Shisslers "Pa's best deer management in nation" revisited
12-11-2009, 09:52 AM
#81
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Yet you fail to realize, that by him making a statement like that, he must have feelings that lean that way."
RSB has voiced that EXACT same sentiment on hpa for years prior to the comment about hunter taking a flying leap. He was not frustrated into saying it and having a slip of the tongue. He is environmentalist minded wco who mirrors the agencies position on hunters 100%. NON hunter friendly period.
RSB has voiced that EXACT same sentiment on hpa for years prior to the comment about hunter taking a flying leap. He was not frustrated into saying it and having a slip of the tongue. He is environmentalist minded wco who mirrors the agencies position on hunters 100%. NON hunter friendly period.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-11-2009 at 09:59 AM.
12-11-2009, 09:57 AM
#82
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"I really find it sadly amusing that many hunters who claim to be worried about outside funding being a threat (with which I agree 100%) are also the idiots who are behind the pressure on the legislature to strangle the PGC by continuing to deny a reasonable license fee increase."
Currently the legislators (in this case governor & a small portion of econut senators & reps)and dcnr ARE pulling the strings. They are doing it and not accountable to the people AT ALL because they are doing it "THROUGH" what is supposedly an independant answer to noone agency. Also if pgc is slitting their own throats by preventing themselves from getting funding, that PROVES exactly what I am saying. IF the agency itself were a major concern, theyd do what it takes to stay in existence. They should make the adjustmenst and get the fee increase. If they dont, then I guess the real enemy will no longer have anyone to hide behind. Hope that clears up your confusion on the informed hunter position in regards to license fee increase.
Currently the legislators (in this case governor & a small portion of econut senators & reps)and dcnr ARE pulling the strings. They are doing it and not accountable to the people AT ALL because they are doing it "THROUGH" what is supposedly an independant answer to noone agency. Also if pgc is slitting their own throats by preventing themselves from getting funding, that PROVES exactly what I am saying. IF the agency itself were a major concern, theyd do what it takes to stay in existence. They should make the adjustmenst and get the fee increase. If they dont, then I guess the real enemy will no longer have anyone to hide behind. Hope that clears up your confusion on the informed hunter position in regards to license fee increase.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-11-2009 at 10:00 AM.
12-11-2009, 10:15 AM
#83
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Btb said:"Not defending Shissler. I dont think much of him either."
Then why did you make this post?
http://http://huntingnet.com/forum/n...ow-supper.html
Then why did you make this post?
http://http://huntingnet.com/forum/n...ow-supper.html
12-11-2009, 12:01 PM
#84
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Hope you didnt misunderstand there Doug. I didnt doubt anything you said. I was defending the idea that hunters like yourself who work at it or hunt smarter DO find the deer.
Look back at the pages and you'll see that it was not me who questioned your accounts of your success. This new system doesnt seem to pull the entire post when you do a quote sometimes and my last post wound up a bit misleading.
I was stickin up for ya bud!
Look back at the pages and you'll see that it was not me who questioned your accounts of your success. This new system doesnt seem to pull the entire post when you do a quote sometimes and my last post wound up a bit misleading.
I was stickin up for ya bud!
12-11-2009, 12:06 PM
#85
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
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.
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.
That's never been the case and that's never going to happen.Every year I drive by dozens of vehicles parked where hunters can see for hundreds of yards.Unsuccessful hunters hunt the same areas year after year,regardless of habitat conditions and deer numbers.It's easier to complain than it is to put some effort into hunting.Sorry but that's the truth.Deer shouldn't be spread out evenly accross the landscape.
Pole timber is poor habitat and will never support many deer.When an areas turns into pole timber I find a new place to hunt rather than complaining about no deer.Saw timber is a different story.Saw timber provides a better seed sporce and there should in fact be an understory.
12-11-2009, 12:17 PM
#86
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"That's never been the case and that's never going to happen."
But you continuously suggest thats exactly what they SHOULD do. Go where the deer are right? Well if everyone did as you suggest, the few areas that arent already reduced heavily, the pocket here or there....would then be reduced. Theoretically your advice wouldnt solve a thing, and in fact would do more harm than good!
Can be no increased harvest with our current herd size or the herd will be reduced even further. The number of deer is not unlimited and harvest does have an effect on those numbers. According to pgc statement the current harvest is stabilizing the herd. According to their data it is still reducing it. Either way, no room for adding even more harvest if stabilization is to be the goal.
But you continuously suggest thats exactly what they SHOULD do. Go where the deer are right? Well if everyone did as you suggest, the few areas that arent already reduced heavily, the pocket here or there....would then be reduced. Theoretically your advice wouldnt solve a thing, and in fact would do more harm than good!
Can be no increased harvest with our current herd size or the herd will be reduced even further. The number of deer is not unlimited and harvest does have an effect on those numbers. According to pgc statement the current harvest is stabilizing the herd. According to their data it is still reducing it. Either way, no room for adding even more harvest if stabilization is to be the goal.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-11-2009 at 12:22 PM.
12-11-2009, 12:22 PM
#87
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
"Yet you fail to realize, that by him making a statement like that, he must have feelings that lean that way."
RSB has voiced that EXACT same sentiment on hpa for years prior to the comment about hunter taking a flying leap. He was not frustrated into saying it and having a slip of the tongue. He is environmentalist minded wco who mirrors the agencies position on hunters 100%. NON hunter friendly period.
RSB has voiced that EXACT same sentiment on hpa for years prior to the comment about hunter taking a flying leap. He was not frustrated into saying it and having a slip of the tongue. He is environmentalist minded wco who mirrors the agencies position on hunters 100%. NON hunter friendly period.
I know R.S.B. well enough and have spent enough time in the field with him to call him a personal friend.Sometimes impressions you get on the internet are entirely different when you get to know someone personally.I used to think he was a nut but that's not the case at all.R.S.B. is anything but hunter unfriendly.He's one of the most dedicated professionals out there and he's far from an extreme envromentalist.He cares about the habitat,the deer and every other species that depends on the habitat.He's not a flower sniffing weirdo.He's also a top-notch investigating WCO.
12-11-2009, 12:25 PM
#88
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
"That's never been the case and that's never going to happen."
But you continuously suggest thats exactly what they SHOULD do. Go where the deer are right? Well if everyone did as you suggest, the few areas that arent already reduced heavily, the pocket here or there....would then be reduced. Theoretically your advice wouldnt solve a thing, and in fact would do more harm than good!
Can be no increased harvest with our current herd size or the herd will be reduced even further. The number of deer is not unlimited and harvest does have an effect on those numbers. According to pgc statement the current harvest is stabilizing the herd. According to their data it is still reducing it. Either way, no room for adding even more harvest if stabilization is to be the goal.
But you continuously suggest thats exactly what they SHOULD do. Go where the deer are right? Well if everyone did as you suggest, the few areas that arent already reduced heavily, the pocket here or there....would then be reduced. Theoretically your advice wouldnt solve a thing, and in fact would do more harm than good!
Can be no increased harvest with our current herd size or the herd will be reduced even further. The number of deer is not unlimited and harvest does have an effect on those numbers. According to pgc statement the current harvest is stabilizing the herd. According to their data it is still reducing it. Either way, no room for adding even more harvest if stabilization is to be the goal.
12-11-2009, 12:29 PM
#89
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,621
Sorry, but you really had me laughing with that line!
12-11-2009, 12:29 PM
#90
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
I have no doubt about rsb's law enforcement capabilities, and have never seen anyone draw them into question. Hes done a fine job toting the badge for years as attested to by many articles etc. Ive read through the years of his work. He may also be a fine human being personally.
However.... His beliefs in regards to many facets of "hunting" related issues and "hunters", such as what role they should play and all that involves....Not to mention some VERY extreme views on deer management.....
Are not "hunter friendly". I didnt call him a nut. I didnt attack the man personally. Aside from the very distorted views on deer management issues, seems to be a very personable guy.
However.... His beliefs in regards to many facets of "hunting" related issues and "hunters", such as what role they should play and all that involves....Not to mention some VERY extreme views on deer management.....
Are not "hunter friendly". I didnt call him a nut. I didnt attack the man personally. Aside from the very distorted views on deer management issues, seems to be a very personable guy.