PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
06-16-2009, 06:35 PM
#321
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
"Putting the deer herds in balance with their habitat, as you suggest, is exactly what the Game Commission is and has been doing. Yet you are screaming about saying we need more deer. "
Because there is no reason to believe we have to have the exact level of deer that we have, or we cannot be addressing the habitat. I support the concept of habitat being a strong consideration in any deer management plan, in fact the focal point. But that can vary greatly in application. We can have a healthy habitat as defined by how it meets the needs of the deer. We can define healthy habitat based on extreme biodiversity, and we can take all into consideration in the evaluation of habitat, compromising between the values. Imho, we are doing number 2 currently when it should be number 3.
"The deer and their food supply very adequately tell the professionals how many deer are too many, and most areas are already proving they WILL NOT support more deer for long term periods and if you try to keep more for the short term periods you are doing nothing more then assuring that you will end up with even fewer deer in the long term."
That is true in theory but the theory currently doesnt apply when we are so far below cc at the moment. There also isnt much in the way of evidence that says we were over cc previously either. In fact there is much to the contrary. I say this only for purposes of disputing your claim, as I have no problem with some areas having recieved SOME level of reduction.
"The professional managers within the Game Commission have known that for many decades but they have failed at making hunters understand or accept those facts. That failure in education though, in my opinion, is the fault of the hunters instead of the efforts of the Game Commission. "
Hunters do not hold the same values in the same order of importance as other stakeholders, and vice versa. There should be a balance between these desires and there currently is not in my opinion and in the opinions of many hunters of this state. And that is why much of the state has been reduced to the level that is has. NOT statewide reduction for the habitat alone in any "reasonable" sense. Because its not realistic to believe statewide the habitat needed it when other most states have higher density goals than our current densities and our history of dd and habitat condition do not bear out the need for reduction everywhere based on that. Nor was it for "human conflict" when many areas other than the sras were rated as low human conflict by pgc even very early in the program with much higher deer densities than currently.
"The worst part is that there are still a lot more areas on the road to destroyed habitat and low deer numbers for the future because today’s hunters refuse to learn from the past and want to continue down the same stupid and destructive path of their fathers and grandfathers."
Not gonna happen with current deer densities. Not possible. Thats according to history and the data. Only way to show any declines would be to change the measurement procedure and raise the bar, and we know pgc wouldnt do that now would they? LOL And for comparative purposes of habitat quality compared to previous when most of the state was not "poor" in the first place, raising the bar, and then downgrading habitat even though it hadnt declined at all compared to previously, is nothing short of pure deciet.
"I know some of you can’t accept that and will say it isn’t true; so I will now go and start collecting some of the facts that support the statements I just made."
Not sure which "facts" you are speaking of. I could probably guess at some you will likely attempt to cover. I think we have seen what you have to offer in the way of supportive facts, and I cannot imagine there to be anything else that would be available to support your position any more than past argument you've presented, In fact im guessing it will probably be some of the stuff we've already discussed, but Im willing to have a look and assess your data and analysis.... But will have to do so tomorrow, Im dead -beat. Have a good evening gentlemen.
Because there is no reason to believe we have to have the exact level of deer that we have, or we cannot be addressing the habitat. I support the concept of habitat being a strong consideration in any deer management plan, in fact the focal point. But that can vary greatly in application. We can have a healthy habitat as defined by how it meets the needs of the deer. We can define healthy habitat based on extreme biodiversity, and we can take all into consideration in the evaluation of habitat, compromising between the values. Imho, we are doing number 2 currently when it should be number 3.
"The deer and their food supply very adequately tell the professionals how many deer are too many, and most areas are already proving they WILL NOT support more deer for long term periods and if you try to keep more for the short term periods you are doing nothing more then assuring that you will end up with even fewer deer in the long term."
That is true in theory but the theory currently doesnt apply when we are so far below cc at the moment. There also isnt much in the way of evidence that says we were over cc previously either. In fact there is much to the contrary. I say this only for purposes of disputing your claim, as I have no problem with some areas having recieved SOME level of reduction.
"The professional managers within the Game Commission have known that for many decades but they have failed at making hunters understand or accept those facts. That failure in education though, in my opinion, is the fault of the hunters instead of the efforts of the Game Commission. "
Hunters do not hold the same values in the same order of importance as other stakeholders, and vice versa. There should be a balance between these desires and there currently is not in my opinion and in the opinions of many hunters of this state. And that is why much of the state has been reduced to the level that is has. NOT statewide reduction for the habitat alone in any "reasonable" sense. Because its not realistic to believe statewide the habitat needed it when other most states have higher density goals than our current densities and our history of dd and habitat condition do not bear out the need for reduction everywhere based on that. Nor was it for "human conflict" when many areas other than the sras were rated as low human conflict by pgc even very early in the program with much higher deer densities than currently.
"The worst part is that there are still a lot more areas on the road to destroyed habitat and low deer numbers for the future because today’s hunters refuse to learn from the past and want to continue down the same stupid and destructive path of their fathers and grandfathers."
Not gonna happen with current deer densities. Not possible. Thats according to history and the data. Only way to show any declines would be to change the measurement procedure and raise the bar, and we know pgc wouldnt do that now would they? LOL And for comparative purposes of habitat quality compared to previous when most of the state was not "poor" in the first place, raising the bar, and then downgrading habitat even though it hadnt declined at all compared to previously, is nothing short of pure deciet.
"I know some of you can’t accept that and will say it isn’t true; so I will now go and start collecting some of the facts that support the statements I just made."
Not sure which "facts" you are speaking of. I could probably guess at some you will likely attempt to cover. I think we have seen what you have to offer in the way of supportive facts, and I cannot imagine there to be anything else that would be available to support your position any more than past argument you've presented, In fact im guessing it will probably be some of the stuff we've already discussed, but Im willing to have a look and assess your data and analysis.... But will have to do so tomorrow, Im dead -beat. Have a good evening gentlemen.
06-17-2009, 11:02 AM
#322
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
The worst part is that our professional deer managers fail to recognize that based on their own data our herd was healthier when we had 1.6M PS deer than it is now that we have less than 1M PS deer. Breeding rates and productivity decreased as the herd was reduced and that proves beyond a doubt that our herd was below the MSY carrying capacity of the habita when the current push for HR reduction began in 2000.
06-17-2009, 06:06 PM
#324
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
Dang, guys... 33 pages?!?
Here's something I found that you might find interesting. How can PA be worse, when you look at this deer harvest breakdown by WMU:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...ap_2008-09.pdf
I mean... Look at WMU 2D! That area must have been awesome last year. 9500 bucks and 15,600 does harvested? Wow. [8D]
Here's something I found that you might find interesting. How can PA be worse, when you look at this deer harvest breakdown by WMU:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...ap_2008-09.pdf
I mean... Look at WMU 2D! That area must have been awesome last year. 9500 bucks and 15,600 does harvested? Wow. [8D]
06-17-2009, 06:38 PM
#325
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
I spent some time last night digging up some of Pennsylvania’s deer management history and had pages of quotes from past professional deer managers and Commissioners. But, this site will not allow me to copy and paste all it into a post.
Therefore, I am reduced to just making a few comments and providinglinks to the information.
Everyone that has any logical understanding of deer management already knows that several of you don’t understand or support scientific resource management because it doesn’t fit into your misguided agendas.
The worst part is that hunters are forcing the same stupid mistakes time after time, decade after decade, generation after generation. We will end with very few places that support more then limited numbers of deer unless that cycle of the same stupid mistakes demanded by the unknowledgeable hunters can be broken.
The good news is that it appears that more and more hunters are finally beginning to understand the need for listening to the deer and their habitat instead of the whining of a few hunters that refuse to learn from decades of the past stupid mistakes.
Here is some of the history of how the Game Commission has been trying to educate hunters for over eighty years.
A link to comments from the Commissioners, management professionals, some hunters and even the courts as they relate to the history of deer management, the problems and what we have today:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=460&Q=174569
More Pennsylvania deer management history:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=460&q=174555
This should make it easy to see that the Game Commission has been actively trying for many decades to both manage deer within the limits of their habitat for the benefit of the deer and also trying to educate the hunters about the importance of doing so.
This should also prove that the hunters have fought that knowledge that would have resulted in more deer today for many decades and into the third generation.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would have far more deer in almost areas of the state today if hunters had listened to the professional deer managers of the past. There is also no doubt in my mind that the only way we will have more deer instead of fewer deer for the future is if hunters finally learn from those past makes and finally allow the professionals to scientifically manage both deer and their habitat.
The good news is that more and more hunters do seem to be coming around and learning how important scientific resource management is.
Unfortunately many of the people that post on this very site are the perpetuating and prolonging the very deer management problems they both want and demand be corrected.
R.S. Bodenhorn
06-17-2009, 07:20 PM
#326
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would have far more deer in almost areas of the state today if hunters had listened to the professional deer managers of the past. There is also no doubt in my mind that the only way we will have more deer instead of fewer deer for the future is if hunters finally learn from those past makes and finally allow the professionals to scientifically manage both deer and their habitat.
The deer have proven you and the PGC experts were wrong over and over again ,but you are still in denial!!
06-17-2009, 07:35 PM
#327
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
i had my moultrie cameras at 5 of our feeders this winter in best hunting areas in western clinton county area near kettle creek.most deer i had at 1 feeder was 6 and others was 4.these feeders are about 1 mile to 2 miles apart.all 6 feeders had deer.now ones we had in other areas,NOT 1 DEER CAME TO FEEDERS AND THESE WERE IN AREAS WHERE DMAP TAGS WERE ISSUED.we may remove some of those feeders to other areas.
there are miles of land with no deer then you have area with about 4.
there are miles of land with no deer then you have area with about 4.
06-18-2009, 05:25 AM
#328
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 2G Gaines Pa
Posts: 524
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
ORIGINAL: sproulman
i had my moultrie cameras at 5 of our feeders this winter in best hunting areas in western clinton county area near kettle creek.most deer i had at 1 feeder was 6 and others was 4.these feeders are about 1 mile to 2 miles apart.all 6 feeders had deer.now ones we had in other areas,NOT 1 DEER CAME TO FEEDERS AND THESE WERE IN AREAS WHERE DMAP TAGS WERE ISSUED.we may remove some of those feeders to other areas.
there are miles of land with no deer then you have area with about 4.
i had my moultrie cameras at 5 of our feeders this winter in best hunting areas in western clinton county area near kettle creek.most deer i had at 1 feeder was 6 and others was 4.these feeders are about 1 mile to 2 miles apart.all 6 feeders had deer.now ones we had in other areas,NOT 1 DEER CAME TO FEEDERS AND THESE WERE IN AREAS WHERE DMAP TAGS WERE ISSUED.we may remove some of those feeders to other areas.
there are miles of land with no deer then you have area with about 4.
06-18-2009, 09:51 AM
#329
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
"I mean... Look at WMU 2D! That area must have been awesome last year. 9500 bucks and 15,600 does harvested? Wow"
Butch, first, the wmus are LARGE to say the least. Second, you mention that wmu, the highest in the state...yet look at everywhere else. LOL Even some that "appear" decent arent. 2A for example. the buck harvest last year in a wmu the size of a few counties was the size of the harvest in ONE county previously... And this in the best area of the state. Overall most wmus have been on a steady decline, even after reduction has no longer been the goal for the last 4 years.[:'(]
Butch, first, the wmus are LARGE to say the least. Second, you mention that wmu, the highest in the state...yet look at everywhere else. LOL Even some that "appear" decent arent. 2A for example. the buck harvest last year in a wmu the size of a few counties was the size of the harvest in ONE county previously... And this in the best area of the state. Overall most wmus have been on a steady decline, even after reduction has no longer been the goal for the last 4 years.[:'(]
06-18-2009, 10:12 AM
#330
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: PA VOTED WORST DEER STATE IN NATION
"veryone that has any logical understanding of deer management already knows that several of you don’t understand or support scientific resource management because it doesn’t fit into your misguided agendas."
No rsb. That is your unsupported attempt to discredit and nothing more. Just trying to make my opinion appear to be something it isnt. My position is 100% rational fact based and about as far from "extreme" one way or the other, as it gets. The fact that I am vocal on the issue doesnt change that fact.
"The worst part is that hunters are forcing the same stupid mistakes time after time, decade after decade, generation after generation. We will end with very few places that support more then limited numbers of deer unless that cycle of the same stupid mistakes demanded by the unknowledgeable hunters can be broken."
My position isnt, nor has it ever been that we must have our highest previous deer densities. By my contention most definately is that its completely unsupported that we must stay at or below exactly where we are currently. It is also my position that pgcs data had been used by them to come to the conclusion that we could STABILIZE our deer herd 4 years ago. BUT we have been continually reducing according to the annual reports data during that time! That means that at the very least, that reduction over the last 4 years is most definately unwarranted and not supported by the "science" AT ALL. It was 100% unnecessary and counter to the sportsmen of our state. If nothing else, that is undebatable. I also believe that in many areas, the reduction was not warranted even prior to the levels where stabilization became the goal. Regardless its been a one size fits all reduce everywhere as much as possible campaign. SOme places just havent reduced at the same rate for obvious reasons.
"The good news is that it appears that more and more hunters are finally beginning to understand the need for listening to the deer and their habitat instead of the whining of a few hunters that refuse to learn from decades of the past stupid mistakes. "
Wishful thinking.
That history is the highly biased version of course. Of course it is coming from the exact same source that is encouraging the wanton slaughter of the deer herd for the good of the trillium and hobblebush.
"This should also prove that the hunters have fought that knowledge that would have resulted in more deer today for many decades and into the third generation. "
what it show, is exactly who had control at various points in time. When the ecofreaks did, the goals changed. When pro-hunting minded individuals were in charge, the changed again... And each saw the other as the "villain" when they had the reigns. Just by seeing that "history" link, that alone tells you the mindset of the author. Currently pgc needs cleansed of the riff-raff, just as back in the day when the "pro hunting" pgc tossed LATHAM out on his duff because of his extremist views... Now all of a sudden, to the current crop of flower sniffers, hes a hero, akin to Jesus Christ himself. LOL That alone should tell us a regime change is badly needed.
"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would have far more deer in almost areas of the state today if hunters had listened to the professional deer managers of the past."
No. We'd have just had fewer all along, and even fewer than we do now.
"There is also no doubt in my mind that the only way we will have more deer instead of fewer deer for the future is if hunters finally learn from those past makes and finally allow the professionals to scientifically manage both deer and their habitat."
Get unbiased noneconut "professionals" without agendas to do the job, and I'll gladly stop fighting and heap the praise. When you have econuts like audubon and idiots like shissler etc. and his "type" designing our deer management plan....Hunters are gonna lose in that deal everytime. And thats a fact.
"Unfortunately many of the people that post on this very site are the perpetuating and prolonging the very deer management problems they both want and demand be corrected. "
Tell you what, cut the doe tags to non-slaughter levels, and I think most of us will be more than content to take our chances. And there really isnt any "chance to take" nothing to lose, just alot to gain. The data supports us strongly. Both here and deer herds from around the country say we do not have to have below 10 as a minimum owdd, and below 25 as the max anywhere. But those are the dd's we are talking about here, and STILL declining for absolutely no good reason![:'(]
No rsb. That is your unsupported attempt to discredit and nothing more. Just trying to make my opinion appear to be something it isnt. My position is 100% rational fact based and about as far from "extreme" one way or the other, as it gets. The fact that I am vocal on the issue doesnt change that fact.
"The worst part is that hunters are forcing the same stupid mistakes time after time, decade after decade, generation after generation. We will end with very few places that support more then limited numbers of deer unless that cycle of the same stupid mistakes demanded by the unknowledgeable hunters can be broken."
My position isnt, nor has it ever been that we must have our highest previous deer densities. By my contention most definately is that its completely unsupported that we must stay at or below exactly where we are currently. It is also my position that pgcs data had been used by them to come to the conclusion that we could STABILIZE our deer herd 4 years ago. BUT we have been continually reducing according to the annual reports data during that time! That means that at the very least, that reduction over the last 4 years is most definately unwarranted and not supported by the "science" AT ALL. It was 100% unnecessary and counter to the sportsmen of our state. If nothing else, that is undebatable. I also believe that in many areas, the reduction was not warranted even prior to the levels where stabilization became the goal. Regardless its been a one size fits all reduce everywhere as much as possible campaign. SOme places just havent reduced at the same rate for obvious reasons.
"The good news is that it appears that more and more hunters are finally beginning to understand the need for listening to the deer and their habitat instead of the whining of a few hunters that refuse to learn from decades of the past stupid mistakes. "
Wishful thinking.
That history is the highly biased version of course. Of course it is coming from the exact same source that is encouraging the wanton slaughter of the deer herd for the good of the trillium and hobblebush.
"This should also prove that the hunters have fought that knowledge that would have resulted in more deer today for many decades and into the third generation. "
what it show, is exactly who had control at various points in time. When the ecofreaks did, the goals changed. When pro-hunting minded individuals were in charge, the changed again... And each saw the other as the "villain" when they had the reigns. Just by seeing that "history" link, that alone tells you the mindset of the author. Currently pgc needs cleansed of the riff-raff, just as back in the day when the "pro hunting" pgc tossed LATHAM out on his duff because of his extremist views... Now all of a sudden, to the current crop of flower sniffers, hes a hero, akin to Jesus Christ himself. LOL That alone should tell us a regime change is badly needed.
"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we would have far more deer in almost areas of the state today if hunters had listened to the professional deer managers of the past."
No. We'd have just had fewer all along, and even fewer than we do now.
"There is also no doubt in my mind that the only way we will have more deer instead of fewer deer for the future is if hunters finally learn from those past makes and finally allow the professionals to scientifically manage both deer and their habitat."
Get unbiased noneconut "professionals" without agendas to do the job, and I'll gladly stop fighting and heap the praise. When you have econuts like audubon and idiots like shissler etc. and his "type" designing our deer management plan....Hunters are gonna lose in that deal everytime. And thats a fact.
"Unfortunately many of the people that post on this very site are the perpetuating and prolonging the very deer management problems they both want and demand be corrected. "
Tell you what, cut the doe tags to non-slaughter levels, and I think most of us will be more than content to take our chances. And there really isnt any "chance to take" nothing to lose, just alot to gain. The data supports us strongly. Both here and deer herds from around the country say we do not have to have below 10 as a minimum owdd, and below 25 as the max anywhere. But those are the dd's we are talking about here, and STILL declining for absolutely no good reason![:'(]
