Shisslers "Pa's best deer management in nation" revisited
12-09-2009, 07:29 AM
#11
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Thats a big part of the master plan.
Audubon wants it badly as does every other "antideer" stakeholder.
Interestingly many animal rights groups are pushing very hard for the same.
Then we have a few hunters (supposedly anyway) who say they want alternate funding. Anyone wishing to see alternate funding for pgc has their head planted firmly. Its not even debatable its not a good thing for hunting or hunters period.
Btw, I saw Mr. Bluetick posting on another board about this topic. Shisslers assessment of the pgc management plan. Mighty interesting how he supports the opinion even though shissler is an audubon punk and dcnr flunky and is a straight up ecoflake. (even according to doug!!) lol.
Also intersting how bluetick posted pgcs position on smaller wmus (that its not gonna happen) and used some individuals statement from years ago in wisconsin who said they were not ideal. Perhaps someone should tell the durn fools that despite the insignificant statement made by god knows who, years ago...Wisconsin, currently....years after this supposed statement.....STILL has the smaller & many wmus! lmao. I think that pretty much says it all. Pgc will use any tad bit of anything even if it amounts to absolutely nothing to support their econut agendas.
Audubon wants it badly as does every other "antideer" stakeholder.
Interestingly many animal rights groups are pushing very hard for the same.
Then we have a few hunters (supposedly anyway) who say they want alternate funding. Anyone wishing to see alternate funding for pgc has their head planted firmly. Its not even debatable its not a good thing for hunting or hunters period.
Btw, I saw Mr. Bluetick posting on another board about this topic. Shisslers assessment of the pgc management plan. Mighty interesting how he supports the opinion even though shissler is an audubon punk and dcnr flunky and is a straight up ecoflake. (even according to doug!!) lol.
Also intersting how bluetick posted pgcs position on smaller wmus (that its not gonna happen) and used some individuals statement from years ago in wisconsin who said they were not ideal. Perhaps someone should tell the durn fools that despite the insignificant statement made by god knows who, years ago...Wisconsin, currently....years after this supposed statement.....STILL has the smaller & many wmus! lmao. I think that pretty much says it all. Pgc will use any tad bit of anything even if it amounts to absolutely nothing to support their econut agendas.
A few years ago,I spoke with him on the phone for at least a half hour.He's way out there beyond,just a concerned sportmen looking out for the habitat.
I wouldn't take it as a compliment if Shissler gave me an adda boy.I don't think the PGC should either.
12-09-2009, 07:31 AM
#12
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"If these nut jobs are not happy with DD in single digits in many areas, one can only assume that they will only be satisfied when they are gone."
Ask Kathy Davis/galthatfishes over on hpa. She stated some areas are in need of being taken to 5 and in some cases even less than 5 dpsm. Wow, and to think she almost became one of our newest commissioners recently! Not that it matters much, cause from what Ive read and heard, it seems the board is plenty stacked with the same anyway.
Ask Kathy Davis/galthatfishes over on hpa. She stated some areas are in need of being taken to 5 and in some cases even less than 5 dpsm. Wow, and to think she almost became one of our newest commissioners recently! Not that it matters much, cause from what Ive read and heard, it seems the board is plenty stacked with the same anyway.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-09-2009 at 08:01 AM.
12-09-2009, 07:35 AM
#13
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Yep,the thought of Shissler having anything to do with deer management makes my skin crawl.He's definately an extemist wack job to the 10th degree."
Then your skin should be wiggling because Mr. Shissler was quite instrumental in structuring the deer management plan. He worked so closely with pgc as consultant of dcnr, on the "plan" that he lists himself as having been on the deer management team on his online resume'. And we are to trust this "plan" that most deem extreme even without this particular snippet of information? I also know you have been around enough to know who marrett grund is, and that he was a pa game commission deer team biologist as well. Seems to speak to his mindset by taking part in that "nations best" study alongside shissler, not to mention having been one of the mad scientists behind the audubon deer study. Doesnt exactly help his credibility that he has spoken on several occassions with his cohort....dr. Alt pulicly on deer management issues . These are the people responsible for our deer plan... Alt, Grund, Shissler... 2 of which you said you cant stand Alt as a liar and Shissler as a nut... Take into account grunds associations and what he is clearly striving for etc. and god only knows what other arseclowns that dont get the publicity....and its easy to see why we are where we are. Throw in the complete asnine 100% antideer commissioners at the time of Pallone Schleiden & crew, and we should probably thank god that thinks arent worse than what they are.
A few years ago,I spoke with him on the phone for at least a half hour.He's way out there beyond,just a concerned sportmen looking out for the habitat.
I didnt have a phone conversation with him, but found that to be pretty obvious having looked into the mans background and having read his nonsense.
I wouldn't take it as a compliment if Shissler gave me an adda boy.I don't think the PGC should either.
Well they have taken it as exactly that.
Then your skin should be wiggling because Mr. Shissler was quite instrumental in structuring the deer management plan. He worked so closely with pgc as consultant of dcnr, on the "plan" that he lists himself as having been on the deer management team on his online resume'. And we are to trust this "plan" that most deem extreme even without this particular snippet of information? I also know you have been around enough to know who marrett grund is, and that he was a pa game commission deer team biologist as well. Seems to speak to his mindset by taking part in that "nations best" study alongside shissler, not to mention having been one of the mad scientists behind the audubon deer study. Doesnt exactly help his credibility that he has spoken on several occassions with his cohort....dr. Alt pulicly on deer management issues . These are the people responsible for our deer plan... Alt, Grund, Shissler... 2 of which you said you cant stand Alt as a liar and Shissler as a nut... Take into account grunds associations and what he is clearly striving for etc. and god only knows what other arseclowns that dont get the publicity....and its easy to see why we are where we are. Throw in the complete asnine 100% antideer commissioners at the time of Pallone Schleiden & crew, and we should probably thank god that thinks arent worse than what they are.
A few years ago,I spoke with him on the phone for at least a half hour.He's way out there beyond,just a concerned sportmen looking out for the habitat.
I didnt have a phone conversation with him, but found that to be pretty obvious having looked into the mans background and having read his nonsense.
I wouldn't take it as a compliment if Shissler gave me an adda boy.I don't think the PGC should either.
Well they have taken it as exactly that.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-09-2009 at 08:00 AM.
12-09-2009, 08:37 AM
#14
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
These guys use the word, "science" like its a sword. There is nothing wrong with science and I hope we are using science to acheive our goals but, science is a method and not a goal. We can use science to destroy our deer herd or we can use science to build it up. We can use science to acheive any goal we desire. The problem is these environmentalist whacko's have diffenent goals than us and they see us as an obstacle at achieving there goals. The irony is that they need us to do their killing.
12-09-2009, 08:53 AM
#15
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Westmoreland County PA.
Posts: 735
These notes are from 2008. Why are they still talking about this herd explosion and growing deer populations, when we have reduced our herd by half OR MORE in recent years? If these nut jobs are not happy with DD in single digits in many areas, one can only assume that they will only be satisfied when they are gone. If hunters had their own government and by laws, Alt, Schaeffer, and Shissler would be tried for high treason, showered in estrous urine, and confined to a pen of mature bucks for a very long time.
Examples: We need broad-based funding of wildlife management
The present system for wildlife management by the Game Commission is broken. Over-abundant deer are ruining forests and farms. The whole ecosystem is crashing. Decisions are now made in the interests of the 8 percent of the population that are hunters because hunters foot the whole bill. To fix the problem we need broad-based stable funding from all the people.
And: Stakeholders are not represented. Only hunters sit on the Game Commission in Pennsylvania.
12-09-2009, 10:27 AM
#16
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
"Yep,the thought of Shissler having anything to do with deer management makes my skin crawl.He's definately an extemist wack job to the 10th degree."
Then your skin should be wiggling because Mr. Shissler was quite instrumental in structuring the deer management plan. He worked so closely with pgc as consultant of dcnr, on the "plan" that he lists himself as having been on the deer management team on his online resume'. And we are to trust this "plan" that most deem extreme even without this particular snippet of information? I also know you have been around enough to know who marrett grund is, and that he was a pa game commission deer team biologist as well. Seems to speak to his mindset by taking part in that "nations best" study alongside shissler, not to mention having been one of the mad scientists behind the audubon deer study. Doesnt exactly help his credibility that he has spoken on several occassions with his cohort....dr. Alt pulicly on deer management issues . These are the people responsible for our deer plan... Alt, Grund, Shissler... 2 of which you said you cant stand Alt as a liar and Shissler as a nut... Take into account grunds associations and what he is clearly striving for etc. and god only knows what other arseclowns that dont get the publicity....and its easy to see why we are where we are. Throw in the complete asnine 100% antideer commissioners at the time of Pallone Schleiden & crew, and we should probably thank god that thinks arent worse than what they are.
A few years ago,I spoke with him on the phone for at least a half hour.He's way out there beyond,just a concerned sportmen looking out for the habitat.
I didnt have a phone conversation with him, but found that to be pretty obvious having looked into the mans background and having read his nonsense.
I wouldn't take it as a compliment if Shissler gave me an adda boy.I don't think the PGC should either.
Well they have taken it as exactly that.
Then your skin should be wiggling because Mr. Shissler was quite instrumental in structuring the deer management plan. He worked so closely with pgc as consultant of dcnr, on the "plan" that he lists himself as having been on the deer management team on his online resume'. And we are to trust this "plan" that most deem extreme even without this particular snippet of information? I also know you have been around enough to know who marrett grund is, and that he was a pa game commission deer team biologist as well. Seems to speak to his mindset by taking part in that "nations best" study alongside shissler, not to mention having been one of the mad scientists behind the audubon deer study. Doesnt exactly help his credibility that he has spoken on several occassions with his cohort....dr. Alt pulicly on deer management issues . These are the people responsible for our deer plan... Alt, Grund, Shissler... 2 of which you said you cant stand Alt as a liar and Shissler as a nut... Take into account grunds associations and what he is clearly striving for etc. and god only knows what other arseclowns that dont get the publicity....and its easy to see why we are where we are. Throw in the complete asnine 100% antideer commissioners at the time of Pallone Schleiden & crew, and we should probably thank god that thinks arent worse than what they are.
A few years ago,I spoke with him on the phone for at least a half hour.He's way out there beyond,just a concerned sportmen looking out for the habitat.
I didnt have a phone conversation with him, but found that to be pretty obvious having looked into the mans background and having read his nonsense.
I wouldn't take it as a compliment if Shissler gave me an adda boy.I don't think the PGC should either.
Well they have taken it as exactly that.
Shissler didn't have much of a hand in anything.When he worked for DCNR,we wanted all kinds of crazy things like baiting,longer seasons,group hunting,rifles allowed in all season etc.,ect.The PGC didn't give him any of those demands so I DOUBT THEY TOOK HIM VERY SERIOUSLY.
I see the habitat changing for the better and the hunting is still good enough for me on public land where the herd is the lowest in the state.I have nothing to complain about and agree with the direction deer management has taken.That isn't to say things shouldn't change in different areas and that isn't to say that the PGC hasn't been as flexible as they probably should be.I have no issues with our WMU's but agree that they should probably be re-adjusted in the areas near the old SRA's.Nothing is ever as good as it should be for everyone and every area.Still,I have very limited time and have no problems regularly finding and harvesting deer on public land in 2G.I hunted an area of state forest this past saturday.I parked on a main state rd and walked up a steep hill before turning and going up a very steep sidehill to access several thick clearcuts.My buddy and I passed at least 10-12 other people on our walk up and we never saw a single person where we hunted.They all went to the flat open areas off to the left.We hunted where the deer should be and moved them ourselves and had a great morning.the only shot either of us heard all morning was mine.I hunted this spot the first morning and still hunted most of the time trying to move deer to my buddy.I was walking up an old skidder trail when three doe appeared about 60 yards above me.I had a questionable shot so I let them pass and I continued up the trail with the wind at my back.They were the 6,7,a nd 8th deer I saw in the past hour.Within about 100 yards,I ran into a guy hunting towards me with the wind at his back.We chatted for a few minutes and I heard nothing except complaints of no deer and how great it used to be.I didn't have heart to tell him that between my buddy and I,we had already seen close to 30 deer.
Like I said,if I were the PGC,I wouldn't take anything that nutcase has to say as a compliment.I would simply stay far removed.
12-09-2009, 11:44 AM
#17
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Stakeholders are not represented. Only hunters sit on the Game Commission in Pennsylvania."
They dont like being a "hunter" is a necessity of gaining a seat on the board, or so its believed. They dont like the technicality. Course its not hard to play pretend. Which is what I suspect a few have done. Probably not much funny having to pretend you are something your not. Remember how stupid John Kerry came out looking when he tried to gain the hunter vote?
They dont like being a "hunter" is a necessity of gaining a seat on the board, or so its believed. They dont like the technicality. Course its not hard to play pretend. Which is what I suspect a few have done. Probably not much funny having to pretend you are something your not. Remember how stupid John Kerry came out looking when he tried to gain the hunter vote?
12-09-2009, 12:12 PM
#18
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Doug says: ".Didn't he go to some place in the upper mid west?"
Minnesota
As far as your hunting stories of success, thats swell and all, but doesnt mean much where most of these debates are concerned. IF you mean simply that you can do it so anyone.... an individual should be able to, fine and dandy. But that doesnt do the masses in Pa much good or the sport of hunting in Pennsylvania overall.
Ive posted many times and ive seen bb do so as well, but have never seen you comment, so Im curious as to your take on this. We CANNOT have more hunters successful and on a sustained basis when we are ALREADY harvesting enough to stabilize (further reduce according to annual reports) the deer herd! IF more hunters suddenly become super hunters and harvest deer the herd shrinks further. Thats supposedly not the goal for one, and for two, if it occurred it would be counterproductive to the hunters themselves having to hunt an even smaller herd. Its not possible. Cannot add harvest on a sustained basis. Physically impossible. Only way possible is to allow herd growth first, then when the desired level is reached, shoot for stabilization. The harvest would then be higher than it is now, and on a sustainable basis.
Minnesota
As far as your hunting stories of success, thats swell and all, but doesnt mean much where most of these debates are concerned. IF you mean simply that you can do it so anyone.... an individual should be able to, fine and dandy. But that doesnt do the masses in Pa much good or the sport of hunting in Pennsylvania overall.
Ive posted many times and ive seen bb do so as well, but have never seen you comment, so Im curious as to your take on this. We CANNOT have more hunters successful and on a sustained basis when we are ALREADY harvesting enough to stabilize (further reduce according to annual reports) the deer herd! IF more hunters suddenly become super hunters and harvest deer the herd shrinks further. Thats supposedly not the goal for one, and for two, if it occurred it would be counterproductive to the hunters themselves having to hunt an even smaller herd. Its not possible. Cannot add harvest on a sustained basis. Physically impossible. Only way possible is to allow herd growth first, then when the desired level is reached, shoot for stabilization. The harvest would then be higher than it is now, and on a sustainable basis.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-09-2009 at 12:14 PM.
12-09-2009, 12:47 PM
#19
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"These guys use the word, "science" like its a sword."
Thats because they think the second its mentioned, any input from "average joes" automatically becomes null and void. Fact of the matter is, the science isnt the problem anyway. Its the goals. The science behind this program is right on the money towards meeting goals imho. The goals are asnine. Unfortunately noone but a few value the goals of extreme and unnatural levels of diversity. This "goal" is smudged by claims of "its for the habitat". Kinda like someone saying Im gonna cut a shooting lane from my archery stand... Then procede to break out the husqvarna & cut a 500 yard x50 completely cleared field. So it is with the extremeness of the deer plan. There is much proof, not the least of which the changes a couple of years ago in the assessment methods. Making them even stricter than previously. That wasnt done for reasonable habitat addressing or herd health period. It was for biodiversity extreme goals and basically dcnr did everything but come out and say such on their web page when speaking of the pgc deer plan and explaining the "change", which THEY were largely responsible for although according to some, they arent the ones pulling the strings. lol.
Thats because they think the second its mentioned, any input from "average joes" automatically becomes null and void. Fact of the matter is, the science isnt the problem anyway. Its the goals. The science behind this program is right on the money towards meeting goals imho. The goals are asnine. Unfortunately noone but a few value the goals of extreme and unnatural levels of diversity. This "goal" is smudged by claims of "its for the habitat". Kinda like someone saying Im gonna cut a shooting lane from my archery stand... Then procede to break out the husqvarna & cut a 500 yard x50 completely cleared field. So it is with the extremeness of the deer plan. There is much proof, not the least of which the changes a couple of years ago in the assessment methods. Making them even stricter than previously. That wasnt done for reasonable habitat addressing or herd health period. It was for biodiversity extreme goals and basically dcnr did everything but come out and say such on their web page when speaking of the pgc deer plan and explaining the "change", which THEY were largely responsible for although according to some, they arent the ones pulling the strings. lol.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-09-2009 at 12:49 PM.
12-09-2009, 02:12 PM
#20
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
As far as your hunting stories of success, thats swell and all, but doesnt mean much where most of these debates are concerned. IF you mean simply that you can do it so anyone.... an individual should be able to, fine and dandy. But that doesnt do the masses in Pa much good or the sport of hunting in Pennsylvania overall.
Ive posted many times and ive seen bb do so as well, but have never seen you comment, so Im curious as to your take on this. We CANNOT have more hunters successful and on a sustained basis when we are ALREADY harvesting enough to stabilize (further reduce according to annual reports) the deer herd! IF more hunters suddenly become super hunters and harvest deer the herd shrinks further. Thats supposedly not the goal for one, and for two, if it occurred it would be counterproductive to the hunters themselves having to hunt an even smaller herd. Its not possible. Cannot add harvest on a sustained basis. Physically impossible. Only way possible is to allow herd growth first, then when the desired level is reached, shoot for stabilization. The harvest would then be higher than it is now, and on a sustainable basis.