RE: RE:Manage This

RE: RE:Manage This (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> General Hunting Discussion

Message

SPIKER -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/9/2008 3:51:21 PM)
The deer heard and hunting has changed over the years.Ive hunted the same property since I was kid (20 years),now new owners bought it and they kick everyone out now.I have no place to go to hunt but skirt the edges first day,where its still Huntable. I have adapted,you wanna know my secret to success????I hunt the same Private Property on the weekdays when the owners are back home thinking how there going to make out the coming weekend.But you know what,when they go back home we drive those deer out of there and put alot of antler and meat on our tables while doing it!!!! I know there is alot less deer/property to hunt these days,I adapted and want to say thanks to all of you property owners that keep hunters off your property saving the deer for me!!!

Noplacelikehome -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/9/2008 5:15:47 PM)
And people wonder WHY we have so many prisons!!

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/9/2008 6:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr gamelands do affect 100% of the people as the municipalities with them in them do not get the tax revenue that they would if they were not gamelands......so which way do you want it? And the last time I checked, the reason that we have any deer at all is that our monies pay the salaries of the people (PGC) that saved the deer herd and brought it back from near extinction in the state, so actually we do pay for deer. ahhh... no. You pay to "hunt" deer. Hunting is a privledge. It COULD be taken away from you.

MuskyMastr -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/9/2008 11:56:29 PM)
ok take it away and see what happens to population numbers.

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/10/2008 1:16:37 AM)
I understand that. If you think you pay for deer, you should see about getting venison to buy. Probably going to have a tough time finding that. Well, you should.

spoonchucker -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/10/2008 3:33:17 PM)
The only thing purchasing a license ( hunting, or fishing ) grants you, is the priviledge of hunting, or fishing, and the OPPORTUNITY to take fish, or game. The two commissions, MAY use a portion of your licenese fee to stock birds, or various fish species to enhance your odds at success. This may, ( or may not ) entice you to purchase a license, but it is NOT obligatory under the agreement in which you purchase your license.

MuskyMastr -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/10/2008 4:11:19 PM)
The point was that our licenses pay for the management of wildlife. SK mentioned about not letting those who do not have a financial stake in the gamelands now, get thier hands on them. My point was that just as deer affect everyone, so do gamelands. Many people in counties with large acerages of gamelands are very upset at the small amount of tax revenue that land does or ever will produce and many of those people do not hunt or buy licenses. So he believes that those residents who do not purchase licenses should be included in wildlife management decisions as wildlife affects us all, hunters and non. But he also believes that anyone who does not buy a license should not have a say in the management of game lands. I was simply trying to point that out. Which way do you want it?

thedrake -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/10/2008 5:20:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SPIKER The deer heard and hunting has changed over the years.Ive hunted the same property since I was kid (20 years),now new owners bought it and they kick everyone out now.I have no place to go to hunt but skirt the edges first day,where its still Huntable. I have adapted,you wanna know my secret to success????I hunt the same Private Property on the weekdays when the owners are back home thinking how there going to make out the coming weekend.But you know what,when they go back home we drive those deer out of there and put alot of antler and meat on our tables while doing it!!!! I know there is alot less deer/property to hunt these days,I adapted and want to say thanks to all of you property owners that keep hunters off your property saving the deer for me!!! So, some people came in and bought ground that YOU DID NOT OWN IN THE FIRST PLACE. They probably paid a lot of money for it, and will pay taxes on it year after year. YOU HAVE PAID NOTHING TOWARD THE GROUND, yet you feel you should be allowed to hunt it? How much sense does that make? I have seen ground get posted soley because people used the land without asking. There are landowners who will let hunters on their posted ground. Sometimes all you have to do is ask. BTW, I should have said this earlier......your a jackass.

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/10/2008 11:09:36 PM)
oh no MM, I didn't say the general public shouldn't have NO say in gamelands, I said they shouldn't pay the PGC with some type of fund. If the PGC gets funds from the general public, the public will want a piece of the pie. Do you want the public to control gamelands?? As I stated earlier. BOTH .. just as it is now. The general public ARE able to use gamelands. The deer herd shouldn't be managed on opinion, pleasure, want, or emotion. It should be managed based on fact. And before you start yappin' and DC starts cryin', managing deer numbers based on embryo counts, IS science, it IS fact. Putting an antler restriction on bucks and hammerin' the doe creates a better ratio and structure. FACT. Managing deer for hunters to make sure they get their buck on an easy hunt, is opinion, pleasure, want, and emotion. Slice and dice it how you want, those days are gone. Farewell!! Please make some suggestions on how the PGC should manage for a healthy herd, not hunter desire.

MuskyMastr -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/11/2008 3:58:05 AM)
Fact: the original plan was to allow our forests to regerate. to do stem count studies to prove how much better it would be with 17-23 dpsm. We are now at or below 12 in the areas where the target goal was 17. Fact: they now refuse to discuss DPSM because the stem counts arent improving even in areas with 6 dpsm Fact: at the meeting in erie the pgc said quote "it is not thier fault that there are not enough deer in some areas. That control is out of thier hands." So the FACT that I would like to know is when in the hell did they give up control of managing wildlife in the state? And if that is true then why are we paying them to pretend to manage it? Fact : Rosenberry stated that embryo counts are not what they were expected by the experts to be at this stage of the program. Fact: Science is the only way to manage, however mickey mouse science is not. Just keep wearin the ears and singin the song man M I C,,,,K E Y,,,,,, M,,O,,,,U,,,S,,,,E

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/11/2008 11:10:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr Fact : Rosenberry stated that embryo counts are not what they were expected by the experts to be at this stage of the program. So what does this mean? Bring the herd back to 50 deer per square mile? Do you really have a point? ..or venting your displeasure and how PA's deer management hasn't met YOUR desires?? silverkype is still STILL asking... what's the answers ? How should it be managed? Don't forget what Jim Slinky said. "No state, no, no, no, no, no , no state, manages wildlife by science." LOL

John 3:16 -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/11/2008 1:52:10 PM)
This weeks issue of Outdoor News says the deer harvest was down 11% last year. Buck harvest was down the most at 19%. I know the weather on the first day was rough, but wow. That's quite a drop. If my math is correct, there were 109,200 buck shot in 07 season. 19% means we shot 21,000 less buck this year. That, my friends, leaves me speechless

Noplacelikehome -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/11/2008 2:12:34 PM)
Didn't the overall numbers of hunters drop last year also? You gotta take that into account also.

John 3:16 -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/11/2008 2:36:51 PM)
The game commisssion is blaming it on the weather and concurrent seasons. Didn't really mention less hunters. While I agree, Doe harvest, they claim, only dropped 5 percent. So why did buck harvest drop so much if the doe didn't?

Bull Lifter -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/13/2008 3:37:16 PM)
noplacelikehome is it? i've read very few things ont his topic moslty the first few...didnt feell ike reading it all...so if something go answered just be like we went over that... Noplacelikehome do you even deer hunt? I don't think you do...So when a someone says "there are no deer" most of the time they mean there is a lot less... From what i saw your journey. how many of those deer were from the winter? buried in the snow? i've made some short trips on the highways and saw alot of just decayed deer from along awhile ago. and did you really count 50 deer or are you saying "i'd say atleast 50....there was alot"...becuase thats like 1 every 5 miles and im sure that wasnt the case. like someone said you probably hit an area of good posted ground..so forth... before you can say the quote"there are no deer" please go into the woods try hunting them for a awhile. then you can see what some of mean by that. im not going to asy anymore that there isnt any deer. MOST everyone can agree the herd has changed and the herd has really changed in some certain areas.(where i will still agrue about, that that area needs help) spiker what the hell are you doing? and you wonder why land gets posted. its from the assholes like you..keep up the good freaking work num nuts

Noplacelikehome -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/13/2008 6:22:12 PM)
Bull Lifter, I have no idea what you just typed(or mistyped,misspelled), but go back to the beginning and READ my sentences carefully. They will answer all of your questions. The trip was about 275 miles, not a short trip. In some places I saw 4 dead deer in a half mile.

Bull Lifter -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/13/2008 8:06:30 PM)
yeah yeah yeah..okay i read it. when i went to pymy to fish its about 80 miles(im closer to pittsburgh) i only saw about 5 dead deer on that trip and i went up a few times same few deer. Used to see quite a few dead on the journey. Oh i did see a dead turkey too. on another note, i was going up to pittsburgh today and on 60 i saw i think 2 dead deer both in allegheny, both near the airport..That trip from my house is like 30 miles and i used to see a tonnn of dead ones when i go up there anytime..now i see hardly none. heres another fact.....PA will all ways be the highest deer death by car...think about it...we have a populated state, lots of cars. lots of woods near the roads. another fact, deer cross the road. fact our drivers suck ass. i've known to many little girls" i was driving down the back road at night not looking and i hit a deer"....me...yeah they cross their all the time....its a trail..slow the hell down and look the hell up. yet they hit another one...haha anyone really know someone who hits multi deer all the time? i knew this one guy who is like 5 in a couple years. i've never even hit one. wait wait..i did but it seriously was fine its hoove kicked my bumper. i was spotting and they were coming right across the raod to the field i was going slow. now if i wasnt spotting im sure i woulda tanked it going 45 down the road.

MuskyMastr -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/14/2008 1:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverKype So what does this mean? Bring the herd back to 50 deer per square mile? Do you really have a point? ..or venting your displeasure and how PA's deer management hasn't met YOUR desires?? silverkype is still STILL asking... what's the answers ? How should it be managed? Don't forget what Jim Slinky said. "No state, no, no, no, no, no , no state, manages wildlife by science." LOL The point is that the resource we have paid to develop is being destroyed by a combination of factors. actually they are not "my" desires. The only indication that the general hunting public is satisfied comes from PGC surveys. Hunter surveys from various other sources show general displeasure. You continue to ask without stopping to listen. I have stated from the beginning that I do not have a huge problem with antler restictions, but from a biological standpoint they could use a little tweaking. And when the head honcho says that average date of conception is still all over the board after 5 years, then why are we continuing? The answers are that deer are not the sole villian in the problems in our forests. WE are the main culprits that have changed the face of these places. Deer have become a whipping boy for ecologists, but stem counts are not improving, desired species are still dying for unknown reasons in exclosures, so if these species will not grow in the complete absence of deer why continue to make the hunting public bear the brunt of the hardship to fix them, we all screwed them up. You want to know why, because the cost of reparing the ecological damage we have done in the past 100 years is unimaginable. So lets kill off lots of deer and see if we can get lucky. That isn't management, it is budget constraints. Finally don't ever belive for a second that I am a Slinsky deciple. It is a shame that he is the only person with the guts to pursue the views of a majority of hunters (at least from the northcentral portions of the state). Most of the time he has no clue what he is talking about, but guess what? You know him, the pgc knows him and as long as he is making noise, whatever nonsense it might be, at least the state knows that we are not all sheep who will just get in line because we have read the studies that they want us to. Once again the only thing that he and I have in common is that we believe that there are better ways to handle our deer program, beyond that he is on his own. I am curious are you a trout fisherman?

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/14/2008 8:24:32 AM)
No, I am listening. You continue to avoid the question. How are we to manage for a healthy herd? "Healthy herd" I'm not refering to AR or antler size. What science are we supposed to use to accomplish this? If you're going to criticize, you should be able to provide the answers. Your silly antler restriction is not the answer. We are not trophy managing here. Because embyro counts aren't changing (according to your typing), what are we supposed to do? How do we fix that? More doe should have 2 than 1. The fact is habitat sucks. How do you change that as quickly as hunters expect it. Without funding? Jim Slinky and the USP have been asked several times, about particicpating in these types of projects. No avail. Just whiners. He and Greg killed bucks the first day and you think the senators are going to listen to them about no deer? Yes, I'm a trout fisherman. The days I don't catch any fish, I don't blame the fish commission. If they don't stock the amount of trout I WANT, for a particular section, I don't whine. If they STOP stocking a section, I don't go there in the same hole, not catch anything and whine. I move on, in search of. Do you fish a stream the first day of trout that doesn't get stocked?? Or do you "adapt" and move to where the trout are? The only stream I really fish in the Little J. There's too many fish in there anyway. I'd like to see less, but a few more bigger fish. If for some reason, a train tipped and polluted the stream, would I go fish there? Expect the fish commission to make the river recover immediately?? [:)] I must be in a dream world down here where I hunt deer. I see new growth of every type of tree you can name. Some, browsed to hell. Most aren't. It's common sense. Deer are browsers. Less deer equals more browse. It's true!! I would like to see your source for steming not improving!! I have a hard time believing it. While there's more to the story than deer destroying habitat, there's more to the story than hunters having their own personal interests fulfilled. I saw 7 grouse the other day. That's good habitat. If some folks would start looking for good habitiat instead of actual deer numbers, the woods may come alive if you spend time there, correctly. Do you think the GC can just flip the light switch on for habitat to regenerate? Is it fair to blame the GC for a mature and aging forest? Many places in the NC, are a dead zone. GC's fault? What ARE the answers?

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/14/2008 8:53:52 AM)
Did you see the "trout aren't any bigger" thread. whhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! btw.. I did think there were some nice fish caught, that were stocked.

MuskyMastr -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/14/2008 11:49:25 AM)
Well for one we can stick with the reccomendations of the other parties involved. This report Impacts of White-Tailed Deer on Forest Regeneration in Northwestern Pennsylvania Tilghman The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul., 1989), pp. 524-532 Suggests that densities should be kept at less than or equal to 18 dpsm in the ANF. Flir indicates populations far lower than this in many areas. So how do we manage it? When you hit your target density or far below, then you give out LESS doe tags not more. Now they gave the appearance of less tags last year because the number of doe permits was slightly down, but when you figgure in the number of DMAP, the number of tags actually increased. That isn't managing according to data. I told you before I could care less about antler restrictions, (they were window dressing for the program from the beginning) so stop throwing them in my face. My point about them is that if you are going to do it do it right. As soon as my library link starts working again I will send you the stem count results. I also see all kinds of trees growing, and have for the past twenty years. Our 1.5 yo does weigh an average of 135lbs in mckean county. How do we manage Be responsible, the pgc somehow now states that deer populations are beyond thier control (from the meeting in edinboro) since when did anyone else have a say. Bottom line is PGC is responsible for providing huntable populations of deer. They are not doing so in many areas of the state. Hand out less tags. They are also experiencing areas of the state where there are waaaaayyyyy too many deer. The answer in these areas is simple hand out more tags, but that is tough to do ,when you have attempted to divide 45,308 square mile into 22 zones. WMU's are too big to effectively manage. If you want to see a good wmu system check out colorado. Finally if you have posted signs on your property and do not allow hunting, good for you, you own it and it is your right. But you get no say in how deer are managed, as you are turning down the number one management tool. Number two State land is NOT private property, and the DCNR should not be considered a priavate landower when it comes to deer management, neither should the anf. As far as the NC deadzone, no it is not the gc's fault that those forests are so bad, so why should pgc and its license holders take the blame and suffer with unhuntable populations, because of situations that the national forest service and DCNR created in the first place?

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/14/2008 1:12:41 PM)
1989????? That's funny!!! You got computers now. HUNTERS manage deer populations. PGC put the systems in place. Do you blame the state police for you going 60 in a 35 ?? You tell me how the PGC is supposed to stop a hunter from going to where there are 3 dpsm (and whining), and go to where there are 20?? How are they supposed to manage deer per pocket??? Realistically??? You going to pay the PGC to manage deer per 10 acres? Who's going to enforce it?? How are hunters to know boudary lines?? Who's going to design and implement the boundaries? What if feed changes and deer move over to the next 10 acres in October?? It's up to the hunter to not hunt where there are very little deer and hunt where there are more. Talk about BEING RESPONSIBLE. whhaaaa!!! Quit throwing this inferior gene crap in my face and I'll quit throwing your trophy management plan in yours. Inferior genes causing determential antler development is bullshit. 1.5 yo 135 lb. doe. On average?? Out of how many? How many years? Here is where I question the validity in your statements. What are your bucks averaging? [:)] I really hate to disappoint you, but 1.5 yo bucks in PA average only about 100 pounds. Adult doe average around 100 pounds. Yearling doe average is about 75-80 lbs. I think you should get your scale checked, or those teeth. You let me know what what you're doing to those deer. Adult doe rarely reach 130. I can think of one, and she was 5.5+. Here's a link for you. Page 37. According to this, your doe are 55-60 pounds heavier. How can that be?? Pretty close to where you're stating. btw .. 1.5 yo doe I've shot, average 80 pounds. http://www.kqdc.com/Annual%20Report%202005%20part%20I.pdf Sounds unrealistic, just like the AR you suggest and trying to manage deer how you want them managed. Suck it up, and start expecting more from your fellow hunters to use their heads a little bit. btw..... I REALLY doubt that what was said in Edinboro, represents the PGC, and them managing deer as a whole. It was likely made by ONE person. correct??? Who? And there's likely more to the story than what you are saying. You just take a statement and build upon it. Just like I do, with Jim Slinky. Be honest with yourself.

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/14/2008 1:30:33 PM)
MM You should be excited about the deer management audit. I was just reading an article on it. Hopefully, whatever is wrong, is fixed. But I get the sense, not much is going to change. Unless we decide to manage on hunter emotion. I don't think that's going to fly.

Bull Lifter -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/15/2008 12:07:03 AM)
silver...and other...is that stating a live weight? or feild dressed...i've shot quite a few first year bucks that where 110-130 feild dressed. i have a scale, i weigh every deer i get. now for aging does...i cant age a doe to well. but the biggest doe i shot was 127, feild dressed. shot alot around 105-110. I'm assuming you're from a more mountainous region? i can see the 100 pound buck up there. my dad has told me way to much about the "little" bodied deer up there.

Bull Lifter -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/15/2008 12:09:10 AM)
oh i saw that trout thing too. i didnt fish but went down to the lake they stock around here i was suprised by the decent sized trout, i've seen alot worse.

MuskyMastr -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/15/2008 12:20:21 AM)
The audit will depend mainly on who is used to analize data...Probably a waste of money, but I hope not. They have some pretty lofty goals to be finished with it by 09. I haven't read enough of it yet to really know how I think it is going to go. That statement about deer in edinboro was made by the northwest division manager (or whatever the bosses title is there) he was very sympathetic to hunters concerns, but claims that a lot of the control that those there wanted was not in the PGC's hands. Your state police analogy was almost good. I don't blame the state police for me going 65 in a 35. I do blame the legislature for posting the speed limit at 65 in a school zone. I can also tell you that my daughter shot a doe that weighed 125 in the kqdc, on thier scale. When the guy (Forest service) asked if he could age it, I said sure go a head. I then proceeded to watch him proclaim the deer to be 3.5 years old. When I corrected him and showed him that he was looking at the wrong tooth, and then showed him with an aging chart, he said "I'll be dammed, I been on the wrong one all day" great data!!!! And if you think that an adult doe never gets over 130 lbs. then I am done discussing this with you cause you have a lot to learn. We may not be averaging 135 but the average in definitly in the high 1teens. That comes from kqdc data.

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/15/2008 12:48:15 AM)
Oh, so now you're changing your story. High 1-teens or 135 average, which is it? Show me WHERE I said, adult doe can't or "can never" reach 130?? I do believe I said I've seen it in an older deer. I'm refering to your "yearling 135 average" you stated. I just posted the same data you are claiming, kqdc .. yearling doe average less than 100 pounds, closer to 90, it's on page 38 as a graph.. I did provide you the link.. take a look, maybe. sheeesh.

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/15/2008 12:56:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bull Lifter silver...and other...is that stating a live weight? or feild dressed...i've shot quite a few first year bucks that where 110-130 feild dressed. i have a scale, i weigh every deer i get. now for aging does...i cant age a doe to well. but the biggest doe i shot was 127, feild dressed. shot alot around 105-110. I'm assuming you're from a more mountainous region? i can see the 100 pound buck up there. my dad has told me way to much about the "little" bodied deer up there. I'm refering to this stated by MM. Our 1.5 yo does weigh an average of 135lbs in mckean county. Yearling doe don't average 135 anywhere in PA that I'm aware of. No where, did I say doe, or older doe, I said yearling doe at 1.5. I'm not discounting older doe at these weights, but one at 18 months, yes, I am.

SilverKype -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/15/2008 8:47:22 AM)
This one is just for MM. Just some Mickey Mouse science for ya!! http://www.das.psu.edu/das/deer/photos/mature-bucks http://www.das.psu.edu/das/deer/photos/antler-growth

MuskyMastr -> RE: RE:Manage This (4/15/2008 1:18:46 PM)
I don't dispute that 1.5 yo spikes grow into fine bucks, but 1.5 yo 8pts grow into monsters, except here in PA we kill most of those here. Of course AR people never talk about how much bigger the 8pt ends up at 4.5 years old. Look that up.......AR is not the problem, just another example of program that does not follow sound scientific principles. As for weights, my story was to illustrate that the people colllecting the data did not know how to accurately age deer. But you just keep feeding on the crap that pcg puts out just like the other sheep. Baaaaaah!

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

0.141