are doing. And most areas far lower than that and even half that? BULL***!

"It tough to control pressure,even when tags are lowered."

There is no need to "control pressure" when many wmus are far below cc. They should have allocations dropped period. We arent supposed to be "micromanaging" remember? That means the allocation shouldnt be set because 1/100th of a wmu might have a few too many deer and the rest averages out to sub-par numbers...

"Still,I have confidence that the necessary adjustments will be made everywhere when needed."

Thats the difference between us. I believe strongly they wont be. Especially when we are being blatantly lied to (as is only obvious with the 2A fiasco of changing regen. assessment and many other things last few years)and the goal is continue to reduce at all cost. There is not one single snippet of an indication we will ever have "reasonable" deer numbers in line with what should be had ANYWHERE in this state in the future. Throw in the fact they are tryin' to replace Pallone and Schleiden with the exact same anti-deer treehugger type and you have our sport swirling around the bowl of the toilet about an inch away from the outflow pipe.

"Is it perfect?Nope but it was far from perfect before"

Agree with both. But its even worse now in many if not most areas. Farther from "perfect" unless one is an environmental extremist. The maddening part is, despite what you seemingly believe, imho this wreck has a VERY EASY fix, that could makie it much better than either imho. It is not in the cards because of the econut agenda and thats where we are at..... It becomes more and more obvious by the year.

Wether you like it or not pizz poor deer numbers DO effect hunter satisfaction. And hunter satisfaction is effecting hunter numbers as well as funding for pgc because they have brought it upon themselves.

Cornelius08

I agree ss, its complete nonsense. We need a "normal" system like most other states in this country have. I know many of the legislators are not happy because they too are hunters. Im not sure what the heck they are waiting for to do something and end this b.s. My only guess is that they are too afraid of big bad governor and dcnr to take the STRONG actions which are more than justified currently. I would like to see those boys grow a set and set things right once and for all run the eco-skunks the hell outta our wildlife management.