ORIGINAL: deerfly

No-one should be agreeable to less than manageable numbers where habitat will allow

But, that is exactly what the PFSG and QDMA are supporting. Our herd is not being managed based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, it is being managed based on the regeneration of commercially valuable timber. In 2G, even with just 14 DPSM ,forest regeneration is still rated as poor, just as it was when the habitat supported twice as many deer in 2000. Forest regeneration is not a measure of the carrying capacity and even the PGC acknowledges that.

just like I will not allow links to your eveland stuff, ACSL, USP, etc on my site.. I do not want to be affilated/support them

And all that i said is that it doesnt look good. I didnt ever say Penn Fed WAS still affiliated with NWF. I dont know that. I dont know that they arent either. I just pointed out all the evidence that exists to see if anyone could confirm or deny. I really didnt get much of either.

An old-line hunting and fishing organization decays into anti-industry zealotry
National Wildlife Federation kicks out Pennsylvania affiliate for failure to believe that people are the sole cause of global warming

Don’t let the door hit you
by John C. Street

There aren’t many things that can get me giddy with excitement anymore but as I prepare this weekly missive, I’m giddy with excitement. In a letter dated September 5, 2008, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) notified the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (PFSC) that they intended to “terminate” their “affiliate relationship … “

While this scribe’s initial reaction to this unexpected – but long hoped for - news was euphoria (immediately followed by an urge to send the NWF’s executive director a letter advising, “Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out”), he would also confess, upon reflection, to experiencing sorrow as well.

There was a time, and not all that long ago, when the NWF was a good and trusted friend of every man, woman and child who owned a hunting firearm, ran a trap line or cast a lure into the Commonwealth’s waters. But that has changed. Drastically. And irreparably.

Back in the mid 1990s, the NWF migrated into the high grass real estate surrounding Washington, DC, and their concern for sportsmen and sportsmen’s issues began to wane. Money, big money and lots of it became their primary objective. The paltry sums provided by the membership fees of state affiliates (made up of thousands of individuals who belonged to hundreds of individual clubs) could no longer keep the bill collectors from their door.

In order to survive in the high-calorie intake world of elite not-for profits, the NWF had to learn to feed at the trough of the makers of the “Golden Rule.” Unfortunately, the big foundations that were making the rules – and dispensing the gold – had agendas that didn’t jibe with the historical role of the NWF; trusted friend of the nation’s hunters trappers and anglers.

That many of these well endowed foundations were closely aligned with the New World Order agenda of the United Nations (an agenda that includes the “Wildlands Project,” strict population control, removal of 2nd Amendment rights and, of course, a scheme to redistribute the world’s wealth through the scam of “global warming”) seemed to trouble the management of the NWF not a whit.

Worse, as many of their “affiliate organizations” soon discovered, the NWF wasn’t above parlaying their historical relationship with sportsmen to keep the gold flowing. For these shekels of betrayal (that add up to a $100,000,000 annual budget), the NWF covertly attempted to indenture their affiliates – America’s hunters, trappers and anglers - to an agenda that none would have accepted had they understood the apocalypse being perpetrated with their unwitting acceptance.

The NWF’s true objective became glaringly – albeit unintentionally? – apparent in their September 5, 2008, letter of disaffiliation with the PFSC.

“As the Chair of our credentials committee wrote in a letter dated May 28, 2008,” Tom Gonzales revealed, “the NWF needs the help of all our affiliates to meet the 21st century challenges of global warming, habitat loss and a growing disconnect between children and the natural world.” Perhaps Tom, who is the Chairman of the NWF Board of Directors, didn’t realize how squarely he had just stepped on a very sensitive body part when he signed that letter.

Had the NWF done a little homework – or still been a trusted friend of Pennsylvania’s sportsmen – they would have known that the only “21st century challenge” not on the day-to-day agenda of the PFSC was “global warming.” Because its membership was divided on the legitimacy of this United Nations sponsored tripe, the PFSC had simply – and correctly – voted not to take a position.

As to the “challenges” of “habitat loss” and “a growing disconnect between children and the natural world,” it’s hard to imagine, given the PFSC’s sponsorship and active participation in an exhaustive list of programs and initiatives (which will be detailed in next week’s column), what more the NWF could want in an affiliate.

While the NWF rakes in millions and millions of foundation dollars annually to deal with “habitat loss” and “a growing disconnect between children and the natural world,” Pennsylvania has seen nary a dime for either of these “challenges” … but has seen oodles of dimes spent trying to shove the apocalyptic ideology of global warming through the clenched teeth of Pennsylvania’s sportsmen.

Arguably, then, the only “21st century challenge” the NWF really cares about is having their affiliates’ unquestioning allegiance to the only “challenge” that makes them money; “global warming.”

Theories abound as to why the NWF finally threw in the towel. Some speculate, and there is ample evidence supporting them, that the departure of large county affiliates (like Luzerne County which has 800 members) over the global warming debacle was leading to a showdown the NWF knew it couldn’t win.

Others theorize that the NWF was prescient in seeing the September 2008 election of Bernie Spozio (a long-time, vocal opponent of the anthropogenic position of the NWF) to the office of President of the PFSC.

And some have opined that a certain outdoor writer had finally gotten the message across; global warming is a scam and the organizations, specifically the NWF, who support this scam are no friends of hunters, trappers and anglers. And, just in the event this later theory is correct, perhaps that same outdoor writer could be forgiven for closing with …

“Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out Mr. Schweiger.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John C. Street is a columnist for the Clarion County, Pennsylvania Clarion News.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

All of the professional resource managers are attempting to manage deer at the TRUE carrying capacity of the habitat with the exception of the habitats made up of cultivated farmlands, housing developments and other metropolitan environments.

The TRUE carrying capacity of the habitat, is a meaningless term because it is based on the personal opinions and preferences of the person defining the meaning of the term,rather than on the documented ability of forested habitat to sustain 40 DPSM at the MSY carrying capacity.

The only reason 2G was supporting all those deer you keep clamoring about back in 2000 was because we had experienced a series of mild winter years combined with good environmental conditions that allowed for a number of years with higher than normal fawn recruitment rates. We only got away with that because of those mild winters but everyone knew that couldn’t last forever and it didn’t so nature brought the deer populations back down to where they did match the REAL carrying of the habitat.

That isn't even close to being true. Everyone that is dealing with reality knows the high antlerless allocations in 2G reduced the herd from 15 DPSM in 2000 to 8-10 DPSM in 2009. Even if every SM of 2 G was in the pole timber stage it would still support 10 DPSM. But 2G is not all pole timber, there are clearcuts, saw timber, SGL food plots,reclaimed strip mines ,cuts make for the elk and abandoned farmland, which would increase the MSY carrying capacity of 2G to at least 20 DPSM. BTW, it is funny that you switched from the true CC to the real CC, another meaningless term.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The deer trying to live on the 2G habitat obviously don’t agree with your opinion about how many of them can live there. That is obvious since hunters have spent a number of years harvesting fewer and few deer without the unit experiencing any significant population increase.
 

Sorry to see you are having such a hard time dealing with the reality of the situation. It must really be frustrating to work for an agency that is doing it's best to ruin some of the best deer hunting in the country for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to make up the facts and the facts are that harvests that exceeded recruitment are responsible for the decrease in the herd in 2G and statewide.


Year antlered harvest antlerless harvest harvest PSM antlerless allocation

2003 10,110 20,370 7.4 52,000 2.55 tags/deer
2004 6,400 13,100 4.7 52,000 3.95 tags/deer
2005 5,000 6,200 2.7 29,000 4.70 tags/deer
2006 7,200 4,600 2.8 19,000 4.10 tags/deer
2007 5,100 6,600 2.8 26,000 3.94 tags/deer
2008 6,800 6,500 3.2 26,000 4.00 tags/deer
2009 5,200 4,000 2.28 26,000 6.50 tags/deer

The 2003 harvest reduced the 2003 pre-hunt estimate of 103K to 83K in 2004. Then the 2004 harvest reduced the per-hunt estimate even more to just 64 K in 2005 and by 2009 it was reduced to 59K. Anyone that doesn't believe the harvest of over 33K antlerless in just 2 years was not responsible for the decreased harvests in subsequent doesn't have even a basic understanding of the purpose and effects of the antlerless harvests and obviously can't handle the truth.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I am going to use the very data you posted for WMU 2g over the past seven years and show everyone how that compares to another seven year period of 1985–1991 using the data from Elk, Cameron and Clinton Counties since they make a large part of unit 2G.
 

What you did is prove once again you have no idea of the purpose and effects of high antlerless harvests that exceed . It should be obvious to everyone that the high antlerless harvests in 88,89 and 90 reduced the OWDDD just as the high harvests in 2002,2003, and 2004 reduced the OWDD and future harvests , just like in 88,89 90,

Thanks for once again providing the data that proves you are wrong.

Hey RSB, these folks only believe what they preach,

" you cant fix stupid"

he appears to be one of the very few here who seem to understand how wildlife management works

ORIGINAL: bluntman

see what I mean