The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA

Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3509
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/17 09:02:07 (permalink)
Interesting.... 

My rifle is a black rifle
#31
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/17 16:52:53 (permalink)
I agree completely deerfly.

There are more than enough hunters to keep the herd stable or further reduce it. Until thats no longer the case, i dont see much argument for hunter loss effecting harvest.
#32
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/17 20:07:22 (permalink)
Because the plan has failed to produce the predicted results of increased breeding rates ,recruited and regeneration, those that supported the plan are left grasping at straws to defend it. The sad part is that no matter how they try to spin the results of the plan, the PGC stats show beyond a doubt it is a failure.
#33
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3509
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/17 20:57:26 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

The sad part is that no matter how they try to spin the results of the plan, the PGC stats show beyond a doubt it is a failure.


Who's spinning?  I wasn't referring to the plan at all, just how you arrived at your 72% reduction. 

I was talking to a buddy of mine tonight about our discussion.  We fish a farm pond for bass on occasion.  This year, only once.  We caught less bass this year than we did last year when we fished it several times. 

We came to the conclusion that there has to be less bass in the pond this year.  I could probably come up with an exact percent decrease to.  Last year we caught 8 or 9, this year we caught three.  How much did the bass population drop this year?

Disclaimer:  This above contains alot of sarcasm............ 

Hunter density and participation days absolutely affect harvest.  To deny it to try to back up a claim is the ultimate spin.  Maybe we do have the same number of hunters hunting the same number of days in Elk and Cameron Counties.  If we did, basing population dynamics off of harvest PSM is reasonable IMO. 
 
As I said before, I too believe that the deer population is down substantially in many areas.  This whole discussion is not about that fact. 
post edited by dpms - 2010/08/17 20:59:36

My rifle is a black rifle
#34
DanesDad
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3087
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/17 22:57:41 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr


ORIGINAL: pghmarty

15 to 30 years ago I usually got a buck every year or at least a doe in McKeen Co
Now I see more in the city limits of Pittsburgh



That is the sad truth. I could adapt and start hunting allegheny county. I could learn that hunting is a sport to be enjoyed within earshot of vehicles, families, industry and with a city skyline in the background. I could learn to hunt where you may have one safe shooting zone that takes up 15 degrees of the 360 degress around you. I could change my weapon of choice to go there and then worry that when I did I would be harassed by anti hunters who owned the surrounding properties who are still upset that the deer ate $1500 worth of Begonias last year (but they planted $2000 worth this year and can't understand why the deer keep coming back and eating all of them). I could do all of these things, and I could kill deer (nice ones)!

OR

I can go to a place where I can walk a full day in some directions and never cross a paved road. Where I may sit in a treestand for an entire archery season and never see another hunter. A place that is nothing but forest for as far as the eye can see and the only noises that annoy me are the woodpeckers that make it difficult to hear a deer, and the squirrels that sound like a deer behind me. A place where an anti-hunter's vehicle would get stuck and be unable to pass the road 2 miles from where I am. A place where getting your meat out requires as much planning as actually taking the game.

The latter is where I learned to hunt, it is what I enjoy and it is where hunting is meant to take place. The fact that controlling forces have fundamentally changed the core of our sport saddens and scares me.



I'm good either way.
#35
pghmarty
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5951
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/12/05 01:02:33
  • Location: Bradford Pa then Pittsburgh
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/17 23:08:48 (permalink)
About 10 minutes ago a buddy of mine called and wanted a jump start.
He was about a block above the CoGo's on rt51 2 miles south of the Liberty Tunnel.
A deer walked up to within 50 feet and just stood there looking at us.

Sorry if this is a spot burn



#36
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 08:19:12 (permalink)
Hunter density and participation days absolutely affect harvest.  To deny it to try to back up a claim is the ultimate spin.  Maybe we do have the same number of hunters hunting the same number of days in Elk and Cameron Counties.  If we did, basing population dynamics off of harvest PSM is reasonable IMO. 


I already agreed that hunter numbers and participation can effect harvests and this is confirmed by the reduced buck harvests when there is bad weather the first few days of rifle season. But, you insist on using the same excuse to question the 72% reduction even though you don't have any data to support your claim. On the other hand I have the fact that,according to the PGC the harvests are keeping the herd stable ,which means their are enough hunters to prevent the herd from increasing in 2G. Then, there is the fact that the harvest rate for buck in 2G was 1.75 BPSM and in 2008 it was 1.24 BPSM. There is also the fact that the PGC does not use hunter density when deriving their population estimates since there is no way they can determine the number of hunters and participation in each WMU. There is also the rather interesting fact that in 2009 the buck harvest rate in 2G actually was higher than the antlerless rate.

There is no spin in my assertion that the herd in 2G has been reduced by around 72% since 1987.
#37
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 08:23:23 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Because the plan has failed to produce the predicted results of increased breeding rates ,recruited and regeneration, those that supported the plan are left grasping at straws to defend it. The sad part is that no matter how they try to spin the results of the plan, the PGC stats show beyond a doubt it is a failure.


So let's assume you are right, on all ends. Let's take a step back from the semantics and look at the big picture.


Why do you keep bringing this up ? To pound and pound and pound an issue with no offer of resolution holds little value. Is your motive to prove that you are right ? and/or to prove that others are wrong ?

What concerns do you have that this plan has caused ? I'm talking about the big picture. You've already offered insight about how the plan has negatively affected you on a personal level. Do you have any other concerns beyond that ?

My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
#38
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 10:00:06 (permalink)

According to The deer plan and audit the PGC was established about 1896 to enact and enforce laws to prevent the overharvest of game animals and birds, particulary Deer. It would appear that they may be no longer doing what they were established to do. If so, that should be a concern of all the states citizens and any discussions that bring that fact to light are productive..
#39
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3509
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 10:40:28 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

I already agreed that hunter numbers and participation can effect harvests and this is confirmed by the reduced buck harvests when there is bad weather the first few days of rifle season. But, you insist on using the same excuse to question the 72% reduction even though you don't have any data to support your claim.


Yes, harvest is affected by hunter density and participation. And I didn't claim anything, just looking for facts to substantiate your claim.  The facts you bring to light do not validate your claim that because the harvest PSM dropped 72% so has the population by 72%, IMO, without knowing hunter density and participation days.   

I guess we will just have to leave it at that.  Our approaches have been laid out and we will continue to disagree on this density issue.  It was a enlightening discussion though.
 
 
post edited by dpms - 2010/08/18 10:53:56

My rifle is a black rifle
#40
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 10:58:25 (permalink)
What concerns do you have that this plan has caused ? I'm talking about the big picture. You've already offered insight about how the plan has negatively affected you on a personal level. Do you have any other concerns beyond that ?



My major concern is the future of hunting and the future of the PGC .If hunter numbers continue to decline they may come a time where there are not enough hunters to control the herd. In 2B we are already at the point where there aren't enough hunters who are willing to buy and use enough doe tags to effectively reduce the herd and statewide it takes hunters who are willing to harvest multiple deer in order to keep the herd stable.
#41
Esox_Hunter
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2393
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 11:43:55 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly
In 2B we are already at the point where there aren't enough hunters who are willing to buy and use enough doe tags to effectively reduce the herd and statewide it takes hunters who are willing to harvest multiple deer in order to keep the herd stable.



You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.....

It has nothing to do with hunter participation in 2B, it has everything to do with virtually no access to hunt in 2B. 2B (Allegheny Co.) has not sold out in my 14 years of hunting.
post edited by Esox_Hunter - 2010/08/18 11:45:18
#42
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 12:44:54 (permalink)
If hunters have virtually no access in 2B, can you please explain why they have the highest harvest rate PSM of any WMU in the state. Can you explain why the harvest rate in 2B is 7.4 times the harvest rate in 2G when 2G is 90% forested?
#43
Esox_Hunter
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2393
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 13:08:00 (permalink)
Here we go in circles again with you....

I answered your question/comment that stated that there were not enough hunters in 2B willing to purchase all of the tags; which you implied was a result of losing hunters.

To clarify my response; 2B has never sold out nor will it ever sell out. The amount of tags purchased in 2B will never increase. Unless you know someone in 2B, your chances at finding somewhere to hunt are terrible. You are way off base suggesting that the reason we don't sell out is because of lost hunters. There just simply isn't anymore room for large amounts additional hunters in 2B to come and buy up the doe tags. Combine all of this with new housing plans and subdivisions going in daily and 2B will never sell more tags.

To your harvest comments; I am not sure of what your point is? Sure there are tons of deer killed in 2B, what does that have to do with anything? Rest assured anywhere people can hunt in 2B people will be hunting.


#44
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 13:22:07 (permalink)
I answered your question/comment that stated that there were not enough hunters in 2B willing to purchase all of the tags; which you implied was a result of losing hunters.


No, I did not reply that it was due to loosing hunters. I said there weren't enough hunters to buy and use all the tags available and you confirmed that to be true. The hunters that have access and killed 17 DPSM could have bought the additional tags and increased the rate to 19 or 20 DPSM.
#45
Esox_Hunter
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2393
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 13:36:13 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

I answered your question/comment that stated that there were not enough hunters in 2B willing to purchase all of the tags; which you implied was a result of losing hunters.


No, I did not reply that it was due to loosing hunters. I said there weren't enough hunters to buy and use all the tags available and you confirmed that to be true. The hunters that have access and killed 17 DPSM could have bought the additional tags and increased the rate to 19 or 20 DPSM.


What would that accomplish? It may knock the huntable populations of deer in 2B to nothing and still be left with the problematic numbers of deer in the parks and highly urbanized areas (un-huntable).

It has been that way since HR, the herd has been decreased in the more rural areas, but the same areas that were problems 10 years ago still exist with only a few exceptions. They can issue all the tags in the world and it won't affect the population in the areas that need to be reduced. Normal hunting practices are never going to be enough to control some areas.
#46
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3509
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 13:46:35 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

If hunters have virtually no access in 2B, can you please explain why they have the highest harvest rate PSM of any WMU in the state. Can you explain why the harvest rate in 2B is 7.4 times the harvest rate in 2G when 2G is 90% forested?


Would hunter density or participation hours influence the harvest PSM in 2B?  It is a high population center with alot of licensed hunters.  I hunt in 2B much more than I hunt in 2A because I live there and can sneak out before or after work almost every day.
post edited by dpms - 2010/08/18 14:03:56

My rifle is a black rifle
#47
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 14:38:04 (permalink)
A significant decrease in both would obviously result in lower harvests in2B. However, you have provided nothing to support you position that reduced hunter number and participation is in part responsible for the decreased buck harvests in 2G.
#48
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 14:43:12 (permalink)
What would that accomplish? It may knock the huntable populations of deer in 2B to nothing and still be left with the problematic numbers of deer in the parks and highly urbanized areas (un-huntable).


Only deer that are subject to hunting are included in the deer density estimates,so harvesting more deer in the huntable areas would reduce the average deer density in 2B.
#49
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3509
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 14:48:50 (permalink)
Deerfly said "A significant decrease in both would obviously result in lower harvests in2B"

Obviously.......... As a decrease or an increase would obviously result in the same anywhere in the state. 

Of course neither of us can prove it.
post edited by dpms - 2010/08/18 15:18:47

My rifle is a black rifle
#50
Esox_Hunter
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2393
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 14:51:50 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: deerfly

What would that accomplish? It may knock the huntable populations of deer in 2B to nothing and still be left with the problematic numbers of deer in the parks and highly urbanized areas (un-huntable).


Only deer that are subject to hunting are included in the deer density estimates,so harvesting more deer in the huntable areas would reduce the average deer density in 2B.


Again, what would that accomplish? The same problem areas will still exist. What are you getting at? I still don't understand what point your trying to make.


#51
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 15:07:02 (permalink)
It may knock the huntable populations of deer in 2B to nothing and still be left with the problematic numbers of deer in the parks and highly urbanized areas


Hence pgcs new "pet project" waiting in the wings.... Gonacon. You can bet your bottom dollar pgc didnt implement a "pro-use" policy just to leave it sitting on the shelf for very long.
#52
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 15:39:34 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: dpms

Deerfly said "A significant decrease in both would obviously result in lower harvests in2B"

Obviously.......... As a decrease or an increase would obviously result in the same anywhere in the state. 

Of course neither of us can prove it.


But if the herd decreased at a significantly higher rate than the number of hunters decreased, the decrease in the number of hunters and participation would not effect the hunters ability to harvest enough deer to keep the herd stable and that is what happened in 2G.
Obviously.......... As a decrease or an increase would obviously result in the same anywhere in the state. 


That would only be true if the decrease in hunters was enough to allow the herd to increase . However, a significant increase in the number of hunters would only increase the buck harvest by a small percentage on a short term basis and the number of legal buck available would determine the max. buck harvest regardless of the number of hunters.
#53
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/18 15:42:01 (permalink)
what would that accomplish? The same problem areas will still exist. What are you getting at? I still don't understand what point your trying to make.


I simply brought up 2B as an example of an area where there are already too few hunters to control the herd. I didn't say harvesting more deer would solve the problems in the areas closed to hunting.
#54
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/19 07:56:13 (permalink)
If buck harvests are directly correlated to the number of hunters, can anyone explain why the buck harvest increased from 181K in 1998 to 203K in 2001 even though license sales decreased from 1.071M in 1998 to 1.048M in 2001?
#55
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3509
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/19 11:21:20 (permalink)
I believe hunter density is a factor in antlered harvest, along with available deer, weather and participation days.  I don't believe there is a direct coorelation between the two.  Many factors need to be weighed.

My rifle is a black rifle
#56
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/19 11:59:37 (permalink)
But there is no way for the PGC ,or anyone else , to accurately determine the hunter density in any give WMU each year and that is why hunter density is not factored in to determining population estimates.
#57
tull66
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1049
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/07/15 07:43:43
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/19 13:03:52 (permalink)
PA deer hunting 2009 bucks and does:
7AM-Bang
7:40-Bang Bang
11AM- Bang
 
PA deer hunting before Dr Alt, bucks only:
7AM- Bang bang bang bang
Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang Bang bang bang
8AM - repeat
 
All the statistics, number crunching, and spinning are irrelavent.  If you hunted deer back in the day, you know this is true and can't accept the PGC propaganda.  If you are too young to remember this, you might be drunk on PGC koolaid.  This isn't IMHO,  it is a sad fact.
#58
World Famous
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2213
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
  • Location: Johnstown
  • Status: offline
RE: The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA 2010/08/19 14:33:11 (permalink)
Tull pretty much hit it on the head. At least in a VERY large portion of the state. 2C and 4 A sounded like that. We should all go to the NW corner of the state as there is no problem there and they can't figure out why we can think this way. The rest of us just have to hunt harder.I love to hear the guys say to scout in the summer.The only way you can see anything is in a field. Ask the people who work in the wilds, you can't even walk let alone scout in the summer. I'm in the woods more by accident then most are on a purpose....WF [surveyor]
#59
Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Jump to: