Let's talk antlerless allocations

Question for the guys who hunt up north:

2G. 2009 antlerless licenses, 26000. 2010 Antlerless licenses, 15210
2F. 2009- 28000. 2010- 22148


now the question: Are we happy now?

These were the good old days of hunting you guys always talk about us having.


In 1983, the Game Commission allocated a record 536,650 antlerless licenses to curb herd growth; only 519,000 were sold. Over the next four years the Commission continued to increase the annual license allo­cation. But license sales seemed to reach a satura­tion point between 500,000 and 550,000; hunters – limited then to buying only one antlerless license annually – couldn’t legally buy more. It became neces­sary to modify the alloca­tion program.

In 1984, 1986 and 1987, hunters shot record numbers of bucks; the annual antlered harvest increased by 24 percent during this period. The rising buck harvest indicated the herd was still growing, even though the agency was allocat­ing more antlerless licenses and hunters were taking more deer. The agency's inability to sell the entire annual antlerless license allocations was impeding efforts to reduce the herd.

For legislators to give a fee increase now would be completely idiotic.

Be kinda like catching a crook that just stole your wallet with $500 in it. Youre holding him down and he hands you a dollar of your money back and you let him up and turn your back....because hes proven he can be trusted and he'll surely give you the rest, and also do the right thing from now on. lmao.

The only reason these things are being done is because of fee increase. Period. Why on earth would we wanna stop now, when we are on the verge of possibly forcing long lasting responsible change? That'd be pure lunacy! And even if i were wrong, why risk it when there is nothing to lose and alot to gain by holding out? There is a helluva lot to lose if i am correct as i believe i am. Another decade mirroring the last if not worse.

Why do you think most of the allocations were around 1000 tag or less changes...which equates to less than 1 dpsm change? lmao. Thats 100% meaningless and done just for show. When they wanted real changes in these wmus, they made real changes to the allocations (but not now). Just look at each wmus allocation history.

There is also alot more than 2G to this state. Why arent there wide scale proposals for smaller units? All smaller units will do for 2G alone is make it harder to compare harvests etc. so hunters wont whine as much, and make allocation totals less comparable. It also just a token that they can point to and say "see, look, change!"

Why are this "changes" so small in scale? Because if fee increase is granted, they'll have very little damage done to "staying the course" and any of the changes like allocation tweaks would be easily reversible. Larger allocation drops such as in 2G will have a much smaller effect than other wmus because there are so few deer to begin with. 10 dpsm arent gonna breed like rabbits in one year regardless of the allocation.

And no, there is no imminent danger of big bad dcnr taking over from the "good guys" (Lmao) at pgc, if pgc doesnt get their fee increase this year.

Not I. You will never hear a complaint about a low doe harvest from me. You will hear complaints about low herd numbers, and those two statistics are tied to allocatons. Lower allocatons is a good thing for hunters.

In response to wayne, I think what you are seeing is an honest change in the BOC, however as with anything they are making the changes a bit at a time.

I would have given them an increase prior to this even though I did not agree with the current deer management situation. We do not want anyone else in control.

I am looking at the changes for 2F and with the reduction plus the allocation of DMAP out of that allocaton number I think it is a significant reduction and should help some over time if they stick with it.

"In response to wayne, I think what you are seeing is an honest change in the BOC, however as with anything they are making the changes a bit at a time. "

I strongly disagree. But i do honestly hope you are right. But im not letting my guard down just yet. Entirely too much is at stake.

"I would have given them an increase prior to this even though I did not agree with the current deer management situation."

Wouldve been the worst mistake legislators ever made in regard to deer mangement in Pa. I firmly beleive that. And ive seen nothing to show that Im being overly pessimistic. I also think you should look at the pgc finances on the annual report. They arent going to be operating out of a cardboard box just yet with around 40 mil. still in reserve fund, as well as gas funds multiplying by the year.

" We do not want anyone else in control"

Why not a more hunter friendly re-structured pgc?? Maybe youd prefer carl, dubrock, Rosenberry and the rest of the good ol' boys instead? lol..... But even if we end up stuck with these guys, we can insure that the direction has definately been changed. And thats not quite yet the case.

"I am looking at the changes for 2F and with the reduction plus the allocation of DMAP out of that allocaton number I think it is a significant reduction and should help some over time if they stick with it."

I agree that some of those very few units will eventually see slight growth IF and ONLY IF they stick to it. Id honestly be willing to bet alot of money that they will not. Ive followed these dealings for quite some time and from what Im seeing I sure hope most arent fooled by these latest manuevers..

Remember the meaningless change in the season lengths in the original 4 wmus? WAs made for the same reason. They thought that just might be enough for the fee increase. Well it wasnt.... So this is plan b. And at this rate, im perfectly content to wait for plan e, f, g and h...

ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr

Not I. You will never hear a complaint about a low doe harvest from me. You will hear complaints about low herd numbers, and those two statistics are tied to allocatons. Lower allocatons is a good thing for hunters.

Good. I hope you stick to your guns.


Lower allocations may be a good thing, but the drama queens will find a way to promote the negative side of it.

"I couldn't get a tag for 2G" << that sounds familiar ?


It's already happening....

With about a 40% reduction in tags available, I'd expect you'll hear a lot of that. Despite Waynes assertations, I think the reduction in tags for 2F and 2G are significant. I do agree that these changes are merely pandering for a fee increase. Why else would the board go completely against the recommendations of their own biologists? What remains to be seen is if, once they get the fee increase, they'll go right back to what they were doing.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Hunters should most definately be a consideration. Seeing as many areas dont have and didnt have previously even, a problem with the habitat or herd health as shown in the annual reports data...And seeing as many of the wmus initially (back in earliest stages of our program with many more deer) were rated as low or moderate human conflict by pgc even with more deer than we have now....In those areas, Id say...yes. Hunter consideration should then be given... Not simply look for more excuses not to have more deer.

Is this a different wayne ? We agree again. Hunters should be a major consideration. The way some of you talk sometimes, sounds like hunters should be the ONLY consideration. You know... "hunters foot the bill" stuff.

Carl Roe- in his testimony to the joint Budget and Finance Committee stated that QUOTE: (The role of the PGC is to maximum game for hunters and trappers) End Quote.

The role of the PGC is to maximum game for hunters and trappers

 
I want to see that too...
 
I think S-10 left out some very important words in that quote...
 
but we shall see if he can produce the direct quote as he wrote it....

Carl Roe, Executive Director of the PA Game Commission, stated that PGC "manages habitat and not forests." Roe emphasized that the role of the PGC is to maximize game for hunters and trappers and they take a "different approach" towards conservation. Roe revealed that instances occur where certain trees are not harvested, even though they are primed to yield lumber, because they provide a habitat for wildlife. Roe stated that revenue is a "byproduct" and the PGC approach differs from DCNR. Roe mentioned that the PGC would "love to have revenue" from the OGM resources but is many cases they do not know who owns the mining rights.

Old Gary Alt also has a few of those quotes recorded out there that come back to haunt his supporters whenever I bring them up. A lot of those early press releases and other interesting information from the early days of AR/HR was dropped when the PGC redid their website. Of course I wouldn't dream of accusing them of a underhanded reason for dropping all the history. It just happens I saved a bit of the old information.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Old Gary Alt also has a few of those quotes recorded out there that come back to haunt his supporters whenever I bring them up. A lot of those early press releases and other interesting information from the early days of AR/HR was dropped when the PGC redid their website. Of course I wouldn't dream of accusing them of a underhanded reason for dropping all the history. It just happens I saved a bit of the old information.

Congratulations on being a member of a small group of hunters that know the history of deer management in PA and remember the bogus claims Alt made while selling the current DMP. Unfortunately the vast majority of outdoor writers blindly support the PGC and refuse to print anything that is critical of the PGC DMP. I personally provided info to several writers that proved the plan has failed to produce the predicted results but they still repeat the PGC propaganda.

Carl Roe, Executive Director of the PA Game Commission, stated that PGC "manages habitat and not forests." Roe emphasized that the role of the PGC is to maximize game for hunters and trappers and they take a "different approach" towards conservation

and any writer and even Dr Trout knows that when you write what a person says if you write it exactly as he said it you have to use quotes around the statement.. without the quotes it is what the writer took the remarks as meaning... not the exact words that were said...

notice how the writer of the article S-10 always uses quotes some parts of what Carl said but not everything..

stated that PGC "manages habitat and not forests."

AND this part

"different approach"

but not the part about maxmizing game ...

INTERESTING...

but some of us know the truth... we read the transcipt of the meeting and found that he did not say maximize game......

There are several outdoor writers that would join you in your dis-like of the PGC in general and especially the deer plan.. look around you will find them... #1 they are not on message board !!!

check various newspaper web site.. you'll find them that way... just check out the paper's outdoor section...