RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> Big Game Hunting >> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/28/2008 10:20:33 PM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

Did you read this part ....

If Pennsylvania had check stations, they likely WOULDN'T provide the PGC with a more accurate estimate of the deer harvest

----basically what some of us have been saying along...

_____________________________

TIL LATER..

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 61

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/29/2008 1:21:49 AM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

Yeah i read that...but thats his opinion everyone has one. the president of the united states has an opinon HE can be wrong too..

lets bring this up...

this is going to be kinda difficult to read probably but...

i think if you put the pressure of a check point on some people on checking their deer, it just might push some people to do it to avoid a fine. Everyones drove past houses with deer hanging in their yard. they see it has a tag and they are like oh okay hes good he tagged it...but really the after math of it all doesnt add up to it do to he might not send the report card in to prove to the GC he tagged it. Now if you drove past it with it being checked...you can say alright he got it checked. I just think the way things are now getting a deer checked for some of those persons that like to hang them around would put the some kind of pressure on there shoulders to be legal and avoid maybe seeing a fine of not checking a deer thats in their yard.

hell really why dont they just try it for a year? everyone on here is complaining about the report card way and or like WE DONT WANT A CHECK STATION!!! to me it seems that anyone who doesnt want a checkstation just seems like they dont send in their report card either. they probably just wanna "tag it" and then cut up later and then forget about the GC knowing what happened.

i know just to set it up for a year would take a good effort finding places in each county but i know it can be done. dont act like it cant. I find it not a huge effort in each county to find atleast 5 places to check a deer for one year. i really cant see the harm in a one year trial or even 2. just to get some kinda basis of info off of it.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 62

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/29/2008 8:54:59 AM

duncsdad

Posts: 1252
Status: offline

I hunted elk in Idaho in 1998 and the way their system worked was an elk had to go to a check station. Now, I realize that number is way small compared to PA deer and that is not the part of the system that I want to point out. The portion of their process that could have an impact in PA is that ALL hunters had to turn in a report card for ALL the hunting they had done in that license year. This report card was of the fill-in-the-dots type so it could be processed into a database or spreadsheet that could then be sorted for any number of criteria and the entering would take less than a minute each.

If a report card was not turned in, they were ineligible for another license for 5 years -- quite an incentive to turn in the report. With the new POP liicense sales it would be simple -- if no card was registered, a license would not print out. Of course, there would be claims of lost in the mail or the dog ate it, but those would be very small.

Included was not only what was killed of various species, but also how many days were hunted and with what type of weapon, etc. This would do the same job as the surveys currently sent out by the PGC, but on a much larger scale.

In addition, a drawing was held from the returned report cards for what was known as a Super Tag -- this was a free license that included all tags that could be gotten -- including some that needed to be drawn for. In PA, this would include a doe tag, a migratory bird tag, a bear tag, and an Elk tag.

This would not provide any of the biological information that a check station does, but it would surely provide better than a 40 % return. It would also provide statistical data on how many people hunted how many days for what and with what so that the PGC would have a better understanding of just who their customers are.

_____________________________

Duncsdad

All Fishermen are liars except you and me. And I'm not too sure about you.

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 63

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/29/2008 11:44:00 AM

scaremypsu

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

(They add nothing to the data that can't be gotten over the phone, over the internet or by postcard.)---Well since the PGC is using deer health to determine the license quota are the hunters supposed to age the deer, weigh the deer, check for disease and overall health? These are done at check stations during gun season that are manned by college wildlife students and commission personnel. Who takes tissue samples? If check stations are a joke why do most states use them in some form? Hell there are even some being used in Pa. Some states are totally mandatory, some are mandatory in certain counties or areas, some have a combination with something else and a few do something else. In our state both the DCNR and QDMA support them. You only get fined if you try to sneak one home without having it checked and metal tagged. Of course if you want to slip out and kill another one you may not like the concept. Do you consider the Bear check stations a joke. Too big a inconvience to take a deer after spending tons of money, driving, scouting, hours, maybe days hunting in all kinds of weather, and bitch about a hour to get it checked. Get real.

Studies, such as the one out of missouri, show that age data collecting from butchers is stat similar to age collected at check stations. Tissue samples are also collected from butchers as well as in field check. As you mentioned, they may not be able to get weight, actual antler size, or the public relation that check stations do. However, one of the main arguments presented in this forum was that the current method used did not give as accurate of an estimate as a check station would, which is far from the truth. There is certainly information that cannot be collected by methods other than a check station, which is the reason it is implemented during bear season. Also, from a statistical perspective, getting deer wieght would be somewhat meaningless because there is no previous data to compare it too.

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 64

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/29/2008 12:09:29 PM

scaremypsu

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bull Lifter

Yeah i read that...but thats his opinion everyone has one. the president of the united states has an opinon HE can be wrong too..

lets bring this up...

this is going to be kinda difficult to read probably but...

i think if you put the pressure of a check point on some people on checking their deer, it just might push some people to do it to avoid a fine. Everyones drove past houses with deer hanging in their yard. they see it has a tag and they are like oh okay hes good he tagged it...but really the after math of it all doesnt add up to it do to he might not send the report card in to prove to the GC he tagged it. Now if you drove past it with it being checked...you can say alright he got it checked. I just think the way things are now getting a deer checked for some of those persons that like to hang them around would put the some kind of pressure on there shoulders to be legal and avoid maybe seeing a fine of not checking a deer thats in their yard.

hell really why dont they just try it for a year? everyone on here is complaining about the report card way and or like WE DONT WANT A CHECK STATION!!! to me it seems that anyone who doesnt want a checkstation just seems like they dont send in their report card either. they probably just wanna "tag it" and then cut up later and then forget about the GC knowing what happened.

i know just to set it up for a year would take a good effort finding places in each county but i know it can be done. dont act like it cant. I find it not a huge effort in each county to find atleast 5 places to check a deer for one year. i really cant see the harm in a one year trial or even 2. just to get some kinda basis of info off of it.

perhaps your name should be bull headed instead of bull lifter, cause you are pretty stuborn. One of the main reasons people conduct scientific research is to test hypothesis such as the one you are questioning. Does mandatory deer check stations have high reporting rates because of the chance of being caught? This question has already been tested and published by a few different researchers. They have each found that reporting rates are still typically low despite what you would think. The reason they have journals, is so researchers, or the general public can learn from each other,so everyone isn't trying to reinvent the wheel. My point is, looking at these studies, going to a mandatory check station would actually be going in the wrong direction in this situation. A lot of the publications dealing with this are acctually fairly recent, which also may be a reason why some states havn't changed their method. Either way, studies evaluating current methods used, show that the PGC acctually uses better methods than the majority of the states despite what you think.

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 65

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/29/2008 2:01:39 PM

MuskyMastr

Posts: 1190
Joined: 6/30/2005
From: The 1st Trench
Status: online

Scare I am beyond my masters in bio, and working on the next level, but i am not here to compare educations.........Part of the problem is PSU. Believe me I bleed blue and white. I love that place and the amount of useful research that has come out of there is immesurable. However, when they publicly discredit peer reviewed studies from other universities without valid evidence, then thier opinion becomes somewhat stained......

_____________________________

All my heroes smell like fish.

(in reply to scaremypsu)

Post #: 66

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/29/2008 4:54:34 PM

scaremypsu

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

Thats fine, I am not here to compare education either, I was responding to your comment how you read so much more than everyone else without even knowing who they are. Secondly, what research are they trying to discredit. Are you referring to the one publish by the PGC on reporting rates? They weren't the ones who claimed it was flawed, two previous studies which were published in wildlife society bulliten were. If that is not what you are referring to, then what? As someone on the next level of education, I would assume your points are backed by some research or science. Besides personal opinion, where is your support that check stations provide more accurate information than current methods used, because there are plenty that says otherwise.

(in reply to MuskyMastr)

Post #: 67

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/29/2008 6:20:34 PM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

Well I just got home from the deer open house in St Mary's... WOW...
50 miles round trip... there goes this week's gas money.... LOL

One thing I learned....

Pa (as mentioned) sends out about 20,000 survey to hunters. They are randomly selected by license NUMBER...

One of the question is.. Did you harvest a deer in Pa last sesaon...

BINGO..another source to cross-check for report card returning... guess what the rate is about the same less than 50%.... and again.. these guys just admitted to harvesting a deer... GO FIGURE..

Point #2...IT is ALREADY MANDATORY to report a successful harvest in Pa... and withn 10 days... that's the law.... nothing the PGC made up.. the legislature made that law and that procedure and only they can change it....

One of the things a PGC offical pointed out today was that many successful hunters HONESTLY forget to send in the card within that 10 days.. and are afraid of being punished if they send it in late...

and if they know a WCO did not field check them or they did not take the deer to have it proccessed they KNOW there is NO WAY to be found guilty of breaking the law... some of those there HOPED this was the case for most of those not reporting.. not the "just do not give a damn" reason.. ??? I'm not sure about that one LOL

It was also pointed out that the PGC has tried to enforce it and as I have mentioned hundreds of times (and folks just won't listen) ...

when the case shows up in court the defense attorney asked the PGC to PROVE his client did not send in the card.. the best they (PGC) can do is prove they do not HAVE IT...

next question to the PGC..prove it was not lost in the headquarters in Harrisburg as it was waiting to be processed...again you can't prove a negative... case dis-missed.....

The only sucessful cases were when they actually checked the hunter and founds the UN-used card still in their "pouch" on the back of their hunting jacket...

I really enjoyed the open house.... I learned alot about the program and will try to share thoughts on this board and mine as time and subject matter allows..

Boooo -
I see even after posting Kip Adam's (QDMA) e-Mail some insist on saying the QDMA supports check stations...
as the letter states... they are good for collecting information and they support that... BUT that is not saying they support the idea of them providing a more accurate count... and in fact Kip states exactly that fact...

enough for now...

_____________________________

TIL LATER..

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to scaremypsu)

Post #: 68

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/30/2008 2:55:26 AM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

scaremypsu, i really dont care about the studies. thats not now what im really trying to i guess point out, i really want to show the PGC WHAT they are harvesting, not how many. i can say doe. how do they know ya really shot a fawn? thats a guess they are coming up with. i'd just like them to see how many of those bucks they are harvesting are really older then 2 years old. they're just guessing at that. they still would be guessing too with the CS's but, with they way they keep talking about deer managment you think they would really wanna see up front what they "we" harvested. I doubt you can argue what im trying to say on that becuase its not a number game with studies showing this and that. I hunt both states(ohio) i just like checking my deer rather then sending a report card in. i suppose tahts my freaking opinion though.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 69

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/30/2008 2:57:29 AM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

oh by the way bull lifter is due to fishing..(bluegills, big ones aka bulls, i lift bulls out of the frozen water)

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 70

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 8:51:13 AM

DanesDad

Posts: 1569
Joined: 3/21/2005
Status: online

Let's face it, the PGC is no more likely to get a 100% accurate count of deer harvested than they are of coming up with an exact population figure for deer. So why should I be inconvienced and use precious gasoline to go to a check station when I can drop a card in the mail and the PGC gets the same reporting rate either way?

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 71

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 8:58:37 AM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Point #2...IT is ALREADY MANDATORY to report a successful harvest in Pa... and withn 10 days... that's the law.... nothing the PGC made up.. the legislature made that law and that procedure and only they can change it....

Care to elaborate a bit here Doc?

I believe it's a $25 fine for not turning in your report card but for some reason it's not enforced. ?? I did some searches on some websites but couldn't find anything.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 72

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 9:35:00 AM

scaremypsu

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

SK,
They do enforce it in the field. If a WCO stopped you and your tag was missing, they have an electronic copy of all the harvest reports turned in. However, they do not do it at the check stations because it would somewhat bias the estimate for reporting rates. If people were getting busted, they would be more likely to turn in a card and an estimate may not be accurate. Another reason is, the butchers are cooperating and allowing biologist to enter their shops and check deer. If they started busting people, they most likely wouldn't cooperate and they may loose business. I have helped a few times aging deer anad asked the same question. However, I am not sure what the fine is.

(in reply to SilverKype)

Post #: 73

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 11:14:01 AM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

Section 2323 of the code reads ----

Within ten days of the kill, the person shall fill in completely the report card supplied with the hunting license for reporting big game killed and shall mail the report card to the commission at Harrisburg..

-------------

That's the law --- so it is mandatory to follow that law....
and those that do not send in a card ARE violating the law.... and subject to punishment for doing so....

_____________________________

TIL LATER..

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to scaremypsu)

Post #: 74

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 11:32:50 AM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

No price?

I swear it was $25 but I can't find it anywhere.

_____________________________

Catch the energy. Release the potential.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 75

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 12:11:11 PM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

not drive to check a deer? might as well not drive to hunt either. i have to drive 10 miles anyway to the post office to drop it in the mail anyway.

(in reply to DanesDad)

Post #: 76

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 1:33:15 PM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

The last deer a friend killed in Maryland, he had to drive 2.25 hours to Annapolis to check it in. That's 2.25 hours SOUTH, while he lived in PA. He got it out of the woods 1.5 hours after dark. All the local stores were closed. One was "closing up" while he pulled up.

You supporters of check stations see a problem with that?

You would if it were you..

_____________________________

Catch the energy. Release the potential.

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 77

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 3:37:59 PM

S-10

Posts: 947
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online

How far did he drive to hunt? Must be something missing from the story. Maryland is only 100 miles wide and about 250 long and has more than one check station and he could have checked it in the next morning. I have been to 9 diffferent check stations in several states and the only ones more than 25 minutes from where I hunted were in Colorado. Sounds like more of a unusual out of state hunting situation than anything else. Pa actually already has many check stations. Difference is they are not run by the PGC and many are not mandatory. Question= Doesn't Treasure lake have one, who ran it. You out there Kev, Doc?

(in reply to SilverKype)

Post #: 78

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 4:01:18 PM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

It was a Saturday night. All others were closed. That's why he had to drive. Don't think he wanted to stay overnight just to check in a deer. He shouldn't have to. He shouldn't have had to drive. Sorta proves my point. For every honest person that is willing to do this drive, how many would go back over the PA border without checking it in? Probably a lot. I think every single one of you would have a problem with driving 2.25 hours the opposite way.

Every single state has a bunch of people complaining about "how many deer are in this state" and the estimates of kills. Geesh...Iowa extended their doe season this year because of bad weather and hunters ended up shooting 1700 dropped antlered bucks. Fact is, you're never going to get an exact number of kills or number of existing.

How on earth can anyone blame the commission when we have less than 40% return on report cards? Everyone wants accurate data but can't even put a card in the mail. Postage isn't even required!! LOL, lazy bunch of ....

Talk to your fellow hunters if you want more accurate data.

Yes, TR, has a check in at the gate.

< Message edited by SilverKype -- 3/31/2008 4:02:21 PM >

_____________________________

Catch the energy. Release the potential.

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 79

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 6:36:51 PM

imabozo

Posts: 12
Joined: 1/23/2008
Status: offline

You will never get an accurate number. Does anyone believe that the ones who don't send a report card in will actually take their deer to a check station? But to argue cost, it wouldn't be much to have check stations. I lived in Oklahoma six years. They had check stations at several gas stations. Most consisted of a hoist/gambrel/scale and a log book. I checked in 5 deer and only once was there anyone else there to help.

(in reply to SilverKype)

Post #: 80

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 7:59:21 PM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

Here is one thing we talked about at the open house on this subject of check station when it comes to the number of deer Pa harvests compared to states with a much smaller harvest...

I'm goin to focus on JUST one county in Pa from 2003 figures because I do not have county figures after that.. and I am going to focus on the first day's harvest figures. this works for all counties and is a reason you can expect long lines regardless of what it is like in OTHER or what you think NOW....

Remember..... JUST ONE COUNTY.....

Total deer harvested .....8,760

Let's say only 2,000 of them were harvested on the first day...
that's 2,000 to the check stations...let's say weighing, on and off scale and getting all the other information for that kill takes ONLY 6 MINUTES.....

the total time needed would be 200 hours on the first day for just this county...

Let's run the station for 8 hours (to avoid paying over-time at the end of the week) begining at NOON of opening day until 8:00pm.... 8:00 pm and we're closed take the deer somewhere else -----or come back tommorrow..

To do that ( proccess those 2,000 deer) we would need 20 check station IN JUST JEFFERSON COUNTY each one doing 100 deer..... for that 1st day...
(which means less that 6 minutes for some of them).

I hope my math is correct :) :)

and some of you think it would not involve long waiting lines ???????

Here's something I do know for sure...first hand..

I have taken several first day kills to a local butcher around 10am and stayed to help in exchange for free butchering of my kill.... several times he has had over a hundred dropped off on first day... he has one person that does NOTHING BUT take the license info and how they want the deer cut... himself... and another tagging and removing the deer from the vechile and putting it inside from the weather.... that's two extra to just that.....

_____________________________

TIL LATER..

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to imabozo)

Post #: 81

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 8:37:14 PM

scaremypsu

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/25/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: imabozo

You will never get an accurate number. Does anyone believe that the ones who don't send a report card in will actually take their deer to a check station? But to argue cost, it wouldn't be much to have check stations. I lived in Oklahoma six years. They had check stations at several gas stations. Most consisted of a hoist/gambrel/scale and a log book. I checked in 5 deer and only once was there anyone else there to help.

Did you mention that the harvest for Oklahoma was only 58,000 deer with ~160,000 hunters. Only a slight difference than the estimated 320,000 harvested this year in PA.

(in reply to imabozo)

Post #: 82

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/31/2008 9:48:26 PM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

I think you will find that's the case with almost all the states that have check stations... fewer hunters and smaller harvest totals... not to mention length of seasons....

The idea of check stations being better than what we have is just another example of what some think and no matter what evidence to the contrary they will not change their opinion and after all -- they are allowed to have an opinion... even though with the facts presented here... it looks silly (IMHO) to have the opinion that check stations would make anything better for Pa harvests estimates...

Holly Cow... imaboz's harvest was almost .0001% of the STATE"S TOTAL all by himself :) :) :)

< Message edited by Dr. Trout -- 3/31/2008 9:58:53 PM >

(in reply to scaremypsu)

Post #: 83

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 4/1/2008 1:07:23 AM

MuskyMastr

Posts: 1190
Joined: 6/30/2005
From: The 1st Trench
Status: online

Check stations do not have to collect age and weight. In wva all they do is put a permanant tag on the deer. But you sure as hell better not get caught without the tag or you are in jail for 7 days and everything you hunt with is confiscated. They can do 6 deer in less than 5 min. Secondly in the county I hunt in there there are probably 50 check stations. Every local store in the county begs to be one because of the business it brings in. Third I stopped at the check station in the KQDC on the first day of buck, where they give you incentives to get your deer checked. At 5 pm guess how many they had checked.............9!

_____________________________

All my heroes smell like fish.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 84

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 4/1/2008 9:01:19 AM

S-10

Posts: 947
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: online

Doc, I think your so called facts presented here and "silly" comments ignores all the other facts to the contary presented here.----- I also think your comments and positions on hunting related matters may be just a bit Biased based on the fact you were just thanked by members of the PGC for promoting their agenda. Some people like check stations and some people don't. They serve a useful purpose and most states (including ours) use them to some degree.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 85

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 4/1/2008 11:50:43 PM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

Yeah I agree. S-10. But im done agruing this. It seems everyone is just on their own side and their opinions are correct even if they were wrong.(sure including me) This agruement went into the, "no one agrees with anything" and its pointless. Seeeeeems to me alot of people on here do more hunting on the internet, then actually hunting in the field.

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 86

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 4/2/2008 12:11:16 AM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

I heard Dr. Alt speak in Brockway in 2000, I proceeded home and spent almost two years bashing the plan on message boards, including my own. I was then invited to attend some meetings, tours, seminars, ETC, etc.

I have since met many biologists, deer experts, foresters, and other experts on deer, wildlife in general, and habitat... it took less than a year of this and I started to see the "big picture"-----
and started to understand the meaning of managing the deer by science and biology --not hunters wishes....

Biase... yes== But not 100% because of my relationship with the folks at the PGC but because I understand most of the current deer program and support it 100% and do all I can do to promote that program.

_____________________________

TIL LATER..

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 87

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 4/2/2008 3:11:38 AM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

so you mean you support..100% of what you understand...SO then what DONT you understand. i can see waht they are trying to do, but did they realize WHAT they did. As everyone knows Pa has a million to 900,000 hunters. I just cant understand why in the world would they want to so called "ruin it" for everyone. I was all for the "bigger deer" but at the expense of ruining the aspect of hunting was not worth it in my book. If the population of hunters continue be that high and the harvest rates continue to be in the 300s of thousands, i can see deer hunting a thing of the past. You cant have quality deer with that many hunters. Pa would rather have quantity rather then quality. Basically, I'm that way. I know Bow hunting isnt fun seeing a few deer, i hate to say "waste of time" but thats what it feels like almost.

They should listen to the hunters wishes...just do to the fact if they want a revenue and a JOB. I personally don't NEED the pgc, they need ME to pay them. so I'm paying them to screw things up for me? thanks guys. appreciate it much...

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 88

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 4/2/2008 11:12:40 AM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

Not looking at the true facts again :)

We could harvest 500,000 deer every year and still maintain a constant number of deer for the following fall seasons... That's part of what the PGC is trying to do :)

To keep a balanced herd you need many things... but one is that you have to harvest about the same number of deer each fall that you expect to be "re-placed" the following spring and that's accounting for the loss of fawns during the summer ...

It is quite possible for the harvested number to be replaced with a deer herd that is in balance with its habitat and has a good food supply year round.

Here in my region I am starting to see a forest floor of new growth starting to appear even on game lands and other public hunting areas... this will just add to the possiblity of supporting a larger deer herd down the road.

BUT... what is even more interesting is with fewer deer competing for the available food during the winter the does are eating better and giving birth to not only healthier fawns but more of them because of the mother's good winter health..

Many around here are commenting on the number of does with triplet fawns they are seeing the past three years.... many had gone years and years with never seeing triplets...

I have lived here 24/7 for 21 years now and saw one set of triplets in that length of time and that was about 9=10 years ago and now I have seen at least two differnt sets of triplets within 4 miles of my home every year since 2005 and I just know I'll be seeing them this summer...

I saw two does with triplets in the same area two years in a row....

It's a good plan.... you just have to listen/learn and believe the experts... NOT the disgruntled hunters... who do not like change of any kind.... and who want "easy" deer hunting for everyone...

bull ---

Am I wrong or missing something here ????
YOUR EXAMPLE ----

300,000 "average kill" for 900.000 hunters... THAT'S BAD ??....
just what are they complaining about ???????

I've been hearing the "no deer left" and the word "slaughter" for several years now... how is we are still killing that 300,000... there has to be deer somewhere to do that ..don't you agree ???? and if you do not agree where is the 300,000 coming from ...???

Remember the USP argues we only have 50,000 after hunting season....

:) :) :) :) :) :)

I remember being upset the first 3 years of HR when Jefferson County killed 4 years' worth of does... but I was wrong.. it did not destroy the herd nor deer hunting... it's staying just about the same for the past couple years (harvest).. forest floor is looking better... recruitment apears to be up....

all good for the future of deer hunting....

TIL LATER..

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 89

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 4/2/2008 12:05:59 PM

dpms

Posts: 303
Joined: 8/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bull Lifter

"ruin it"

If the population of hunters continue be that high and the harvest rates continue to be in the 300s of thousands, i can see deer hunting a thing of the past. You cant have quality deer with that many hunters. Pa would rather have quantity rather then quality. Basically, I'm that way. I know Bow hunting isnt fun seeing a few deer, i hate to say "waste of time" but thats what it feels like almost.

Wow,

300,000 deer killed and the hunting is "ruined". Most states and thier hunters would love to kill that many.

Bow hunting isn't "fun" and a "waste of time" because you see a few deer! Man you are missing what is great about our sport. Pathetic comments from a peer of mine..

Sorry for the strong comments but they are deserved.. The anti's love you.

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 90

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> Big Game Hunting >> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to: