Verdict is in on PA game management

[venado]

Posted by Marcus Schneck, Harrisburg Patriot-News - April 20, 2009

Bryon Shissler, a wildlife biologist who has frequently criticized the Pennsylvania Game Commission's management of the state's deer herd, today told the agency he was unable to find a better deer management program in the continental U.S.
Working with the Pinchot Institute, Shissler's Ecosystem Management Project set out in 2005 to find deer management programs in other states from which better ideas could be copied and brought back to improve the Pennsylvania program.
However, researchers involved in the study of programs in all the lower 48 state, which was completed last fall, did not find those better ideas.
"We were somewhat disappointed in what we found," Shissler told the Board of Game Commissioners. Most states are not managing deer based on overall ecosystem goals, but on deer production goals.
"Our goal was to go out and steal those ideas and bring them back. We didn't find very much. There's very little science driving most deer management programs," noted the man whose organization was set up to move deer management farther into the realm of science.
"Pennsylvania has one of the most progresssive deer management programs in the country," he said.
Shissler admitted to expecting to find that "super agencies," in which Game, Fish and Boat, Conservation and Natural Resources, and other resource functions were all combined into agency, had larger and better funding supporting more science-based deer management.
However, he noted, "most deer management programs are run on a shoestring budget."
The one-time advocate of merging the agencies in Pennsylvania explained, "When you merge agencies you don't necessarily get better deer management. You don't necessarily get more money.
He blamed the lack of funding and lack of science in deer management on "political compromise" caused by hunters not wanting to lose control of deer management decisions.
"Pennsylvania has the best program we found," he said.
While he would rate the average across the U.S. a three, on a scale of one to 10 with 10 representing optimum ecosystem-based deer management, Shissler said, he would score Pennsylvania with a five.
That leaves " a long way to go," he pointed out. "We're on the right track, but we have a long way to go."
Shissler did not back away from his previous statements that deer management in Pennsylvania is a "flawed" system.
He pointed to the state's lack of funding from a broader base than hunters to support wildlife management and lack of broader representation from interests other than hunters on the Board of Commissioners, as well as inadequate measures of the ecosystem effectiveness of the state's evolving deer management program, as central to the flaw.
===============
Here was a guy looking at all states and he could find nothing better, yet a few malcontents continue to complain that their state agency, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, don't know what they do about management. :D

[Altjaeger]

Sounds like he is wishing a "Pie in the Sky" operation that the citizens of no state would be willing to finance.

As far as the USP and its sympathizers go they will hate his programs more. He is likely to call for greater reductions in the herd for the environment. Their goals are to grow the herd past carrying capacity as it was so many years. That is the very thing he is critizing in other states.

[GF.]

CT is working pretty hard to get things in check, with unlimited doe tags in the hardest-hit areas, an earn-a-buck program, a January bow season, and so on. They've done everything they can to get the numbers down - short of permitting Sunday hunting, anyway - and yet they're still losing ground.

They're not helped by a local 'sportsmen's' group that started whining about overharvest once they stopped seeing deer at the rate of one per half hour and actually had to go 90 whole minutes between sightings... One of the poor SOBs actually went from 14 bow-killed deer a year down to just 5, so of course he had all kinds of reasons to worry they were headed for the endangered species list....

This in a state where public land MLers (statistically speakin') can look forward to punching a tag once every 20-25 years....:rolleyes:

All CT really needs to do to cure their overpopulation issue is to promote acceptance of hunting - and particularly bowhunting - to the point where people with deer in their yards are more likely than not to grant access to a bowhunter who can present himself as knowledgeable, thoughtful, courteous, brave, thrifty & reverent...

Probably one of the worst hidden obstacles is the handful of guys who are super-successful at getting access to more property than they can realistically hunt. Then you have guys (like me :o ) who would be willing to make a concerted effort to take a deer or two off of every property they could get onto, but who end up locked out by someone who might hit the property twice a season :mad:

A lot of guys don't care for this line of reasoning, but IMHO, if a state has a 50% overall success rate (meaning that half of all of the hunters will punch at least one tag by one method or another) - then they've got too damn many deer....

[dave-t.]

Be careful of managing land for multi-use and recreational users. MO, which has had a wonderful Conservation Dept, is slipping and sliding into a very liberal organization, where hunting and fishing does not have the focus as is once had.

The dept is funded by a state wide 1/8 cent sales tax, in addition to the tag and fees revenue. They are rolling in dough, and hire on other principals than who is most capable or has the most experience for doing the job. There are getting to be an aweful lot of folks working for the MO Dept of Conservation that have never hunted for fished in their life....nor do they want to.

Their goals are not necesarily the goals of sportsman. In fact, many sportsman are wanting to repeal the 1/8 cents sales tax as a wake up call to the MDC to get them back on the straight and narrow.

Planning a ballanced and healthy eco system is a fantastic goal, but be sure of who is at the top of the organization, and what their other goals may entail.

[Herne]

One shouldn't also forget that superbly true statement - the best is the enemy of the good.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Venado, thanks for bringing this acticle to our attention. You are good at sharing stuff from PA with us. :D I for one appreciate it and some that haven't showed up yet should listen.

One thing that got my attention was the "There's very little science driving most deer management programs," noted the man whose organization was set up to move deer management farther into the realm of science." This is indeed sad :mad:

Let me welcome you other posters back and hope that you will continue to add your comments.

[Herne]

Is there any science in any deer management? As opposed to guiding principles? (Talking of the management of populations over a large area, rather than the macro management of smaller, very often contained populations?)

You want to look at some of our forestry Commission systems of counting deer numbers. You can lard it up with science, but in the end there is always a huge "by guess and by God " factor.

In the end you are trying, in this context, to put the needs of the deer population into some kind of arrangement which fits with a wide variety of "users".

The danger (and hence my comment above) is that any gov't dept will try to accommodate any and all interests. Hunters, farmers, foresters insurance companies - anyone who feel they have a claim of any sort. Rather than coming up with a best guess type strategy that ticks the major boxes.

PA, from what I have read, seems to have done quite well in that respect, even though they haven't got every one on side. But then you never will - and as yet, we have hardly mentioned deer. This being mainly a people management exercise.

[Smokey]

PA has done a good job in this area, although some still do not think so. As a kid hunting mainly Clinton and Potter Counties you never needed to worry about missing a buck in the morning because you would get another chance in the afternoon. Lots of deer, nice racks, and big bodied animals at that time. Then the populations went through a change with people seeing less deer, fewer bucks and then when you did see one , it was a spike or fork horn. Now with the rack limits or point count restrictions, more deer are seen and with larger racks.

The entire program is rather new and the real results are still somewhere in the future. But signs are good that they are on the right track.

[venado]

Thanks to everyone for the diverse and thoughtful replies. The situation in PA is one of great interest to me for a number of reasons. Where I hunt all of the circumstances of terrain, weather and property rights are very very different from that in PA; however as a couple of the posters noted, it is the people that are the tough thing to manage. The "by guess and by God" that Meyrick mentions is actually part of the "science" of deer management. The scientists tries things, records results and then changes as necessary to gradually move toward a set goal. "Science" in this case is not precise like counting money but is following trends to an end result.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Just for the sake of discussion and idle curosity, when were you a kid? I thought that PA has been overrun with deer and mostly first year bucks for many years.

Just curious.

Also, unless you are someone from the pervious board, I need to welcome you to the QDM forum.

[Herne]

Paul - here we have to disagree about the by guess and by God bit, because statistically there are just such huge errors in almost all aspects of counting deer.. Yes you can try to ameliorate their effects, by looking at results, but again, in large populations, the sample sizes are fraught with very low confidence factors. So one is back to trying to make a decent stab at it... based on very inexact info.

Not that that makes the thing not worth doing of course, but lets just say that deer managers need a bit of a feel for what they are doing.

My own feeling, not unfortunately based on close contact with the situation, is that the US hunting set up makes for much of the limitations imposed. Hunters don't regard sexing deer as natural (which means that antlerless seasons can do more harm than good - let him go so he can grow?), ARs help, but far better would be hunters who could select properly. While I don't claim we are perfect, or that one wants to go as far as German category system, you are not going to get very far when large numbers of hunters do not carry binos, and do not recognise what they are looking at if they do. You need proper doe seasons, with targets for numbers and all the rest.

Which means a big change in attitude and skill levels and expectations for the many, rather than the dedicated QDM few.

Still, Rome wasn't built in a day, but if QDM is to deliver the number of decent adult male deer to keep the many satisfied, controls and skills will HAVE to improve. I am sure that it would be wise to start on the training programmes in parallel with QDM in the field.

[Smokey]

When I was a kid I was always the one to fill out the camp rosters, required when five or more people hunted big game as a group in PA. On those rosters a variety of information was required. Rosters were done in duplicate with one nailed to the camp door and the other taped to the window of one of the vehicles. One of the items was make, model and caliber of the rifle being used by each individual. We usually had 25 people which was the maximum allowed to hunt together. I still remember some of those rosters as far as the guns being used - 21 model 94, 30-30's, one model 94 in 32 Special, one model 54 in .270, one Savage 99 in 250-3000 and one Savage bolt action [I think it was a model 340] in 30-30. No rifles had a scope. We hunted by driving the sides of the mountains and everyone stayed together at a hunting camp.

That was over 50 years ago. Some great memories from those hunting camps. We would tag around 20 bucks out of 25 hunters in a five day period. I believe there were 2 years where we got 25 for 25 hunters. Very hard hunting as one drive would be started as soon as the first was completed. We started at daylight and hunted till dark. No stopping for lunch, as you ate whatever was in a pocket or in the back pocket of the Woolrich hunting coat that most of us wore.

A lot of deer in those times. Now there is only a small percentage of what there used to be in that north-central corridor. But they say the population there is improving and the quality is improving.

Oh, I have been reading this forum for years. At one time I posted a lot but as I got busier I just ended up reading the posting of others.

[venado]

Smokey, that is a wonderful memory of firearms used in a time past and probably parallels most woods areas at that time. We are more "western" in a large portion of TX and the 270 and 30-06 were king 50 years ago and 4X scopes were common, most were Weavers but I went first class on my 30-06 and had a Kollmorgan 4X (which came to be Redfield).;)

[southtexas]

Venado: I have my dad's M740 which has a 4X Kollmorgan atop. He loved that ol' gun, but could never get it to shoot the way he wanted it to. He called it "Lightnin'"...not because it was fast. but because it never struck the same spot twice!;)

[venado]

ST, I do not recall what a M470 is. I traded my 06 (a Sako) and the Kollmorgan off years ago, but have several rifles with 6X Redfields which I like a lot.

BTW, if I recall the Kollmorgan had a 26mm tube rather than the common 1" (25.4mm).

[southtexas]

Venado:

the M740 Remington was the predecessor to the M742, and later the 7400. Semi-auto, 30/06 in this case.

And you are correct on the diameter of the tube. Never noticed that before; but I just put a mic on it, and it's 1.023"

[venado]

ST, must be my day for transposition. You had 740 and I read it as 470, no wonder I'm having trouble these days..!:confused:

[southtexas]

Like the bumper sticker I saw recently?

"Dyslexics untie"

[venado]

Don't lose those rings since I'll bet it would be difficult to find direct replacements unless they might be common for some European scopes.

My 740 story involves one in 30-06; about 1961 I was hunting in east TX and the rancher had one and asked me to sight it in. I must have gone through 15 to 20 rounds and everytime I'd get a cluster (wouldn't call it a group) and get it zeroed in. I'd wait and fire another round and it would be 6" or more out out. This went on until I gave up. I gave it to him and told him what had happened. That afternoon we went out in his pickup and were sitting on a pipeline right of way and a spike stepped out at what was in the order of 300+ yds. He sighted over the window and fired and the deer went down like the hammer of Thor hit him. I was shocked and asked where he was aiming and was told shoulder. We got there and the buck was hit right between the eyes and it split his skull so the two spikes just flopped. From then on he thought I could really sight in a rifle whereas it had hit about 2' away from where he was aiming. Luck surpasses skill many times in life and it is best not to question fate...!!:eek:

[Smokey]

venado,

What I always liked about this forum is all the information that was available. I have been around guns and hunting all my life and have read literally hundreds of books on the subject. I never heard of Kollmorgan till I read your post. Thanks for the info.

[venado]

Smokey, you are most welcome and believe me there are things that I learn daily from my fellow posters. As old as I am now I can now see that I probably will never "know it all" as I once did at age 25..!:rolleyes:

I'm headed out in a few minutes to go to the ranch. I've got a couple of guys that will be turkey hunting there and though I don't care anything for that, I do like sitting around and telling tales and good eats.

[Bob S]

Here is another article on the subject: ARTICLE (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/outdoors/s_623524.html)

By Bob Frye, TRIBUNE-REVIEW OUTDOORS EDITOR
Sunday, May 3, 2009

Pennsylvania's deer management program is not perfect, but it is more progressive than most of those in the country, according to the researchers behind an independent review of all such programs in the lower 48 states.

The study was done by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Researchers surveyed each state's top deer biologists — usually by phone, except in the case of the Game Commission, which was the only agency to require questions be put in writing — to find out how they handle deer. Those biologists were promised anonymity in an attempt to get the most honest answers.

Their answers were not overly impressive.

The scientists behind the study — Bryon Shissler, a Somerset County based biologist and frequent critic of the commission, and Marrett Grund, formerly a deer biologist with the Pennsylvania Game Commission now working for Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources — found that many states have no written deer management plan. Two-thirds have no quantitative way to measure whether their program is working. And only one other state besides Pennsylvania bases its deer program on healthy ecosystems, rather than just deer numbers.

"I can tell you we were somewhat disappointed with what we found," Shissler said.

Shissler said he had hoped to uncover the best methods for managing deer in the country and bring them back to be used in Pennsylvania.

There isn't much out there, though, he said. The deer management programs in most states operate on a "shoestring budget," devoting relatively little money to monitoring deer populations and their impact on forests and other habitats, he said.

The result is that they have "inadequate science" and instead rely on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters, "gut feelings" and "informed opinion" to make decisions.

Most biologists have a statewide deer population number they use, for example, because the public and hunters in particular demand one, "but they said they would not want to have to defend that number," Shissler said.

That's not to say Pennsylvania's program is perfect either, he said. On two occasions, Pennsylvanians — hunters and nonhunters — said their No. 1 deer goal was to manage deer to promote healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems.

To do that, he said, the commission needs to do more and better science, like the forest restoration studies that have been discussed for at least five years. And it can only do that by getting funding from and representing more than just hunters.

But clearly, the commission is doing something right, he added.

"Pennsylvania should be proud because I think we're on the cutting edge of where deer management needs to go," Shissler said.

"If I ranked deer management across the country, I'd give it a 3, on a scale of 1 to 10. But I'd give Pennsylvania a 5 because we're out ahead. But we still have a ways to go."

Game commissioner Dave Schreffler of Bedford County said the study's findings — namely its praise for the deer program here — was no surprise, given how much the commission has accomplished over the last few years.

"We are ahead of the ball. We are a leader," Schreffler said.

Commissioner Tom Boop of Northumberland County disagreed, though. He said Pennsylvania's deer program just isn't working, particularly in certain parts of the state, like the big wooded areas in the northcentral region.

He said he was again this year "profoundly disappointed" with what he termed the state's "one size fits all, big government" deer strategy.

"We continue to have a situation, in my view, of almost no deer on public land and too many deer on private land. I don't think our program addresses that problem," Boop said.

Another audit about to get started

A second look at the Pennsylvania Game Commission's deer management program is — at last — set to begin.

State lawmakers passed a resolution last year calling for an independent audit of the state's deer management program. It never got off the ground, though. First, lawmakers and sportsmen's groups couldn't agree on who should do the study. Later, the politics of deer management in Pennsylvania — highlighted by a lawsuit filed by the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania against the Game Commission — scared some potential auditors away.

Finally, though, the study is set to begin. The Wildlife Management Institute — an independent scientific organization — will work with colleges and universities to "conduct an in-depth investigation into the current deer population in the state, past Game Commission methods of population control, and future plans and goals of the agency."

The study is expected to take about a year to complete.

[venado]

Thanks for posting the article Bob.


Finally, though, the study is set to begin. The Wildlife Management Institute — an independent scientific organization — will work with colleges and universities to "conduct an in-depth investigation into the current deer population in the state, past Game Commission methods of population control, and future plans and goals of the agency."

The study is expected to take about a year to complete.

It would be helpful if the USP would accept the findings of this independent group; however their history of complaining doesn't make that look like a given. It is interesting to me that the PGC has been able to accomplish virtually all of their goals while all of the time those complainers were trying to get their way with things. Looks like Dr. Alt was wrong in that the agency was able to keep on track in spite the many obsticals. It seems that the agency is reasonably happy with the HR and is now working at trying to maintain levels. I suppose the proper term to use would be a MH (maintain herd) program replacing the HR program.

[Smokey]

I agree and disagree with Bryon Shissler. He feels the program is working in most of the state but not in the north central areas. In most of the state they are starting to get larger and more mature bucks. I agree on that point. The north central portion at one time was one of the best hunting areas and slowly degrated to the poorest area as it is currently. I feel it is too early to say it is not working in the NC region. This area was much further behind then other areas and will take more time to recover. In talking with the hunters in that area who complained on a regular basis about lack of deer are now seeing a change, though it is small.

I have had several hunters say they are seeing more and larger bucks. They might not get a deer each hunting season but their cameras are recording more and larger deer. Only time will tell but I believe they are on the right track.

[Altjaeger]

Good report Smokey. We are several years into an antler restriction program in my hunting area of east Texas and my observations have been similar. Hurricane Ike made last year a bit of an anomoly so maybe we will see more this year.

[Sabre]

They might not get a deer each hunting season but their cameras are recording more and larger deer. Only time will tell but I believe they are on the right track.

I'd prefer to get a deer every year. Like ta kill 'em and like ta grill 'em. I've already got plenty of horns ta eat and I ain't inta these affirmative action "big bucks for everyone" programs.:rolleyes: Besides, I don't know how many times I've seen people on this here forum a bustin' on Badger when he claims the HR program has nearly wiped out the deer in his area of Northeast Pa. They all like ta tell 'im ta "quitcher bitchin an' go where the deer is". Well, I'd just like ta take this opportunity ta tell all those on here what likes ta bitch "there ain't 'nuff big bucks in my area ta go 'round so we needs this here antler restriction program" - TA QUITCHER BITCHIN' AN' GO WHERE THA BIG BUCKS IS !

[Badger]

Sabre,

I appreciate your insights about Northcentral Pennsylvania. If you read the article about the alleged Bryon Shissler "study" that is the basis for a determination, "Verdict is in on PA game management", please note Commissoner Tom Boop of Northumberland County DISAGREES. Tom lives in Northcentral and he says the deer program is a shambles.

I cannot understand how Bryon Shissler placed 47 phone calls and sent one letter to PGC and determined PA got it right. Had Shissler hunted 15 or 20 states on opening day of deer season or walked in the woods interviewing hunters, he would have had more credible data, in my view. All Shissler did was prove his telephone does not have too many moving parts and he can dial 47 phone numbers and lick one stamp. He should have called Bernie Madoff and got some financial investment advice while he was at it. That way both of Shissler's "Facts" would have been received as gospel by some folks. LOL.

As for the PA deer audit, Wildlife Management Institute did a PGC audit in 2001 or 2002 and found mostly favorable findings. I suspect they will be as objective this time around. Only 2 or 3 firms bid on the PA deer audit. I hope WMI does field work and rather than be like Shissler and "phone it in." Geeze, even Columbo did field work.

Badger

[venado]

Hello again Badger, glad to see you involved at the new site.

Shissler was making a survey to find out what programs for deer management were in place in states other than PA. Actually going there would have added nothing to his data since his effort was to find out what each state had in their management plan regarding deer. It was not intended to determine if hunters were happy or unhappy or even how many deer there were. I imagine he would see hunters as one of the tools to accomplish a state's goal toward biodiversity

Although I do not know for sure, I certainly suspect that Shissler's plan if it were implemented would make PA hunters unhappy as related to what they currently are. It seems from limited knowledge if he sees PA as a 5 on a 10 scale that what he thinks would be considered radical by you and probably even an out of stater like me. We would be on the same side.... amazing, eh?:D

[Altjaeger]

Sabre,

I appreciate your insights about Northcentral Pennsylvania. If you read the article about the alleged Bryon Shissler "study" that is the basis for a determination, "Verdict is in on PA game management", please note Commissoner Tom Boop of Northumberland County DISAGREES. Tom lives in Northcentral and he says the deer program is a shambles.

As for the PA deer audit, Wildlife Management Institute did a PGC audit in 2001 or 2002 and found mostly favorable findings. I suspect they will be as objective this time around. Only 2 or 3 firms bid on the PA deer audit. I hope WMI does field work and rather than be like Shissler and "phone it in." Geeze, even Columbo did field work.

Badger

I guess I missed something somewhere. Can you highlight the "insights" that Sabre offered on deer hunting in Pennsylvania? He offered an opinion that the comments made in the past of your opinion were in his opinion perhaps unfair or unjustified. Other than that all I saw was a repetition of your comments. So I guess I missed those insights to the situation in North Central Pennsylvania

Is Mr Boop the only board member who disagrees? How many are on the board? Does he lay out any facts or logic to his disagreement? What makes his opinion more valuable than other board members?

Other than you disagree with their findings and the outcomes are not to your taste do you have cause to believe they were biased and less than objective in their analysis and findings? If so would you lay the facts out that lead to this conclusion? What was wrong in their methodolgy that led to biased finding?

The answers to these questions would help significantly in understanding your stance. Thanks.

[hellrazor]

Pfft.. I see this topic is still debated by more Texans than PA residents.

PA deer management is a joke. I barely see any deer where I live and yet they added 21000 licenses to the management unit for the coming year. Good thing I don't hunt around here. One of these years they will figure out the problem with high deer numbers in the suburbs of the big cities doen't mean there are too many everywhere else. The system worked better when it was county by county instead of the WMU stuff.

Where I do hunt, a lot of the property owners have their own doe hunting ban to combat the states stupidity. You shoot a doe on their property or walk through their property to shoot a doe elsewhere and you just gave up your right to step on their land. 5 years ago I saw 5 deer TOTAL in the first 3 days of rifle season and 2 others hunting in my group saw NOTHING. 10 years ago I saw 20-30 a day. I saw 15 the first day last year and got a nice 10point.

The buck management is working to a degree, but if they shoot all of the doe, how will you get any young buck? We used to see a pile of small/young buck every year and now you barely see any. I saw 3 buck last year, a 4 point, a large 8 and the 10.

10 years ago you could drive the valley and the north end of the ridge and see about 100-130 deer feeding in the fields right before dark or while spotting. 5 years ago you were lucky to see 30. 3 weeks ago we counted over 100 again.

I checked the brush on the south ridge, we had moderate snow depth this winter and I saw no visible browse line. So I would love to know where this browse line crap came from. The only year I remember seeing a browse line was when we averaged 3-4' of snow on the ground for weeks. They had everything eaten off at the height of the snow during that year.

[GF.]

You were used to seeing 20-30 deer/day or 100-odd deer as you drive your little valley and you don't seem to think there was a population problem:confused:

Dude - that's a density you'd associate with livestock, not 'wildlife'...:eek:

And you say that last year you saw 15 deer in a single day and you shot a 'nice 10-point' and still somehow you don't have enough deer around?

Hell, man, I don't think our party of 8-9 guys used to see 5 deer among the lot of us in the entire opening weekend. Maybe one year we did, but that was the year that all 5 of 'em ended up in the back of my pickup for the ride back into Minneapolis....:rolleyes:

This whole line of thinking just astonishes me. Anybody can watch a TV show and make fun of those boobs who sit there in a box blind and take their pick from a whole parade of bucks - every one of them bigger than most of us will ever even see in the field - and we all know that that is not hunting. But somehow if you guys in PA can shop through 20-30 deer in a day, that's just 'normal'.

:confused:


And you wanna talk browse lines? We've got a terrible population problem up here (not that I've seen more than a half-dozen deer in a day more than once or twice in 10 years, even when sitting in the Mother of All Funnels)... and we don't have a browse line, either. That's because there is no browse, period - there's just no freaking understory whatosever!

So I dunno, does that mean or browse line is at 25 feet, or down at root level? Either way, the 'forest' looks more like a city park where they mowed all summer long but ran out of gas when it got to be time to collect all the leaves....

If you can show me a picture of a healthy forest in an area where you think there's an 'adequate' number of deer, I guess I'll shut up--but I'm guessing that nobody in PA has the first freakin' clue what a healthy forest actually looks like...

[Sabre]

Gotta agree with you there GF, expecting to see 20-30 deer a day and calling it poor hunting if you don't seems a bit extreme. More like hunting in a zoo than what should be expected in the wild. I probably average 4-6 deer sighted per opening day where I hunt. The most I can remember seeing around here in a day was 9. Last season was pretty average for the area I'm hunting. Saw 4 deer on opening day, all does. The first and only deer I saw on the second day was a buck, so I killed it and went home. Total sightings for two days of hunting, 4 does and one buck. The year before I filled a doe tag late in the afternoon on opening day. Naturally I was looking for a buck all day but no dice. Saw 4 baldies in the morning and nothing else the rest of the day so when that big doe offered me a good shot 20 minutes before sundown I decided to drop her. Hunted all day, every day for the rest of the week and saw probably 12 more deer in total but not a horn on any of them. Long story short, it took a solid 10 days of hunting from daylight to dark before I saw {and killed} my first buck of the season. I don't consider that poor hunting, it's just what is normal and what I'm used to around here. At 15 PSM with a doe/buck ratio of 6-1 the herd is in line with the habitat and when you stop to think that this is big woods and there's only about one buck and 6 does for every 300 acres of it, WELLLLLLLLL----it can seem a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack sometimes.;)

[Altjaeger]

5 years ago I saw 5 deer TOTAL in the first 3 days of rifle season and 2 others hunting in my group saw NOTHING. 10 years ago I saw 20-30 a day. I saw 15 the first day last year and got a nice 10point.

I saw 3 buck last year, a 4 point, a large 8 and the 10.

10 years ago you could drive the valley and the north end of the ridge and see about 100-130 deer feeding in the fields right before dark or while spotting. 5 years ago you were lucky to see 30. 3 weeks ago we counted over 100 again.

Deer numbers as indicated by your sightings are going up compared to 5 years ago. The bucks you are seeing are bigger, more mature and I am sure healthier but the system is broke? I was reading about northeast Pennsylvania's over-population problems before Gary Alt was head of the bear program, let alone Director. It was openly discussed in Field and Stream, Outdoor Life and others.

When I started hunting in the 1960s that little area I had was really producing if you saw a couple of deer in a 2 month season. The numbers you state you saw last year exceeds what I have ever seen in public land in the 5 states I have lived and hunted. Excuse me if I don't cry crocodile tears for you having to live with what is obviously a very successful management program.
:rolleyes:

[Badger]

Altjaeger,

If you want to know how many people are on the Game Commission Board, I refer you to the PGC website. As for the attitudes of the various board members, I suggest you contact them directly. Be well.

Badger

[Altjaeger]

Altjaeger,

If you want to know how many people are on the Game Commission Board, I refer you to the PGC website. As for the attitudes of the various board members, I suggest you contact them directly. Be well.

Badger

:) I had not expected an answer. It might undermine the emotionally generated opinion you hold. You have never provided facts or provided answers with which to support your claims. Be well.

[hellrazor]

Deer numbers as indicated by your sightings are going up compared to 5 years ago. The bucks you are seeing are bigger, more mature and I am sure healthier but the system is broke? I was reading about northeast Pennsylvania's over-population problems before Gary Alt was head of the bear program, let alone Director. It was openly discussed in Field and Stream, Outdoor Life and others.

When I started hunting in the 1960s that little area I had was really producing if you saw a couple of deer in a 2 month season. The numbers you state you saw last year exceeds what I have ever seen in public land in the 5 states I have lived and hunted. Excuse me if I don't cry crocodile tears for you having to live with what is obviously a very successful management program.
:rolleyes:

I don't hunt public land. If I had to hunt public land in PA I would quit hunting without looking back. There is public land near where I hunt but private land landlocks 80% of the access to it. So the land owners pretty much control the area.

Alt and the new deer management program sucks in the area I live in, not hunt at. Alt should have stuck with the Bear management where he exceled. I guess the experts on here have a hard time comprehending the fact that I do not hunt where I live. I only stated it in the previous post, but we'll let it slide. This area has 121,000 doe licenses for next year, a 21,000 increase and I have not seen a deer here in 4 years. I have a doe moving through at night with a fawn almost every year and I feed them. But you never see them, just the tracks in the garden once a week. I used to see a handfull of deer in the area before that.

The land I hunt where I see great numbers is all private. And your snottyness about bigger buck is a joke. The property had a 6pt of better rule for years before the joke commision did their own rule change. $100 a point fine to the charity of your choice for a screwup.

Too bad they want rain this weekend or I would have taken a road trip to camp to do some work. I could have taken pictures of the fields, deer in the fields, the natural funnels I hunt, etc so you poor guys could find some deer.

[hellrazor]

This whole line of thinking just astonishes me. Anybody can watch a TV show and make fun of those boobs who sit there in a box blind and take their pick from a whole parade of bucks - every one of them bigger than most of us will ever even see in the field - and we all know that that is not hunting. But somehow if you guys in PA can shop through 20-30 deer in a day, that's just 'normal'.

<removed BS>

So I dunno, does that mean or browse line is at 25 feet, or down at root level? Either way, the 'forest' looks more like a city park where they mowed all summer long but ran out of gas when it got to be time to collect all the leaves....

If you can show me a picture of a healthy forest in an area where you think there's an 'adequate' number of deer, I guess I'll shut up--but I'm guessing that nobody in PA has the first freakin' clue what a healthy forest actually looks like...

If you can't figure out how to hunt a natural funnel which magnifies the number of deer you see when people are putting on drives, maybe you should pack it in? I see around 5-10 deer a night during smokepole season sitting on my favorite funnel on the bottom of a ridge in a creek bottom. It is between 3 main trails they use to come down off a few thousand acres and cross the road into the fields. That is with NO pressure and the deers natural movement. You can see 3-5 times that when people are putting on drives on the ridge or on the field side during rifle season.

I have NEVER seen less then 10 deer a day hunting the hot spots I found over the years until they moved to deer management units from county by county allocations. They increased the licenses heavily and everyone went tag filling crazy. Our property owners have some nice clear cuts over the years that are so thick it is a deer haven too. I know people who have in upwards of 8-10 doe tags. I was buying them and throwing them away for the past 5 years.

As far as browse, there is so much brush on the ridge top it is waste high over a thousand acres. It is a royal PITA depending what area you are trying to walk through.

[Badger]

Altjaeger,

I know you would love to argue about the time of day, etc: I cannot. Go to the PGC Website for your answers. I just graduated from Seminary, thus I now better understand you. The Lord be with you and other Texans. AMEN. I will do your funeral for Free! Such a deal, right? If you have NEVER been to Pennsylvania, why then speak MORE about this land? I would respect you more if you ever hunted here years ago and then been afield last year. Others are here, on this land, and we are the Good Stewards without your help. I am amused about Texan LONG-DISTANCE knowledge about Pennsylvania. Post on. As a veteran, I support your right to speak about which YOU know nothing. IS NOTHING going on in Texas? I know you have NO public land to speak of and "Enjoy" your deer leases. We have about 4 million acres of OPEN land in PA. Our next endeavour is to stop the DOE massacre so our deer can come back.

Badger

[Badger]

GF,

Please tell me why, "You PA guys crack me up."

May I ask you to detail to all just WHAT is your PA experience? I have hunted PA since 1958 and have a certain understanding. Will you please give me your insight? When was the last time you hunted Pennsylvania? How can you make ANY Judgement?

I await your PA understanding. How much, or LITTLE, do you know about my state? I refuse to allow non-residents to TELL me what is happening under my boots. Are you a Pennsylvanian? Comprehende?

Badger

[Altjaeger]

Altjaeger,

I know you would love to argue about the time of day, etc: I cannot. Go to the PGC Website for your answers. I just graduated from Seminary, thus I now better understand you. The Lord be with you and other Texans. AMEN. I will do your funeral for Free! Such a deal, right? If you have NEVER been to Pennsylvania, why then speak MORE about this land? I would respect you more if you ever hunted here years ago and then been afield last year. Others are here, on this land, and we are the Good Stewards without your help. I am amused about Texan LONG-DISTANCE knowledge about Pennsylvania. Post on. As a veteran, I support your right to speak about which YOU know nothing. IS NOTHING going on in Texas? I know you have NO public land to speak of and "Enjoy" your deer leases. We have about 4 million acres of OPEN land in PA. Our next endeavour is to stop the DOE massacre so our deer can come back.

Badger

SOS.:D

All the rules of management in the rest of the deer fiefdom do not apply in Pennsylvania. No matter how many deer you have they never outgrow their environment or become overpopulated. Nope only Pennsylvanians can understand. And you still have not comprehended after many repetitions that I hunt public land that only costs a hunting license.

That's OK because I understand that seminary and the Lord have probably given you insights as good as another member's understanding of Maslow.

[Altjaeger]

Altjaeger,

I know you would love to argue about the time of day, etc: I cannot. Go to the PGC Website for your answers.

Badger

I could care less about arguing the time of day. That is easily verified and settled with a clock. For that matter my request did not even have an argument. It asked questions that properly answered might solidify your positon.

One member of a board holds no special position in my book no matter what area he lives. He was appointed by a politico most likely received a nomination by someone who he owed a favor and who in turn owes favors. If say you had 7 members and three held that opinion then there might be substance. However, if he is the only one of seven it is unlikely that his opinion has any validity.

I suspect you already know the answers to many of my questions but do not care to share them for fear of undermining your positions. You have always run on emotions on this topic and avoided facts like the plaque.

I respect your opinion on surplus firearms and accessories. There you show knowlege and an understanding of history. In almost any other area I have seen I suspect we are similar. But until you start providing substantiation for your stands on this subject they are likely to gain little respect.

No one here from out of state can or I suspect wants to tell you what to do. That is the PGC's job and they seem to be doing so effectively. But we can read, gather information, form opinions, and share them for like it or not your state was a pioneer and is a case study.

[Sabre]

Badger, just wanted to say that I do understand your position and don't doubt it when you say the deer herd has been decimated in your area. I know I've seen people from the southern states say it can't be, you can't hunt a deer population down to almost nothing. Well, quite frankly I know they're full of sh*t because I've seen it happen here in NY. Fortunately, NY's DEC monitors deer numbers in each DMU quite closely and is willing to admit publicly when they've issued too many doe tags for too long. When that happens they will immediately make drastic cuts or even halt doe tags completely in a DMU when harvest data shows population levels have gotten too low. These southerners just don't understand how much hunting pressure can be put on an area when it's not under the strict controls of their "pay to hunt" lease system.

[venado]

Sabre, you and Badger attempt to argue things that are not even the subject of the conversation. I don't know why y'all* do that, but perhaps that is because neither of you are aware of the subject matter or why others outside PA are interested.

We do today, through the improved communication means, have an opportunity to learn things about far off places without stepping foot there. If a local is not interested in the big picture and only utilizes his local visual skills he can not be expected to be knowledgeable or comment intelligently about things that another person is very familiar with because that person studied and applied those studies.

Altjaeger accurately mentioned in a post that it is details and facts that are missing from most of the emotional arguments made regarding game management in PA by those that seem to always be upset about the comments of those that are not from PA. I do my best to support my posts with links or quotes just as I did for this initial thread. All of us would benefit in these discussions if Badger and other Pennsylvanians provided countering documentation that we could discuss openly. The side with the facts will usually win the debate.


* a result of my southern heritage..!:)

[hellrazor]

SOS.:D

All the rules of management in the rest of the deer fiefdom do not apply in Pennsylvania. No matter how many deer you have they never outgrow their environment or become overpopulated. Nope only Pennsylvanians can understand. And you still have not comprehended after many repetitions that I hunt public land that only costs a hunting license.

That's OK because I understand that seminary and the Lord have probably given you insights as good as another member's understanding of Maslow.

Hunting rules and regs are different by region. You can not manage every state in the same manner. Management tactics need to adapt to the lay of the land. You can not have the same practices in state that is flat with 50% farm fields over a state that is wooded and hilly with 20% fields or over a state with mostly mountain regions. If you think everything is created equal you are mistaken as usual.

We can start the Texan bait hunting arguements all over again too. Us Pennsylvanians should be able to call you out on that. Just because bait hunting is illegal in PA, we should be experts on how it works in texass. If we use the same limited mental capacity as you, we could tell everyone how antelope hunting, hog hunting, mule deer hunting, African big game hunting, etc should work too.

Badger won't argue with you, but I sure will.

[hellrazor]

We do today, through the improved communication means, have an opportunity to learn things about far off places without stepping foot there.

Very true. But the great texan debate over PA deer hunting has nothing to do with learning. In order to learn you need to STFU and learn about it. You don't learn by keeping your mouth open and babbling about how it is where you live. If there was a topic on here about Texas or Montana or North Dakota Deer Management I wouldn't even bother reading it because I don't care. I surely would nother sticking my nose into the conversation and telling them how it is when I never hunted in their state. This debate has been going on for years and is a circle jerk for a few of your fellow texans to get off.

[hellrazor]

Badger, just wanted to say that I do understand your position and don't doubt it when you say the deer herd has been decimated in your area.

Sabre, there are places in PA where the deer herd has been decimated by the new management practices. North Central PA is a mess and almost everyone I know has stopped hunting there. Some of them even sold their camps. A lot of hunters who were very successful over the years have come up dry since the new management structure has arrived. When you struggle to get a doe there is a problem. The butcher shops have seen a large decline in their normal work load during the season too. The managment unit I live in is rural in the 40% I live in and suburb/city in the rest. They manage it like it is all suburb/city. There are so many licenses here that people can get 4-6 doe tags. You can't hunt where the deer population is a problem, but you can clean them out in the rural areas and that is exactly what is happening. Hunting on public land in most areas is pathetic too. I drive through a large tract of public land when I come home from deer camp and the number of cars parked there is down by 70%.

[Badger]

hellrazor,

You are quite a fellow for only having 7 posts on this Forum; and all are SPOT on. Please assure the Texas folks we are NOT blood kin and your smarts are PA homegrown.

I was born in PA and will end my days here. I have a farm and hunted every year since 1958. I live 5 miles out of Mansfield, PA and in 2001 or 2002 Gary Alt gave his deer presentation in the Mansfield High School. He showed slides of DEER HABITAT DESTRUCTION. During the Q&A period, I asked Alt to come to my farm with his camera and show me deer habitat destruction. He DECLINED.

The Texans keep saying I do not provide documentation for my views on the deer decimation policy of PGC. I have an open invitation to them to come here to Tioga County and walk my land and show me "All the deer" Gary Alt promiosed in his dog and pony show in 2001/2002. I have not seen a big buck this century on my farm on on my travels around this county! Duh,

I find it hard to discuss the deer decimation hereabouts with folks who never have hunted PA. I pray for them and move on. Best of luck to you in your endeavours. Be well.

Badger

[hellrazor]

Badger,

I got into this arguement with them before, it was about 2 years ago, so it is nothing new. I gave up and moved on since nothing they said really mattered. I figured this might be a fresh review of the topic but all I see is the same ignorance as before.

I live in east central PA and see the poor management practices in my area. I hunt in South Central PA (20 minutes from Raystown Dam) and that was getting hammered until the land owners took action as a group. I bought as many doe tags as I could for the past 4 years or so and tossed them in the trash. The land owners and their hunters did the same since it gave the PGC the same $$, just saving some doe. The population is rebounding in the area and the so called over browse is not there.

I have been hunting for 25 years. PA went from the Buck OR doe tag system, to the buck and a doe tag system and now to as many doe tags as you can buy system.

[Badger]

hellrazor,

You have a very keen head for figuring. I support you 100%, and then some, because you are on the ground here in PA. We never had "Habitat Destruction" here on my farm, nor on adjacent farms to my knowledge. It seemed a ploy to get the Green Certification for our forests, so PGC went for the ESCALATED Doe Kill, year after year and the current PGC Board "stayed the course" set by Alt for "Kill em all."


Many groups asked PGC to cut back on the antlerless kill to NO avail. The USP filed a lawsuit to save the remaining antlerless deer. I am proud to say I support the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania! I believe sportsmen have a right to hold their game commission accountable. If out of state folks have a problem with that, then I suggest they go get a life in THEIR OWN STATE. We folks in Pennsylvania are fine without nonsense from out of state. I am tired of PGC slobering supporters who never knew PA Pre-Alt and his destructive "Stay the Course" BS!

For the savvy folk, let me say we used to have deer in PA. Our agricultural society successfully supported a much bigger deer herd in this state. The PGC sought "Green Certification" to turn our State Game Lands into TREE FARMS. ONE of the conditions for GREEN Certification was a deer eradication policy; we now have both! I support USP and their lawsuit to give the deer a break. If out-of-staters have a problem with that, then go jump since this is MY State!

Badger

[Altjaeger]

STFU? A bit upset and emotional are we?

Listen? Certainly we listen...and read. But when we try to find FACTS to support the emotional outbursts they just cannot be found. In the meantime other Pennsylvaians seem to see things totally different and present the data to support their view.

Baiting? Sure discuss baiting. But then neither Venado or I do so you might find someone interested. Besides hunting methods are not what is being discussed here. Maybe you need to start a thread up in the deer hunting forum. Someone might play. :)

What is being discussed is the health of deer herds. That is a factor of population to environment including ALL people who live in the vicinity of those herds including foresters, farmers, home owner and drivers. Texas does not seem to have a problem nor have had one since the 1960s.

On the other hand "Outdoor Life, "Field and Stream" and others were discussing the overpopulation of deer in northeast Pennsylvania 20 years ago. Automobile/deer collisions seemed to support that as well. One member of our camp grew up hunting Pennsylvania and has verified that to me as well. The description of one couple I know from Pennsylvania again sounds it to my ear when they describe hundreds of deer in the headlights feeding in the field next to their home 13 years ago..

Last I heard the USP was the only one of about a half dozen hunting and outdoor organizations that fought the PGC. The others were supportive. A couple years ago I spent about a week following a Pennsylvaina specific forum and among the Pennsylvanians posting there it seemed about 3 out of 4 were supportive of or neutral on the PGC. So yes we listen to Pennsylvanians. You just don't like what the citizens of your state support and wish to shoot the messengers and strangle debate. Sorry that not getting you anywhere. When you can provide verifiable information instead of emotional bile you will be listened to with a receptive ear.

By the way Badger, whats is the latest on the lawsuit?

[Altjaeger]

The PGC sought "Green Certification" to turn our State Game Lands into TREE FARMS. ONE of the conditions for GREEN Certification was a deer eradication policy; we now have both! I support USP and their lawsuit to give the deer a break. If out-of-staters have a problem with that, then go jump since this is MY State!

Badger Badger, Who is the certifying organization and authority issuing the certifications? Where might the certifying requirements be found? What is the advantage of this certication that would attract the PGC? Has the PCC stated this is a goal?

[hellrazor]

STFU? A bit upset and emotional are we?

Listen? Certainly we listen...and read. But when we try to find FACTS to support the emotional outbursts they just cannot be found. In the meantime other Pennsylvaians seem to see things totally different and present the data to support their view.


Nah. If I spelled out STFU someone would have gotten their panties in a twist. Your so called fact are a joke. The articles written in Field & Stream, etc are the opinions of the writer/writers. This is no different than picking up a gun rag and finding out that you need a $4000 1911 or $7000 shotgun to be a real gun owner. I am willing to bet not a single person who wrote an article on the PA deer herd did anything other than call the PGC or get info from car insurance companies.

Speaking of Texas and its wonderfull hunting:
"The Texas House on Thursday tentatively approved a bill encouraging hunters to take on wild pigs from the air.

Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, said the measure would allow landowners -- who can get a permit to control feral hog populations from a helicopter -- to sell seats on the helicopter to some hunters."

Talk about lazy hunting. Maybe you could even step it down a bit more and make it baited helicoptor hunting?

[Altjaeger]

Nah. If I spelled out STFU someone would have gotten their panties in a twist. Your so called fact are a joke. The articles written in Field & Stream, etc are the opinions of the writer/writers. This is no different than picking up a gun rag and finding out that you need a $4000 1911 or $7000 shotgun to be a real gun owner. I am willing to bet not a single person who wrote an article on the PA deer herd did anything other than call the PGC or get info from car insurance companies.

Speaking of Texas and its wonderfull hunting:
"The Texas House on Thursday tentatively approved a bill encouraging hunters to take on wild pigs from the air.

Rep. Sid Miller, R-Stephenville, said the measure would allow landowners -- who can get a permit to control feral hog populations from a helicopter -- to sell seats on the helicopter to some hunters."

Talk about lazy hunting. Maybe you could even step it down a bit more and make it baited helicoptor hunting?

Ahhhhhhhh. But the hunting of hogs from a helicopter is not to be confused with sports hunting. It is an attempt by commercial operators to eradicate or at least temporily reduce numbers of a serious commercial nuisance. Not much different than ranchers encouraging varmint hunters (shooters) to spend an afternoon popping prairie dogs. If someone wishes to join in I can hardly blame a rancher for attempting to reduce the cost of flight hours anymore than a rancher collecting a fee to shoot the prairie dogs.

Many ranchers go out at night shooting from vehicles trying to put a bullet anywhere into a hog and as many hogs as they can. They are not there for sport, meat or anything except do their best to eradicate hogs. They may shoot as many as 60-70 hogs a night with no regard of whether they die then or next week of infection. There are too many to process, no market for the meat and the hogs are doing millions of dollars in agricultural damage every year.

Hogs are not a recognized game animal here and never had restrictions on shooting hours, weaponry or trapping or seasons. They also do not fall under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department except for requiring a license for sports hunters. Overall responsibility for their management belongs to the Texas Department of Agriculture.

But if you cannot get the facts straight in your home turf I certainly don't expect you to elsewhere.

As to the articles the one I remember most was a hunter who shot a spike while spending a weekend in a Pennsylvania deer camp. He spoke of deer being pushed back and forth up and down a valley between crowds of hunters like calfs in a calf scramble plus how small and runted they were. He wrote approvingly of the camp, the group, the comradery, and the experience so did not appear to have an axe to grind.

But then twice today you have confused methodology with what is being discussed here. Maybe this topic belongs n the Boar/Hog forum.

[hellrazor]

"to sell seats on the helicopter to some hunters."

Talk about having a lack of facts on your part. I posted PRINTED proof they want HUNTERS to HUNT from a helicopter. The whole 30 seconds it took me to read that should make me an expert on Texas Hog Hunting. I mean it worked for you with QDM in PA.

[Altjaeger]

"to sell seats on the helicopter to some hunters."

Talk about having a lack of facts on your part. I posted PRINTED proof they want HUNTERS to HUNT from a helicopter. The whole 30 seconds it took me to read that should make me an expert on Texas Hog Hunting. I mean it worked for you with QDM in PA.

Buffalo hunters were and government trappers are hunters too. That does not make them sport hunters. Neither do I consider varmint hunters specializing in long range shooting such as prairie dog hunters or woodchuck hunters sport hunters so much as target shooters.

Anything managed by the State Department of Agriculture when there is a state game agency is by definition not sports hunting. Hog hunting here is not different than our cotton interests controlling the boll weevil other than the tools employed are different.

I cannot expect you to handle these complex distinctions when you are still stuck on methodology which is not the topic. It is relevent in this forum only if being discussed as part of herd management such as increasing or decreasing difficulty to control harvest size. If you wish maybe someone over in the Boar/Hog Forum may join in your discussion. Theres plenty of Texans there. :D

In the meantime all we have is the swish of your bat through the air as you attempt to attack others by changing topics. I presume because that is the only thing you have. After all you have not been able to discuss the topic yet after having blown 3 swings in about 24 hours.

[venado]

hellrazor said:


This area has 121,000 doe licenses for next year, a 21,000 increase and I have not seen a deer here in 4 years.


I don't recall a WMU that had a 100,000 allocation for the 2008-9 season. Could you please help me out by telling me which one it was.


Thanks.

[venado]

Badger said:



I just graduated from Seminary, thus I now better understand you.

Congratulations Badger on your graduation. I reread the posts and didn't notice your comment earlier. That is an admirable accomplishment and to effectively communicate the salvation message of our Lord is of the highest order in my opinion. I suppose it is reasonable to conclude that they don't require an understanding of critical thinking at your seminary for graduation as they do at many others. I was profoundly influenced by the realization that our minds were valuable instruments and that a well developed intellect was necessary for the ultimate service to Jesus Christ.


Back to the subject of QDM, it seems strange to me that the relatively few perpetual complainers like you ignore the facts related to your state and chose instead to belittle your wildlife agency and its management. This applies to you in particular since even your USP friend, Levengood, considers the PGC an organization that PA sportsmen are fortunate to have and that they enhance his personal hunting experience.

You complain that there are few deer in your area, which no one denies, but meanwhile statewide the facts show that hunter success rates on bucks is right on par today with those harvests in the 1980s and 1990s. Some PA hunters are quite successful, but perhaps they chose to hunt where the deer actually are much as hellrazor has done. Since you claim to be from PA, could it be that your memory isn't what you think it is regarding details that relate to your state and that your myopic view colors all of your thinking?

When you show the ability to provide counter arguments that can be documented you will surely find some level of credibility higher than you currently have. You make emotional statements and when you are replied to with either follow-up questions or opposing facts you seem to drop that subject entirely and move on to another equally laughable comment. Of course just because the facts destroyed your position at the moment, it will not prevent you from bringing the same thing up again in the future. I think it would be safe to say: "Thus we now better understand you.", and it didn't require graduation from a seminary, only Hunt America. :rolleyes:

[Sabre]

"You complain that there are few deer in your area, which no one denies, but meanwhile statewide the facts show that hunter success rates on bucks is right on par today with those harvests in the 1980s and 1990s. Some PA hunters are quite successful, but perhaps they chose to hunt where the deer actually are much as hellrazor has done. Since you claim to be from PA, could it be that your memory isn't what you think it is regarding details that relate to your state and that your myopic view colors all of your thinking?"

Venado, Just because PGC may have done a good job on the basis of statewide harvest figures DOES NOT excuse their continuing to do a BAD JOB in the area where Badger lives. Not everyone wants, or can afford to traipse off across the state to do their hunting. I'm sure you and Altjaeger would be just as pissed if you owned property for the purpose of hunting {and where the hunting had been good when you bought it} and then the Texas game commission stepped in with a new program that nearly wiped out the deer. I bought my place based largely on the local hunting opportunities. You can bet your butt if NY DEC stepped in with a new management program that decimated the deer herd in MY LOCAL AREA I'd be bitching just as loud and often as Badger.

[Altjaeger]

I hunt public land that once ran 20% success rate and our camp ran 50%. With antler restrictions we have dropped to 20% and I am sure that the general population of hunters has dropped correspondingly. We are seeing more deer and bigger deer, but not as many legal deer. I am sure my land is no better than that around Badger's if as good.

I am not running around crying across the land using inflammatory language such as Herr Doktor, extermination, talking about plantings of cougars to kill deer by my game department, talking about cows attacked by those cougars and having pics never to produce. Neither am I avoiding answering questions because they might reveal the falseness of my claims, trying to bash others by changing topics or deriding them as outsiders for publishing information originating from residents of my state.

Pennsylvania had a new program that is producing but will need refining and I am sure Badger's area will improve be too. In the meantime my heart is not pumping purple peanut butter in sympathy for him. Nope, I just don't feel it.

Oh and I bought 4 acres for a camp in that National Forest 180 miles from my home so that I could hunt with the people I choose in a place they can afford. It all depends on whether one wants to hunt or bellyache.

[Sabre]

I hunt public land that once ran 20% success rate and our camp ran 50%. With antler restrictions we have dropped to 20% and I am sure that the general population of hunters has dropped correspondingly. We are seeing more deer and bigger deer, but not as many legal deer. I am sure my land is no better than that around Badger's if as good.

I am not running around crying across the land using inflammatory language such as Herr Doktor, extermination, talking about plantings of cougars to kill deer by my game department, talking about cows attacked by those cougars and having pics never to produce. Neither am I avoiding answering questions because they might reveal the falseness of my claims, trying to bash others by changing topics or deriding them as outsiders for publishing information originating from residents of my state.


Pennsylvania had a new program that is producing but will need refining and I am sure Badger's area will improve be too. In the meantime my heart is not pumping purple peanut butter in sympathy for him. Nope, I just don't feel it. Why you'd want to see more big bucks but fewer legal deer in YOUR HUNTING AREA is beyond me. The way I understand it, they've got LOTS of BIG BUCKS in Saskatchewan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Ohio. Why don't you just take Venado's advice and go hunt where the big bucks are ? And another thing, by your own admission you travel some distance to hunt public land. Sorry but that's entirely different than BUYING and OWNING hunting land and watching the herd ON YOUR PROPERTY {or in the whole area of your property} be decimated by your states management program.

[Altjaeger]

Why you'd want to see more big bucks but fewer legal deer in YOUR HUNTING AREA is beyond me. ... Sorry but that's entirely different than BUYING and OWNING hunting land and watching the herd ON YOUR PROPERTY {or in the whole area of your property} be decimated by your states management program.

I have never said I wanted bigger bucks...for I don't. I am just as pleased when I can put a doe in the freezer. I am happy to see healthier animals with a more natural age distribution in the herd. If you spend a bit of time on Pennsylvania hunting forums you will find the majority of Pennsylvanians are happy and the few you hear complaining are the minority as it is in my area. Which faction should the PGC be serving?

Now as of yet for all Badgers weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth he has never produced the data to support his claims, not even when he claimed to have it . He once told us he was a CPA, a profession that lives and dies by facts and figures. Is it that he will not produce them because they refute his assertations?

Now as to his farms he has stated he had three with as I recall an average size of 20 acres. The average range of a whitetail is about 240 acres. He does not have a herd on his land and never will. If he bought the land with that intent he was either woefuly ignorant of whiteail deer and their life cycles or simply delusional.

[Altjaeger]

Correction: Upon reflection that 240 acre figure should be 640 acres.

[venado]

Sabre said:

You can bet your butt if NY DEC stepped in with a new management program that decimated the deer herd in MY LOCAL AREA I'd be bitching just as loud and often as Badger.

Sabre, please try to understand, this overall PA QDM discussion is not now or ever has been about Badger's 60 acres or the other 130 that he has claimed that he controls. No one interested in management by a STATE agency would think that a STATE could be overly concerned with such a small spot within millions of acres to be managed for all of the various needs of the people of PA.

This is not now or ever has been about whether Badger is truthful in his assertions as to deer that are or are not on his few hundred acres. We have repeatedly said we believe him. In fact I do understand that he is unhappy IF his hunting is inferior to some time in the past.

We have provided in documented posts evidence that PA hunters in his area have been able to improve their local hunting situation to the point that they are taking high quality deer annually on small proprties. We have offered Badger the opportunity to have direct contact with these people even after he clearly indicated that he thought they could not do what they claimed. They even came here to this site for the express purpose of helping Badger, but, as is his habit when faced with facts, he drops the subject and continues his "woe is me" refrain. When a person is in a mode where complaining is preferable to doing something positive for himself, he does not seem to be destined to become better informed or to improve his local hunting. As a "victim" in today's world, he is looking for someone else (legislators/USP/PGC/et al) to bail him out.

[Sabre]

Correction: Upon reflection that 240 acre figure should be 640 acres.

I already knew that and figured it was a typo. I think the 640 acre figure applies to most does {and likely even less in many cases} and possibly to bucks living in high deer density areas but 640 acres won't begin to contain a rutting buck around here. I've seen them travel for miles and DEC radio collar studies have shown bucks traveling as far as 15 miles during the rut in NY.

[Sabre]

Sabre said:


Sabre, please try to understand, this overall PA QDM discussion is not now or ever has been about Badger's 60 acres or the other 130 that he has claimed that he controls. No one interested in management by a STATE agency would think that a STATE could be overly concerned with such a small spot within millions of acres to be managed for all of the various needs of the people of PA.

This is not now or ever has been about whether Badger is truthful in his assertions as to deer that are or are not on his few hundred acres. We have repeatedly said we believe him. In fact I do understand that he is unhappy IF his hunting is inferior to some time in the past.

We have provided in documented posts evidence that PA hunters in his area have been able to improve their local hunting situation to the point that they are taking high quality deer annually on small proprties. We have offered Badger the opportunity to have direct contact with these people even after he clearly indicated that he thought they could not do what they claimed. They even came here to this site for the express purpose of helping Badger, but, as is his habit when faced with facts, he drops the subject and continues his "woe is me" refrain. When a person is in a mode where complaining is preferable to doing something positive for himself, he does not seem to be destined to become better informed or to improve his local hunting. As a "victim" in today's world, he is looking for someone else (legislators/USP/PGC/et al) to bail him out.

From what Badger and hellrazor said I took it they were talking of a fairly large area or maybe even a whole DMU in northcentral PA. Altjaeger filled me in on the saga here in a bit more detail via PM.

[Altjaeger]

I stand corrected and defer to Venado on the acreage of Badgers place.

[hellrazor]

hellrazor said:


I don't recall a WMU that had a 100,000 allocation for the 2008-9 season. Could you please help me out by telling me which one it was.

Thanks.

My typo... it should be 112,000 (not 121,000) for 09/10 which is an increase of 21,000. But that was the info in the paper.

The PGC website shows 113,000 for 09/10. Must be Enron accounting.

WMU 5C. The northern/western part is rural and the southern/eastern part is heavy suburbs. How they put that in one zone is beyond me.

[hellrazor]

If you spend a bit of time on Pennsylvania hunting forums you will find the majority of Pennsylvanians are happy and the few you hear complaining are the minority as it is in my area. Which faction should the PGC be serving?


Using the forums as your source is a joke. How many people do you know that read hunting forums? I can't name a single other hunter that I know of. Are those the same people who buy $3000 rifles and pay to hunt everyplace or the average hunter? I guess you aren't bright enough to figure out left vs right wing media coverage either? I am sure Field and Stream will cover it soon.

I can find 200 people who think the economy is doing well too...

I have a permanant lease to 600 acres, permission to hunt a 100 & 120 acre farms and access to 3000 acres of game lands that are mostly unused since the private land owners landlock the majority of the access. We had a deer problem in the area until 5 property owners banned doe hunting. I have a solid hunting area and have little to complain about now. But the poor saps who have to hunt public land aren't seeing anything and I am willing to bet the PGC will kill hunting for anyone who has to hunt public land in the close future. Nobody is going to sit in the woods for a week and not see a deer. I would quit hunting if I could only hunt public land.

The PGC broke the system when they switched from county by county doe licenses to the WMU's. You had more control in a smaller area instead of the larger blocks. Now you have a large WMU, with the same area of public land with 3 times the number of doe tags. Does that fix the problem with deer in the suburbs? No. The PGC has been corrupted by the insurance companies, audobon society and anyone else who gives them money or has political power. Yet they fail to follow through on timber sales, etc on the yearly basis and cry they need money.

[venado]

Thanks, hellrazor, that makes good sense since 5C had 92,000 last year. I know what the PGC said about how the WMUs were designed and on the surface it doesn't connect that there would be a high percentage of "out of similarity" in one WMU.

Sabre, we do discuss both the state and the various WMUs and there is no denying that the north central (Badger's area) has taken a large herd reduction over the last 7 years. The serious discussion revolves around why was it done (habitat management or meaness :D) since there is no argument that the herd was reduced.

Altjaeger, only Badger can confirm his acreage today, but several years ago, the numbers I posted were provided by him at this site.

[Sabre]

Using the forums as your source is a joke. How many people do you know that read hunting forums? I can't name a single other hunter that I know of. Are those the same people who buy $3000 rifles and pay to hunt everyplace or the average hunter?

That is absolutely the truth. I know ALOT of avid deer hunters around here and I'm the only one who spends ANY time on hunting forums. Most say they have neither the time nor the slightest inclination and many don't even own a computer. You won't see these guy's at the local QDMA meetings where the "average" deer hunters go to cry about the lack of trophy animals and demand laws be passed to increase their pitiful lack of hunting success. Some of them are phenomenal deer hunters and kill BIG BUCKS year after year in the same DMU'S where the QDM cry babies claim they don't exist. I've heard it said that 10% of the deer hunters kill 90% of the deer year after year. From what I see around here I'd say that's absolutely correct but it's predominantly the 90% of relatively unsuccessful hunters you'll ever hear from on internet forums or at the QDMA meetings. The successful one's have nothing to complain about.

[Altjaeger]

Using the forums as your source is a joke. How many people do you know that read hunting forums? I can't name a single other hunter that I know of. Are those the same people who buy $3000 rifles and pay to hunt everyplace or the average hunter? I guess you aren't bright enough to figure out left vs right wing media coverage either? I am sure Field and Stream will cover it soon.

A hang up on money have we? That is twice you have mentioned high price firearms as if they are a disqualifier. Does that description describe you? Certainly not me. I have never paid more than a small fraction of that for a firearm and hunt public lands or public draw hunts except for a rare invitation as a guest. Do you think it describes the others here?

Certainly forums are but one indicator. Others include all the organizations that stood up for the PGC as the USP began their impotent flailings, the general demeanor and trends in the states outdoor columns and the comments in these forums from other residents of your state.


I can find 200 people who think the economy is doing well too...

I am sure I could to. But I might have to ask 600-800 to get them in which case they are still a minority.


I have a permanant lease to 600 acres, permission to hunt a 100 & 120 acre farms and access to 3000 acres of game lands that are mostly unused since the private land owners landlock the majority of the access. We had a deer problem in the area until 5 property owners banned doe hunting. I have a solid hunting area and have little to complain about now. But the poor saps who have to hunt public land aren't seeing anything and I am willing to bet the PGC will kill hunting for anyone who has to hunt public land in the close future. Nobody is going to sit in the woods for a week and not see a deer. I would quit hunting if I could only hunt public land.

I hate to think what a lifetime lease on almost a full square mile of land costs. Hope you have partners in that.

I regret that you take part of an effort to block your fellow citizens from hunting land which they own and have a voice in. In their shoes I might be asking the PGC and Legislators to sell it and purchase accessable land.

Any clue as to how and why the PGC would seek to kill hunting on public lands? What the motive to lead back to overpopulation again while killing a revenue source might profit them?


The PGC broke the system when they switched from county by county doe licenses to the WMU's. You had more control in a smaller area instead of the larger blocks. Now you have a large WMU, with the same area of public land with 3 times the number of doe tags. Does that fix the problem with deer in the suburbs? No. The PGC has been corrupted by the insurance companies, audobon society and anyone else who gives them money or has political power. Yet they fail to follow through on timber sales, etc on the yearly basis and cry they need money.

Can you show me professional biologist that says the system is broke? Right now all I have seen is the whinings of seemingly small clique. Do you have the methodology available so we can see how urban deer are folded into the rural deer count to set seasons and limits? If not what is the source of that information?

Can you show the money trail where commercial interests such as the insurance industry is bribing the PGC? That is a stout allegation that should generate investigation by a prosecutor if demonstrable. The Audubon Society is an advocacy group like the the archery associations that have stood with it against the USP among others, just as the PGC itself is an advocacy organization.

Again please gift us with facts instead of rantings.

[hellrazor]

Thanks, hellrazor, that makes good sense since 5C had 92,000 last year. I know what the PGC said about how the WMUs were designed and on the surface it doesn't connect that there would be a high percentage of "out of similarity" in one WMU.

Sabre, we do discuss both the state and the various WMUs and there is no denying that the north central (Badger's area) has taken a large herd reduction over the last 7 years. The serious discussion revolves around why was it done (habitat management or meaness :D) since there is no argument that the herd was reduced.


5C was a poorly designed management unit. I am in the north west corner of it. This area is small town, with farming and wooded mountains. The southwest area is the 'burbs of Philly. How we got lumped into the same WMU is beyond me. I saw more deer driving to Philly to watch a Phantom games than I have seen in a few years at the house now. It does suck because I used to see a few deer on the weekly basis before.

[hellrazor]

I hate to think what a lifetime lease on almost a full square mile of land costs. Hope you have partners in that.

I regret that you take part of an effort to block your fellow citizens from hunting land which they own and have a voice in. In their shoes I might be asking the PGC and Legislators to sell it and purchase accessable land.

Any clue as to how and why the PGC would seek to kill hunting on public lands? What the motive to lead back to overpopulation again while killing a revenue source might profit them?


My lease costs me less than $300/yr plus about 5 or 6 days of work. It was a family agreemment from way back. All I need to do is share duties with posting, habitat improvement, keeping people off, insurance, etc. No big deal on my part. I need to peacefully coexist with his hunters which isn't a big dead for me.

One of the conservancy groups helped them pay for the land when they bought it. Too bad they bought land that is landlocked on 3 out of 4 sides by large tracts of private land. That kills your lack of conspiracy theory on where $$ comes from. Every year the conservancy groups help them buy land and they are the same groups who want this and that done to help one kind of bird or another. So guess who wins?

They are going to kill hunting on public lands by selling craploads of doe licenses + private land is being post more and more. So everyone cleans out the public lands. No deer = no interest in hunting = dead. The number of hunters declines every year.

Biologists? The property owner had one in about 5 years ago and gave the place a clean bill of health except he recommended one area of pines was thinned or clear cut in a 8-10 acre area. 50-60% of the tree's had storm damage and were useless. All those deer sure over browse everything when the brush is up to my handlbars on the quad. :rolleyes:

[Altjaeger]

My lease costs me less than $300/yr plus about 5 or 6 days of work. It was a family agreemment from way back. All I need to do is share duties with posting, habitat improvement, keeping people off, insurance, etc. No big deal on my part. I need to peacefully coexist with his hunters which isn't a big dead for me.

One of the conservancy groups helped them pay for the land when they bought it. Too bad they bought land that is landlocked on 3 out of 4 sides by large tracts of private land. That kills your lack of conspiracy theory on where $$ comes from. Every year the conservancy groups help them buy land and they are the same groups who want this and that done to help one kind of bird or another. So guess who wins?

They are going to kill hunting on public lands by selling craploads of doe licenses + private land is being post more and more. So everyone cleans out the public lands. No deer = no interest in hunting = dead. The number of hunters declines every year.

Biologists? The property owner had one in about 5 years ago and gave the place a clean bill of health except he recommended one area of pines was thinned or clear cut in a 8-10 acre area. 50-60% of the tree's had storm damage and were useless. All those deer sure over browse everything when the brush is up to my handlbars on the quad. :rolleyes:

I am glad that your lease is so inexpensive. If one side is open then it is not landlocked for those who will work for it. I am curious if that Conservancy group buying land for birds is the same Audabon Society you derided earlier?

It is good the biologist gave your piece of land a clean bill of health but that is not the same as a biologist or better a group of them that speaks against the state saying the system is broke.

[hellrazor]

That is twice you have mentioned high price firearms as if they are a disqualifier. Does that description describe you? Certainly not me. I have never paid more than a small fraction of that for a firearm and hunt public lands or public draw hunts except for a rare invitation as a guest.

Hell that is funny, I thought you were worth big $$, you act like you own PA.

My most expensive firearm is a Pre64 Model 70... does that explain my rich guns? Did I mention I inherited the rifle? My all weather rifle is a fugly synthetic model 700 in .270 that I won on a raffle.

I guess your real life personality must turn people on like it does on here. I never had problems getting invited to hunt private land, etc. I don't have to rely on public land and having a piss poor attitude towards others who have or expect more out of the so called QDM. I think a shrink would classify you as jealous.

I'll start posting the deer pictures on here just for you. Good thing I picked up a nice digital camera earlier this year.

[Altjaeger]

Hell that is funny, I thought you were worth big $$, you act like you own PA.

My most expensive firearm is a Pre64 Model 70... does that explain my rich guns? Did I mention I inherited the rifle? My all weather rifle is a fugly synthetic model 700 in .270 that I won on a raffle.

I guess your real life personality must turn people on like it does on here. I never had problems getting invited to hunt private land, etc. I don't have to rely on public land and having a piss poor attitude towards others who have or expect more out of the so called QDM. I think a shrink would classify you as jealous.

I'll start posting the deer pictures on here just for you. Good thing I picked up a nice digital camera earlier this year.

Uh-Huh:D

[Altjaeger]

I am curious if that Conservancy group buying land for birds is the same Audabon Society you derided earlier?

Any answer yet?

[Altjaeger]

Any clue as to how and why the PGC would seek to kill hunting on public lands? What the motive to lead back to overpopulation again while killing a revenue source might profit them?



Can you show me professional biologist that says the system is broke? Right now all I have seen is the whinings of seemingly small clique. Do you have the methodology available so we can see how urban deer are folded into the rural deer count to set seasons and limits? If not what is the source of that information?

Can you show the money trail where commercial interests such as the insurance industry is bribing the PGC?

Are you making any headway in providing answers?

[Altjaeger]

Badger, Who is the certifying organization and authority issuing the certifications? Where might the certifying requirements be found? What is the advantage of this certication that would attract the PGC? Has the PCC stated this is a goal?

Badger has been unable to answer, perhaps you can Hellrazor?

[hellrazor]

Damn, do you sit here wanking off waiting for someone to answer you? Get a job or a life. If all you can think about is PA, MOVE HERE.

When I have time, I will go play on google to find the money/land donations the PGC accepted from the conservancy groups/etc. It isn't hard to find since the PGC is limited by state law from paying more than $400/acre for land and those groups will pay the difference.

But in the mean time, I have reality to deal with.

[Altjaeger]

That would be great and maybe you can tell us if that is the way the block you hunt was acquired and who the Conservancy concerned with birds was that provided that block.

Just as interesting would be the answers to the other questions your post generated such as what biologists say your system is broke? The methodolgy used to blend urban deer with rural as you allege and especially the money trail of bribes from the Insurance industry and other commercial interests.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Hey guys, I am glad to see that we can have lively discussions, disagree and continue to discuss things.

I have been outdoors working on projects for my dear wife (so I can go hunt elk this fall). But anyways, it looks like ya'll are doing just fine without me. :D

If I have failed to welcome anyone, I hope you feel welcome now.

[Renegade]

I don't want to go back through and rehash prior comments, but I would like to say to those outside of PA., you have a very good understanding of the "goings on" in PA., despite maybe never having hunted here, though it seems as if some may have in years gone by. And I would have attribute your knowledge to educating yourselves on all topics "deer" that come into play.

A comment was made earlier (here I go doing what I said I wouldn't) about hunters on these forums being a small portion of the masses. While that's true, a lot of these folks have become the "cream of the crop" when it comes to knowledge of deer management and forest management techniques. These are things you just can't get from simply being a hunter. Most hunters in PA are clueless when it comes to these issues (and the reason the PUS exploits them). I've seen it time and time again. Way more of my acquaintances are not on these forums than are, and when we do get into discussions it doesn't take long for them to start asking questions on basic things that should've been common knowledge and the bases for which other thought processes come from. For instance: that state game lands are not the same as state forest lands and are managed in two entirely different ways; that it is impossible to know exactly just how many deer are in a state; or that deer do the most damage to their habitat in the winter and early spring.

I have gone on a good many habitat / deer management tours over the past decade and I can't tell you how many people have came along thinking they knew it all and could prove them wrong, but came away from it with a much different understanding and would willingly admit they knew very little about forest growth, deer habits in the off season, what the PGC actually does on game lands, and the interaction of all these things. It's almost as if someone stoked a smoldering ash pile and launched a quest for a bonfire. Unfortunately none of the PUS crowd or the naysayers from these bbd forums ever show up to either learn or to set these professionals straight.

So my point is that while field experience in hunting has it's own benefits when it comes to filling a tag (right along side of the dumb "luck" factor), it's definitely not a substitute for the knowledge of science and nature. How many hunters do you know that are out researching deer and collecting data on them as an everyday job? I'll put more faith in the ones that do rather than the ones that don't!

[Bob S]

While that's true, a lot of these folks have become the "cream of the crop" when it comes to knowledge of deer management and forest management techniques. These are things you just can't get from simply being a hunter. Most hunters in PA are clueless when it comes to these issues (and the reason the PUS exploits them). I've seen it time and time again.I see the same thing in Michigan. A hunter complains that he has hunted the same "spot" for 30 years and he no longer sees the amount of deer he used to see. Therefore it must be the DNR's fault for issuing too many antlerless tags. When in reality what has happened over those 30 years is the forest has matured, and a mature forest is not good deer habitat.

As most of us who read these forums can attest, it is much easier for hunters who no longer see deer to blame everyone else but themselves. Rather than looking for a better spot if hunting public land, or working to improve the habitat if they own private land, it is easier to complain.

The hunters who manage their land for deer, don't seem to have a problem seeing deer.

There are people woods, and there are deer woods. Deer typically don't live in people woods. Hunters who don't know the difference between the two will never figure out why they don't see deer.

[Renegade]

I'm with you there Bob, that is so true. And when you explain that to them they take offense to it like your telling them they don't know what they're doing. I don't know of one hunter who has paid attention to the details of their haunts from day one when they were a kid, the whole way up until now. Which is what would be required to make the honest claim that "my area has always had deer, the habitat is fine". Forests grow slowly and most of us don't notice the subtle changes over time.

[southtexas]

Well said, Bob and Renegade.

[venado]

Thanks Renegade and Bob S for your comments.

There are some here that will not believe Renegade even though he lives in PA. You can imagine how those same ones react when someone from Texas has information that they do not have:rolleyes:. Of course due to their ignorance, they have no alternative but to argue with us foreigners because they "claim" to live there.

All of us that love deer and hunting them owe it to ourselves to try to understand what it takes to make deer and their environment act in harmony. That is what QDM is all about and Pennsylvania is at the front of intelligent mangement. The PGC needs to be congratulated on their outstanding effort to consider all of "the people's" needs not just those of the hunter class.

[BILL K]

Well, this turned out to be a useless thread for my purposes. I was hoping to find a link to a site detailing how much land the USP has leased and what practices they are using to manage that land for the benefit of whitetail deer and those that hunt them.

[Badger]

Bill K,

It would NOT matter how much land the USP leased SINCE the PGC continues to sell TOO MANY antlerless deer tags the meat hunters are only too anxious to fill.

You can plant all the food plots you wish, it will not amount to much if PGC sells close to ONE MILLION antlerless tags per year, year after year. If that is QDM, please expalin the details to a PA farmer.

Badger

[BILL K]

A million doe tags you say? Well, did anybody ever stop to think that it might only be three quarters of a million except that so many armchair biologists said they were gonna buy and burn tags rather than use them as reccommended?
Other than helping the state to sell plenty of tags that they know wont be used to take deer anyway, what else are these splinter groups doing to help the PGC improve the overall health of the herd? You say they're not leasing ground where they themselves could control the numbers, they're not putting in food plots, and not cutting winter browse, so just what is the purpose of their existence?

[Renegade]

"what is the purpose of their existence? "
Good question Bill and one that is easily answered. They exist solely to oppose anything the PGC does. If the PGC says yes, they say no. If the PGC were to proclaim that carrots are orange the PUS would argue that "they are supposed to be green but due to a coal plant in Ohio it makes them have an orange tint, and that's the PGC's fault". Oh yea and "all the hunters agree with us". The PUS club, which now only has about 2,500 members according to one of the main guys, was started by a group of guys within another club that didn't agree with the majority of that club. So they took their toys and went and built a new sandbox to play in. They have pretty much zero credibility among the sporting community of PA.

Fact is that the number of antlerless allocations have been being reduced since 2005, as have dmap tags requested by private landowners and state forest managers. Only 3 units out of 22 are still seeing an increase this year and those are units around the Pittsburg and Philly area where hunting space is limited so deer are hard to control. These areas used to have unlimited tags.

And it's not a million tags (they always like to exaggerate in a direction that benefits their argument). In 2008 it was 849,000 plus another 30,476 in dmap, of which only 23,429 coupons were sold. And of the initial allotment 17,304 were not sold. So a total sold was only 855,125. And as you said, how many of those weren't even used to hunt with!

[Laturkeyhtr]

Bill K, Glad to see a new face now an again. Let me give you our welcome to this site and hope with time that you will find some answers or something of interest.

Badger, I think you have a warped sense in this leasing business. Here in the South and I am sure everywhere else, when a person or group leases land, they then have control over what takes place. I suppose there is the outside chance that the leasor could dictate what takes place and then what would be the sense of leasing it. There are other concerns with some around here that improving it will only make it cost them more in the future or have their lease taken over by someone else. I usually think this is just an excuse for not working to improve the ground that they hunt.

As in the past, we have all encouraged you to learn something about QDM and simply put some of it into practice, BUT you have chosen not to. If I recall, I even offered you a subscription to QDMA journal, Quality Whitetails, BUT still again, you have chosen not to learn.

I think Renegade has a very good grasp of the situation and I thank him for his comments. Don't worry about repeating yourself, some will not catch even it you do multiple times.

[BILL K]

Thanks for your answer there Mr. Renegade, very well said!
Thanks also to Laturkeyhtr for the welcome. Actually, I've been a member of the site for a few years but havent posted on this particular forum until recently.
As to the subject at hand, I must confess that I might know a bit more about hunting Pennsylvania whitetails than I let on at first, and even a thing or two about the USP.
Another confession that I must make is that I'm not much of a typist. consequently, I dont post a lot, but rather just kept it brief. An occasional question, an answer now and then, a pun, a joke, and sometimes a torpedo, but no long diatribes.

[Renegade]

Your quite welcome LaTurkeyhtr and Bill K. I’m a two finger typer myself, though I can end up with some pretty lengthy posts once I get rolling.

[Badger]

Renegade,

What county in PA do you hunt? I maintain that 855,000 antlerless tags are far TOO many for 2008 and a similiar "stay the course" will occur in 2009. The PGC does not listen to hunters who ask for FEWER antlerless tags because the deer herd is decimated. Since the PGC will not listen, the only alternative is to contact our elected representatives and have the USP go to court. If you had $855,000, would you consider yourself a millionaire?

What is your credibility? Second, please be civil and refer to USP as USP. If you cannot, then I realize you are merely what you are. A moderator on this site would delete you and your PUS. You are lucky there is no moderator at present. Again, WHAT is your Pennsylvania Credibility?

Badger

[Altjaeger]

Renegade,

What is your credibility? Again, WHAT is your Pennsylvania Credibility?

Badger

:)
And I thought you saved that for us Texans. Now I see you asking that of a fellow resident of your on state.

I guess since by all published and available information sources available you are in the minority of Pennsylvania hunters I will ask you, "What is your credibility?".:D

[Renegade]

My thoughts exactly. Why must I have credentials to make me a valid source, but you can opine without question.
But to answer your question I hunt mainly Centre, Mifflin, and Huntingdon, which is now wmu 4D, but I've hunted in my lifetime, in addition, Juniata, Perry, Tioga, Potter, Clinton, Lycoming, Snyder, Union, and Bradford, that I can recall in my 35 years of hunting Pa.

If 855k is too many, what should it be and what are your credentials and the method used to arrive at your presumed "correct" figure? What is "your" number based upon?

A "stay the course" allotment?? As I told you earlier, they've been changing and reducing the amounts every year. Again, what should it be and why is your amount more accurate than the professionals who have all the supporting knowledge and data?

"The PGC does not listen to hunters who ask for FEWER antlerless tags because the deer herd is decimated."
Maybe because they DO listen to hunters (it's impossible to do as every hunter would like) and the allocations or management of the deer is not about what some hunters WANT. It's about what's best for the deer. They aren't the hunters deer and hunters aren't the only group that the size of the deer population effects. And the herd is far from decimated. We're still killing lots of deer and I still see a good many deer, and I'm in a wmu with poor habitat and stabilizing allotments.

And no, if I had $855k I would not be a millionaire nor would I consider myself one. I can't believe you'd get so picky about the arrangement of 3 letters, but not be concerned with a 145,000 variance.

As for the civility, I spoke of it in the other thread where it upset you. Please don't take anything I say to heart, I mean no malice to you. I'm sure there's some decent members of the usp. Unfortunately the leadership of that org ignores the membership and leads according to their agenda, and has gained the entire club this poor reputation. Not even their entire membership is behind their lawsuit.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Who says there is not a moderator here? Just because they aren't shown, doesn't mean there isn't one. Oh, I figured it out, you think the moderator should edit or remove his post because of "PUS". Besides to the best of my understanding everything here is just fine. Currently even more active than before. :D And we even have folks with their feet on PA soil adding to the discussions.

Now about that typing, I can type, I am just not much of a writer, :D but I do try to get my point across.

[Pa greed commission]

"My thoughts exactly. Why must I have credentials to make me a valid source, but you can opine without question."

You dont need credentials. With or without, its clear you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

"If 855k is too many, what should it be and what are your credentials and the method used to arrive at your presumed "correct" figure? What is "your" number based upon?"

It should have been far lower for years. over 4 years ago the supposed statewide goal aside from sras became "stabilization" and no longer reduction. However the stats on the annual reports, specifically the herd change index does not bear that out. Most wmus have experienced near steady and significant reduction since then, with harvests also falling to decades lows.

"A "stay the course" allotment?? As I told you earlier, they've been changing and reducing the amounts every year."

Any "reduction" to allocation is a few wmus were completely inconsequential. The allocations for many wmus are HIGHER now than they were when reduction was the goal over 4 years ago!! The allocation is overcoming recruitment and continuing the decline to the herd. It doesnt take more tags and higher harvest goals to stabilize a much smaller herd. Absolutely ridiculous and anyone but an idiot wouldnt have to be told that.

"Maybe because they DO listen to hunters (it's impossible to do as every hunter would like) and the allocations or management of the deer is not about what some hunters WANT."

Pgc has ignored hunters for several years now. Blatantly. In favor of econutcases and an extreme completely unnatural biodiversity agenda.

"It's about what's best for the deer. "

Nope. The reproductive/health data actually steadily DECLINED which can be easily seen on the 07/08 annual report, going all the way from 1.63 embryos per doe in 2002 and steadily declined down to 1.50 embryos per doe in 2007. Also percentage of adult does actually bred declined from 93% down steadily to 88% during the same time frame as the embryo decline from 2002 to 2007.

"As for the civility, I spoke of it in the other thread where it upset you. Please don't take anything I say to heart, I mean no malice to you. I'm sure there's some decent members of the usp. Unfortunately the leadership of that org ignores the membership and leads according to their agenda, and has gained the entire club this poor reputation. Not even their entire membership is behind their lawsuit."

Anyone usp or otherwise expecting civility from you is expecting something they arent gonna get. Youve proven that time and again on other boards.
May as well save the stress on your "two fingers" by not bothering to reply. Youve never had a rational response on any of the other boards in regard to the "facts" behind this miserably failed deer program, so i dont see why here should be any different. lol

"They have pretty much zero credibility among the sporting community of PA."

So basically they have about as much credibility as the Pa game commission among we hunters currently.

[Pa greed commission]

BTW, Badger good point, yes 850,000 is for all intense purposes "close nuff" and IS "nearly a million" as youd claimed, but we also had OVER a million for a few years since 2000.

[Altjaeger]

"My thoughts exactly. Why must I have credentials to make me a valid source, but you can opine without question."

You dont need credentials. With or without, its clear you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

"If 855k is too many, what should it be and what are your credentials and the method used to arrive at your presumed "correct" figure? What is "your" number based upon?"

It should have been far lower for years. over 4 years ago the supposed statewide goal aside from sras became "stabilization" and no longer reduction. However the stats on the annual reports, specifically the herd change index does not bear that out. Most wmus have experienced near steady and significant reduction since then, with harvests also falling to decades lows.

"A "stay the course" allotment?? As I told you earlier, they've been changing and reducing the amounts every year."

Any "reduction" to allocation is a few wmus were completely inconsequential. The allocations for many wmus are HIGHER now than they were when reduction was the goal over 4 years ago!! The allocation is overcoming recruitment and continuing the decline to the herd. It doesnt take more tags and higher harvest goals to stabilize a much smaller herd. Absolutely ridiculous and anyone but an idiot wouldnt have to be told that.

"Maybe because they DO listen to hunters (it's impossible to do as every hunter would like) and the allocations or management of the deer is not about what some hunters WANT."

Pgc has ignored hunters for several years now. Blatantly. In favor of econutcases and an extreme completely unnatural biodiversity agenda.

"It's about what's best for the deer. "

Nope. The reproductive/health data actually steadily DECLINED which can be easily seen on the 07/08 annual report, going all the way from 1.63 embryos per doe in 2002 and steadily declined down to 1.50 embryos per doe in 2007. Also percentage of adult does actually bred declined from 93% down steadily to 88% during the same time frame as the embryo decline from 2002 to 2007.

"As for the civility, I spoke of it in the other thread where it upset you. Please don't take anything I say to heart, I mean no malice to you. I'm sure there's some decent members of the usp. Unfortunately the leadership of that org ignores the membership and leads according to their agenda, and has gained the entire club this poor reputation. Not even their entire membership is behind their lawsuit."

Anyone usp or otherwise expecting civility from you is expecting something they arent gonna get. Youve proven that time and again on other boards.
May as well save the stress on your "two fingers" by not bothering to reply. Youve never had a rational response on any of the other boards in regard to the "facts" behind this miserably failed deer program, so i dont see why here should be any different. lol

"They have pretty much zero credibility among the sporting community of PA."

So basically they have about as much credibility as the Pa game commission among we hunters currently.
Who is this masked man who talks about past posts that are not apparent under this name? A poster of the past who now chooses to hide under a new alias. Not hard to establish the status of his creditability. He has none.

[Pa greed commission]

"My thoughts exactly. Why must I have credentials to make me a valid source, but you can opine without question."

"Who is this masked man"

No "masked man" any moreso than you or anyone else were when you first signed on here id imagine?

"who talks about past posts that are not apparent under this name? A poster of the past who now chooses to hide under a new alias. Not hard to establish the status of his creditability. He has none."

If youd learn to read, youd see on my last post, I said on OTHER BOARDS.:.........Here is what was said: "Anyone usp or otherwise expecting civility from you is expecting something they arent gonna get. Youve proven that time and again on other boards.
May as well save the stress on your "two fingers" by not bothering to reply. Youve never had a rational response on any of the other boards in regard to the "facts" behind this miserably failed deer program, so i dont see why here should be any different. lol"

I can see you are a true brainiac, who is true threat to MY credibility. lol:eek::p

[Renegade]

Ahhh, I see 'ol Dan is making his rounds again. What's the matter, get kicked off of another site? Cute name, but why must you keep creating new ones? Ohh that's right, it's to make it appear as though someone else is as angry as you that you can't find a deer, hence your one man crusade to smear the PGC. I notice you still like to establish your credibility, or lack of, right off the bat, in typical usp fashion you start with the badmouthing because you have nothing but your own misguided opinions. And that's fine, but don't try to pass them off as fact like usual, there's too many smart cookies here. I'm not sure you'd know a fact if you tripped over it.

[Pa greed commission]

"Ahhh, I see 'ol Dan is making his rounds again."

Dan eh? Ok. Whatever works for you. Can I call you Sam? lmao.

" What's the matter, get kicked off of another site?"

Nope. I dont go on your lil pgc suck arse site. So i dont have to worry about it when i speak about the unsavory truth of the environmentalist extremist deer program.

"Ohh that's right, it's to make it appear as though someone else is as angry as you that you can't find a deer,"

Naaa. I couldnt find a deer if my life depended on it. Not possible since I dont support the clown commission! lmao....Since there is a direct link between the two and all! lmao.

"hence your one man crusade to smear the PGC."

Ha ha ha. Yeah. One man. Lmao. Keep tellin' yourself that. One man didnt get the weasels at the deerless commission sued, prevented a fee increase, audit... forced your hero Alt to walk around with a bullet proof vest! lol. All because of lil' ol' me! lmao. And you have nerve to speak of CREDIBILITY? lol

"I notice you still like to establish your credibility, or lack of, right off the bat, in typical usp fashion you start with the badmouthing because you have nothing but your own misguided opinions"

Might or might not be usp fashion. Wouldnt know their fashion. Though they do get points with me for opposing pgcs pure manure. And yours apparently.

"And that's fine, but don't try to pass them off as fact like usual, there's too many smart cookies here. I'm not sure you'd know a fact if you tripped over it."'

Gee, thanks for the permission, as if i needed yours. But the facts are what they are. People can see them and decide for themselves without your guiding hand and saying so just because you say it is so. lol. Especially the "smart cookies" can see through a screen of baloney. Sorry about bursting your bubble here, but someone had to. Mistruths and deciet shouldnt be permitted to stand. Funny you didnt dare address any of the points I posted because you know you would be fighting a losing battle. You're Napolean complex and abuse of moderating powers on your lil' site permits you to say just about anything unchallenged. True or not. 90% of the time, not.

[southtexas]

Why do you find it necessary to end almost every sentence, or thought with "lmao" or "lol"?

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

He's just a funny guy!

Alan

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

This is some kind of running battle these two are having as they gallup across cyberspace.

I still don't understand what the fascination is with Pennsylvania and their deer herd. The Pauls have tried to explain it to me before but either I can't grasp the concept or I just really don't care. Whatever the case may be I will venture a guess that PA has some problems with it's people and not with it's deer herd. Back in the day when I took Range and Wildlife Management at the University, Texas A & I University that is, we learned that more deer were killed every year by automobiles than by hunters. Now that's a lot of deer to be had in one state. If indeed this is the case, and there is genuinely a problem with a severe reduction in the heard size then perhaps the problem should be addressed by the Highway Dept. and not the Game Commission. If it's not the case then I have to assume that my professors didn't know what they were talking about.

I know there are those that say the state is overrun with vermin deer and that that you can't swing a cat without hitting one and there are others who say you can't find one. Either way it's the people squabbling about it. And not only that but you're squabbling about what some bureaucrat is saying and doing.

I thank God every morning that I live in Texas.

Alan

[Renegade]

Sams’ fine Dan.

” I dont go on your lil pgc suck arse site.”
I’m well aware of that. You didn’t last too long once you couldn’t fool anyone there with your babble. You had a meltdown and the board admin booted you. It’s funny how you call all these sites where the majority doesn’t buy into your agenda, cutzy little names, just like in grade school.

” Naaa. I couldnt find a deer if my life depended on it.”
Well that’s what I had figured was probably at the root of your anger. I think it probably has a lot to do with your aversion to expert advice from professionals. Instead you think you know it all and therefore have a closed mind. You’re your own worst enemy. But don’t fear, we can help.

” One man didnt get the weasels at the deerless commission sued, prevented a fee increase, audit”
Your right, it was 15 guys on the board of directors of the usp, according to Steve Mohr, that decided to sue. And they could barely get 1% of hunters to sign on to it.
It would appear you don’t understand how bills in congress work or how politicians act at election time. But I guess your unaware of the proposed bill currently out there for a fee increase, or the economic problems we are currently having. Don’t flatter yourself if you think you or your usp are holding the keys to that one. An increase is closer than you think. To date though it’s only been put on the table one time but the year ran out shortly after.
The audit was brought to life by about 10 groups of sportsmen and women in order to validate the PGC and prove there methods are on the up and up. And to prove people like you wrong. The final nail in your coffin you might say. The usp's bluff was called and now they're trying their da**est to discredit it.

” But the facts are what they are. People can see them and decide for themselves”
Exactly. I’m glad we can agree on that. That’s why I present verifiable facts and links to back up my claims. People aren’t stupid (well most) and can sift thru the bs and form their own conclusion. I’m not sure why you seem to think your words are gospel when their clearly biased opinions. You need to give people more credit than you do.

” Funny you didnt dare address any of the points I posted because you know you would be fighting a losing battle.”
Your right, why would I try to change your opinions. Your too rooted in your rumors, myths, and lies to be able to see objectively. Your glasses are tinted dark.

However if you want to address an issue based on verifiable facts I’d be glad to discuss it with you. Don’t be afraid of learning. For instance, your constantly saying the deer herd has been decimated and there are very few deer left. Then why is it we still have harvests of over 300,000 deer. What is the current population of deer at statewide? To make the claim of decimation with any level of accuracy, you must have some hard data to back that up. Please fill us in. And give that civility thing a shot. You catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar!

S.Texas – ” Why do you find it necessary to end almost every sentence, or thought with "lmao" or "lol"?”
It’s a coping mechanism to disguise a feeling of insecurity. Ask a shrink. Seriously.

Alan – ” Whatever the case may be I will venture a guess that PA has some problems with it's people and not with it's deer herd.”
You are partially right. The problems with the deer herd are obvious and I believe you do have a grasp on those. But we do have a people problem. I’m sure back in your university days you’ve heard the saying that the most difficult aspect of wildlife management is people management. People are generally opposed to change. And when you get used to having something so good, any lessening of that goodness is seen as bad. Even when it’s for the better. It’s similar to addiction. We had a plentiful herd all over the state, but at different times, over a period of say 40 years with the majority being in the late 90’s for the southern portion of the state. The northern, or heavily forested areas had already started to dry up by then due to lack of food. These one time plentiful herds have spoiled a lot of our younger hunters and, dare I say our more lazy hunters. Reducing the herd has “lessened” that good and spurred the complaint factory. We’ve always had complainers even when the times were good because somewhere in the state it was bad in their eyes.

The sad part is the lack of education as to the intricacies of wildlife management and the PGC is partially to blame for that. They had poor advertisement in the first year of the Alt seminar’s, which then left 2 more years to get the message out with the third year being during the start of the changes. They then dropped the ball and left folks wondering what was going on exactly. Then of course there’s that 10% factor of those who didn’t understand what they thought they heard. But I must say, within the past year, year and a half they’ve picked up the ball again. Sadly though there are those factions who refuse to get with modern times and new methods, and keep their head buried in the sand.

[Pa greed commission]

"I’m well aware of that. You didn’t last too long once you couldn’t fool anyone there with your babble."

You mean after making you look stupid just like on the other thread which you were proven wrong, yet ignored.

"You had a meltdown and the board admin booted you."

no meltdown. You sir are lying. I conducted myself perfectly and stuck strictly to the facts. i knew better than to insult moderation or get ":out of line" but that wasnt good enough for YOU. You referrred to me immediately in an automated message you use just for such occassions that you were sure I was usp and a know it all. You are clearly an arrogant lil' dictator with a Napoleon complex on that little board of perhaps 6 active members.

"Well that’s what I had figured was probably at the root of your anger."

" Instead you think you know it all and therefore have a closed mind. You’re your own worst enemy. But don’t fear, we can help."

No help needed from you or your type. I have a firm grasp of reality. Having actually studied these things in depth for MANY years, and not simply listening to what ecoextremist groups like audubon etc. tell you to believe. I also dont think i "know it all". I know i have a very good knowledge of the subject though and I dont believe in posting anything that I dont know to be 100% true. If i dont know something, I'll look it up first, but NEVER make a strong claim based on inaccurate data or information of any sort. I either know what Im talking about at the moment..or i keep my mouth shut.

"
Your right, it was 15 guys on the board of directors of the usp, according to Steve Mohr, that decided to sue. And they could barely get 1% of hunters to sign on to it."

Acsl has over 200,000 members. USP claims quite a few as I understand it as well. Thats more combined than any other so called "organizations" including Pfsc Pennsylvania Fed. of Sportsmens clubs and conservationists. Who also claim around 100k? Though a large contingent of their membership is NONHUNTING environmentalists whom they accept into the "club".

Then if you throw in the huge majority of hunters who belong to NO organization and do not support the failed plan, you are speaking of some pretty dismal support for the failed plan.

"It would appear you don’t understand how bills in congress work or how politicians act at election time. But I guess your unaware of the proposed bill currently out there for a fee increase, or the economic problems we are currently having. Don’t flatter yourself if you think you or your usp are holding the keys to that one. An increase is closer than you think. To date though it’s only been put on the table one time but the year ran out shortly after."

Oh, im more than aware of the "bill process". Have been involved in stuffing a few before they took flight more than once. lol;) But the main reason this far as to why pgc hasnt gotten a fee increase has nothing to do with a bill. Reason pgc hasnt been getting a fee increase currently is because house fish and game needs to rubber stamp it first. They wont, and will tell you its because of low hunter satisfaction caused by the deer plan and all the petitions etc. theyve recieved. Then we have idiots like Senator Levdansky trying to push the bills you speak of to over-ride and circumvent the "usual system" as it was set up, because he is trying to get around the check and balance system that was put into place to prevent corruption in game management. Will it succeed? We'll just have to wait and see if enough legislators are swayed, or if the scam audit fools anyone.

"The audit was brought to life by about 10 groups of sportsmen and women in order to validate the PGC and prove there methods are on the up and up. "

The IDEA of an audit was. Which I support. I do NOT support wmi doing the audit. They were handpicked by Levdansky and others who are pushing for alternate funding and are far frrom friends of pa's sportsmen. The proposal for the audit was also taken from the wording (cleverly and self-servingly worded I might add) given by TIM SHAEFFER OF THE AUDUBON SOCIETY... Not hunters.

"And to prove people like you wrong. The final nail in your coffin you might say. The usp's bluff was called and now they're trying their da**est to discredit it."

Usp are idiots. I appreciate their efforts, but they overall arent the sharpest tools in the shed I'll admit. To the best of my understanding, they actually SUPPORT the audit. I know that SLinsky does according to his last article. Guess that puts YOU TWO on the same side! lmao

” That’s why I present verifiable facts and links to back up my claims."

Please point to ONE, Any ONE since Ive been posting that has shown ANYTHING? Thats what I thought lmao. But you only have to go to the other thread here to see that I HAVE and you ran from it with tail tucked, just as you always did, pretending you didnt even see it! lol

"People aren’t stupid (well most) and can sift thru the bs and form their own conclusion."

Lol. Funny thats always been one of your favorite catch phrases, yet you never offer up ANYTHING of substance, other than lengthy sermons saying absolutely nothiing, for ANY of us to "sort through"! You clearly cannot hold your own with someone of intellect and well versed on said topics.

"Your right, why would I try to change your opinions. Your too rooted in your rumors, myths, and lies to be able to see objectively. Your glasses are tinted dark."

Yoiu dont have to change my opinions, and Im not trying to change yours. Just stating the facts. If you had them, you'd do the same. But you dont.

"However if you want to address an issue based on verifiable facts I’d be glad to discuss it with you."

He he he. Yeah. I believe we'd tried that on your site. You couldnt hold up your end of the bargain.

"Don’t be afraid of learning. For instance, your constantly saying the deer herd has been decimated and there are very few deer left."

No i dont. I refer to RELATIVELY few. And yes 50% to OVER 50% reduction in some wmus is DECIMATION. Especially when our lowest densities are as low as anywhere in the country and our highest densities aer lower than the huge majority of states higher goals. All for the extreme bio agenda..

"Then why is it we still have harvests of over 300,000 deer. What is the current population of deer at statewide? To make the claim of decimation with any level of accuracy, you must have some hard data to back that up."

Taking it by a wmu to wmu basis you can very easily find that out for youself. There are deer density estimates posted on the 2006 pa game commission annual wildlife report and there are also herd density change charts, both of which Id be more than happy to provide in my next post. guess that angle didnt work so well eh? lol
"Please fill us in. And give that civility thing a shot. You catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar!"

Renegade, Id be more than happy to treat you with respect, but Im a firm believer in reaping what you sow. You show me respect, and I'll gladly forget how i was treated on your site and let bygones be bygones.
"It’s a coping mechanism to disguise a feeling of insecurity. Ask a shrink. Seriously."

Its because Im laughing at Renegade. He contradicts hiself quite often. And basically is a really funny guy, although unintentionally. l


As for our deer herd, its well documented that ecoextremists have been very instrumental in forming and maintaining our deer program. That is not good for hunting no matter how you slice it. Our deer densities are lower than the goals in parts of just about every state I have looked at. And every one of those states uses "science" and staffed biologists.

[Pa greed commission]

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2006_wildlife/21001-05.pdf

Note the overwinter densities. Keep in mind the densities are now even lower and that can be seen by utilizing the deer herd change chart on the 2007 annual report.

Pgc also uses the buck harvest trend to determine herd size changes. Those have gone straight down the crapper as well. From 200,000 all the way down to 109-120k. And slowly declining trendwise, just as the deer herd continues to, despite claims of "stabilization". All it really is currently is abit slower reduction.

[Pa greed commission]

Also, here is a small peek at the nuts behind our deer program: http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0507.html

[pepaw]

Alan,
Just drove across Georgia last week. They have a game proof fence on both sides of the highway the whole way. Never saw a dead deer.

Can you imagine the number of deer in the hill country if the major roads (I-10, 281, 290, etc) had that?

pepaw

[southtexas]

pepaw: are those fences in GA put up by the state to reduce car-deer collisions?

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

The Hill Country is damn near over run as it is, although it does seem to be getting little better. I think as more landowners have begun reducing the number of does the deer herd up there has improved. My dad has some property up there but we don't hunt up there. He has a feeder out in the back of his house and we get to see a lot of deer. I have seen larger does than I remember seeing in my youth. Back in those days there were tons of deer but they were all only a little bigger than jackrabbits. They do seem to have been gaining in size as the numbers have been reduced.

I know on our place in Live Oak County we slaughtered the does (literally) in 1984 - 86 in an effort to reduce total numbers. It was before the the TPW opened up doe hunting and we had too many and they were runts. By removing roughly half of them we put ourselves in a position to begin a management program. That is at the same time that Pennsylvania was killing more with cars than bullets.

Peepaw is right. I travel the interstate between San Antonio and Kerrville regularly and it is a slaughterhouse in itself. It would not be unusual to see between 10 - 20 dead deer on the roadside along that stretch on any given day. I will try to remember to count them the next time I go that way.

I the case being discussed I think I'm hearing that the heads of the Wildlife Department in Pennsylvania is purposely trying to kill off the deer according to one poster and to several others who have posted in the past. I can hardly see how that would be to the department's and their own career's advantage. Kill off your own livelihood? Doesn't seem likely.

So there must be some other reason. That reason is probably that the deer herd is too large and is way over carrying capacity. Now, to qualify my opinion, I have been to Pennsylvania twice. Drove through both times, once at night and once in a snow storm so thick I couldn't see the road. So my real "on the ground" experience is very limited as I do not recall seeing a deer either time. Pennsylvania's deer problem is Pennsylvania's problem. The rest of us are simply offering advice and opinions based on our own experience and expertise. We have our deer herd on track and have for a long time, thanks.

I see how the posts get personal very quick. Hope it doesn't continue, but I understand that some people just got to have turmoil in their lives.

Alan

[Pa greed commission]

"I the case being discussed I think I'm hearing that the heads of the Wildlife Department in Pennsylvania is purposely trying to kill off the deer according to one poster and to several others who have posted in the past. I can hardly see how that would be to the department's and their own career's advantage. Kill off your own livelihood? Doesn't seem likely. "

Its a very complex situation and since its one your not intimately familiar with, being from texas, its one that would demand you to do much reading etc. to fully understand. Alot is happening and alot has happened since this programs inception. Both publicized and behind the scenes.

Anyway, they arent "killing off their livelihood". They make their money through license sales true, but are pushing currently VERY strongly for alternate funding via state funds. Doing so, even though they are one of the most well funded agencies. Compare their 75+ million annually to 45 million in Virginia which is used for game AND FISH management. Pas is wildlife only and its nearly double! NewYorks is in the 40+K range. Again huge difference.

They also wouldnt be "jobless" if deer are at rock bottom numbers, even lower than currently because SOMEONE still has to manage them, wether there were 1.5 million or 150,000. They also have a job in managing 460 some species of game and nongame. So their "livelihood" doesnt hinge on the deer herd. There are also many theories that the governor and or others would like to see wildlife management under dcnr, which is a separate agency, and only behind the scenes do they pull the strings of the pa game commission which is supposed to be independent. There is a helluva ton of information in regards to this mess which is referred to as "the deer wars" and there are idiots on both sides. You have some who would like far more deer than the habitat can hold which is most certainly not my position, and on the other end you have eco-extremist nonhunters who couldnt care less about hunting, but covet extreme levels of biodiversity the likes of which have not existed anywhere in this country that reasonable deer numbers exist and dont care if we have to have 3 dpsm to get there. It is THEY who have structured our deer management plan by political pressure applied as well as econuts holding positions within pgc and as legislators.

These extremists point to plots fenced off for years so no deer may enter, and say this is what the entire state should look like. Its a real mess, and its so bad, its not surprising one bit that some from other parts of the nation just cannot believe it or just sit back and laugh at the circus. I never would have dreamed these extemes could occur in one of the most steeped in hunting tradition states in the nation.

"So there must be some other reason. That reason is probably that the deer herd is too large and is way over carrying capacity."

Nope. Not accurate. But even the pa game commissions data shows it isnt. Thats why their currently stated goals aside from urban areas is STABILIZATION and has been for over 4 years now. Despite that claim, the data on the annual reports show the decline continues! That amidst much political pressure from groups like audubon etc, and the fact that some of those "type" hold positions of power over the situation. There are also management units where the habitat was NEVER rated as poor and neither was herd health. Yet the reductions were still severe. SOme over 50% There is no state that Im aware of that the herd goals are so low. The highest deer densities here wmu currently overwinter density (the one managed for and the one that effects cc) is less than 25dpsm. The lowest wmus are listed as "10 dpsm or less" on annual reports. There isnt a state in the nation that im aware of that doesnt have areas within their state that has a higher cc, and holds higher numbers of deer than those!!! Not Michigan...not Ohio....not NY....Not Wisconsin....Not wv....nada. Even maine who has very low northern deer densities has better deer densities in southern Maine that we do here in Pa!!

"I see how the posts get personal very quick. Hope it doesn't continue, but I understand that some people just got to have turmoil in their lives. "

I agree with all. I can only speak for myself though, and my philosophy is respect begets respect. You typed a very reasonable rational post just now and i believe I have responded in kind, and will continue to do so. This is a very contentious issue here in Pa, yet there is no reason why these things must get personal. Ive debated alot of guys through the years on several boards. Many are very good guys even those opposing my position and even some who are pgc employees themselves. Then you have some that are 100% unreasonable.

[Sabre]

Pennsylvania's deer problem is Pennsylvania's problem.

There ya go !;)

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Well, I see on these boards and others that the situation generates a lot of discussion. I go for weeks sometimes and don't even say "Pennsylvania". I still don't understand what the real reason is for the herd reduction. Now, someone is killing those deer. It is hunters and they are doing so legally I suppose. If I get to believe that there are more deer in PA than Carter's got little pills and that hunters want to keep on hunting and killing deer and the Game Commission wants them to also.

I can see that it is complex and confusing and in my experience whenever something is so complex that it is confusing and there is lots of money involved then I know that things are not necessarily what folks are saying they are. Dang that was a lungful.

I know that the reason Venado, Altjeger and the others (non-Pennsylvanians) follow the proceedings in PA so closely is that our own game depts. could look at what's being done and try to come up with some shinaiganary of their own. I know our Texas Parks and Wildlife are dabbling in "Game Management" areas that I personally am not too happy with, but others, who's opinions I respect, like just fine.

Alan

[Altjaeger]

Also, here is a small peek at the nuts behind our deer program: http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0507.html

I skimmed enough of the article to decide theres no nuts there.

[Altjaeger]

I skimmed enough of the article to decide theres no nuts there.

I have gone back now and given the article a more detailed reading. Without saying it specifically I have the impression that the author is a non-hunter who favors hunters as the appropriate means to manage whitetail herds, wildlife species and part of the overall environment. At the same time he blames them for much of the current problems. Part of what he says may be a bit harsh and tough, but I have a hard time arguing against it when looked at fairly. He is a member of the Audubon Society, a group largely of non-hunters but with hunter members just as in our general society.

I agree with Pennsylvania Greed Commission and encourage everyone to take 10-15 minutes and give it a detailed read plus a good quarter to half hours thought from the viewpoint of hunter, forester, grouse hunter, birdwatcher and property owner to see if you think he is unfair or imbalanced. Greedy, thanks for providing the article and I do sincerely hope everyone takes time and reads it closely to educate themselves on the situation in your state.

[Renegade]

You may enjoy these articles as well. There's alot of them but it gives you a good overview of the whole issue.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/valleyindependent/deer/index.html
And here's yet another one to peruse but it's more on the northeast US
http://www.deerandforests.org/

[Pa greed commission]

Here is some interesting input on the internet: http://www.womenhunters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=40%3Aissues&id=719%3Adirty-secret-judy-derrickson&Itemid=114



Here is info from a 200,000 member plus hunter organization, largest in the state in regards to our deer plan and the deer audit, TONS of information on the page links on the right side of the page: http://www.acslpa.org/n-legislative/Deer%20Hunting%20Under%20Attack/is_the_deer_audit_a_con.htm

[Pa greed commission]

"I have gone back now and given the article a more detailed reading. Without saying it specifically I have the impression that the author is a non-hunter who favors hunters as the appropriate means to manage whitetail herds, wildlife species and part of the overall environment. At the same time he blames them for much of the current problems. Part of what he says may be a bit harsh and tough, but I have a hard time arguing against it when looked at fairly. He is a member of the Audubon Society, a group largely of non-hunters but with hunter members just as in our general society. "

They are "nuts". They are borderline ANTI hunting BUT they DO support deer hunting...but only for one reason. It is the only way to get the extreme "biodiversity" conditions they wish to have. They are nuts, but not complete morons. They know the ONLY availabe option for deer herd control is hunting. They have opposed OTHER hunting (and fishing) in other states as well as trapping, in some cases playing big role in making these things illegal. They constantly degrade the "hunters", they also have some very outlandish "values" that arent shared with hunters or society as a whole, yet we are supposed to bend to their whims. Whims which go far and above any reasonable deer management goals. Where 20 dpsm might be appropriate carry capacity according to guidelines set forth by habitat type.... they want less than 10. Why? Extreme biodiversity. It isnt enough for them to have a productive forest ecosystem similar to all those in states all across the nation. No. they want conditions that do not exist anywhere there are deer! they want "x" levels of "hobblebush" "Y" levels of "trillium" "Z" levels of other wildflower... and whatever deer level it takes it takes in their opinion. That link didnt do them justice. There are just too many out there to show everything in one. These "type' DO NOT belong in positions dictating our game management.

They are also looking into substitutes to replace the hunters. Introduction of large predators was discussed by them, but finally they have seen the light and realized not reasonable. They also have been pushing for and experimenting with sterilization.

Support them if you like. But I sure as hell aint. Neither are most of Pas sportsmen.

[Altjaeger]

"I have gone back now and given the article a more detailed reading. Without saying it specifically I have the impression that the author is a non-hunter who favors hunters as the appropriate means to manage whitetail herds, wildlife species and part of the overall environment. At the same time he blames them for much of the current problems. Part of what he says may be a bit harsh and tough, but I have a hard time arguing against it when looked at fairly. He is a member of the Audubon Society, a group largely of non-hunters but with hunter members just as in our general society. "

They are "nuts". They are borderline ANTI hunting BUT they DO support deer hunting...but only for one reason. It is the only way to get the extreme "biodiversity" conditions they wish to have. They are nuts, but not complete morons. They know the ONLY availabe option for deer herd control is hunting. They have opposed OTHER hunting (and fishing) in other states as well as trapping, in some cases playing big role in making these things illegal. They constantly degrade the "hunters", they also have some very outlandish "values" that arent shared with hunters or society as a whole, yet we are supposed to bend to their whims. Whims which go far and above any reasonable deer management goals. Where 20 dpsm might be appropriate carry capacity according to guidelines set forth by habitat type.... they want less than 10. Why? Extreme biodiversity. It isnt enough for them to have a productive forest ecosystem similar to all those in states all across the nation. No. they want conditions that do not exist anywhere there are deer! they want "x" levels of "hobblebush" "Y" levels of "trillium" "Z" levels of other wildflower... and whatever deer level it takes it takes in their opinion. That link didnt do them justice. There are just too many out there to show everything in one. These "type' DO NOT belong in positions dictating our game management.

They are also looking into substitutes to replace the hunters. Introduction of large predators was discussed by them, but finally they have seen the light and realized not reasonable. They also have been pushing for and experimenting with sterilization.

Support them if you like. But I sure as hell aint. Neither are most of Pas sportsmen.

I'll let others read it and decide who is nuts. :)

[Altjaeger]

Here is some interesting input on the internet: http://www.womenhunters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=40%3Aissues&id=719%3Adirty-secret-judy-derrickson&Itemid=114



Here is info from a 200,000 member plus hunter organization, largest in the state in regards to our deer plan and the deer audit, TONS of information on the page links on the right side of the page: http://www.acslpa.org/n-legislative/Deer%20Hunting%20Under%20Attack/is_the_deer_audit_a_con.htm

Again I encourage all to read these articles an see who they believe has veracity in the articles. The "Womens" one is especially a hoot as it comes complete with all the USP claims of secretly introduced wolfs and cougars as was discussed here about a month ago with great mirth.

[Pa greed commission]

I didnt post the "womens" article to prove a thing. I posted it to show the perceptions that are out there. You want scathing" Take a gander at the OTHER article. lmao.

But as for the "womens" article, it actually doesnt say anything about anyone already "reintroduced wolves". It says some of the environmentalist nutcases would like to see the reintroduction etc. Thats you purposely taking things out of context to make a point that doesnt exist.

And that is right on the money. Some of those nuts within extremist environmental groups most certainly do hold that position that large predators should be reintroduced anywhere and everywhere possible to get back to "presettlement" conditions in our forests, and so the "bloodsport" as they call it...hunting wont be necessary within a self contained ecosystem, though most rational among us are aware thats not gonna happen. But pointing out the postion of those flakes does show exactly what kind we are dealing with. lol. I dont believe other states would want these type managing their deer herds, including Texas.

Who is nuts? the one who wishes somthing so ridiculous as these things to be so? Or the one who points out that the others wish it is so all the while saying they are...nuts!?

I see no afiliation there with usp. I also see no comment on the other link. Wise choice. lmao.

" USP claims of secretly introduced wolfs and cougars "

I dont see what that has a single thing to do with my position, or the link I posted....Other than you trying to draw correlation between the two that doesnt exist because you are desparate and have nothing of substance to add. Ive also never seen that claim by usp that anyone has introduced wolves and cougars secretly in Pa. In fact, i believe the guys name is Mohr, a higher up at usp, was called to a apparently staged mountainlion attack. lol. The article had him stating that if indeed it was a mountain lion, that it most likely was an escaped pet. Now that don't jive with your claim there son? Can you provide a link where usp has stated mountain lions and wolves were released? If not I guess I can chalk that'n up as a pure b.s. on your part??

[Pa greed commission]

"I'll let others read it and decide who is nuts"

I think someone needs to quit their shameless begging for cheerleaders on every post, stand on his own two feet like a man and let his posts speak for themselves. Lmao. :)

[Altjaeger]

But as for the "womens" article, it actually doesnt say anything about anyone already "reintroduced wolves". It says some of the environmentalist nutcases would like to see the reintroduction etc. Thats you purposely taking things out of context to make a point that doesnt exist.
.[/B]

From the article, "Whisperings of reintroduction of even larger predators, the wolf and mountain lion. My neighbor just told me that a large number of cougars was released on Tuscarora Mountain to our east and Blain to our west".

Again I will let each read for themselves and see if they interpret it as "proposed" or "accomplished".
:)

[Altjaeger]

"I'll let others read it and decide who is nuts"

I think someone needs to quit their shameless begging for cheerleaders on every post, stand on his own two feet like a man and let his posts speak for themselves. Lmao. :)

No, I am not going to argue with the continuing lies or distortions. It is there for all to read and decide. Most has been read and discarded here in the last 4-5 years anyway. There is no need to them to report, comment or cheer at all!:)

[Pa greed commission]

NIce place to stop the quote you forgot a piece;

"A neighbor just told me that a large number of cougars was released on the Tuscarora Mountain between Millerstown to our east and Blain to our west. More lunatic claims?"

And " Not when you read the grandiose plans of the radical tree-huggers. I learned that "MY" mountain has specifically been targeted for their wilderness area, with plans to re-introduce the wolf and the lion...so that my role in the balance of nature is ultimately extinguished."

[Pa greed commission]

"No, I am not going to argue with the continuing lies or distortions."

Youve been the sole person telling them.

"It is there for all to read and decide."

That seems to be your favorite phrase. Let me loosely interpret that sentence: "Cmon fellas someone back me on this. Doesnt matter if you know anything or not, lets show this guy!" lmao.

C'mon man, this is a debate. Get ahold of yourself and quit the shameless whining for one of your loyal friends to take the attention off of the factual debate beating you are taking.