Clear Creek state forest road trip =

Interesting that they would plant food plots to draw the deer into the area and then wonder why the deer also browse on the other seedlings outside the fences but near the food plots. Now that does qualify as a conspiracy.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Interesting that they would plant food plots to draw the deer into the area and then wonder why the deer also browse on the other seedlings outside the fences but near the food plots. Now that does qualify as a conspiracy.

 
Your comment about food plots is a very clear example of how some people don’t think things through to a logical conclusion.
 
Each deer eats 5-7 pounds or more ever single day all through the spring, summer and fall. Would it make more sense in your mind for healthy forest regeneration to have each deer in the area eating 5-7 pounds of grass, forbes and fruit out of that maintained food plot or to be eating 5-7 pounds of the new seedlings coming up in the surrounding forest? If they can eat the 5-7 out of the food plot through the spring, summer and fall instead of the surrounding forest doesn’t that then also mean they have more of the woody browse available through the winter since they didn’t have to eat it all during the rest of the year?
 
Man oh man, some people just don’t get it at all and can’t see anything but conspiracies. Maybe because that is all they want to see and thus find themselves blinded to anything that is positive.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

The reason for food plots is to draw as many deer as possible into a particular area. There is a $300,000,000 business in the U.S. developed on that very fact. In this case you have drawn more deer into an area that has many fenced in areas where they cannot enter so in addition to eating the food plots they browse on the available seedlings outside the fence. Then you put on your dog and pony show and say see how the deer have eaten everything not fenced in. Had there not been food plots to draw them in in the first place there wouldn't have been so many to eat the seedlings.

That's like having a corn field in the middle of the woods and wondering why there are so many deer in one area. I have first hand experience with how having a food plot effects the other feed in the surrounding area. A positive step would be to plant them far away from the fenced in areas but that wouldn't get the desired results would it.

 
You are absolutely full of bologna if you think food plots are being planted for any reason other that to provide a direct and positive benefit to both the wildlife and the total habitat of the area.
 
Hunters might manage their food plots with the intent of pulling deer onto it, but I can assure you resource management professionals are not planting food plots with anything in mind beyond providing the best possible wildlife food and habitat.
 
You are so into conspiracy theories you seem to have become totally blind to any of the realities or principles of good wildlife and habitat management.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

I have some news for you though. Those food plots are not near demonstration fences; they are near fence put up to keep deer out so they could get regeneration inside the fences. The food plots were established to provide more food for the deer in the area because they excluded the deer from the recently cut area and thus part of the best food source.
 
We have demonstration fences on game lands where there are no food plots within miles and we have demonstration fences within a few hundred yards of food plots. The demonstration fences that are the closest to the food plots are where the woody browse habitat is also the best outside the fences because the deer feed more in the food plots. The areas outside the fences where they are miles from a food plot show much heavier browsing impact. So, your theory and conspiracy nonsense are just that, nonsense and not supported by the facts.
 
Come to the tour we are having on June 4th and you can see all of that first hand. Let me know if you are coming and I’ll make sure to have a tinfoil hat for you.
 R.S. Bodenhorn      

Glad RSB answered before I got here...


Definitely not a "demonstration areas".. in fact .. I am not aware of DCNR having any kind of tours for habitat or anything else in this area..

It's just an area that I know so well and like to feature when it comes to discussions about exclosures and habitat... I included the food plot pictures just to counter all the BS about DCNR no caring about hunters or wildlife...

as for deer in this particular area.. the estimate, I believe, is about 15-20 dpsm and there are farm (crop) fields within a mile or two walk in several directions... so these deer are not starving for food, most of the heavy browsing is done in the late fall and winter if there is not a good mast crop, which seems to be one good year followed by one or two bad years...

I would image if this year is like most, I could go to those areas where I said nothing is growing outside and may find some very small sprouts but they all will be gone come rifle season.. Oak mast crops are not good in the areas along the road, you have to travel back in aways to find big oaks that do produce acorns some years..

BTW... If you look at the Headwaters page you will see that there is re-generation outside fences taking place in many areas too.... Remember yesterday's page was based on the controlled burn discussion and on an area of poor re-generation.. not deer exclosure as such.. good or bad...

Maybe next week I'll post another area where there is good growth in and out of the fences and it's about 7 miles away from the areas I featured... but .. also by pellet counts has the lowest deer densities....

As RSB mentioned == come on the tour and see for yourself.... but remember.. PGC manages for wildlife 100% ... not sure 100% wildlife is the DCNR goal...

believe me -- if anyone was going to demonstrate anything the area along McNeil Station Road (that I featured) would be the last place to go...

with no mention that there are nearby food plots to draw in the deer.

Unbelievable...

there's also acorns, beechnuts, crop fields, saplings, etc growing outside the fences drawing deer in too.... what's your point ???

I'd bet the larger Oak trees inside the fences dropping acorns outside along the fence draw twice as many deer as these two small plots...

I can't image two small one acre food plots in a 2 square mile area, do much more than those food sources but they do supply a place for sighting deer and even for hunting if one chooses...

We have demonstration fences on game lands where there are no food plots within miles and we have demonstration fences within a few hundred yards of food plots. The demonstration fences that are the closest to the food plots are where the woody browse habitat is also the best outside the fences because the deer feed more in the food plots. The areas outside the fences where they are miles from a food plot show much heavier browsing impact. So, your theory and conspiracy nonsense are just that, nonsense and not supported by the facts.

In the past when I stated that farmland significantly increased the carrying capacity of the habitat and reduced over browsing, RSB and others claimed that farmland failed to provide any food during the winter when the fields were covered with snow. Now, when it suits their needs , a few food plots suddenly provide food all year and reduce browsing on adjacent cuts. In rural farming areas just the fringe habitat greatly increases the carrying capacity and provides much more food for the deer than a few food lots surrounded by forests.

That's exactly what I have been trying to tell you and RSB. The food plots, especialy the small food plots do nothing EXCEPT draw unnaturally high numbers of deer into a area and they will not only consume what is in the food plot but everything not fenced in that is anywhere near the food plot.

That is why I question the motives of putting food plots near fenced in areas and then telling folks there are too many deer and just look at how they eat everything not fenced. I'am glad you now understand.

It's sicking how some parade around with their chest puffed up sporting the PGC logo. The PGC has dug such a deep hole that most of the average Pa hunters have lost trust in the PGC. We have been lied to many times and continue to be lie to. You can post as much propaganda as you want but the the bottom line is still the same. The PGC has destroyed the herd and now is destroying many of the state lands for profit from timber and gas. Will the madness from the PGC ever stop ? They wonder why license sales have decreased. Post some more BS pictures and stories , No One is buying it !

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

It's sicking how some parade around with their chest puffed up sporting the PGC logo. The PGC has dug such a deep hole that most of the average Pa hunters have lost trust in the PGC. We have been lied to many times and continue to be lie to. You can post as much propaganda as you want but the the bottom line is still the same. The PGC has destroyed the herd and now is destroying many of the state lands for profit from timber and gas. Will the madness from the PGC ever stop ? They wonder why license sales have decreased. Post some more BS pictures and stories , No One is buying it !

 
That is you personal opinion.
 
I talk to thousands of hunters every year and I do not find that the majority shares your opinion. The HUGE majority of those I talk to support the current deer program even though they wish they would see more deer. Most of them do understand that there were too many deer before and also that the environmental factors have as much influence on deer numbers as hunter harvests.
 
There are a few though that just don’t get it and probably never will since facing reality doesn’t fit their agenda and ideals of life.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: Outdoor Adventures

It's sicking how some parade around with their chest puffed up sporting the PGC logo. The PGC has dug such a deep hole that most of the average Pa hunters have lost trust in the PGC. We have been lied to many times and continue to be lie to. You can post as much propaganda as you want but the the bottom line is still the same. The PGC has destroyed the herd and now is destroying many of the state lands for profit from timber and gas. Will the madness from the PGC ever stop ? They wonder why license sales have decreased. Post some more BS pictures and stories , No One is buying it !

That is you personal opinion.
 
I talk to thousands of hunters every year and I do not find that the majority shares your opinion. The HUGE majority of those I talk to support the current deer program even though they wish they would see more deer. Most of them do understand that there were too many deer before and also that the environmental factors have as much influence on deer numbers as hunter harvests.
 
There are a few though that just don’t get it and probably never will since facing reality doesn’t fit their agenda and ideals of life.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

LMAO !! Raping the state land to pad the pockets of the PGC then claiming that they are broke and need to increase the cost of license to pay for a cushy retirement package is what most of what the hunters you talk are in favor of also, Huh ??????? Just more BS from an employee supporting their game less angency. Stop The Madness !!!!

There you go either misrepresenting what was said or flat out lying once again. How about if you just copy and paste where I said anything at all of that nature. But, I know you can’t find anything of that nature in anything close to the context of which you just indicated.

your credibility here is so low there is no need for me to document what you said in the past. Both you and the PGC refused to assign any increased carrying capacity to mixed farmland and wood lots and only considered forested habitat as suitable deer habitat.

But, the fact is farmland without a good mix of forest will not support many deer. That is why the areas of both this state and the nation with the most farmland and least forest land also have some of the lowest deer populations and harvests per square mile of landmass.

Now there is a prime example of how dishonest and deceitful you really are. WMU 5 B (63%) has the most farmland of any WMU in the state and in 2010 had a harvest rate of 7 DPSM while 2g which is 90% forest had a harvest rate of only 2.53 DPSM.

I find it utterly amazing that in this day and age in Pennsylvania (or anywhere in the us) that an agency with such low credibility,so much documented inappropriateness, and high level of disapproval is permitted to actually even exist as they are currently.

Have you looked at the polls for the approval the CONGRESS of the USA or our President ?????

they still exist

...

BOC are all approved by the governor .. so yes we have a say ...the governor is an elected offical..

pgcs has remained in the cellar for the last decade

That is 100% YOUR opinion .. you can not produce one survey or poll to back that up .... NONE...

well maybe some message board polls, but even most of them like ARs for example... liked the extended bear season, supported the second gobbler stamp, mentored youth rules, all day spring turkey hunt, 50 yard safety zone for archery, archery bear season, junior hunter hunts, etc, etc

you anti guys just continue to whine about the fact we have less deer.... and blame the PGC for everything..

It's just that "squeaky wheel" minority that claims support is as bad as they suggest.. and are and naturally will always complain.. that's what they're all about...

If so many guys are "down" on the PGC and deer plan why are over 300,000 deer still killed every year ???? THAT SHOWS ME 300,000 HUNTERS ARE NOT UN-HAPPY OR THEY WOULD NOT BE OUT THERE SHOOTING DEER.....

ORIGINAL: deerfly

There you go either misrepresenting what was said or flat out lying once again. How about if you just copy and paste where I said anything at all of that nature. But, I know you can’t find anything of that nature in anything close to the context of which you just indicated.

your credibility here is so low there is no need for me to document what you said in the past. Both you and the PGC refused to assign any increased carrying capacity to mixed farmland and wood lots and only considered forested habitat as suitable deer habitat.

But, the fact is farmland without a good mix of forest will not support many deer. That is why the areas of both this state and the nation with the most farmland and least forest land also have some of the lowest deer populations and harvests per square mile of landmass.

Now there is a prime example of how dishonest and deceitful you really are. WMU 5 B (63%) has the most farmland of any WMU in the state and in 2010 had a harvest rate of 7 DPSM while 2g which is 90% forest had a harvest rate of only 2.53 DPSM.

 
You will not produce anything that supports what you claim I said about farmland because it doesn’t exist and you know it. It is you who has no credibility anywhere except this message board where only a handful of people, mostly anti Game Commission/USP supporters, post. Most of you have been kicked off of every other hunting board you have visited because of your fabrications.
 
Actually that just further supports the point I was making about the benefits of having farmland or food plots mixed into the forestland habitat. I very clearly pointed out how important agricultural lands are toward feeding deer through the spring, summer and fall so the deer didn’t have to eat all of the browse they need through the winter before winter even starts.
 
Even though unit 5B has the most farmland it is also 27.6% forested. That provides a lot better mix of forest to farmland than what occurs in unit 2G where it is 90% forestland with only 7.6% farmland.
 
But, unit 5B, with the most farmland, is still far behind the state’s leading buck harvest (didn’t include doe harvests because they are controlled with allocations instead of just population densities) units.
 
Here are last year’s leading buck harvest units with their buck harvests per square mile and their percentage of both forested and farmland habitats.
 
Rank…….Unit…………..Buck harvest…………..% forested…………….% farmland
1…………2D……………..4.62……………………..68.3…………………….27.2
2…………5C……………..4.33……………………..44.5…………………….43.9
3…………2E……………...3.33……………………..75.7…………………….19.3
4…………2A……………..3.20……………………..60.6…………………….35.2
5…………1A……………..3.20……………………..51.2…………………….41.2
 
Now unit 5B with the most farmland but still far from the unit with the least forestland
 
15…………5B……………..2.49……………………..27.6…………………….63.1
 
Now the units with the lowest buck harvests and the amount of forest to farmland. (excluding unit 5D since it is mostly city (43.2% developed) and shouldn’t have many deer)
 
17………..4D……………..2.29……………………..70.7…………………….26.0
18………..4A……………..2.19……………………..67.9…………………….29.3
19………..5A……………..1.85……………………..32.9…………………….62.4
20………..3D……………..1.79……………………..84.9……………………..9.2
21………..2G……………..1.65……………………..90.0……………………..7.6
 
From this it is pretty clear that farmlands (food plots) are important and valuable habitat for deer, just as I was trying to make S-10 understand in the first place. But, it is also evident, from this that even though more farmland then forest seems to support more deer than excessive forestland the best deer habitat is still a good mixture of both, just as I pointed out from the beginning.
 
Another thing that should be pointed out is that in typical Deerfly fashion he has profiled the single year with the best record (for total deer harvested instead of just buck harvests) for the unit he selected. Unit 5B is the unit with most farmland but most years it has been much further down on the ranking list among all the units in total deer harvests. Here are unit 5B’s ranking of the 22 WMU’s since the inception of the units.
 
Year…………5B ranking out of 22 units
2003…………………15
2004…………………18
2005…………………16
2006…………………16
2007…………………14
2008…………………14
2009…………………10
2010………………….8
 
It is generally important to look at the normal instead of the exception when evaluating data such as the deer harvests for a unit. At least it is important if you want to present an honest and honorable view of reality instead of just a biased projection that supports your position.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn