LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
04-21-2009, 05:01 PM
#21
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
Do any of you believe this allocation will be approved?
My thoughts are, after all the bitching is done they will decrease numbers as to appease hunters , while achieving the goals that have been set.
My thoughts are, after all the bitching is done they will decrease numbers as to appease hunters , while achieving the goals that have been set.
04-21-2009, 05:04 PM
#23
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"I agree that the allocations should have been increased in all of the units, like 2A, 2F and 2G, that show poor herd and/or poor forest health"
Then that wouldnt include 2A. Making a biodiversity oriented nutjob change to the evaluation was meaningless and it didnt degrade the habitatanymore than it was in the last 2 evaluations when it was much higher. Its a ridiculous judgement call that penalizes any wmu for having above rock bottom deer numbers.
"I agree that the allocations should have been increased in all of the units, like 2A, 2F and 2G, that show poor herd and/or poor forest health"
Then that wouldnt include 2A. Making a biodiversity oriented nutjob change to the evaluation was meaningless and it didnt degrade the habitatanymore than it was in the last 2 evaluations when it was much higher. Its a ridiculous judgement call that penalizes any wmu for having above rock bottom deer numbers.
No, it would just be a common sense direction of professionals using scientific management in an attempt to keep yet another areas of the state from reaching a point of crashing deer populations that don’t support as many deer as it could in the future.
If that is what you refer to as a nutcase, well then I would have to say I think you are looking the wrong direction to see who the nutcases really are.
R.S Bodenhorn
04-21-2009, 05:05 PM
#24
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
"That really isn’t the total picture, or even a realistic picture, of how it works.
It is all connected to the fawn recruitment rates for each year. The recruitment rates vary from year to year based on a wide range of influencing factors. Long periods of stable allocations provide the best opportunity for stable fawn recruitment with minimal herd size changes."
RSB, now you realized how ridiculous your "stabilization/allocation" statement was and are trying to doubletalk your way out of it. If you have a allocation, no matter how high it may be, more than a few years, and the herd continues to decline...THE HERD IS NOT BEING STABILIZED! LOL If was supposed to be stabilized here YEARS AGO. And its declined ever since! [:'(]
It is all connected to the fawn recruitment rates for each year. The recruitment rates vary from year to year based on a wide range of influencing factors. Long periods of stable allocations provide the best opportunity for stable fawn recruitment with minimal herd size changes."
RSB, now you realized how ridiculous your "stabilization/allocation" statement was and are trying to doubletalk your way out of it. If you have a allocation, no matter how high it may be, more than a few years, and the herd continues to decline...THE HERD IS NOT BEING STABILIZED! LOL If was supposed to be stabilized here YEARS AGO. And its declined ever since! [:'(]
04-21-2009, 05:09 PM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
That really isn’t the total picture, or even a realistic picture, of how it works.
It is all connected to the fawn recruitment rates for each year. The recruitment rates vary from year to year based on a wide range of influencing factors. Long periods of stable allocations provide the best opportunity for stable fawn recruitment with minimal herd size changes.
It is all connected to the fawn recruitment rates for each year. The recruitment rates vary from year to year based on a wide range of influencing factors. Long periods of stable allocations provide the best opportunity for stable fawn recruitment with minimal herd size changes.
04-21-2009, 05:10 PM
#27
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
"No, it would just be a common sense direction of professionals using scientific management"
Ha ha ha. Yeah. Apparently HUNDREDS of other statebiologists across the country apparently deem as "unnecessary" and missed the memo that in order to be "scientific" they had to pizz of the entire states hunters and hold their state to ridiculous deer densities.
"in an attempt to keep yet another areas of the state from reaching a point of crashing deer populations that don’t support as many deer as it could in the future."
Yeah. Our state has to haveas few as any other in the nation. And Im supposed tobelieve it necessary? Ha. Fat chance.
"If that is what you refer to as a nutcase, well then I would have to say I think you are looking the wrong direction to see who the nutcases really are."
Yeah becauseour extreme deer plan has NOTHING to do with ecoextremist nutcases! LMAO!.We only have them paying for pgc deer studies, have them sitting besidepgc at every meeting. Have them standing up at yesterdays meeting singing unheralded praises upon pgcs deer plan, and have the lowest deer density goals in the country and going lower.... What EVER wouldmake me come to such an unwarranted assumption???LOL[:'(][:'(][:'(]
Ha ha ha. Yeah. Apparently HUNDREDS of other statebiologists across the country apparently deem as "unnecessary" and missed the memo that in order to be "scientific" they had to pizz of the entire states hunters and hold their state to ridiculous deer densities.
"in an attempt to keep yet another areas of the state from reaching a point of crashing deer populations that don’t support as many deer as it could in the future."
Yeah. Our state has to haveas few as any other in the nation. And Im supposed tobelieve it necessary? Ha. Fat chance.
"If that is what you refer to as a nutcase, well then I would have to say I think you are looking the wrong direction to see who the nutcases really are."
Yeah becauseour extreme deer plan has NOTHING to do with ecoextremist nutcases! LMAO!.We only have them paying for pgc deer studies, have them sitting besidepgc at every meeting. Have them standing up at yesterdays meeting singing unheralded praises upon pgcs deer plan, and have the lowest deer density goals in the country and going lower.... What EVER wouldmake me come to such an unwarranted assumption???LOL[:'(][:'(][:'(]
04-21-2009, 05:11 PM
#28
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
"Well I guess they should sell unlimited lion tags as we are some to be over run with them also."
I wish they were. Then maybe in the future we'd have huntable numbers of something worth hunting in Pa.
I wish they were. Then maybe in the future we'd have huntable numbers of something worth hunting in Pa.
04-21-2009, 05:56 PM
#29
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Morgantown WV USA
Posts: 108
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
Cornholio
you cited 25 deer per square mile over winter in an earlier post in this thread.
Can you back that up or is it just another number you pulled out of your ass like the 1.25 million deer in WV you claimed a week back.
Just for ****s and giggles lets use your 25 number. That works out to 42 deer per forested(winter food) per square mile.
Booo hooo. Oh my god a Hunter in 2A might have to move their folding chair more than ten feet from their truck to kill a deer. As Jimbo Slinksy would say
"When we don't feel well, we call our doctor. When we don't have enough money,
we call our friends. In Pennsylvania, when we don't kill a deer, incredibly, we
call our senator." - Author, Jim Slinsky[/b]
Wv Gino
you cited 25 deer per square mile over winter in an earlier post in this thread.
Can you back that up or is it just another number you pulled out of your ass like the 1.25 million deer in WV you claimed a week back.
Just for ****s and giggles lets use your 25 number. That works out to 42 deer per forested(winter food) per square mile.
Booo hooo. Oh my god a Hunter in 2A might have to move their folding chair more than ten feet from their truck to kill a deer. As Jimbo Slinksy would say
"When we don't feel well, we call our doctor. When we don't have enough money,
we call our friends. In Pennsylvania, when we don't kill a deer, incredibly, we
call our senator." - Author, Jim Slinsky[/b]
Wv Gino
04-21-2009, 06:25 PM
#30
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 522
RE: LONG OVERDUE FOR LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION. DOE TAGS 2009
27000 in 3c like last year didnt and dont seem like too many for the northerntier you have to be lucky to even draw a bonus tag. Looks like decent number. IMHO
Looks like the number remained the same for 3A, but IIRC, it was reduced a few years ago? Even so, I haven't had a problem getting a second tag in 3A for the past two years.
Looks like the number remained the same for 3A, but IIRC, it was reduced a few years ago? Even so, I haven't had a problem getting a second tag in 3A for the past two years.