dpms
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3552
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 10:41:32
(permalink)
I don't bash anybody. At least not in awhile.  My approach is not one of supporting one side or the the other. If I disagree, I say so, doesn't matter much to me who I am disagreeing with. In this instance I believe the BOC is wrong to do this and I think the biologists are underestimating the affect on the antlered herd in certain areas.
My rifle is a black rifle
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 12:52:38
(permalink)
DPMS said This proposal was hunter driven Many proposals are hunter driven----The inclusion of crossguns was hunter driven.The biologists were consulted before approval of both changes. I'll make you a deal, you convince the BOC to recind the crossguns and I will convince them not to pass the 3 up. 
|
dpms
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3552
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 14:33:57
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
I'll make you a deal, you convince the BOC to recind the crossguns and I will convince them not to pass the 3 up.
Ha. Hows this. If going to three up doesn't result in what I am predicting in my area, I will support its continuation in 2012 if you support continued crossbow inclusion in 2012 if the data shows the deer herd wasn't decimated as a result of crossbows and there wasn't 150,000 new archers that ruined the hunt
post edited by dpms - 2011/02/05 14:34:23
My rifle is a black rifle
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 15:04:20
(permalink)
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 15:17:05
(permalink)
decimated as a result of crossbows and there wasn't 150,000 new archers that ruined the hunt I don't ever recall those being the numbers talked about or anything about decimated. I do recall being against non-bows allowed in bow season. Heck, they had to change the definition of a bow just to make the inclusion legal. You were against 3 up, I was against crossguns, we both won and we both lost. I guess we are even. 
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 15:24:26
(permalink)
Pa has decided it's too hard for some hunters in some areas of Pa to see brow tines so they do not have to worry about them... while hunters in other areas do not have that problem and must look for them As you will recall, my reason wasn't that I couldn't see the brows, it was that they didn't have the brows. I carry 10 power Nikons even in archery season.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 15:32:24
(permalink)
I was not referring to you personally, most of the "talk" from hunters was about not being able to see them clearly...
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 15:46:32
(permalink)
You folks that live in the 3 point area must eat more carrots.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 19:21:24
(permalink)
The real reason it is easier for the hunters in the three point areas to count points is that typically when they see a legal buck it has three on top so they don’t even have to look to see if it has brow times or not.
Out of the 512 bucks I have checked in Elk County since the first year of antler restrictions (in a three point restrictions area) only 40 of those hunters (7.8%) had to be concerned if their buck had a brow tine and all of the other 472 bucks had at least three on top without looking for a brow time.
The difference is that most 2 ½ and older bucks are going to have at least seven points and are thus going to have three on top while even the large racked bucks are frequently only eight points with three on top making it pretty easy to identify them as a legal buck in the three point areas. In a three point area once a hunter sees those three on top they are good to go and can start shooting. But, in the four point areas nearly all hunters have to not only see those three on top, which would allow a hunter in the three point area to start shooting, but to then look and study it longer and until they could determine if it also has an inch long brow tine.
There simply is a huge difference between the two areas, but that isn’t even the biggest point. The real point is that it is not believed or expected that relaxing the antler restriction to three on top in the four point areas would have any major adverse affect on the buck harvests or the deer management objectives. It would make it easier for hunters to determine if they are seeing a legal buck or not, thus creating better hunter satisfaction in those areas. It probably isn’t going to increase the harvest significantly because it is also most a certainty that a pretty fair number of the bucks that are legal and make it past one hunter, because he couldn’t tell if it had a brow tine, are still going to get shot a little later on in the season when some other hunter can see it has enough points to be legal.
I simply don’t see this as any major issue for hunters to be opposed to since it will benefit hunters without having any adverse management affect.
R.S. Bodenhorn
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 21:21:19
(permalink)
here's my concern... The PGC decided to have 3 point areas and 4 point areas at the start of AR/HR and gave us the reasons for the difference.. most did not object too much.. then we get the effects of AR... lower bucks harvests state wide then we get the effects of HR...lower antlerless harvests less deer causing less sightings of deer by hunters then the herd gets to where the PGC wants to keep it stable...to allow much of the habitat to recover .. BUT we now have hunters complaining .. so to appease the hunters -- the BOC cuts the concurrent season in some WMUs, I'm not aware of any science based info to support that then the BOC cuts allocations for some WMUs and at the same time adds more WMUs to the split season list .. again not seeing the science based reasons for this.. in fact I think the PGC deer team was against that move.. now this year they want to add more WMUs to the split season list with no science based reason for that move... plus move to "3 up" in the 4 point WMUs.. where's the science for that ?? The one thing I see in common with all these moves is it will satisfy some hunters... and the split season will reduce the antlerless by about 20% in those split WMUs too .. allowing the herd to grow and not remain stable.. and this year the BOC even mentioned at the meeting more hunters were going to complain wanting "2 up" in the 3 point areas... now I am sure the PGC will NOT support that move but who knows what the BOC will due next year to satisfy the new complaining hunters in the 3 point WMUs ???? remember these guys are already showing they are not afraid of ignoring the PGC staff..... I'm afraid we're seeing the start of repeating history.. the BOC listening to hunters and ignoring science.... rant over ...
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 23:01:02
(permalink)
and the split season will reduce the antlerless by about 20% in those split WMUs too .. allowing the herd to grow and not remain stable.. Thats complete bunk doc. That 20% would vary among units...it wouldnt effect them equally due to many factors...drastic differences in deer numbers, hunter numbers, accessibility within units etc. Some units just splitting the season may have no effect at all. Others it might be 20%. Then again the decline by 20% during those years in those units took NO OTHER FACTORS into account. Weather. Further reduced herd. etc. There were other units with concurrent seasons that the harvest declined to some extent during that period too, and it wasnt due to split seasons. Some like to point to that 20% to overemphasize that change is being made to pacify some, and to possibly fool boc into believing more is being done than really is so they do not support it. It is being over stated, and grossly misrepresented purposely i believe, especially considering who it is i see really emphasizing that statement over and over on other boards... The propaganda machine is alive and well.. 
post edited by wayne c - 2011/02/05 23:05:47
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/05 23:28:02
(permalink)
The 20% I am using came straight from an E-mail from a source in Harrisburg..
I know nothing about what or who is posting the 20% on other boards....
|
BIGHEAD
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 670
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/02/03 07:46:38
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/06 05:12:56
(permalink)
I have mixed feeling about the 3 on top in some areas and not the whole state. doesn't make any sense really to me, but whatever I never thought that 3 points in some areas and 4 in another EITHER!! Their are is some good if this goes through. 1 being able to remove some of the old nasty scrubs out of the herd.2 I have seen quite few older 6'ers that would be in my freezer. LOL Their will be alot more bucks taken from this also, thus reducing the herd even more in most areas. Seeing that a fair amount of us guys on here and hunters that I have talked to have seen a good share of browless 6'ers that would have be taken instead of walking. Dave
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5050
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/06 07:39:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
The 20% I am using came straight from an E-mail from a source in Harrisburg..
I know nothing about what or who is posting the 20% on other boards....
And we all know thoughs folks in Harrisburg would never try and blow smoke up our A S S...
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4949
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/06 10:48:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: RSB
There is HUGE difference between relaxing the need for a brow tine between the current four point and three point areas.
In the current four point areas relaxing the regulation to three on top would result in only slightly more bucks being harvested and a fair percentage of that additional harvest would be 2 ½ year old bucks. Thus it would have minimal affect on the over all buck harvest or the percentage of bucks protected through the season.
But, to relax the need for a brow tine in the current three-point area would mean any three-point with a little Y on top would be a legal buck. That would result in WAY too many 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested with very few bucks being protected and projected into the next fall deer population.
The entire point is about the Commissioners taking a step that makes it a little easier for slightly more hunters to be successful while still being within the objectives of the deer management plan.
What pray tell is so wrong about them doing that? Isn’t that exactly what we should want them to do? I simply don’t understand why there would be such controversy over this proposal. It benefits hunters, allows for more hunter success and all without adversely affecting the future of the resource, so why the controversy? It sounds like a win all the way around to me. Hunters need to get over this attitude that if it benefits someone else instead of me I am gong to be apposed to it. That attitude is very harmful to the future of both hunting and wildlife management.
R.S. Bodenhorn
Let's explore the lgoic here for one second using the most basic of tools -- the "If A, then B" statement. If (A) it is too difficult for hunters in the 4-point area to determine brow tines, then (B) then need to identify brow tines will be removed in order to mitigate that difficulty. If (A) it is too difficult for hunters in the 4-point area to determine brow tines, then (B) it is too difficuly for hunters in the 3-point area to determine brow tines. If (A) the need to identify brow tines will be removed in 4-point areas because it was too difficult for hunters to determine brow tines, then (B) the need to identify brow tines in the 3-point area should be removed because it is too difficult for hunters to determine brow tines. That's how logic works. Here is how PGC logic works, change one but not the other because, well, we feel like it.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/06 11:55:52
(permalink)
I know nothing about what or who is posting the 20% on other boards.... How about what YOU posted on this board, you didnt simply say that the harvest declined during those years of the study in the split season areas. You took it out of context and said that the proposed areas would decrease in harvest by 20%.... There is no reason to believe that to be the case when as i stated other units that didnt have split seasons also saw some level of harvest declines... Due to factors that might include further reduction having occurred, weather..etc. Also, a unit with say 20k allocation would not be effected the same as one with 50+k. And all the units didnt experience the same decrease...
post edited by wayne c - 2011/02/06 12:06:22
|
deerfly 
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/06 20:03:56
(permalink)
Out of the 512 bucks I have checked in Elk County since the first year of antler restrictions (in a three point restrictions area) only 40 of those hunters (7.8%) had to be concerned if their buck had a brow tine and all of the other 472 bucks had at least three on top without looking for a brow time. That pretty darn amazing when you consider that in 2001 only 9% of the 1.5 buck in Elk had 7 or more points.. Maybe it means the hunters are having just as hard a time seeing brow times as the guys in the 4pt. area.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/06 22:56:52
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly
Out of the 512 bucks I have checked in Elk County since the first year of antler restrictions (in a three point restrictions area) only 40 of those hunters (7.8%) had to be concerned if their buck had a brow tine and all of the other 472 bucks had at least three on top without looking for a brow time.
That pretty darn amazing when you consider that in 2001 only 9% of the 1.5 buck in Elk had 7 or more points.. Maybe it means the hunters are having just as hard a time seeing brow times as the guys in the 4pt. area.
Since 2001 was before antler restrictions and hunters didn't need to count points the data for that year was not included in the data I posted. Therefore, your comment has absolutely no relevance in this discussion. Anyone who sits and thinks about the difference between counting three and four points on a buck for more than a few second without recognize a difference either isn’t being at all objective or has never spent much time looking at buck antlers through a scope or pair of binoculars. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/07 07:15:31
(permalink)
Proposed new PGC regulation: Bucks must stand still and give at least 3 different views of their antlers for at least 5 seconds. This is applicable only in the 3 point areas.....WF
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4949
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/07 09:23:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: World Famous
Proposed new PGC regulation: Bucks must stand still and give at least 3 different views of their antlers for at least 5 seconds. This is applicable only in the 3 point areas.....WF
Then they are going to team up with PennDot. The new rule will be people with red cars don't need to stop at stop signs because it is more difficult for them to see them. People in other color cars don't have that issue, so they will still be required to stop. If you don't agree with this logic, then you never spent that much time driving a red car.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: PGC MEETING RESULTS ===
2011/02/07 11:20:38
(permalink)
DD, keep layin out the rope. ..WF
|