Screamin Steel

....AND, ...if all of these wmu's are in stabilization mode in the mid teens to twenties owdd....than we ask- Who in the hell set these ridiculous single digit deer density goals in the first place, as they have been abandoned so quickly like an outhouse at a July chili cook off. They were OBVIOUSLY wrong in their evaluations when they set the deer plan into place. The fact that they abadoned those low ball goals so quickly is evidence of incompetence. Hope the WMI sham audit doesn't miss that big flashing neon sign.

bawanajim

I don't think you will many who support HR at the levels its been carried out. And I certainly can't explain a plan that I nor anyone I personally know had a hand in setting up.
But in 1B the the land to Forest ratio is about 50 / 50 while other areas of the state are far more forested with less agriculture and personal residences, soil content and growing seasons also need to be factored in when making general statements about a deer program that covers a state as diverse as PA.

There are a lot of hands in the pot when it comes to deer management and hunters are only one of those hands grabbing for all they can.

Screamin Steel

Don't forget though, Jim that it imay be only our hands grabbing for some more deer, but it was also our hands that purchased the game lands and fund the deer management. No, I really don't think that those that reap the benefits get the same clout as those that pay the dues. Why should they?

BTBowhunter

Thats a fair point Steel but the other group that has paid the lions share of the cost of our having a deer herd are the private owners of the property that supports the vast majority of the deer in this state. They fed them and provided habitat. Without them we would have a shadow of the deer herd we have. That includes farmers, timber companies, paper companies and just plain private citizens. It also includes the 90% of this state who doesnt hunt when it comes to non PGC owned public land.

bluebird2

The vast majority of land owners pay nothing to support or herd, but all tax payers would pay if hunters didn't control the herd . Our family owns 27 acres and we suffer no monetary loss due to the deer since our woods regenerate successfully due to the unlimited food supplies.

Cornelius08

"So that chart shows that most WMU are 2 to 3 times over the goals set yet you can't figure out why breeding rates and regeneration has not improved significantly. "

Jim, those goals were "done away with" because pgc had absolutely no way of defending those ridiculous goals. If you see no problem with the deer density in the state running from only 5 to a ridiculous 17 dpsm ANYWHERE,...and 13 dpsm in the best areas of western Pa with mix of farmland reverting farmland and forested with VERY high cc, then Im afraid you dont know much about deer management. Also you state we ARE 2 to 3 times higher currently. Thats not the case. The last year depicted on that chart was 2003. This is 2009. Significant reduction has occurred in many of those wmus since 2003. Those are goals that cater 1000% to econuts running the show who want every inch of forest floor covered with trillium and every single stick of timber untouched, and very possibly appears to be where we are headed anyway.

Thanks for posting that BB. Anyone who can look at those ridiculous numbers and not shake there head are absolutely amazing in their tolerance for pure undiluted bullsquat.

Cornelius08

Jim says: "There are a lot of hands in the pot when it comes to deer management and hunters are only one of those hands grabbing for all they can."

And our hands are getting smacked and remain empty, while other interests hands are so full they cannot possible carry any more.

BTB says: "Thats a fair point Steel but the other group that has paid the lions share of the cost of our having a deer herd are the private owners of the property that supports the vast majority of the deer in this state. "

Most pay nothing. Landowners dont all grow crops or own land for the purpose of commercial timber harvesting. And of those that do, most wouldnt have a clue or care about how many seedlings were consumed 100 years ago and its "effect" to the cut they make this year! Many landowners are also HUNTERS who dont support the failed program. Thats why the posting is increasing. Also what you stated would be called human conflict. Many wmus had human conflict listed as low yet were reduced anyway. Not an issue. Besides, Id hardly say "anything" less than the extreme reduction we are experiencing would be ignoring them!!!!

"It also includes the 90% of this state who doesnt hunt when it comes to non PGC owned public land."

I dont recall them being asked, so wouldnt automatically put them on the "antideer" side as pgc supporters as some often like to do. There are so few who actually support this deer debacle that some seemingly would like to add nonexistent "fantom" supporters to their cause.

I also happen to know that even on the small percentage of land that IS PGC OWNED pgc in making decisions still take STRONGLY into account audubon society wishes of wildlife management and land usage as well as dcnr timbering considerations since gamelands management effects neighboring lands etc etc. Both well documented.

On the other hand most of "general society" couldnt care less about deer management. The majority who do want more deer not less. The tiny majority seeking max profit and econuts are dictating things with no room for compromise. Thats a fact.

BTBowhunter

Thats a fairly arrogant attitude. If a gang of homeless decides to pitch their tents on your 27 acres and stay, I'd bet you wouldnt have that attitude.

Farmers pay in crop damage
Timber and paper companies pay in lost regeneration, fencing costs etc etc
other private landowners may "pay" in varying degrees through lost timber value, lost lease value for tillable land, lost gardens and landscaping etc etc.
We all pay (not the insurance companies) for auto claims with deer through our comprehensive premiums.

Your attitude that the land can support more deer without considering the landowners interests is as silly as your belief that you understand deer management better than the professionals.

Cornelius08

"Farmers pay in crop damage"

Its factored in "managementwise" when human conflict is addressed. IF its LOW then its not a factor in the management scheme of the overall wmu and they then address it as should be done, on a localized level with the multitude of available tools for that purpose. They also have more tools to address it than most states and more than any time in Pa history. Red tag, dmap, shoot'em up 24/7 laws recently implemented... Noones saying they should be ignored, and they certainly havent been. But they along with timber & econutz shouldnt be dictating EVERYTHING statewide either. Judging by the many thousands upon thousands of landowners in the state and the VERY low by comparison number who have chosen to implement these "tools" of dmap & redtag etc. would suggest that the landowners arent exactly as deer hating and wanting them all dead as some would like us to believe?

"Timber and paper companies pay in lost regeneration, fencing costs etc etc"

Again. See above. Also our states deer herd shouldnt be forced to extremes because of the profit margin of the few. There is reasonable room for compromise. That is hardly being utilized currently.

"We all pay (not the insurance companies) for auto claims with deer through our comprehensive premiums."

And millions of people, hunters, as well as their families and supportive friends ALSO pay those costs. Pretty much accepted as the norm and only to be expected with reasonable deer numbers anywhere. Not an excuse for decimated deer herd when it wasnt an excuse prior to it.

"Your attitude that the land can support more deer without considering the landowners interests is as silly as your belief that you understand deer management better than the professionals. "

I dont see that as what was said Nor even close by bb. But the sentiment you point out there is no less "silly" than ignoreing a billion dollar hunting industry and those who not only pay for all wildlife management, but also are the management tool

Cornelius08

"Hope the WMI sham audit doesn't miss that big flashing neon sign."

lol, that Wmi sham audit is liable to tell us go back to the single digit and barely double digit densities from what Ive seen of them thusfar. I dont believe the audit will be worth the paper it is written on. They made it pretty clear that some important details wont eve be addressed, and of those that are, just look at the previous pgc employees whom are doing it!!! And the fact they also worked with people like shissler! Results should be interesting. Be fun to see how they try to paint a turd to make it purdy.

Not sure it would make too much a difference as I wouldnt be surprised if those are still the "unspoken" goals anyway. Some areas just cant be gotten there as quickly as other have. Would explain why many of those still above those ridiculous previous goals are still be reduced gradually each year despite claims of stabilization.