Are we losing sight?
12-16-2009, 05:22 AM
#171
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
2.) Do you believe that we all are able to afford to purchase our own land? If not, what would you propose?
3.) Even if we all are able to find our own property and be able to purchase it, should we then somehow give a pass to our game commission for being either unwilling and or unable to manage the lands that they are responsible for?
12-16-2009, 05:38 AM
#172
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
If you believe this:
1.) Do you really think there is enough land available for all of us to purchase? If not, what would you propose?
2.) Do you believe that we all are able to afford to purchase our own land? If not, what would you propose?
3.) Even if we all are able to find our own property and be able to purchase it, should we then somehow give a pass to our game commission for being either unwilling and or unable to manage the lands that they are responsible for?
1.) Do you really think there is enough land available for all of us to purchase? If not, what would you propose?
2.) Do you believe that we all are able to afford to purchase our own land? If not, what would you propose?
3.) Even if we all are able to find our own property and be able to purchase it, should we then somehow give a pass to our game commission for being either unwilling and or unable to manage the lands that they are responsible for?
When are people going to learn that ANYTHING left to the government to "manage" for us is going to be done in a sub par manner?
The more you allow the government to be involved in any facet of your life , the poorer the results will be. And yet you expect it to be different with your deer hunting. Funny how all those not complaining have taken their sport into their own hands to make it better while those that complain still talk like and apparently believe the gooberman should be responsible for fixing everything for them.
Last edited by BTBowhunter; 12-16-2009 at 06:04 AM.
12-16-2009, 06:01 AM
#173
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
The earth is two thirds water, that leaves the rest available to you whom don't own your part yet.
Just more proof that the public education system is a failure, proper education would enable you to earn a better living and afford you the privilege of owning your own slice of the pie.
If you were given the opportunity to manage your own property in a way that suited your merits and goals while not causing concerns and distracting or devaluing your neighbors and fellow land owners you would see some of the unforeseen problems and concerns that plague land owners every where.
Just more proof that the public education system is a failure, proper education would enable you to earn a better living and afford you the privilege of owning your own slice of the pie.
If you were given the opportunity to manage your own property in a way that suited your merits and goals while not causing concerns and distracting or devaluing your neighbors and fellow land owners you would see some of the unforeseen problems and concerns that plague land owners every where.
12-16-2009, 06:50 AM
#175
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
our property assessments went way up here in clinton county.pa..1 acre of land WAS assessed at around 1,000 dollars,NOW its anywhere from 12,000 to 16,000 per acre.
even under CLEAN/GREEN 20 acres will be around 100,000 dollars .
i know owner that has 1500 acres and his taxes are over 13,000 per year under CLEAN/GREEN TOO........thats just land.......
i see all kinds of camps for sale here and land too........
new jersey hunters are grabbing everything they can get.80,000 for camp is pocket change for them.first thing they do is POST the land.then spend all their time chasing LOCAL guys i know off land that hunted there for 50 years.
THESE LAND OWNERS STILL WILL NOT HAVE GOOD HUNTING BECAUSE THE HUNTERS WILL SHOOT THE DEER OFF WHEN THEY ARE NOT AROUND.i see it every year. second week the guys go into land with NO GUNS and push the deer out to watchers on SFL .camp owners went home sat of first week........
its hard to have good hunting this way.some are putting fences around propertys now.woods looks awful with all these fences and signs now.
what i am trying to say ,its EXPENSIVE to own property now and does not assure the hunting will be much better UNLESS the SFL cuts back on doe killing.
most of deer come from SFL onto privateland from what i have seen over years because the privateland owners cut their OAKS more than the SFL .deer like acorns and most of OAKS are on SFL .
this is way with my land,i have few oaks because former owners cut them down before selling it to me.....yet on SFL the oaks are still there and deer on my laND GO THERE.
they only hide on my land but poachers and road hunters and hunters that sneak on land get my doe anyhow.
but having privateland is no assurance hunting will be better UNLESS the hunting gets better on SFL.if no deer on SFL you will not have much on privateland.farm areas this is different i am only speaking of privateland bordering SFL..........
even under CLEAN/GREEN 20 acres will be around 100,000 dollars .
i know owner that has 1500 acres and his taxes are over 13,000 per year under CLEAN/GREEN TOO........thats just land.......
i see all kinds of camps for sale here and land too........
new jersey hunters are grabbing everything they can get.80,000 for camp is pocket change for them.first thing they do is POST the land.then spend all their time chasing LOCAL guys i know off land that hunted there for 50 years.
THESE LAND OWNERS STILL WILL NOT HAVE GOOD HUNTING BECAUSE THE HUNTERS WILL SHOOT THE DEER OFF WHEN THEY ARE NOT AROUND.i see it every year. second week the guys go into land with NO GUNS and push the deer out to watchers on SFL .camp owners went home sat of first week........
its hard to have good hunting this way.some are putting fences around propertys now.woods looks awful with all these fences and signs now.
what i am trying to say ,its EXPENSIVE to own property now and does not assure the hunting will be much better UNLESS the SFL cuts back on doe killing.
most of deer come from SFL onto privateland from what i have seen over years because the privateland owners cut their OAKS more than the SFL .deer like acorns and most of OAKS are on SFL .
this is way with my land,i have few oaks because former owners cut them down before selling it to me.....yet on SFL the oaks are still there and deer on my laND GO THERE.
they only hide on my land but poachers and road hunters and hunters that sneak on land get my doe anyhow.
but having privateland is no assurance hunting will be better UNLESS the hunting gets better on SFL.if no deer on SFL you will not have much on privateland.farm areas this is different i am only speaking of privateland bordering SFL..........
12-16-2009, 06:51 AM
#176
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
DougE,
I think that the issue in many areas is that people have become spoiled over the last couple decades when deer populations have hit all time modern highs in many areas. In many areas it became damn near childs play to fill a tag and didn't require a massive effort to get a decent buck. Then you get the people whose only frame of reference in terms of hunting is deer hunting, and wanting to focus on big bucks at that. So, they are easy to disappoint if there is any kind of dip in deer numbers or harvest rates. Its funny, but in Illinois you have a whole generation of young hunters who grew up in a time when deer have been plentiful. They don't have any idea of what it was like as late of the late 70s, when you had to put a lot of time and effort just to fill their tag, let alone get a big buck. So, from their current perspective the ideal is to maintain the deer herd as is, even though it has been acknowledged that the deer population has reached nuisance levels in many areas. Therefore, herd reduction is sacrilege and any significant reduction in population will be have people howling that the end is near in terms of deer hunting. So far, the effective strategies have been the ones that ignore such folks and concentrate on finding a happy medium between having deer as plentiful as rabbits and making all the deer hunters happy and addressing concerns about habitat maintenance, reducing crop damage, reducing deer/auto accidents, etc. and making the general public, including hunters with some degree of objectivity in the matter, somewaht happy.
Sproulman: it sounds like the taxes in your area are a killer. In Illinois, I pay no taxes on one 19 acre plot of woods, and my tax bill for 10 acres of river bottom ground in the next county over was $3.68 this year.
I think that the issue in many areas is that people have become spoiled over the last couple decades when deer populations have hit all time modern highs in many areas. In many areas it became damn near childs play to fill a tag and didn't require a massive effort to get a decent buck. Then you get the people whose only frame of reference in terms of hunting is deer hunting, and wanting to focus on big bucks at that. So, they are easy to disappoint if there is any kind of dip in deer numbers or harvest rates. Its funny, but in Illinois you have a whole generation of young hunters who grew up in a time when deer have been plentiful. They don't have any idea of what it was like as late of the late 70s, when you had to put a lot of time and effort just to fill their tag, let alone get a big buck. So, from their current perspective the ideal is to maintain the deer herd as is, even though it has been acknowledged that the deer population has reached nuisance levels in many areas. Therefore, herd reduction is sacrilege and any significant reduction in population will be have people howling that the end is near in terms of deer hunting. So far, the effective strategies have been the ones that ignore such folks and concentrate on finding a happy medium between having deer as plentiful as rabbits and making all the deer hunters happy and addressing concerns about habitat maintenance, reducing crop damage, reducing deer/auto accidents, etc. and making the general public, including hunters with some degree of objectivity in the matter, somewaht happy.
Sproulman: it sounds like the taxes in your area are a killer. In Illinois, I pay no taxes on one 19 acre plot of woods, and my tax bill for 10 acres of river bottom ground in the next county over was $3.68 this year.
Last edited by Lanse couche couche; 12-16-2009 at 06:54 AM.
12-16-2009, 07:25 AM
#177
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
yes they are LANSE........what has happened george bush cut the money stream coming to our state from federal govt.so our local county is right now 2 million in hole.they even said they may raise our taxes another 11% this coming year
so the out of state hunters who have bigger salarys/pensions than most in our area,who had the good paying jobs are grabbing the land now.
in wmu2g,lets use only clinton county.we have most SFL in state.this causes most of hunters to come here to hunt because they cant find land to hunt near homes anymore do to LACK of deer now happening in their home area.posted signs are going up in their area,so they come here.
so our doe are being harvested to real low numbers.like 2 doe per sq mile and could be less than that from what i am seeing here in clinton county sproul forest.
this is where i get so mad, i know what is in say a 10 mile circle fairly good because i am out all time all year.after christmas and at our feeders i get a REAL good estimate of what is left.last year it was 4 dpsm.
this is why i asked DOUGE TO MEET WITH ME FOR FEW DAYS TO SEE AND HEAR WHAT HUNTERS ARE SEEING.......
good indication of deer numbers is bear hunters in nov who all drive and kick up every deer that is there..
this year the comment was, SPROUL WE ONLY SAW A FEW DEER FOR 3 DAYS HUNTING BEAR.
every comment is FEW deer.some said NO DEER....no poo also..all kinds of acorns but FEW deer.
we are not asking fdor old days to come back but we feel that we should be able to have at least 6 deer per sq mile ,i think the PGC said it should be 9 dpsm, bluebird may respond on that but when you are down to 4 or less dpsm, IT MAKES YOU WONDER IF ANYONE CARES...i do but i cant get MOST hunters to pass on doe in areas where their are few.........they just dont care........
so the out of state hunters who have bigger salarys/pensions than most in our area,who had the good paying jobs are grabbing the land now.
in wmu2g,lets use only clinton county.we have most SFL in state.this causes most of hunters to come here to hunt because they cant find land to hunt near homes anymore do to LACK of deer now happening in their home area.posted signs are going up in their area,so they come here.
so our doe are being harvested to real low numbers.like 2 doe per sq mile and could be less than that from what i am seeing here in clinton county sproul forest.
this is where i get so mad, i know what is in say a 10 mile circle fairly good because i am out all time all year.after christmas and at our feeders i get a REAL good estimate of what is left.last year it was 4 dpsm.
this is why i asked DOUGE TO MEET WITH ME FOR FEW DAYS TO SEE AND HEAR WHAT HUNTERS ARE SEEING.......
good indication of deer numbers is bear hunters in nov who all drive and kick up every deer that is there..
this year the comment was, SPROUL WE ONLY SAW A FEW DEER FOR 3 DAYS HUNTING BEAR.
every comment is FEW deer.some said NO DEER....no poo also..all kinds of acorns but FEW deer.
we are not asking fdor old days to come back but we feel that we should be able to have at least 6 deer per sq mile ,i think the PGC said it should be 9 dpsm, bluebird may respond on that but when you are down to 4 or less dpsm, IT MAKES YOU WONDER IF ANYONE CARES...i do but i cant get MOST hunters to pass on doe in areas where their are few.........they just dont care........
12-16-2009, 07:35 AM
#178
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southwest Ohio
Posts: 10,277
Sproulman,
Is it like that everywhere? I would assume that if one owns land on the edge of urban areas there is always the danger of the land getting re-classified in a manner that the taxes go up on it. But its hard to imagine them really sticking it to somebody in terms of taxes on land that is in entirely rural, far from urban centers, and classified as non-productive or improved.
Is it like that everywhere? I would assume that if one owns land on the edge of urban areas there is always the danger of the land getting re-classified in a manner that the taxes go up on it. But its hard to imagine them really sticking it to somebody in terms of taxes on land that is in entirely rural, far from urban centers, and classified as non-productive or improved.
12-16-2009, 07:45 AM
#179
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
DougE,
I think that the issue in many areas is that people have become spoiled over the last couple decades when deer populations have hit all time modern highs in many areas. In many areas it became damn near childs play to fill a tag and didn't require a massive effort to get a decent buck. Then you get the people whose only frame of reference in terms of hunting is deer hunting, and wanting to focus on big bucks at that. So, they are easy to disappoint if there is any kind of dip in deer numbers or harvest rates. Its funny, but in Illinois you have a whole generation of young hunters who grew up in a time when deer have been plentiful. They don't have any idea of what it was like as late of the late 70s, when you had to put a lot of time and effort just to fill their tag, let alone get a big buck. So, from their current perspective the ideal is to maintain the deer herd as is, even though it has been acknowledged that the deer population has reached nuisance levels in many areas. Therefore, herd reduction is sacrilege and any significant reduction in population will be have people howling that the end is near in terms of deer hunting. So far, the effective strategies have been the ones that ignore such folks and concentrate on finding a happy medium between having deer as plentiful as rabbits and making all the deer hunters happy and addressing concerns about habitat maintenance, reducing crop damage, reducing deer/auto accidents, etc. and making the general public, including hunters with some degree of objectivity in the matter, somewaht happy.
Sproulman: it sounds like the taxes in your area are a killer. In Illinois, I pay no taxes on one 19 acre plot of woods, and my tax bill for 10 acres of river bottom ground in the next county over was $3.68 this year.
I think that the issue in many areas is that people have become spoiled over the last couple decades when deer populations have hit all time modern highs in many areas. In many areas it became damn near childs play to fill a tag and didn't require a massive effort to get a decent buck. Then you get the people whose only frame of reference in terms of hunting is deer hunting, and wanting to focus on big bucks at that. So, they are easy to disappoint if there is any kind of dip in deer numbers or harvest rates. Its funny, but in Illinois you have a whole generation of young hunters who grew up in a time when deer have been plentiful. They don't have any idea of what it was like as late of the late 70s, when you had to put a lot of time and effort just to fill their tag, let alone get a big buck. So, from their current perspective the ideal is to maintain the deer herd as is, even though it has been acknowledged that the deer population has reached nuisance levels in many areas. Therefore, herd reduction is sacrilege and any significant reduction in population will be have people howling that the end is near in terms of deer hunting. So far, the effective strategies have been the ones that ignore such folks and concentrate on finding a happy medium between having deer as plentiful as rabbits and making all the deer hunters happy and addressing concerns about habitat maintenance, reducing crop damage, reducing deer/auto accidents, etc. and making the general public, including hunters with some degree of objectivity in the matter, somewaht happy.
Sproulman: it sounds like the taxes in your area are a killer. In Illinois, I pay no taxes on one 19 acre plot of woods, and my tax bill for 10 acres of river bottom ground in the next county over was $3.68 this year.
12-16-2009, 08:24 AM
#180
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"The earth is two thirds water, that leaves the rest available to you whom don't own your part yet."
Yeah, Jim, I kinda had my eye on a nice little parcel on the border of Iraq. Might hafta stock whitetails there and dodge al quaeda fighters, but at least it will be free of Pgc influence.
Thats still doesnt dismiss pgcs duty to do their job , and they have 70+ million dollars they should be EARNING this year. Not screwing the hunters of pa and basically wiping their stink holes with our money.
Yeah, Jim, I kinda had my eye on a nice little parcel on the border of Iraq. Might hafta stock whitetails there and dodge al quaeda fighters, but at least it will be free of Pgc influence.
Thats still doesnt dismiss pgcs duty to do their job , and they have 70+ million dollars they should be EARNING this year. Not screwing the hunters of pa and basically wiping their stink holes with our money.