For All You Complaining about the Deer =====

Page: << < ..678910 > Showing page 6 of 10
Author
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4417
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
  • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/04 08:42:39 (permalink)
Audubon doesn't have to butt kiss for anything.


I think you read my statement wrong.. I said the PGC is not kissing their butt....
The PGC's duty is for all wildlife that includes birds.

Just because they do things that the Audubon likes does not mean they are in "bed together".. that's just how some of you look at it... they are partners trying to improve the enjoyment of the outdoors for all Pennsylvanians not just hunters..


why can't some of you understand the PGC is not all about satisfing hunters,, we are a minority in the state... if the majority ever get together and try to move against the hunters as divided as we are we will not have a chance..

that's is why there is another group I mis-trust with all my heart and it deals with my area of the state.. the Pa wilds..... I even had the head of it at our club so others could hear him speak and decided if they are concerned about hunters.. all they want and are concenred about is TOURISTS ...NO MATTER what they say or CHANGE on their website.. when I asked why hunting was not listed as a recreation in this area... these folks are scary !!!!!!
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4417
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
  • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/04 08:47:43 (permalink)
I frankly dont care who paid for it. It doesnt belong on a Pa *GAME* lands


That says a lot right there about you.

I can see the "doesn't belong there" as a slogo for the people wanting our SGLs for tourism and other uses...

see how a greedy Pa hunter feels about land that should be enjoyed by all Pennsylvanians...

that comment would realy win us (hunters) a lot of support from non- hunters wouldn't it.
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5035
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/04 09:01:03 (permalink)
As soon as they start paying for it like all of us hunters have done then they can have equal access...

"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
 
 


Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4417
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
  • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/04 09:23:21 (permalink)
If you search I think you will find some organizations wanting Pa to become a tourist state can quickly show how much land was GIVEN to the PGC to become or add to SGLs.... so hunters have not paid for it all... and that was pointed out to us..

I'm not going to go to much further into the plans ( IMHO ) of these "we want tourism organizations".. but as hunters we had better look hard at their objectives and "read between" the lines...

one more thing about the Pa wilds....

remember the head of it was an elected politician in this area and on the game and fisheries committee.. very much against the deer plan, fee increase, etc and the PGC as a whole...

the voters THREW HIM OUT after years of "service" .. then Rendell CREATED this new position for him making better money than he did as an elected official and has to answer to NO ONE... Rendell --- you know the guy from Philly who Dan Surra (head of Pa wilds) quoted as saying when he showed Rendell our elk for the first time..

"I did not know we had elk in Pa".....

so I think we had better be careful in how we as hunters go about protecting our SGLs from becoming golf courses, ATV havens, motels and restaurants... Surra went on and on about all the "great jobs" tourism would create in this poor area... did not mention the owners would be from other richer areas and the jobs would be minium wage though... I will say after leaving .. he won NO support from our organization... scared alot of property owners though...

If you think Alt was bad.. this guys makes him look like a saint....
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/09/04 09:27:39
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/04 11:49:08 (permalink)
"The PGC's duty is for all wildlife that includes birds."

Yeah. Just as that duty included birds for the last 100 years. So?


"Just because they do things that the Audubon likes does not mean they are in "bed together".. that's just how some of you look at it... they are partners trying to improve the enjoyment of the outdoors for all Pennsylvanians not just hunters.."

Im not interested in their help. Not one bit. Especially when their obtuse extremist views and over involvement is DETRIMENTAL to the sport of hunting. Thats also not the only reason i say they are "in bed with them". Do some homework and see how many audubon jokers are or have been involved in just about every aspect of our deer management program and our gamelands etc.. Plenty of well known names too.


"why can't some of you understand the PGC is not all about satisfing hunters,, we are a minority in the state..."

And the bill payers, And the management tool itself.. Seem to forget that doc. The enviro-whackos are an even smaller minority. The huge MAJORITY of the state couldnt care less about the deer herd one way or the other period. Probably 99% of the people who arent directly effected by deer or hunt them etc. Couldnt care less if there were 200,000 or 2 million deer. The soccer moms, the office workers the cashier girl at the register, the bank teller, the etc. etc. So dont play that "us versus the world" card, because it doesnt hold one drop of water.

"if the majority ever get together and try to move against the hunters as divided as we are we will not have a chance.."

The HUGE majority of the state support hunting. Polls have shown that. So has my personal observations. I can name dozen and dozens of people that i know...friends...family...acquaintences etc. who do not hunt, but support it or at the very least have no problem with it. And their support doesnt hinge on whether or not pgc slaughters the deer herd by half. lol. I only know of 2 total antihunters. Dont know them, but know of them. So i guess im not gonna give much concern towards antihunter scare tactics or anyone telling me we have to kill exactly the number of deer that pgc/audubon/dcnr are saying right now or They will yank the sport out from under us. lol.


"that's is why there is another group I mis-trust with all my heart and it deals with my area of the state.. the Pa wilds..... I even had the head of it at our club so others could hear him speak and decided if they are concerned about hunters.. all they want and are concenred about is TOURISTS ...NO MATTER what they say or CHANGE on their website.. when I asked why hunting was not listed as a recreation in this area... these folks are scary !!!!!!"

Im not overly familiar with that situation up there, have read some. GOing by memory, I know there was some real concern at one time among many hunters up there about the agenda for that wilds deal, but thought that might change when they put Surra in charge (i believe it was surra?) since he was so vocal about hunting and didnt support the hr for years as a rep.

post edited by wayne c - 2010/09/04 12:03:02
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/04 11:55:44 (permalink)
"That says a lot right there about you.

I can see the "doesn't belong there" as a slogo for the people wanting our SGLs for tourism and other uses...

see how a greedy Pa hunter feels about land that should be enjoyed by all Pennsylvanians...

that comment would realy win us (hunters) a lot of support from non- hunters wouldn't it"

Ireally dont particularly care whether anyone thinks its being "greedy", just as you wouldnt particularly care about being "greedy" and saying no, if i said i was coming over, propping my feet up on your couch, was gonna control your remote and drink your beer. lol. However if someone were to come over, act like a GUEST and not like they own the place, you might not mind having a chat, maybe even sharing a bud with them. Well this is the same deal. I feel no compelling need to "share" anything we've bought and payed for, when that "sharing" is detrimental to our investment. I have no qualms about saying it like it is. Anyone not willing to speak out against bs and lets others tread upon them, deserve everything they get imho. That doesnt describe my positon on these issues. Audubon & others interested in dictating usage can go pound salt. If they or anyone else wants to go there, stay within the land usage rules as they are currently, take some binocs and watch some birds or other nonitrusive practices, and not interfere with hunting etc.... GREAT. Go ahead, knock themselves out. But thats where it ENDS. Dont tell us how we can or cant manipulate the habitat, dont have other interests coming in demanding usage in ways that interfere, and if we dont want them doings things there and hunters feel its intrusion... Then it should need no further discussion. It shouldnt be ongoing. PERIOD.
post edited by wayne c - 2010/09/04 12:07:38
DanesDad
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3087
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/05 11:51:06 (permalink)
So, Wayne are you upset because hunters pay the freight, but anyone can use the gamelands? If so, how do we fix that? Since the PGCs duties include taking acre of birds, then at least some of hunters dollars go into the care of birds. I dont see how that can be avoided. So, some habitat manipulation (in favor of birds) is inevitable. If it's detrimental to deer, what can we do?
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/05 15:29:41 (permalink)
"So, Wayne are you upset because hunters pay the freight, but anyone can use the gamelands? If so, how do we fix that? Since the PGCs duties include taking acre of birds, then at least some of hunters dollars go into the care of birds."


I have no problem with paying for nongame species, although there are probably other better ways of dealing with that. Cant hit on everything here, so will stick as much as possible to the direct question. Care of birds and nongame is a statewide issue. ITs not strictly a gamelands issue. Game lands are for GAME. As for the management of nongame on gamelands specifically, all i can say is they shouldnt be managed the same in that regard as stateforests. I have no problem with many GAME habitat enhancements that also benefit nongame species on gamelands. I also dont mind things like birdhouses etc. that dont interfere with the lands intened purpose in any way.

Some of these things like pavillions, special bird areas dictating gameland usage, audubon and others being on land usage committees in the past outnumbering hunter representatives... are not the real, big problem, but distasteful symptoms of the bigger problems. Kinda like diarrhea that comes from salmonella.

There is but one answer to the problems we face, and its basically the same answer to EVERY problem we currently face where deer management is concerned. Have to cut out the malignancy from within the pgc. You simply cannot have these types making the decisions for us when they dont represent us at all, but do represent extremist counter views. All i can tell ya is to watch the links posted in the other thread, because it mirrors my feelings almost 100% on these issues and why all this nonsense is going on. If you disagree, thats fine by me, but at least you'll understand MY position. I dont know nor have i ever heard eveland before. But i did do my own independent studies on this topic and came to the exact same conclusions from the agendas, to the thoughts on the lack of "necessity" of the program as it is, right down to the individual names involved and inappropriately dictating things from the audit, all the way through with management decision making. Everything to a "t" is what i also personally had found to be the case.

If the answer were simple, we wouldnt currently be 10 years deep into an extreme, failed deer program.

What can we do? One thing. Contact and keep contacting our state legislators and tell them exactly how we feel about things.
post edited by wayne c - 2010/09/05 15:41:30
DanesDad
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3087
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/06 21:35:54 (permalink)
OK, fair enough. I see where you stand. And I dont have a problem with how you feel gamelands should be used and managed.

If the solution is to "cut out the malignancy" as you say, then does this refer to an individual or individuals? If so, what are their names? I want to know who in the PGC would coopertate with efforts to undermine their own organization. Maybe some people are acting the way they do because they saw which way the wind is blowing. Or they were offered cushy jobs under a new system (ie they were bought off). I dont know, but I'd like to know who is involved. Because this is the part of your stand I have more trouble believing. But, I'm not convinced either way.

One thing I am loathe to do is contact a legislator because I've found that government interference in anything is about 70% likely to make matters worse.
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/06 23:08:24 (permalink)
Id rather not attack people on a message board by calling individuals by name, a "malignancy". But Im guessing you can take some pretty good guesses as to whom I believe to be in need of occupation change. Seens that the videos mention some names that would probably be better off elsewhere. I'll leave it at that.

As for legislators, it doesnt matter whether you want them interfering or not, they are, and have been for many many years. Its how the system is set up. Everything at pgc is dependent upon them basically. From the commissioner selection process, oversight, law making, funding....All of it, taken care of by legislators. Everyone has a hand in the pie from the house, the senate, the governor... You also have guys like Rep. Levdansky who run intereference for the environmentalists like audubon who definately want a merger, and help them in every way that he can. He, by the way, is also looking for a merger despite claiming otherwise he let a comment slip in a fit of rage when things werent going well for agenda, not long ago that the independent agency designation was a dinosaur and did not work any longer etc. etc. So do you want legislators on OUR side as well whenever possible? Or should we just let the other guys do as they please? Because THEY arent gonna stop, and we arent gonna just wish it away. No legislative intervention is a romantic notion, but its not even close to reality or a possibility as things are. Its the way the system was set up, and it is what it is. It can work for us, or against us. And its more likely to work against us if we sit back and keep our mouths shut.

post edited by wayne c - 2010/09/06 23:15:53
DanesDad
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3087
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/07 15:03:26 (permalink)
I'm assuming you are talking about people in positions of authority, not rank and file guys.

I know legislators are already involved. I think that they are, as is so often the case, part of the problem, not part of ther solution.
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/07 17:38:34 (permalink)
"I'm assuming you are talking about people in positions of authority, not rank and file guys."

Absolutely.

"I know legislators are already involved. I think that they are, as is so often the case, part of the problem, not part of ther solution."

Fair nuff. They may be part of the problem as you suggest, absolutely (SOME of them). But that only means they also have to be part of the solution, if there is to be one had. No way around it. Therefore its up to us to look into and decide who among the legislators are our friends and who arent. Continue urging the ones who are to take curative measures which isnt asking anything intrusively special of them, as it falls under their lawful duties. We should also keep those in mind who definately arent our friends at election time.

But without having the only people who can make changes on our side, i see absolutely no other recourse, and if that were the case, then pgc would be managed like nazi germany. With a couple of key people at the agency making the decisions with no checks and balances, no matter who likes it, or who it may be detrimental to. Thats not acceptable to me. Seeing as it took legislative action to actually implement and structure the agency in the first place when it was founded and without them, there wouldnt even be a game commission, i guess even those who support pgc should be greatful to those legislators. They arent all evil incarnate.
post edited by wayne c - 2010/09/07 17:43:09
DarDys
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4927
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
  • Location: Duncansville, PA
  • Status: online
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/08 07:56:08 (permalink)
"I think you read my statement wrong.. I said the PGC is not kissing their butt....
The PGC's duty is for all wildlife that includes birds."

And here is a fine example of the PGC not puckering up and taking care of the songbirds.
 
Daniel Rubin: Pennsylvania Game Commission leaves bird's rescuer in a fowl mood
By Daniel Rubin
Inquirer Columnist

The Miracle Bird of Elizabethtown led the Outdoors page of a Lancaster newspaper one morning this spring, a feel-good tale if there ever was one.
The column told how Pati Mattrick, a 57-year-old grandmother and preschool teacher, had rescued the hatchling from a howling rainstorm four years earlier. And now the bird was returning the favor.
Mattrick's German shepherd had discovered the tiny creature - pink, fuzzy, and soaked - buried in the backyard ivy at the foot of a towering spruce. She carried it inside and placed it in an incubator fashioned from an old aquarium, a Tupperware bowl, a linen napkin, and a heating pad. She named the tiny bird Stormy Girl.
Unsure what her charge ate, Mattrick rounded up some worms and bugs, razoring them into bite-size specks. She e-mailed wildlife rehabilitation shelters to learn more. The bird, they said, was unlikely to survive.
But Stormy Girl did fine, growing feathers, filling out on a diet of fruit and nuts, and finding its singing voice. Mattrick learned her new friend was a house finch. The bird would serenade her as it followed her around the house. "She thought I was her mother," Mattrick says.
Which was just what Mattrick needed, since the last of her four daughters had moved out and she didn't feel well enough to teach anymore. The bird, she says, helped lift her depression.
The column, by outdoors writer Ad Crable of the Intelligencer Journal/New Era, ran May 11. Two mornings later, about 9 a.m., a knock at the door startled Mattrick. More alarming were her callers: a Pennsylvania Game Commission officer and three armed policemen.
They'd come for the bird.
Who knew you couldn't keep house finches in the house?
Certainly not Mattrick. But the Game Commission knew. Those garden-variety fowl - the Cornell Lab of Ornithology estimates there are as many as 1.4 billion of them on the continent - are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918.
Mattrick was breaking the law.
Over the last few months, the case has created quite a squawk. Readers sounded off, some accusing the commission of storm-trooper tactics, others defending its vigilance. A Facebook group called Help StormyGirl attracted 411 members at last count.
And Mattrick has found an ally in Lancaster County's top prosecutor.
"At best, this case was a grossly misguided abuse of law enforcement discretion," says Craig Stedman, the county's district attorney. "At worst, it was just plain cruel."
Earlier this month, Stedman made sure that no more Game Commission raids would take place in Lancaster County without his knowledge. Wardens now must get his office's approval for all search warrants, rather than going to the local magistrate.
Stedman says the case has been a disaster for all. "I didn't see any threat to society or the community from this," he said. "Let's put some common sense in this whole job of law enforcement. I really don't want the representatives of the police participating in search warrants for house finches."
Pati Mattrick says her health went into a dive after Stormy Girl was taken from her. Her depression has deepened. The stress has made her asthma worse, and she now needs to use oxygen every night.
"What good did this all do?" she asks. "It didn't do the bird any good. It certainly didn't do me any good. I don't get it."
She isn't sure what to believe.
"I was lied to so many times," she says. During the search, she says, the Game Commission officer told her that if she resisted the search, the FBI would come next.
"All I could hear was furniture moving around and her screaming and screaming," she says. "It's something I just can't get out of my head."
The animal-control officer told her that the bird would be going to a wildlife rehabilitation shelter, she says, and that she could visit it.
But the Game Commission still won't tell her where the bird is. They wouldn't tell me either.
"It's alive," is all spokesman Jerry Feaser would say.

The poster formally known as Duncsdad

Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
DanesDad
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3087
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/08 23:29:30 (permalink)
DarDys- I read about that. Technically, the woman was breaking the law posessing wildlife as a pet. But the PGC reaction was extremely harsh, given the circumstances. They definitely went overboard.

Wayne-I would vote for legislators that I believe work favorably for the type of PGC that you and I both want. But, I refuse to vote for any that steal from the public, approve budgets that knowingly exceed receipts, use their influence to land cushy jobs for friends and relatives, wouldn't do anything to reduce the size of state government, consider politics a career and not a service, spend all their time thinking up ways to seperate me from my dollar (whether or not it makes my life any better), agree with any fiscal or social policies of the current federal government, abuse their privledges or take them for granted, or use public tax dollars to further their campaigns. So this pretty much rules out me voting for many incumbants.
DarDys
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4927
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
  • Location: Duncansville, PA
  • Status: online
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 07:46:39 (permalink)
"DarDys- I read about that. Technically, the woman was breaking the law posessing wildlife as a pet. But the PGC reaction was extremely harsh, given the circumstances. They definitely went overboard."

Yes, it was breaking the law.  Just like if someone hits a deer on the road and instead of letting it suffer for hours until a PGC officer can show up to dispatch it, you put it out of its misery with a pistol behind the ear.
 
My point in posting it was that the PGC took the time and effort to do what they did because why?  There is no poaching of game animals in their area?  There weren't road killed deer to pick up?  There weren't any youth groups to meet with and talk about hunter safety?  They often lean on the excuse that they can only work 40 a week and there isn't enough time to do this or do that, yet they were able to take a full day or more (to coordinate with the police) to come to this lady's house over a tweety bird that would have died had she not provided some care for it.  Does anyone think that the local WCO saw the article in the paper and said "Whoa, we have a major game law violator here and I must spring into action" or do you think that some from from, oh, I don't know, a bird affliated club, called and told them about it and demanded action?

The poster formally known as Duncsdad

Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 08:06:03 (permalink)
Hunting is a dying sport and eventually, it will die out (or be DRASTICALLY reduced) just based on changes in society. I dont think anything cant prevent that.

Do you think Alt was the point man for the change in philosophy for the PGC? If so, you should be happy he was run out.


Hunting may be a dying sport but why did the PGC implement a DMP that was sure to accelerate this decline. We lost 205,517 deer hunters from 2000 to 2008 which is a decrease of 23%,while at the same time general license sales only decreased by 11%. Therefore it is obvious that a lot of deer hunters quit hunting deer even though they still bought a license. But, how many of those 205K former deer hunters will recruit new deer hunters. The PGC spends a lot of money and time trying to recruit new hunters but they are going to have a hard time replacing those 205K deer hunters that quit.
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4417
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
  • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 08:11:25 (permalink)
I think what many are missing is an IMPORTANT fact.. It was not just a newspaper article.. the lady was on TV.. she wanted her 15 minutes of fame like so many now a days.. after the TV appearance the PGC could not let this law breaking (even if small) stand as an example to others... How could anyone enforce a law when a person is clearly breaking it and is now on TV showing that fact..

Did they use the right approach at ending the situation.. that's up for interpretation... I think it could have been handled differently and better, but it is what it is now.. and the anti PGC folks are loving it...

I like how the above writer and others are saying she did not know it was against the law to have wild animals, birds, reptiles as pet without a permit or bill of sale.. I learned that in 5th grade !!!!
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/09/09 08:13:44
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3532
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 08:55:59 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly
 We lost 205,517 deer hunters from 2000 to 2008 which is a decrease of 23%,

 
Any opinion on what areas of the state many of these hunters used to deer hunt? 

My rifle is a black rifle
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 09:28:02 (permalink)
The areas where the herd has been reduced the most ,and where the PGC complains about the lack of hunters,like 2G.
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3532
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 09:37:30 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

The areas where the herd has been reduced the most ,and where the PGC complains about the lack of hunters,like 2G.

 
If that is the case, would 200,000 less deer hunters in certain areas of the state affect harvest PSM in those same areas? 

My rifle is a black rifle
DarDys
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4927
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
  • Location: Duncansville, PA
  • Status: online
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 09:43:46 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

I think what many are missing is an IMPORTANT fact.. It was not just a newspaper article.. the lady was on TV.. she wanted her 15 minutes of fame like so many now a days.. after the TV appearance the PGC could not let this law breaking (even if small) stand as an example to others... How could anyone enforce a law when a person is clearly breaking it and is now on TV showing that fact..

Did they use the right approach at ending the situation.. that's up for interpretation... I think it could have been handled differently and better, but it is what it is now.. and the anti PGC folks are loving it...

I like how the above writer and others are saying she did not know it was against the law to have wild animals, birds, reptiles as pet without a permit or bill of sale.. I learned that in 5th grade !!!!


Actually it was what is called a "human interest" story and the PGC gave themselves a black eye by over reacting.

Perhaps you learned that in 5th grade because you are an outdoor person.  Those that are not don't pay too much attention to outdoor things.

And since you learned so much in 5th grade, perhaps you need to get on this little game show, what's it called -- Smarter than a 5th Grader.  Then you wouldn't need to spend time at the store and could scout that one buck that you have found since AR.
 
By the way, I am not anti-PGC.  However, I am not a blind lover of them either. 
 
I disagreed with the deer program from the start because it was 1) dome for personal gain, 2) done for political reasons, 3) was not done in a one varible DOE fashion; and 4) was not done on a limited basis where actually needed first before taking it statewide.
 
Since then, it has failed to meet its statewide objectives, so I still disagree with it.
post edited by DarDys - 2010/09/09 09:47:09

The poster formally known as Duncsdad

Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 09:50:43 (permalink)
DPMS- your putting the cart before the horse again. We lost those hunters BECAUSE of lack of deer, the harvest is down BECAUSE of lack of something to harvest. Hell, even the PGC and DCNR's own data supports the reduction of deer in those areas and statewide in general. To blame the reduced harvest on hunters quiting when they quit because of the perception of nothing to harvest is misleading at best.
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 09:58:57 (permalink)
Wonder why the entire nation is losing hunters ? Nation-wide herd reduction ?

My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3532
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 10:25:24 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10

To blame the reduced harvest on hunters quiting when they quit because of the perception of nothing to harvest is misleading at best.


I have not denied that fact that lower numbers of deer in certain areas have caused a decline in hunter numbers??  200,000 fewer deer hunters, many of which possibly used to hunt the certain areas of the state, will certainly affect harvest numbers in those same areas, IMO.  Those are two different issues. 
post edited by dpms - 2010/09/09 10:28:38

My rifle is a black rifle
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 10:33:38 (permalink)
200,000 fewer deer hunters, many of which possibly used to hunt the certain areas of the state, will certainly affect harvest numbers in those same areas, IMO


Are you taking into account that the PGC is claiming that the reduced harvests in those areas are still keeping the herd stable? Are you taking into account that the antlerless harvest is the main factor in controlling the herd and that harvest is determined by the number of tags issued, and not by the number of hunters that hunt that area for buck.
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 10:35:46 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

Wonder why the entire nation is losing hunters ? Nation-wide herd reduction ?


Can you name another state where the number of deer hunters dropped by 23 % while the general license sales only decreased by 11% during the same period?
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3532
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 11:06:59 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

Are you taking into account that the PGC is claiming that the reduced harvests in those areas are still keeping the herd stable? Are you taking into account that the antlerless harvest is the main factor in controlling the herd and that harvest is determined by the number of tags issued, and not by the number of hunters that hunt that area for buck.

 
Here is my question to you a few posts up.  "If that is the case, would 200,000 less deer hunters in certain areas of the state affect harvest PSM in those same areas?" 
 
To answer your question, I am taking those into account and am well aware of them.  

My rifle is a black rifle
dpms
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3532
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 11:25:20 (permalink)

While I admire your passion, Deerfly, it appears to be rooted much deeper than the current DMP. 
 
 
 
 
post edited by dpms - 2010/09/09 12:22:25

My rifle is a black rifle
SilverKype
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3842
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
  • Location: State
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 11:55:07 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: deerfly


ORIGINAL: SilverKype

Wonder why the entire nation is losing hunters ? Nation-wide herd reduction ?


Can you name another state where the number of deer hunters dropped by 23 % while the general license sales only decreased by 11% during the same period?


Without looking, no. And I don't care to look. The drop in deer hunters is not one sided, which is the point.

My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: For All You Complaining about the Deer ===== 2010/09/09 11:59:37 (permalink)
Here is my question to you a few posts up.  "If that is the case, would 200,000 less deer hunters in certain areas of the state affect harvest PSM in those same areas?"


Additional hunters would only increase the harvest on a sustainable basis if there currently aren't enough hunters to harvest as many deer as recruited each year. Since the PGC says the harvests are keeping the herd stable, increasing the number of hunters may increase the harvest in the short term it would lower the sustainable harvest in the long term ,if harvests exceeded recruitment.

There never was and still isn't a shortage of hunters to harvest the buck especially with a buck harvest rate of 1.26 BPSM in 2G. The PGC controls the number of antlerlesss hunters and therefore controls the antlerless harvest ,so the decreased antlerless harvests are not the result of too few hunters.
Page: << < ..678910 > Showing page 6 of 10
Jump to: