Short Sighted Game Commission

[venado]

http://republicanherald.com/pgc-short-sighted-1.765678



If the "Gang of Six" really wants to make hunters happy, they should instruct staff to develop a strain of deer that will only live on public land and bucks that in a 12-month span grow an 8-point rack, not including, of course, brow tines.
:thrasher:

[GF.]

So the public land hunting will get worse and worse, the private land overcrowding wil lget worse and worse, and the whining will get worse and worse....

Big improvement! :aetsch:

[Renegade]

Can't say that I am in total disagreement with the board, maybe more so than not. In my annual letter to them I did suggest that it was time to back off some on the allocations, at least for my area which is unit 4D. It's been a constant 40k for 5 years now and it's really taken a toll. I felt / feel as though with sightings so few that we may start to lose some hunters. I ran into the first person I've heard of (sans internet babble) that actually quit hunting. He wasn't a big hunter, deer and occasionally rabbits, but it may catch on. So I wanted a decrease in doe tags but I like the extra opportunity of the longer season.
However thats where I disagree with the BOC. The extra time was a benefit to hunters, especially those with limited vacation days or who didn't have the seniority to get the first couple days off. This also went against the current study underway of 4 other units to specifically see which had the more effect on the harvest; days or tags.
These two changes together could potentially do more harm than good and set the clock back.

However, keeping things in perspective, we knew there would come a time when the herd was allowed to increase, just not to levels from the 2000 era. The herd had to be taken down lower than normal, to allow growth to rebound and catch up, before it could be increased to a more balanced level. So the question is, did they jump the gun on what was inevitably coming?

[GF.]

The herd had to be taken down lower than normal, to allow growth to rebound and catch up, before it could be increased to a more balanced level.

Amazing how often that gets overlooked. But if the hunters aren't prepared to weather a few comparatively lean years, they'll never get beyond them....

[purple heart]

Renegade, knocking the deer herd down to let the growth (winter food supply) come back is
what Vermont had to do back in the 90s. We had enough food to feed all the deer in the spring,
summer, and fall but when the deer yarded up in the winter and were eating browse they soon
ate themselves out of food and starved to death. It takes only a few years to deplete the browse but
it takes several years for the browse to grow back.

[Renegade]

I agree PurpleHeart. That's the same issue we had here and now the damage is done. And some people just can't grasp that the food supply changes with the seasons or that farmers don't grow crops just to feed lots of deer for them to hunt.
There's a guy from another sight that wanted to take me and another guy for a walk in the woods where he hunts to show us theres plenty of food for the deer. We had planned to do this back in January and would wait till the snow melt to let us in and make things visible. Well, outta sight outta mind I had figured he forgot about it. A week or two ago he sends us a pm saying he's free to go the 22nd or 23rd of this month. Well of course theres going to be food now. It's the lushest time of the year for growth. We needed to go before green up which is the crucial time of the year when the cupboards are their barest.
So I tell him this and that I am now into too many projects around the house to get away. He says "we'll try another time, that the habitat is here 24/7/365"! I still don't think he got it.

[Badger]

purple heart,

For years the PGC said it had to kill off the PA deer herd to obtain "healthy habitat." Here we are 8 years into the herd reduction and as of last report PGC says most forests in the WMUs are NOT regenerating. The deer took a "bad rap" and acid rain was the culprit. I have been turkey hunting since the season opened and EVERY forest I have hunted was FULL of regeneration: NO deer sightings, but lots of regeneration.

The "Gang of 6" got it right- it is time for the deer herd to rebound in PA. I support the current PGC Board for its sense of correct actions for our deer. The former Board had no clue other than that nonsense, "Stay the Course."

Non-residents are entitled to their opinions. The PGC maintains wildlife for ALL Pensylvanians while only 8% of Pennsylvanians pay the PGC expenses. Hunter pay the bills and at LONG last are being heard by that "Gang of Six." Halleluia.

Badger

[Renegade]

Speaking of those who don't get it....... Hi Badger.
Why don't you show us that report you speak of that says most of the forests are "NOT regenerating".......beeecause here's what the latest report from the PGC says about forest regeneration.
"Forest habitat health was judged to be good in 2 WMUs, fair in 15 WMUs, and poor in 4 WMUs."

How do they determine "good, fair, or poor"? I'm glad you ask...
"we defined forest habitat as “good” if 70% or more of the sampled plots contained adequate regeneration. If less than 50% of the plots contained adequate regeneration, forest habitat health was considered “poor”. “Fair” falls between levels for “good” and “poor”.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=563677&contentid=http://pubcontent.state.pa.us/publishedcontent/publish/marketingsites/game_commission/content/resources/reportsandminutes/annualwildlifemanagementreports/ci_data_2008_deer_21001.html&mode=2

So 17 out of 22 units have over 50% adequate regeneration at these plots. The remaining 4 units have less, however it didn't seem to list any units that have NO regeneration.

And it's nice of you to start climbing on the wagon now when things are finally turning around due to past actions. I predict many of you naysayers will be doing the same now that the worst is over and as stated years ago, the herd will be brought to a level that's in balance with it's habitat.

Oh, and while you looking for that mystical report, why don't you show us some shred of evidence that acid rain was the culprit. Or maybe a reason why acid rain doesn't fall inside exclosure fences??

[Badger]

Renegade,

I suggest You do not get it! Are you declaring "Success" when habitat health is "good" in 2 Units, Fair in 15 units and Poor in 4! You do not get it BECAUSE the deer have been LONG GONE and the Habitat is NOT even good. What are you smoking? Go do a soil test at your local Penn State Extention Office and they will tell you the PH of your soil. Ask Penn State folks IF Acid Rain is falling on your property. Penn State will provide you that "shred of evidence."

If you wish to discuss any subject in future, please take the corncob out of your butt! You sound like those tiresome non-residents! Are you a farmer, or do you live on one acre in a housing development? If you refuse to be civil, then please do not reply to my posts here. If you look above, you will see I replied to purple heart and not you. I refuse to address folks with implanted CORNCOBS!

Badger

[venado]

Patience renegade, seems that Badger didn't take his recent training sessions to heart any more than he did those on accounting long ago.:dontknow:

[venado]

http://www.centredaily.com/2010/05/02/1950073/reverting-back-for-the-future.html




While it is clear that the board is moving in a new, non-biological direction, rarely if ever during the meeting was there a mention of increasing the deer herd or a change in the deer density target. That lack of honesty with the sporting public is appalling. What this amounts to is that six of the eight commissioners caved into political and dissatisfied hunter pressure. Dissatisfied hunters are now more important than biology.

Seems that the current board fits in well with the complainers and their ignorance and lack of honesty. All the more reason to acclaim that the previous "stay the course" commisioners were the best thing that ever happened to the interests of all Pennsylvanians.

[Badger]

Venado,

HOW do you KNOW the previous "stay the course" commisioners were the BEST thing that ever happened to the interests of all Pennsylvanians? Please show your credentials for this bold statement.

Some folks would say PGC cannot assume to be using biology when less than 40% of deer hunters send in the required report cards. What does PGC USE for deer numbers other than their self-serving BJBS numbers?

The "Gang of Six" you so detest are LISTENING to the PA hunters. The PA deer deserve a break and if that gives you fits- Well so much the better! Our legislators and new PGC Board members are Listening to the PA hunters. Go spout your venom all you want, we can manage PA affairs just fine by ourselves.

Have a nice day.

Badger

[Renegade]

My my. There's a surprise. A naysayer can't respond with any logical or substantial substance or can't answer the questions ask of him, so he starts with the name calling and derogatory remarks while injecting their fantasies.

What I'm declaring is way more success than your assertion that there has been none. However much more success can be achieved. Although if you never were able to notice the problem, the solution and improvement will also elude you.

Penn State will provide you that "shred of evidence."
Nice of you to make claims you can't back up and then defer the burden of proof to others to provide. Well lets just see what some at penn state co-op extension has to say.

4. Has regeneration research been too narrowly focused on deer effects? No. In the 1960s and 1970s, when the forest regeneration problem in Pennsylvania was first noticed, scientists at the Lab instituted a comprehensive study of the factors that might be implicated in these problems. Advance regeneration, soil qualities, deer impact, and forest management were all explored as options. The impact of white-tailed deer emerged from those studies as by far the most important single factor predicting the outcome of regeneration treatments; abundance of advance regeneration was the second-best predictor.
http://cambria.extension.psu.edu/nresources/RegSeries6.htm

or how about these quotes:
"People in Europe have been talking about acid rain — more appropriately acid deposition, because acid is present in not only rain but snow, fog, and dry particles — for a long time," he said. In 1872, the British chemist Robert Angus Smith coined the term "acid rain" in Air and Rain: The Beginnings of a Chemical Climatology. Smith had taken careful chemical readings of rain in Britain and Germany over a period of 20 years during the Industrial Revolution. He found high levels of sulfuric acid, sometimes as high as 21 parts per million; he attributed them to the burning of coal.

"The phenomenon of acid rain is not new. It has been active for more than a billion years," Abelson wrote in the July 8, 1983, issue. "In addition to carbon dioxide, other substances contribute to acidity. About as much sulfur compounds are released worldwide to the atmosphere naturally each year as are put there by humans. In islands thousands of kilometers removed from industrial activity and presumably unaffected by it, rain with pH 4.7 is common. Soils having a pH of 3.5 are formed without human participation in the process.

"I am not an atmospheric chemist, but I’ve talked to most of the best in the world and they don’t know what’s going on. For example, if you look at a map that shows the acidity of the rainfall all over the world, one of the surprises is that rain is more acidic in the Falkland Islands than it is in Pennsylvania. They’re not burning any coal down there.
http://www.rps.psu.edu/edchoice/rain.html

Oh my, acid rain has been around for years.... even when most of our current forests were just re-growing and we had few deer. But how could that possibly be if nothing grows in this poisoned dirt?

[Badger]

Renegade,

I cannot separate your lecture from your sermon: What IS IT you wish to say? Please take a handful of your soil to the Penn State Extention Service and find out if it is ACIDIC. No "name calling or fantacies," just a soil test on your land and any forest land you visit. Again, PLEASE take the corncob out of your posterior! That will improve your humor 100%.

Do you have a clue how many tons of coal are being burned to the West of PA today? We have very few deer and POOR forest regeneration. How can you blame the non-existant deer? No name-calling here, just an understanding you do not have a clue. Test your soil and be surprised by the PH.

Are you a farmer or just a resident on an acre, OR LESS , who does not have a clue? You need to "get a grip" or else be a stand-up comic for non-residents.

Peace be unto you.

Badger

[Renegade]

Not giving neither a lecture nor a sermon, just stating the obvious with some facts to dispute your personal opinions. Am I typing too fast or just using too much logic? Sorry your having trouble following along. My apologies.

Let me explain some basics on soil for you. ph or Potential for Hydrogen is a scale (0-14) measured above or below a neutral ph of seven(7). You will not find any forest soil anywhere that is at a ph of 7. And as the PSU paper said, it hasn't been for over a century. Most oak trees grow in the 4.0-5.0 ph range.

Bottom line, is the soil acidic, yes. Can trees grow in acidic soil, yes. Have trees in PA grown in acidic soil, yes, apparently for over a hundred years. Can a diversity of plants and trees grow in pa, in the current soils, when only one variable is removed (deer), yes.
Might I suggest you go talk to a farmer or a forester to get an understanding of plant and tree growth and all the variables that can effect.

And on a personal note. Please quit obsessing with my "posterior"!

[Renegade]

Here's a link that might help you gain some insight Badger.
http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2311.pdf

[venado]

Badgers failure to follow up is indicative of his ability to deal with facts. Once into emotional control the human mind rarely is able to right itself.



Let me explain some basics on soil for you. ph or Potential for Hydrogen is a scale (0-14) measured above or below a neutral ph of seven(7). You will not find any forest soil anywhere that is at a ph of 7. And as the PSU paper said, it hasn't been for over a century. Most oak trees grow in the 4.0-5.0 ph range.

Bottom line, is the soil acidic, yes. Can trees grow in acidic soil, yes. Have trees in PA grown in acidic soil, yes, apparently for over a hundred years. Can a diversity of plants and trees grow in pa, in the current soils, when only one variable is removed (deer), yes.
Might I suggest you go talk to a farmer or a forester to get an understanding of plant and tree growth and all the variables that can effect.



renegade, that is about as succinct a summary as can be made. I understand why Badger's cogent rebuttal is slow in coming.

Providing a link for Badger to read is a waste of time. Of course those of us that don't live full time in PA appreciate your link because it helps us understand how myopic and irrational the few Pennsylvanians are that support the USP and need legislative help to offset their hunting incompetence.



And on a personal note. Please quit obsessing with my "posterior"!


Maybe there is something about his obsession that made him chose his screen name; isn't there a relationship between badgers and holes? He seems to resort to such deviant thoughts when he has lost control of a discussion.

[Badger]

Venado,

Why don't you check with PGC and see how much LIME, TONS of Lime, they put down to obtain certain tree regeneration in PA? Secondly, acid soil may have been present for a hundred years in PA, but even you may acknowledge that coal-fired electric plants West of PA are burning more coal now than 100 years ago. Do you think (?) we are using more electricity in 2010 than in 1910?

Various gun clubs nearby are donating LIME, tons of it, to PGC for spreading on Game Lands to CHANGE the soil PH that is inhibiting forest regeneration. If you resided here, even you would be enlightened. BUT, then again, maybe not. Anyway, go to PGC and find out how many tons of lime they put down ANNUALLY, and to think they never advised you. Eh, wot? LOL!

Badger

[venado]

Badger, as you will note, others have provided references from independent sources that deal specifically with deer and regeneration. No one suggested that some PA soil was not acidic naturally nor that acidity has been increased to some extent due to emissions from outside the state. However from reading your comment I understand that you wanted me to find for you information to support your absurd position. You must have totally lost your mind..!!:vollkommenauf:

If you want to contribute, tell us specifically what has been done as far as liming is concerned and show us definitively what the results are regarding regeneration and how many more deer per sq. mi. can be carried with added lime and still provide adequate forest regeneration. This emotion that controls your thoughts doesn't carry water in an intelligent discussion. Suppose you tell us how liming the state of PA to provide incompetent hunters with more deer would be a viable investment for all of the people of the state.

[Altjaeger]

While answering Venado's question please answer the question that has been asked of you so often and you assidously aviod answering. Why is it that on land in which deer are fenced out the vegetation quickly regenerates while where they are not remains suppressed or regenerates slowly if it is acid rains fault?

[Renegade]

Badger, please answer questions ask of you. Your avoidance speaks volumes.
The PGC uses lime for growing crops in fielded settings, just as some farmers do. Nothing new there. And yeah, you need TONS. Bags don't get you very far. Again, talk to a farmer.

From the USDA Forest Service: http://cambria.extension.psu.edu/nresources/RegSeries6.htm
Will broad-scale application of 1.5 tons per acre of dolomitic limestone improve regeneration outcomes in Pennsylvania forests?
We don't know, but we strongly doubt it. Our own research on liming, herbicides, and fencing shows that fencing is a much more important way to improve regeneration outcomes. Even at 10 tons per acre of dolomitic limestone, in our study, regeneration responses were complex, subtle, and appeared to be short-lived.
We are currently in the process of analyzing regeneration data from a long-term study (now in its 17th year) on the Susquehannock State Forest, and under most circumstances, we would hesitate to share results until they had been thoroughly reviewed for publication in a refereed journal. However, because of the policy implications of the Penn State press release, we share some of these results with you and with our colleagues. In the Susquehannock State Forest study, we treated stands with all possible combinations of liming (10 tons per acre of dolomitic limestone), herbicide, and fencing, and have followed both overstory trees and regeneration since 1985. Fencing is by far the strongest predictor of good regeneration. There are some species that appear to be affected by the lime applications, or by the interaction of lime application and one or more of the other factors, but these effects are much subtler than the fence effect. The effects we do observe appear to be short-lived. While it is not possible to know for certain if those effects would persist if the lime amount were 1.5 tons per acre rather than 10 tons per acre, we believe it to be quite unlikely.

Several studies reported by Dr. Sharpe and his graduate students involve application of 2.94 tons per acre of dolomitic limestone, with mixed results on regeneration. For example, the best annual growth observed in natural red oak seedlings that received the limestone treatment in combination with fencing to exclude deer and fertilization with potassium and phosphate was less than 2 inches. We believe that a careful, well-designed study of potential rates of lime application should be undertaken before widespread adoption of such a practice would be prudent.

Our studies include only those species that occur naturally in the forests where the study sites are located. Although we have recently increased our research in oak regeneration problems, those studies to date do not include lime additions, although soil and foliar nutrient status will be assessed. But, we believe that the 15-year results in our study are a much stronger basis for devising a list of acid-sensitive and acid-tolerant species than a study of root elongation conducted over 6 days in a Penn State lab, as Dr. Sharpe's list was prepared. Thus, we believe that sugar maple is indeed sensitive to the calcium and magnesium status of the sites where it occurs, while we do not find striped maple to be sensitive to these variables either positively or negatively.
----------------------------------------------

Here's another study on lime and fertilizer I came across, by non other than Dr. Bill Sharpe.

Forest floor plant response to lime and fertilizer before and after partial cutting of a northern red oak stand on an extremely acidic soil in Pennsylvania, USA

M. C. DemchikCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and W. E. Sharpe
Environmental Resources Research Institute and School of Forest Resources, Land and Water Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
Received 10 January 2000; accepted 12 March 2000 Available online 22 March 2001.

Abstract

Liming and fertilization have been suggested as a means to remedy calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) deficiencies on acidic, base poor forested soils. However, little is known about the effect such treatments may have on forest floor plants in North America. The objective of this study was to determine if additions of dolomitic lime (6600 kg/ha) and fertilizer (110 kg/ha K2O, 220 kg/ha P2O5) would alter forest floor plant communities. Forest floor plants were monitored for 2 years prior and 2 years after partial cutting on plots that received lime and fertilizer and on control plots. Forest floor plant diversity was unaffected by lime and fertilizer application. Deer-tongue grass (Panicum clandestinum L.), white violet (Viola blanda Willd.), blue violet (Viola sororia Willd.) and Carex spp. increased in number on limed and fertilized plots. While not affected by lime and fertilizer, numbers of dwarf ginseng (Panax trifolius L.) and mayflower (Maianthemum canadense Desf.) decreased after cutting, while numbers of fire cherry (Prunus pensylvanica L.) and hay-scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula (Michx.)Moore) increased after cutting. A general trend toward decreased numbers of red oak (Quercus rubra L.) seedlings was also noted. While there was no effect of liming and fertilization on overall forest floor plant diversity, numbers of some species increased significantly.

[venado]

All of that information requires the ability to read and comprehend. When emotion is in command of a weak mind, neither is likely.

Renegade, it is your sort of post to a site like this that helps everyone understand what really occurs "on the ground" and makes the readers realize how little some incompetent hunters know about their surroundings. Those of the USP and their clones are easily controlled because they are extremely gullible to emotional BJBS that agrees with their predetermined opinion. They refuse to read anything that poses a counter opinion and when they see anything they oppose they immediately attack the person supplying the information.

We await Badger's response which I'm sure will be made up of factual researched analysis with his personal emotion removed.:deal:

[Renegade]

You are so right Venado. People like those who drive the PUS definitely use exploitation to their advantage by playing to hunters gullibility and lack of knowledge of the details involved. I'm all for everyone making up their own mind, but I'm also all for making "informed" decisions and not just based upon some sour grape grumblin' at a bar or around a campfire.

[GF.]

Hard to beat good science....

Badger is just a garden-variety fundamentalist whose religious affiliation happens to be with the USP. For some it's Islam, for others, it's Kristianity. "Believe it, without question, EXACTLY as I do or go to hell!":ridinghorse:

Can't reason with any of 'em....

[Altjaeger]

[QUOTE=Renegade;24650]Badger, please answer questions ask of you. Your avoidance speaks volumes.
The PGC uses lime for growing crops in fielded settings, just as some farmers do. Nothing new there. And yeah, you need TONS. Bags don't get you very far. Again, talk to a farmer.
[QUOTE]

Oops, hasn't Badger told us he is a farmer...and a CPA and a former Federal Agent and a graduate of the Seminary?:biggrin:

[Renegade]

I guess that's like the hydraulic oil salesman, the chemist, and the financial planner telling us their forest and wildlife management experts!:confused1: Their comments show otherwise.