DanesDad
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3087
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
- Status: offline
Isn't this getting old?
One group thinks deer are being wiped out. Another think everythings fine with the PGC and the deer. Constantly, they get on this board and fight with one another. It never ends! I cant believe that the most obvious thing hasn't been learned by anyone...that is, nobody on here is going to change what anyone else thinks. Many here pound their heads off of cement walls trying, and the net result is: no change. I could go on about why this is so, but what purpose would be served? Do you guys have so little going on in your lives, that you need to direct this much energy into this? Is convincing the unconvincable really that important to you? Really? Why? We're all hunters here, right? So, let's quit crapping on each other and trying to change what others believe and hunt. Just hunt. If half the energy was put into hunting as was wasted on these boards, THEN the herd would be in jeopardy. Jesus, this is so old!
|
thedrake
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1948
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/11/14 22:22:18
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 00:10:23
(permalink)
I'm with you. It's impossible to have any thread not get sucked into the arguement. I think there should be a ban on deer wars discussions for a while.
|
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 00:14:24
(permalink)
So start some new threads...........I did !
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 00:44:53
(permalink)
not directed at you O.A.
post edited by wayne c - 2010/12/22 01:02:01
|
dpms
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3561
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 07:40:54
(permalink)
The truth lies in the middle.
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: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 07:52:05
(permalink)
If the truth lies in the middle,can you explain how the PGC used forest health data to establish antlerless allocations in the northern WMUs over the past 5 years? If the PGC started telling the truth about the effects of the DMP we would know where the truth really lies.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 07:52:50
(permalink)
There are currently 46 different forums with 24,191 different topics on this board. If you have grown tired of those concerning deer please feel free to skip them and move on to another. The regulars on the topic may not change their minds but there are hundreds of folks who don't post but do follow the posts whose minds may not be made up and who do learn from them. At least there is information being presented and not the mindless banter that some of the topics consist of. I choose to exercise my freedom and skip over them. You should use your freedom and skip over the ones concerning deer. To each his own.
|
Noplacelikehome
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 774
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/06/15 16:03:41
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 08:58:17
(permalink)
Here are examples of true ignorance that happened this past hunting season. A guy I fish with(74 years old) always has to remind me there are NO DEER. He has not stepped foot in the woods for 4 years by the way.Two weeks before rifle I was heading over to his place to check my rifle. Not more than 200 yards from his front door are 3 doe standing in a cut corn field. Of course I pointed them out to him. His response " those 3 have been running around here since summer, but there aren't any deer in the woods". Another guy(70) was trying to make me feel bad because I killed a limping doe on the second day(I tagged it and sent in my report card). Once again he stated there are no deer! Guess he would of rather the yotes ate her instead of me. I won't even go into the MANY road killed deer I seen this year, because according to the deer hunting experts,"those deer all come from the posted areas". Seems to me the guys that are totally against killing a doe use to slaughter them for years(if they had a tag it had to get filled no matter what!) and now realize the damage they did. I am sure you have heard the tales of yesteryears. This past year I could have killed 4 young bucks(1 in Pa., 3 in Oh.) but guess what, I showed some RESTRAINT. Remember hunters killed the deer NOT the PGC. Dane is right on!
|
SonofZ3
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 657
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/10/12 10:24:37
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 09:20:30
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10 There are currently 46 different forums with 24,191 different topics on this board. If you have grown tired of those concerning deer please feel free to skip them and move on to another. The regulars on the topic may not change their minds but there are hundreds of folks who don't post but do follow the posts whose minds may not be made up and who do learn from them. At least there is information being presented and not the mindless banter that some of the topics consist of. I choose to exercise my freedom and skip over them. You should use your freedom and skip over the ones concerning deer. To each his own. +1 If it bugs you that the same topics come up, then don't read them.
Support your local Fly Shop! OHWM
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 09:34:11
(permalink)
Three of the most popular threads in recent history were the locked (AR/HR Poll) with 270 hits per day, the (Oxy Bob Fishing Club) with 273 hits per day, and the (Night Before Christmas) thread with 236 hits per day. I'am sure much information is to be gained from each so may I suggest folks spending time on the threads that best suit their intelligence level.
|
Bull Lifter
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 407
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/02/01 15:25:31
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 10:01:35
(permalink)
hahha seems like we are starting to hi-jack another thread. already
|
woodnickle
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 8563
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/22 10:36:42
(permalink)
s-10 so true. Go where you like on here. There is something for everyone. I found the discussion and the fact finding very informative and greatly enjoyed reading it. Find what you like and join in or sit back and read it. Wave the pros and cons , the ignorant, and know it alls. Block the guy you do not like, its easy. Now you can only see the side that you agree with. I enjoy a good discussion. If I can add something, right or wrong, I will and not take offence if proven wrong. Its all good.
|
thedrake
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1948
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/11/14 22:22:18
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 12:27:41
(permalink)
Sure, there are threads that don't involve deer wars, but it happens too often that topics which don't relate to deer wars intentionally get steered in that direction. The "Lets See Some Deer", "First Day", and the recent "OL Biggest Bucks of 2010" are coming to mind, not to mention countless others in the past, have all been hijacked into bich sessions for the couple of guys on here that are unhappy. I don't think it's a problem that guys start threads about the PGC, AR/HR and deer numbers. The problem lies in the couple of guys that can't let any thread go without dragging it into the deer arguement.
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 12:38:25
(permalink)
|
thedrake
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1948
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/11/14 22:22:18
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 12:52:44
(permalink)
busted
post edited by thedrake - 2010/12/23 13:29:32
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3242
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: online
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 13:24:43
(permalink)
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 17:57:14
(permalink)
One group thinks deer are being wiped out. Another think everythings fine with the PGC and the deer. Constantly, they get on this board and fight with one another. It never ends! It will never end because there is always more information to be shared and some will be willing to accept it and others may reject it goes against what they have been told in the past and truly want to believe. For quite a few years the PGC has been telling us that the herd is being managed based on forest health, since herd health has been at or above the goal in all WMUs. But, the following quote is from the DCNR Review in which the PGC was a participant. [ rring One reviewer pointed out in written comments that slow-response indicators are also crucial to understanding time-lag effects and threshold effects, which are common in the dynamics of both degradation and recovery. Time-lag and threshold effects involve nonlinear responses of ecosystem attributes to a change in environmental conditions. One way in which such effects affect management is that they often cause the trajectory of recovery to be different from that of degradation. In other words, where time lags or thresholds are significant in ecosystems, recovery is not simply degrada- tion in reverse; the recovery threshold may be very different from the degradation threshold. In such a situation, the desired ecosystem state may have lower resilience than its degraded counterpart, and recovery will depend on reducing the major cause of degradation to well below the level that originally triggered the shift to a degraded state. In such cases recovery will require a long time or additional management action besides deer reduction. Restoring low deer density does not bring about understory recovery and tree regeneration where deer have been abundant for so long that they have all but eradicated the more-palatable competitors of the least-preferred species, such as rhizomatous ferns and nonnative, invasive shrubs, whose cover often approaches 100% When did you ever here the PGC or DCNR state that reducing the herd in the NC counties would not increase regeneration unless additional management actions were taken?
|
ShutUpNFish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3834
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/03/16 10:31:34
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 18:56:17
(permalink)
Nothing wrong with healthy debate. It happens in nearly every facet of life. Voice your opinions, respect those of others and keep an open mind....can't be near as bad as the steelhead whiners in the fall or can it?
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 18:59:41
(permalink)
When did you ever here the PGC or DCNR state that reducing the herd in the NC counties would not increase regeneration unless additional management actions were taken? Since about 2001 for me from sources at the PGC and at DCNR.... what I heard was reducing the herd was STEP #1 ...., balance the buck to doe ratio, better recruitment, better reproduction rates, better age variance in the herd, montoring the doe allocations, weather, ALL these would have to play a part in getting the forest to re-generate to allow for more of a larger population and the beginnings of better habitat for the deer in the forests..
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/12/23 19:00:59
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 19:34:59
(permalink)
But the PGC and DCNR lied. Breeding rates and recruitment did not increase as the herd was reduced and regeneration decreased in the majority of the WMUs.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 20:02:45
(permalink)
Why do you say LIED.... I'm more inclined to believe it has not happen as fast as they expected.... let's look at an example... here are the pellet count figures for an area near here... notice how the population has decreased in general but there are MANY MANY variances in each of the transists as well as the whole area from year to year.. Here's the figures for a property in this area that has had 5 of them done in the same area each of those 5 years.. notice how some of the areas and even some of the transits in the entire area vary from year to year... The area is divided into 6 transits, 3 north and 3 south.. and are the same ones used each year... It's easy for me to see how two hunters could be in the same one square mile and come away with 100% different ideas on how many deer are there just from their locations.,... Average Deer Density for Property North 1 Summary Year Density 1 2005 36 2 2006 20 3 2007 68 4 2008 34 5 2010 6 North 2 Summary Year Density 1 2005 76 2 2006 80 3 2007 20 4 2008 33 5 2010 63 North 3 Summary Year Density 1 2005 68 2 2006 44 3 2007 70 4 2008 62 5 2010 59 South 1 Summary Year Density 1 2005 72 2 2006 59 3 2007 59 4 2008 69 5 2010 59 South 2 Summary Year Density 1 2005 41 2 2006 8 3 2007 126 4 2008 3 5 2010 45 South 3 Summary Year Density 1 2005 94 2 2006 14 3 2007 115 4 2008 14 5 2010 10 Average Deer Density for Property Year Density 1 2005 65 2 2006 36 3 2007 71 4 2008 36 5 2010 39
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 20:06:48
(permalink)
Now... even worse look at the results of the browse studies done there for the exact same years.... Deer Browse Impact Summary Regeneration Summary Year--- #Plots----#Plots No Regen----%No Regen----- DEER PSM 2005-- 152-- 89 -- 59% --- 65 2006-- 153-- 119 -- 78% --- 36 2007-- 125-- 66 -- 53% --- 71 2008-- 164-- 108-- 66%---36 2010-- 145-- 123-- 85%--39 So we can plainly see that as the herd decreased regeneration did not respond and in some areas got worse... so maybe the habitat was damaged back with the 65 dpsm so bad it may not ever recover with out some type of planting needing done ??? I do not claim to have the answers .. but I also do not claim any one lied ....
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/12/23 20:19:25
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 20:23:56
(permalink)
Why do you say LIED.... I say they lied because it is a widely accepted fact that the MSY carrying capacity of over browsed northern hardwoods is around 40 DPSM. No WMU was anywhere close to 40 DPSM when the HR plan was implemented. the simple fact that breeding rates,productivity ,recruitment and forest health did not improve as the herd was reduce should be more than ample proof that the plan was flawed.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/23 21:34:51
(permalink)
Doc's hanging his hat on RSB's statement that they are never wrong, even when they are proven wrong, It's just that evolving science thing. I don't know if it's part of that PGC Quote= (We are the experts, you can trust us)or the PGC Quote= (A lot of what we do is trial and error). I do know they sure tried, and they sure errored.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/24 13:34:34
(permalink)
I say they lied because it is a widely accepted fact that the MSY carrying capacity of over browsed northern hardwoods is around 40 DPSM. No WMU was anywhere close to 40 DPSM when the HR plan was implemented. Go ahead and show us where that is a widely accepted fact. I have never seen a study where the professional resource managers were saying that an over browsed northern hardwoods forest could be sustained at anywhere close to 40 over winter deer per square mile, let alone it being a widely accepted fact as you claim. the simple fact that breeding rates,productivity ,recruitment and forest health did not improve as the herd was reduce should be more than ample proof that the plan was flawed. That really isn’t a fact and is really nothing more than the opinion of a few people, based their knowledge from what can only be classified as incomplete information at this point in time. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/24 14:07:24
(permalink)
delete
post edited by S-10 - 2010/12/24 14:14:34
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/24 15:28:35
(permalink)
On page 11 of the following document they present a graph that shows that the MSY CC is over 40 DPSM. Forest Management and Stump-to-Forest Gate Chain-of-Custody Certification Evaluation Report for the: State of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry Conducted under auspices of the SCS Forest Conservation Program SCS is an FSC Accredited Certification Body That really isn’t a fact and is really nothing more than the opinion of a few people, based their knowledge from what can only be classified as incomplete information at this point in time. So once again you are disagreeing with the trained biologists at the PGC and Dr. Rosenberry who stated quite clearly that breeding rates productivity and the breeding period had remained unchanged. Furthermore you are claiming te PGC is managing our herd based on incomplete information ,which further undermines the credibility of the PGC.
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/24 15:34:15
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout Now... even worse look at the results of the browse studies done there for the exact same years.... Deer Browse Impact Summary Regeneration Summary Year--- #Plots----#Plots No Regen----%No Regen----- DEER PSM 2005-- 152-- 89 -- 59% --- 65 2006-- 153-- 119 -- 78% --- 36 2007-- 125-- 66 -- 53% --- 71 2008-- 164-- 108-- 66%---36 2010-- 145-- 123-- 85%--39 So we can plainly see that as the herd decreased regeneration did not respond and in some areas got worse... so maybe the habitat was damaged back with the 65 dpsm so bad it may not ever recover with out some type of planting needing done ??? I do not claim to have the answers .. but I also do not claim any one lied .... The problem is both DCCNR and the PGC knew from the beginning that just reducing the herd would not result in the desired increased regeneration. Report after report states that competing vegetation is the major factor preventing regeneration in the NC counties. Even some DCNR , DMAP enrollment reports admit that further reductions in the herd will not result in increased regeneration.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/24 16:20:28
(permalink)
On page 11 of the following document they present a graph that shows that the MSY CC is over 40 DPSM. Forest Management and Stump-to-Forest Gate Chain-of-Custody Certification Evaluation Report for the: State of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Forestry Conducted under auspices of the SCS Forest Conservation Program SCS is an FSC Accredited Certification Body Why don’t you just provide a link to that study? When I search for it I am not coming up with any such report though it did link me to a couple reports out of California dealing with their timber woes. So once again you are disagreeing with the trained biologists at the PGC and Dr. Rosenberry who stated quite clearly that breeding rates productivity and the breeding period had remained unchanged. Furthermore you are claiming te PGC is managing our herd based on incomplete information ,which further undermines the credibility of the PGC. I’m not in any way disagreeing with the PGC biologists. I asked Doctor Rosenberry point blank and face to face in front of the entire region, much of the administration and the biological staff that very question of why the breeding and reproductive data had shown a decline in recent years. He as a matter of fact stated it was due to the shift in where the largest sample sizes of highway killed deer came from before and after antler restrictions. He also pointed out that the declines were not reflected in the individual units as it was in the statewide data and that the statewide results are irrelevant since the units are managed based on the data from each unit instead of the statewide data. The Game Commission biologists, and prety much everyone else, wishes there were more data to work with but there just isn’t, so it is want it is. The data presently being used is scientifically valid for wildlife management though there is no question it would be better if there were more data. Would you and your following like it better if they lumped more areas or more years together to increase the data being used? Or would they perhaps be happier if they went out and killed a hundred does or so, in each unit, each spring to beef up their sample size? R.S. Bodenhorn
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Isn't this getting old?
2010/12/24 16:42:56
(permalink)
I have the report as a PDF file and like you, I couldn't find a link. But here is a quote from the report. When densities exceed 30 deer per square mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying capacity.†When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur. If DR. R. said that breeding rates ,productivity and the breeding window remained unchanged, he lied. Any shift in sample size and distribution should have resulted in an increase in breeding rates and productivity rather than a decrease. Besides, in 2G where the herd has been reduced the most and where there should have been the most improvement the number of embryos/doe dropped from 1.55 in 2000 to 1.35 in 2008 and in 2F it dropped from 1.72 in 2002 to 1.61 in 2008.
|