bluebird2

I have no doubt he is an excellent WCO, but I also have no doubt he was dead wrong about the effects of the deer management plan. he claimed recruitment would increase and offset the effects of HR but it didn't. He claimed ARs would double the number of 8 pts. and buck harvests would return to normal but it didn't happen. He said HR would result in a significant improvement in regeneration in 2G , but it decreased instead of increasing. He called me every name in the book when he was the one that was wrong and misleading and deceiving the readers.

Cornelius08

"yep,I suggest hunting where the deer should be instead of hunting where you want them to be.That's what people should do if they want to be successful but won't happen regardless of how many times I suggest it."

Thats a fine suggestion if someone is interested in learning where to hunt. But you use it as rebuttle to arguments opposing the deer management plan & its effects, and there it does not apply. It being a legitimate alternative to proper management & resulting in higher sustained harvest is an absolute impossibility. And those harvests and herd size declining as a trend and NOT being sustained at reasonable levels is what I see people grumbling about, and should be. It doesnt make one dang bit of difference if billybob gets his buck this year to anyone but billybob, but doesnt matter one lick in the whole scheme of things. But when the overall stats suck arse... Thats a problem. And if those numbers are great, theyre still great even if billybob didnt harvest.

"People will hunt a for a few hours a couple days of the year.Conclude theres no deer and hunt there again next year,complaining the whole time. "

Of course they will. And there are those who hunt every day nearly complain numbers are too low & management is a joke. And there are those who fall in between the two extremes of time spent afield...

bluebird2

If 100 additional hunters hunted the same areas you were hunting and took the same number of deer ,what would happen to the herd and the quality of hunting in your area? Like I said before you are benefiting from the reduced hunting pressure and finding small pockets of good deer numbers.

Here is what the PGC has to say about your claim that we should have a well developed understory in pole and saw timber stands.

Quote:
Deer and trees – "Once the average tree is about 10 years old, its lowest branches are too high above the ground for a deer to reach; therefore, it no longer produces food for a whitetail. If that tree is destined to become merchantable timber, it might be as long as 90 years before it is cut. Also, during those 90 years, foliage in the upper story of the tree shades the forest beneath, so that other vegetation is unable to grow there. As far as deer food is concerned, the tree is a wildlife desert for 90 years out of 100, unless it happens to be a mast-producing species." - 5\71 PA Game News

DougE

It doesn't matter because that will never happen.If every hunter had a 100% success rate,the allocations would certainly have to be reduced.THAT ISN'T THE CASE SO IT ISN'T WORTH ARGUING ABOUT.

The only way I benefit is that so many unsuccessful hunters simply won't hunt where I do.That allows me to get multiple tags and enjoy a long eventful season.

I read the 40 year old quote you posted.Modern science has come along way since 1971 and today it's generally accepted by forestry experts that a nice midlevel understory is indeed possible.I see it more and more all the time.

Windwalker7

Seems to me the PGC has a choice in outcome of their own future.

They can cave into what the people want and get their increase or do what they want and strangle, as you say.

Its the PGC that is choking themselves. They can release their grip anytime they want. They choose to suffer their fate by their own decisions on deer management.

The PGC crys about too many deer destroying the habitat. So what are they destroying....trees? What interest does the PGC have in trees?


The NC part of the state use to have lots and lots of deer in the 70's. All those deer took a toll on the habitat. Who is responsible for letting the deer population get so out of control in the first place?......The PGC.

All those that have so much faith in the PGC need to realize that they create their own problems. Proper management back in the 60-70s would have prevented the destruction of the habitat.

They could have issued more doe licenses and kept things in check back then. They let things get out of control.

Here they are today, over compensating for their mistake 40+ years ago.

DougE

It certainly does apply.People are complaining about seeing few or no deer in depleted habitat.I hunt where there's food and cover and I find deer.It's a simple concept.

DougE

It boggles my mind that a hunter is asking why the PGC would be intersted in trees.Trees are habitat.Young seedlings are what deer need to survive on during the winter.That statement is almost to ridiculous to question and backs up everything I've posted.Hunters simply don't have a clue about deer.

You are correct that THE pgc DIDN'T HAVE THE BACKBONE TO DO WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DECADES AGO.They're trying to do the right thing now and you complain.Simply unbelievable.

bluebird2

To you it's not worth arguing because you don't like the answer. You have a 100% success rate hunting those others so why couldn't other hunters. If you would prefer we could use 200 hunters with a 50% success rate and the result would be the same. the good hunting you have would turn to crap due to increased hunting pressure.

That is not true. The 2006 DCNR Browse Study listed a high basal area stand as a reason for the lack of understory.

Windwalker7

I was trying to imply that they were more interested in timber sales.

I'm sorry that was over your head!

DougE

That's simply not true.The PGC does a ton of habitat work that helps the habitat but is counter productive to raising commercially valuable trees.

Trees are habitat and that's why they're concerned.It didn't go over my head either.