Once again you are spouting opinions with no supporting evidence.
 

ORIGINAL: S-10

The hardest past is and always has been getting enough hunters to understand enough about REAL deer management that they will allow the correct management decisions the opportunity to work.

You bet I am an advocate for unlimited antlerless licenses in the northern tier. I have seen how well it works toward improving deer populations in ALL of the areas that have had unlimited antlerless licenses for about the past twenty years. Where they have unlimited antlerless licenses the deer habitat is being protected by harvesting enough does to have support more deer. Consequently the deer populations in those areas has been very stable even though they harvest about four times as many deer per square mile year after year for decades now as they have ever harvested in these areas where we keep harvesting fewer and fewer deer to let the herd grow

We don't have REAL deer management---You admit you don't have a clue about fawn reproduction, You admit you can and have altered the results of your breeding and reproduction data by altering where they come from, the PGC said the deer were the cause of lyme disease when selling HR but now admit they really have no effect and reducing the deer won't reduce the disease, You blame the deer for the spread of invasives when the PGC and DCNR planted many of the worse ones themselves to "improve habitat" and now are spending thousands of dollars to remove them to "improve habitat". In selling HR the PGC said the deer were to blame for all the forests ills and denied acid rain, etc had much effect. Now you say they knew all along reducing deer wouldn't help. Your own data shows the forests in worse shape than before HR. You manuliplated buck harvest numbers to attempt to show the same percentage kill over the last 20 years. You now are comparing deer harvests on the forest with deer harvests in the urban areas where there are many deer factories off limits to hunting feeding a steady steam of deer to be harvested into the areas open to hunting to justify the continued attempt to lower the population in areas in the northern tier. The PGC ignores data from the KQDC that refutes some of their methods and claims.You act and talk more like an anti hunting acivist than a WCO. Your so called experts make and have made many mistakes and should and will be questioned on what they are doing and why, now and in the future. Heck,The PGC has used three different population models to estimate deer numbers just since the start of AR/HR. Why should we believe any of them? Seems you just change the calculation to get the number you want. The PGC said they were starting the GREATEST ANTLER RESTRICTION STUDY IN THE WORLD at the start of AR. Where are the results? If you(the PGC) want people to listen to you you have to quit the lies and misleading statements.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Once again you are spouting opinions with no supporting evidence.
 

Wrong again. I supported my position with independent reports, while you supported your opinions with more of your opinions. Furthermore, I can provide an extreme example of the bias of the PGC data. The 2004 AWR shows a winter mortality rate for Elk Co. of 12 DPSM. Since the OWDD in 2g in 2004 was 16 DPSM that rate of winter mortality would have reduced the herd in 2G to 4 DPSM. And BTW te winter mortality in Elk Co. was only 1 DPSM in 2003. Can I have a few loads of your horse puckey for my garden?

No you didn’t support your position with reports. You simply told us your take on the reports based a couple snippets that were not provided in their entirety or the context in which they were provided in the entire report.

You are entitled to your opinions but that certainly doesn’t mean I or any other rational people share them.

I will agree that many people, including the Game Commission had a hand in the introduction of some invasive species over the years but I can also assure you that the ones the Game Commission had a hand in not only were but still are good wildlife food and cover. The problem with them isn’t that they don’t benefit wildlife; it is just that they aren’t very friendly to farming community

The Game Commission had nothing to do with the introduction or planting of any of the species you listed except multi-flora rose and autumn olive and both of them are great wildlife shrubs and both of them ARE a problem due to their spread within the farmlands proves that you are mistaken. Neither of those species has been a problem in forested habitats or in forest management.
 

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Why are black birch, striped maple ,red maple . blueberry, laurel and rohdadenron considered to be competitive vegetation when they have been naturally occurring for thousands of years.

ORIGINAL: S-10

There are thousands of acres of the ANF where natural and native species of shrubs beneficial to deer should be growing but aren’t because they were totally taken over with the invasive species, buckthorn, because for decades the high deer populations wouldn’t allow anything else to establish more than a few inches tall as they ate everything nutritious off within months of sprouting from the ground. Now many of those areas are almost wildlife wastelands that support almost no deer.

Do hunters want more areas like that? If they do all they need to do is keep on fighting and winning the demands for more deer.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Still want to claim you didn't blame the deer for the spread of Buckthorn.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

What is the deer density that is needed to limit the spread of multiflora rose?

if you want to be that I am blaming it on the deer then so be it. But, the fact is it isn’t deer that is causing the buckthorn to spread, it is the birds eating and carrying the seeds to even more areas where the deer have prevented native shrubs to establish.