Man, you guys have way over analized what I said. Lets get down to the very superficial basics. Johny doesn't buy a license this year, the PGC doesn't get his money. Don't read into this anymore than I intended it to be. It was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek.

Wayne, judging by your posts I would tend to believe that you have followed through with what you stated and made an attempt to contact legislators and encouraged others to do the same to voice your dissatisfaction. I wonder how many others on here can say the same?

I don't disagree that some areas are experiencing less than desirable results. It just gets old hearing the same thing day in and day out for the last 5 or so years. The sad thing is that I can guarantee the vast majority of the chronic whiners will never take a proactive approach to ensure the PGC will be "getting things right" in the future.

ORIGINAL: grt0404

i agree with stopping the doe season or cutting it back. lets go back to how it was years ago with the harvest of one deer, either a buck or a doe. another option would be to manage the dmu`s in the nc region a different way have i week of buck only and 2 days of doe. or one week of buck and no doe for a few years and see how the population comes back. when the numbers come back up limit the doe permits. these are just a few ideas that have been discussed with myself and a few other people, i don`t have all the answers but i think there has to be a different approch to manageing the deer herd. remember that the deer are hunted from oct. through early january with a few week break aftre the rifle season.

 
Back when you were only allowed one deer a year it was because ALL of the state’s hunters were coming to about one third of the state’s landmass to hunt. Therefore, there were enough hunters to sort of control the deer populations. The reason I say sort of is because I don’t think even then it could have been controlled if it hadn’t been for all of the illegal deer-killing going on. Back in the days of one deer a season about half of the local hunters I checked with a deer either didn’t have the deer tagged at all or had reused the already filled out tag on multiple deer. Many, many wives, daughters and other non-hunting family members had a license so their tags could be used on the extra deer the hunting family members killed. (in fact that no longer being done as much is one of the biggest reasons we have seen such a reduction in license sales).
 
 The out of area hunters couldn’t get away with not tagging their deer as easy as the locals who could sneak them home quickly but they did kill a lot of does on the last day they were going to be in the area when they could take them directly from here to there down state home. A very high percentage of the hunters simply didn’t quit at one or even two deer a year. On the fall weekends when the camps were full I would hear as much shooting at night as you would the second day of deer season. It was a rare weekend I didn’t get at least one group poaching deer at night and often I would get several poachers on the weekend.
 
In retrospect, looking back on it now, it might very well have been all that illegal deer killing that was keeping the deer herds in check and as healthy as they were back then.
 
But, that all changed when the deer populations increased to goof huntable numbers in the down state areas. When the deer populations increased down state fewer hunters had the desire to come north to the big woods to hunt. With the expansion of the deer populations to cover the entire state, instead of just the top half of the state as it once was, resulted in hunters being spread out all over the state and not as many hunters wanting to hunt in any of the northern counties. That then meant hunters were not buying all of the antlerless licenses being allocated in many of the northern tier counties, even though the allocations hadn’t been increased. With the increasing number of antlerless license for the down state counties and more hunters buying them we quite simple had more antlerless license in many counties then hunters wanting them. That meant many of the northern areas were not getting the deer harvests they had traditionally getting and the habitat was starting to suffer as a result. The only solution to that problem was to allow those unsold antlerless license to be purchased by hunters who wanted to harvest more than one antlerless deer. All that really did was allow many of the hunters buying them to do what they had been doing for years illegally. But, the fact of the manner is the hunters couldn’t keep up with the old harvest levels and the habitat got so degraded, from the excess deer, it would no longer support the higher deer numbers.
 
In short, harvesting fewer does is not going to result in having more deer for the long term, in fact it might very well result in having even fewer than we have now for the long-term future. Harvesting fewer doe would only result in having more deer for a few years at best and even that would be dependant on having mild winters following the reduced harvests. You CANNOT stockpile deer through the winter when you have a harsh winter. Nature will not allow it without winter mortality and reduced fawn recruitment rates the following year. That cannot and will not result in having more deer in the long-term future.
 
I know a lot of hunters will not accept that because it isn’t what they have always believed or even what to believe. But, that is pretty much what I have both learned and witnessed in the past thirty-four years of working to protect those resources.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

Noone is cutting off anything to spite their face. And if pgc were interested in saving that nose, theyd have made even the slightest effort to have a much better relationship with hunters of this state than they do currently, instead of aligning themselves with extremists such as those mentioned by eveland, as well as like minded legislators to do their bidding.

There is nothing wrong with wanting more "hunter friendly" game commission. Especially when its well documented that they are and have been anything but the last decade or so. It needs to be addressed by legislators and there are no other legit options. Whether that be in having hunters have more say in appointing commissioners, in removing chronically problematic upper pgc staff (BIG one), whatever the case may be. Things need to change once and for all. A system "fixed" so hunters are as guaranteed not to be "the odd man out" as is possible. Its what is best for the sport of hunting, the resource, and of course the game commission. And no, im not talking about the obtuse agendas of the few calling the shots there, im talking about the welfare of the agency as a whole.

I suspect that is want the extremists are banking on and it certainly appears that the hunters of this state, especially the ones like you, are making it easier for them to make it happen too. Those trying to make a point by starving the Game Commission into submission are playing right into the hands of those non-hunting and anti-hunting groups willing to provide the funding hunters are refusing to provide. Did you ever hear the saying of “cutting your nose off to spite your face

This HR/AR came about as a result of the PGC putting in place the regulations and seasons the Audubon and enviromentalists were pushing and that is well documented as you well know. To expect us to support an anti hunting agenda that caused the loss of a quarter million deer hunters in this state takes a lot of ba##s and isn't going to happen. It's what was wanted by the folks in charge and they have put in place policies to cause hunters to get discouraged and quit and your BS doesn't change that fact.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Noone is cutting off anything to spite their face. And if pgc were interested in saving that nose, theyd have made even the slightest effort to have a much better relationship with hunters of this state than they do currently, instead of aligning themselves with extremists such as those mentioned by eveland, as well as like minded legislators to do their bidding.

There is nothing wrong with wanting more "hunter friendly" game commission. Especially when its well documented that they are and have been anything but the last decade or so. It needs to be addressed by legislators and there are no other legit options. Whether that be in having hunters have more say in appointing commissioners, in removing chronically problematic upper pgc staff (BIG one), whatever the case may be. Things need to change once and for all. A system "fixed" so hunters are as guaranteed not to be "the odd man out" as is possible. Its what is best for the sport of hunting, the resource, and of course the game commission. And no, im not talking about the obtuse agendas of the few calling the shots there, im talking about the welfare of the agency as a whole.

 
Those comments are really based on nothing more then your opinion and your belief in and insistence on conspiracy theories that simply don’t exist.
 
As far as your comment concerning any extremists mentioned by Eveland I will once again point out that they aren’t anymore extremist then the USP who had just as much say as anyone else in developing the current deer management plan and objectives. Why was it ok to have the USP extremists to have a voice but not an extremist group (who are also hunters and interested in wildlife) with an opposing view on the working group?
 
The fact that both the USP extremists and any opposing view extremists canceled one another out and we ended up with a middle of the road deer management plan and objective tells me the system actually worked as it should have.
 
You are just sour grapes because your extremist group didn’t get its way. Well the other extremist group didn’t get their way either and what we now have is what is best for the future of the resources, the pubic and even the future of hunting. Some extremist and uninformed hunters always have and always will refuse to accept that fact, though.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

know a lot of hunters will not accept that because it isn’t what they have always believed or even what to believe. But, that is pretty much what I have both learned and witnessed in the past thirty-four years of working to protect those resources.

And yet the five years prior to AR/HR saw both a steady increase in buck kill and number of bucks making the Pennsylvania record book. In fact after a decade of AR/HR the year before it started is STILL the best year for both number of bucks killed and number making the record book. Not bad for a bunch of starving runts. Per the PGC, you get your best deer kill at 60% of maximun carrying capacity.

 
The five-year period prior to antler restrictions were all good mast crop years with extremely mild winter years and the responding higher than normal fawn recruitment are the reasons the buck harvests during those years was abnormally high.
 
Since antler restrictions of course the buck harvest declined. The buck harvests declined because we haven’t been blessed with a long run of good mast crops or mild winters like we had before antler restrictions. We also have fewer deer both as a result of harvesting more in some parts of the state and because of the lower fawn recruitment rates from not having those ideal mast and winter conditions. We further have lower buck harvests since antler restrictions because we no longer harvest 80% or more of our yearly bucks and instead protect about 50% of them.
 
The decline in buck harvests was all by management design so not only the fact but also the reason we now harvest fewer bucks should be pretty obvious. 
 
As for your comment about the number of record book bucks coming the year before antler restrictions is simply not correct.
 
The year before antler restrictions was 2001 so I will post the number of record book entries from 2001 through 2007 which is the last year I have the data compiled.
 
Year………….Record book bucks (includes both archery and gun)
2001………………..34
2002………………..40
2003………………..48
2004………………..32
2005………………..41
2006………………..68
2007………………..44
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

I suspect that is want the extremists are banking on and it certainly appears that the hunters of this state, especially the ones like you, are making it easier for them to make it happen too. Those trying to make a point by starving the Game Commission into submission are playing right into the hands of those non-hunting and anti-hunting groups willing to provide the funding hunters are refusing to provide. Did you ever hear the saying of “cutting your nose off to spite your face

This HR/AR came about as a result of the PGC putting in place the regulations and seasons the Audubon and enviromentalists were pushing and that is well documented as you well know. To expect us to support an anti hunting agenda that caused the loss of a quarter million deer hunters in this state takes a lot of ba##s and isn't going to happen. It's what was wanted by the folks in charge and they have put in place policies to cause hunters to get discouraged and quit and your BS doesn't change that fact.

 
Actually what I do know is that there were a number of Sportsmen groups (the largest group of stakeholders involved), including the Unified Sportsmen. There was a lesser number of conservation minded groups along with additional representation for farmers and timber interests. They each had an equal voice in the deer management plan and objectives.
 
I fail to see how that could be a viewed as a conspiracy or in any way one sided. It certainly seems to me that the collective thinking of the stakeholders, including the USP, had an equal say in the current deer management plan.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

"Actually what I do know is that there were a number of Sportsmen groups (the largest group of stakeholders involved), including the Unified Sportsmen. There was a lesser number of conservation minded groups along with additional representation for farmers and timber interests. They each had an equal voice in the deer management plan and objectives."


WR-O-O-O-ONG! The enviro extremists came up with the initiative, had the support system in place at pgc and carried it out. Do some research for a change and see who put this into play in the first place. The plan for deer eradication in the name of marketable timber & not even naturally occurring biodiverity extreme lunacy was "hatched" long before the ridiculous meetings of nothingness ever even occured. Everything esle, and anyone elses very limited restricted involvement was absolutely meaningless. Sportsmen had no say in the groundrules or structuring of this "meeting of the minds" lol. The outcome was absolutely predetermined, and there was no possibility of any other outcome. The ball was put into play before the meetings you speak of were ever even scheduled. The environuts put it all together and just because a handful of "sportsmen" were invited to sit in on the meetings as 100% lame duck participants and answer 100% meaningless open to twisting very basic questions about absolutely nothing doesnt give them any level of meaningful involvement They had and continue to have absolutely NONE.


View the eveland videos, its clear you havent. Maybe you will learn something.

The five-year period prior to antler restrictions were all good mast crop years with extremely mild winter years and the responding higher than normal fawn recruitment are the reasons the buck harvests during those years was abnormally high.

Since antler restrictions of course the buck harvest declined. The buck harvests declined because we haven’t been blessed with a long run of good mast crops or mild winters like we had before antler restrictions.

Do you actually expect us to believe that we had five good mast crops in a row and five mild winters in a row prior to AR/HR and five poor mast crops in a row and five hard winters in a row since AR/HR. You must live in another state and also don't understand the cycle of acorn production or believe in climate change. Why do you post this nonsense.

While at PSU in one of my forestry classes, the professer blame Smokey the Bear for part of the troubles of Oak regeneration along with deer
 
 
His idea was simple, shoot and burn

ORIGINAL: Twowithone

Wayne: So since the PGC owns the mineral rights on half their land and you see drilling on some areas of PGC land that automatically means that its the half of land that the pgc owns the rights to and are selling for profit?
 
In a round about way yes.

How?

ORIGINAL: psu_fish

ORIGINAL: SonofZ3

ORIGINAL: Twowithone

Wayne: So since the PGC owns the mineral rights on half their land and you see drilling on some areas of PGC land that automatically means that its the half of land that the pgc owns the rights to and are selling for profit?
 
In a round about way yes.

How?

do you really think the PGC is gonna walk away from lease $$, Z3 ??

No, but the point is that if the mineral rights owned by the PGC cover roughly half their land, then theres only a 50% chance that some random drilling site you see on PGC land is a result of a lease that the PGC is getting money for. Thats the kind of thing that might be important to know before making claims about all the money rolling in because you (not you personally, just whoever is making the claim) saw a rig on PGC land.

I'm saying that just because a rig is on PGC land does NOT mean the PGC is getting any money for it. Twowithone is saying that in a roundabout way, thats exactly what it means, which I don't understand considering theres a 50% chance those mineral rights are privately owned.

The amount of huntable land is shrinking on some game lands due to wells. Money in their pocket is far more important than preserving the land for hunting.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

It doesnt make one bit of diff. if they are getting $$$ out of any one particular well.

They are getting $$$ from plenty of wells the totals thus far i believe were posted more than once, and it is soon to be a helluva lot more. Thats not even debatable. These things are fact.

But I believe the original line of conversation about the gas wells was wether or not it was pgc contracts doing the drilling Etc. and disrupting during deer season some were experiencing. That i cant answer.

I agree but the big word is "IF".

ORIGINAL: tull66

It takes money to purchase more gamelands, sucking some cash out of the ground seems like a good tradeoff if they buy more.

Which is exactly why every dime derived from that gamelands should have legislators mandate that it be earmarked for game lands acquistions, maintenance and improvment, and NOTHING else. With such a funding source the gamelands could be actually "good" places to hunt, better habitat for game and nongame, and have more game lands acreage in areas where they are currently very few. I know they would be very welcomed by the hunters of this area.

This money should not be used for anything else, but unfortunately it will be. To reinforce the deer management program which is very expensive, and another high priority according to the wildlife management plan is nongame management. I think maybe they may be interest in a few dozen more biodiversity biologists & windmill biologists? lol.