2F Bonus tags ??? 
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/08 23:24:01
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
Just go ahead and point us to where you can find anything that honestly supports what you are trying to promote.
R.S. Bodenhorn
Try page 51-52 of the 2009-2018 PGC Deer Management Report----Lets see YOU copy and paste it. Might want to read it first. Might be advised to actually read the whole report since you claim you already have.
Here are pages 51 and 52 and a small portion of 53 to complete the final sentence. I don’t know what you found to be so hard about it but, why don’t you just go ahead and point out this smoking gun about how antler restrictions is really all about getting more antlerless deer harvested. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, a WMU deer population objective – whether to increase, decrease, or stabilize the deer population – is determined. The population objective is determined based on consideration of deer population trend, deer health and forest habitat health indicators, and input from Citizen Advisory Committees. Second, the number of antlerless deer that need to be harvested to achieve the population trend objective is determined. For example, if the population objective is to stabilize a deer population and the population trend has been stable with a consistent antlerless harvest the previous years, the number of antlerless deer to be harvested would be similar to the previous years. If the objective was to decrease the population, the antlerless harvest would need to be higher. If the objective is to increase the population, the antlerless harvest would need to be reduced. Finally, the number of antlerless licenses needed to achieve the projected harvest is determined. The allocation will be the projected antlerless harvest multiplied by the number of antlerless licenses it takes to harvest an antlerless deer. The number of antlerless licenses it takes to harvest an antlerless deer will be based on the most recent years. For example, if 10,000 antlerless deer are to be harvested and it takes 4 antlerless licenses to harvest an antlerless deer, then the allocation will be 40,000 (10,000 x 4). Following this step-by-step procedure, the limited effect of season length becomes obvious. The allocation is set by first deciding the projected antlerless harvest. The projected antlerless harvest is not affected by any change in season length. If 10,000 antlerless deer were to be harvested with a 12-day concurrent season, then 10,000 antlerless deer would still need to be harvested with a 3-day antlerless-only season. Although the antlerless harvest would not change, the antlerless allocation would be affected by shortening the season length. For example, if 10,000 antlerless deer were to be harvested and it took 4 antlerless licenses to kill those deer with a 2-week concurrent season, then the allocation would be 40,000. However, if it took 5 tags to kill a deer with a 3-day antlerless-only season, then the allocation would need to be 50,000. Season length does not change the number of deer needing to be harvested, but does change the allocation to harvest those deer. ANTLER RESTRICTIONS In the late 1990s and early 2000s, deer populations in much of Pennsylvania greatly exceeded deer management objectives. The struggle to meet deer management objectives and the controversies that surrounded them were not new to Pennsylvania deer management (Latham 1950, Latham 1953, Kosack 1995). Most Pennsylvania hunters agreed deer populations should be controlled, but they had not supported previous efforts to reduce deer populations (Diefenbach et al. 1997). Pennsylvania‘s deer management program had tried to achieve deer management objectives in the past by increasing antlerless harvests. Although increased antlerless harvests successfully reduced deer populations, this strategy ultimately failed because hunter support declined and decisions were made to allow deer populations to return to high levels. To meet management objectives, the Game Commission employed a new strategy by providing new opportunities for hunters to harvest older antlered males while seeing fewer deer. It was hoped this new approach would improve hunter tolerance for reduced deer populations and permit the Game Commission to meet its deer management objectives. 52 Prior to the new antler restrictions, Pennsylvania‘s antlered population was heavily harvested with 81% of all antlered deer being 1.5 years of age (based upon examination of 56,310 antlered deer between 1998 and 2000). In addition, Pennsylvania already had a one antlered deer per hunter limit. If deer harvest management was to reduce the harvest rate of antlered deer there were only two options available to increase the age structure of the antlered deer. They were: 1) a lottery, or allocation, limiting the number of hunters who could harvest an antlered deer each year or 2) antler restrictions. Antler restrictions were chosen because they provided all hunters with an equal chance to harvest a buck each year. Pennsylvania‘s antler restrictions were designed to increase the number of adult males in the harvest. Realistically, the objectives were to protect at least half of all yearling antlered males and to make most adult males legal for harvest. Attempting to grow record book bucks was not, and is not, an objective of the antler restriction regulation. The Game Commission considered 2 criteria for antler restrictions – antler points and antler spread. Hunters can judge each criterion in the field, but antler points were chosen as the primary criterion for two reasons. First, antler points provided greater flexibility in establishing restrictions that met the Game Commission‘s objectives. Point restrictions could be defined by any number of points; whereas, spread restrictions are usually judged on ear tip width. In many areas of Pennsylvania, a spread restriction of 15‖ (a common ear tip width estimate) would have protected nearly all 1.5 year-old males but also many 2.5 year-old and older males. This level of protection was incompatible with objectives. Second, antler points provided a larger data set upon which the regulation was based. Each year trained personnel collect age and antler point data from deer during the hunting season. In the 3 years prior to the change in antler restrictions, the Game Commission had age and antler point data on more than 50,000 antlered deer. In contrast, it had antler spread data on about 3,000 deer. Point data provided a more solid foundation for antler restrictions. Based on protection levels of antler points, the state was divided into 3-points-to-an-antler and 4- points-to-an-antler restriction areas. The 4-point restriction area is located in the western part of the state and a 3-point restriction area includes the rest of the state. A 4-point restriction was needed in the western part of the state to protect more than half of all yearling bucks. A 3-point restriction would have protected less than 50 percent of yearling bucks. An expanding research base supports the position that antler restrictions will have minimal impact on future antler development of Pennsylvania‘s deer herd. First, yearling antler points appear to have limited impact on future antler development (Koerth and Kroll 2008). Studies have concluded yearling antler points to have low heritability (Williams et al. 1994, Lukefahr and Jacobson 1998) and should not be used for harvest schemes to alter the genetic composition of a population (Lukefahr and Jacobson 1998). Thus, use of yearling antler points, as a harvest criterion should have limited influence on future antler development. Antler points at 2.5 years of age have higher heritabilities (Williams et al.. 1994, Lukefahr and Jacobson 53 1998), but the Game Commission‘s antler restriction allows most 2.5 year-old males to be harvested.
|
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/08 23:44:55
(permalink)
Just another example of why the WMU are too big. You are exactly right. Many areas in 2B have many open farms as Daugherty Twp, Rochester Twp, New Swickley Twp to name a few. With unlimited doe tags many try and slaughter as many doe as they can in some of those areas.Bad move. Alleghany County and parts of Beaver County's problem is the deer are now protected in some areas by these housing plans and do nothing but eat, bed and multiply. Not enough hunting pressure to even put a dent in the population. PGC screwed that area up big time with making 2B so large. Alleghany Co also has woodlots with lots of deer but rifles are prohibited. Once again a no win situation to get deer under control in the right areas.
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4940
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 08:18:34
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: RSB
ORIGINAL: DarDys
ORIGINAL: RSB
ORIGINAL: DarDys
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
well after you reach 60 and survive "quad" heart surgery we'll see how many deer you kill...and how much "traveling in the woods" you do by yourself ..  
How many times do I have to post this statement... ghezz...
I kill the first deer I can.. could care less about antlers...
Has NOTHING to do with being an expert.. never claimed to be that or a "buck/trophy hunter.
I hunt the easiest I can with the best odds of shooting a deer... I hunt deer because I enjoy it and it puts meat on our table EVERY year....
In my younger, healthy days I did alright.. IMHO.. in the 5 years before HR and ARs I got 5 does and 4 bucks... and in the past 5 years I harvested 9 deer... traded the bucks for does  but still had 9 in 5 years...
You "could care less about antlers" and "never claim to be ... a buck/trophy hunter," yet you support the PGC antler restrictions that require hunters to care about antlers and force those have the philosophy of "anlters don't make the deer, antlers make the deer legal," which what you are stating in a orund about way, even if you don't realize it. Is that dichotomy confusing?
A person can certainly support the biological benefits of antler restrictions without caring about the size of antlers while hunting provided they have taken the time to learn why we have antler restrictions in the first place.
Antler restrictions were put in place because we were harvesting way too many of our bucks and ending up with a poor buck to doe ratio as a result. The poor buck/doe ratio before antler restrictions was resulting in areas where many of the does, including adult does were not being bred at all. The lack of bucks was also resulting in it taking five months or more to get the does bred while a correct buck/doe ratio results in most receptive does being bred in less than two months.
Antler restrictions were put in place, and remain in place, because it is beneficial to have more adult bucks in the breeding population for a correct biological and breeding balance of the deer herd. Antler restrictions are not about producing bigger antlers, and never were, even though having some older bucks in the population generally does result in having some bucks with bigger antlers than we had before antler restrictions.
Yep those that understand the real reason for antler restrictions and supports improved deer management practices most certain would be supportive of the antler restrictions even if they still preferred to shoot any legal buck and didn’t care about antler sizes.
R.S. Bodenhorn
I'll call BS on this one.
Antler restrictions just had to be four points to a side in one part of the state for "biological" reasons, but only three in another, until it was proven that those in the west had worse eyesight and no longer needed to determine brow tines, while the eastern hunters, who obviously can see better need to carry on.
You see the problem is, some of use have an animal bioscience background and do understand the "real" reason for antler restrictions and it had nothing to do with biology.
You can call BS all you want and I don’t care what degrees or background you have, antler restrictions, in both the 4 point and 3 point areas, were set up for biological reasons and for you or anyone to claim otherwise only proves you don’t know what you are talking about.
The reason there was a four point restriction in the richer soil areas along the western edge of the state was because it required a 4-point restriction in those units to protect 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks from harvest in those areas. The other areas of the state only required a 3-point restriction to protect 50% of the 1-½ year old bucks.
It was the Commissioners, instead of the professional wildlife managers, who reduced the restriction (however slightly) in the 4-point areas for this year. The change in the legal restriction though should still hit the 50% being saved mark since the change is not going to make many more bucks legal than what were already legal. Furthermore, it appears hunters are not harvesting 50% of the yearling bucks in most areas anyway so this small change should still be within the biological parameters of the original intent.
R.S. Bodenhorn
I guess you should actually be closer to the Governor's Council that picks the commissions if you really want to know the AR rationale. That is where it came from and the case for it built around an answer that was already destined to be. Sorry, but what went on there is far above your pay grade. And yes, it was the commissioners that made the change, obviously because the biologists, with the HR objective completed as ordered by their former boss, could not present a favorable enough argument for them not to and those politcally positioned were no longer on the BOC. You might be a wonderful LE, I suspect you are, but you are stepping far beyond your comfort zone and knowledge base when you fail to understand animal bioscience, animal husbandry, and the politics behind decisions that seeminlg fly in the face of scientific principles by resorting to taking what happens in your limited area and extrapolating that to a statewide basis in a vacuum absent of politics. Carry on your LE efforts, they seem to be fair and just. Keep up the good work.
post edited by DarDys - 2011/08/09 09:19:42
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 08:36:01
(permalink)
I agree on that DD. When someone calls personal observations into their discussions, it is dismissed as bull.{Goon and Thug} However RSB can use personal observations and be correct....WF
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 18:49:00
(permalink)
To meet management objectives, the Game Commission employed a new strategy by providing new opportunities for hunters to harvest older antlered males while seeing fewer deer. It was hoped this new approach would improve hunter tolerance for reduced deer populations and permit the Game Commission to meet its deer management objectives. RSB --- Management objective = reduce deer herd --------Strategy = Get hunters dreaming of Large antlered Bucks --------Goal = Keep their minds occupied long enough to reduce the deer herd This was written about in the July 2002 Outdoor Life article titled "A Brave New Course". The Author followed Alt and his group through some sportsmen meetings. At Wallenpuck high school He did his dog and pony show with the antlers and held up the big 10 point rack. His group saw the crowds reaction and decided they had a winning presentation. Ironically--the part of the article this is under is titled (Selling The Dream) Interesting thing Alt stated-- The herd needs to be reduced "But Not Statewide" It needs to be done strategically. We all saw how that worked
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 21:11:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
To meet management objectives, the Game Commission employed a new strategy by providing new opportunities for hunters to harvest older antlered males while seeing fewer deer. It was hoped this new approach would improve hunter tolerance for reduced deer populations and permit the Game Commission to meet its deer management objectives.
RSB --- Management objective = reduce deer herd
--------Strategy = Get hunters dreaming of Large antlered Bucks
--------Goal = Keep their minds occupied long enough to reduce the deer herd
This was written about in the July 2002 Outdoor Life article titled "A Brave New Course". The Author followed Alt and his group through some sportsmen meetings. At Wallenpuck high school He did his dog and pony show with the antlers and held up the big 10 point rack. His group saw the crowds reaction and decided they had a winning presentation. Ironically--the part of the article this is under is titled (Selling The Dream)
Interesting thing Alt stated-- The herd needs to be reduced "But Not Statewide" It needs to be done strategically. We all saw how that worked
Yep, just as expected you picked a few lines from a long report, took them out of the context in which they were intended and used then promoted it as yet another of your highly convoluted governmental conspiracy. There never was and still is no conspiracy to do anything other then manage deer to the best possible benefit of the deer, their habitat and the future of hunting. Just because some of those principles, or the facts that surround those principles, is beyond some people or doesn’t fit into their beliefs and opinions doesn’t mean the professional resource managers aren’t doing the right thing for the future of our resources and hunting. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 21:35:59
(permalink)
Nope-- All I did was QUOTE what your PGC said their plan was in their official document and Quote from an article from a respected magazine that explained the process that led up to the "Dream of big bucks" dog and pony show. Sorry that blows your claims out of the water but no matter how hard you try your not going to revise history. No conspiracy involved, it was just the PGC plan to achieve the goal of herd reduction. Doc, you may want to wipe your nose
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 21:55:13
(permalink)
Has nothing to do with my nose .. I love the way some have to start tossing the insults and sly remarks when their opinions are taking a DIRECT HIT !!  I greatly appreciate it when ANYONE here posts supportive stuff, we need more of it here, but I understand why so many do not post their support in these hunting threads... but when I see something I agree with I like to post that agreement... Essox and I do not always agree, nor dpms, and OTHERS ... but at least I know they at times agree and call some of the negative and anti-PGC guys out for they opinions.. that's what the board needs more of rather than just the same 12 guys and our back and forths...
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/08/09 21:57:34
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 22:01:25
(permalink)
You just post to see yourself in print and keep things stirred up. Heck, you can't even stay away when you say your going to. You have said you were done with this thread twice already but here you are again trying to start another fight. We will have to let Tull decide if this is another one of your "Lies or Counterdictions" Past my bedtime PS-- Read the words in the report. they are from the PGC and are not my opinions, sorry they don't support your claims but such is life.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/08/09 22:04:33
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 22:22:39
(permalink)
What a cry baby.. RSB called it like it is and you take it out on me.. wonderful... Why is it everything I post is starting fights... yet.. we are to believe what you post.. even after someone points out you have taken it out of context and mis-represented the info ??? I'd be more inclined to think that is what starts the "fights".. I know it's what keeps me replying even after I said I was done... It's like if I say I'm done you guys jump into action and start posting BS... either hoping I will not reply or to coax me back into replying ... but of course you'll disagree with that too...  but at least I "fight" and don't start the insult throwing... As for this topic I read something I wanted to reply to and forgot it was in a thread I said I was done with.. it's hard ignoring the "stuff" you guys keep throwing out there and just leave it there without commenting... so Tull can jump in now and throw another great reply to the topic or probably post something directed at me rather than the topic.. so have at it boys...
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/08/09 22:30:14
|
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 22:56:33
(permalink)
I was starting to think you liked fighting with me  but as you have proved many times its anyone that disagrees with you. Tull hit the nail on the head. 
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 23:13:34
(permalink)
I like discussing things with anyone, RSB and I have banged heads as I recall . we are each allowed our opinions... and I hold nothing against anyone that disagrees... it's just hard for me to change my opinions and adding insults to ones opinions post to me does nothing to convince me they are worth giving much consideration as to their opinions or positions.. some add nothing to the discussion at all ... just enjoy posting insults Bings and I are a good example of what I fine enjoyable.. we disagree alot.. but rarely do I recall it getting to trading insults..... and I at least enjoy our debates... in fact I was hoping I could stop by the Clarion fishing outing just to meet him... but I have to work that day... I get many PMs stating he is really a great guy and he has given me some good trout fishing advice in PMs.... and I will always be greatful to him about a PM about a Erie gentleman that passed away he knew that I knew him... Discussions in the hunting threads usually end up with someone throwing the first stone then everyone gets involved... believe it or not there are guys who think that is fun and makes the boards exciting.. a couple post that sort of stuff even in the fishing topics... so it is not something strictly limited to the hunting threads... Well I want to see what is on the trial cam "card" so good night all... til later...
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/08/09 23:16:37
|
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/09 23:44:52
(permalink)
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/10 06:10:39
(permalink)
we are to believe what you post.. even after someone points out you have taken it out of context and mis-represented the info ??? All you have to is read what the PGC stated in their report--------As for taking it out of context---where have I heard that before? Just everytime a politican screws up and tries to make it go away. You can't revise history. You also can't try to support everything RSB says and then whine when you get called out on it.
|
tull66 
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1049
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/07/15 07:43:43
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/10 08:53:42
(permalink)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The closer we adhere to the Holy Bible and the US Constitution (as it was written) the closer we get to the model that made America great. The great American experiment worked, human nature just got in the way.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/10 14:30:23
(permalink)
Any reason why there are so many doe licenses left? The non-resident opportunity idea is gettin thin. Could it be most hunters are upset with the "low" deer population, and are doing their part to try to increase the herd? They probably didnt read the deer plan....WF
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4940
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/10 15:52:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: World Famous
Any reason why there are so many doe licenses left? The non-resident opportunity idea is gettin thin. Could it be most hunters are upset with the "low" deer population, and are doing their part to try to increase the herd? They probably didnt read the deer plan....WF
There you go blaming the PGC. It's not there fault. Ask Doc. What are you some kind of thug? Or maybe a goon?
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/10 16:23:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: World Famous
Any reason why there are so many doe licenses left? The non-resident opportunity idea is getting thin. Could it be most hunters are upset with the "low" deer population, and are doing their part to try to increase the herd? They probably didn't read the deer plan....WF
Some will try and blame the economy but hunters will hunt. Compared to a lot of other sports hunting is pretty cheap as most already have a gun and gear. The northern counties I think suffer the most. Lack of deer and a low success rate keep hunters from making the trip. I've talked to a handful of processor up north and they have noticed the decline in hunters more and more as HR began. Many are now out of business. They blame the PGC. Don't get me wrong you still have the die hard hunters though. They will hunt till they are successful. Problem is they are a dieing breed in Pa. Many have choose to hunt out of state.Remember when every young man wanted a gun for his birthday or Christmas so he could hunt with his family? Well for most those days are gone and now Jr would rather shoot up the hood on a video game. Some say it just the changing of the times ,ever wonder what caused the times to change ?
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/10 16:24:19
(permalink)
If the shoe fits, I wear it.....WF
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4940
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 08:56:06
(permalink)
Thug. Goon. Not a "good guy." So there.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 11:05:01
(permalink)
Edit; If the Goon fits, I wear it.....WF
|
treesparrow
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 651
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/02/21 09:27:15
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 11:19:56
(permalink)
I am a deer hunter through and through. If I am able I take the whole rifle season off to hunt I do. Seasons past I have hunted out of a tent in Cameron Co. I am also a Forester and have land holdings in Pa.I manage for timber production, however I also hunt them. Most are open to hunting. Some are posted because I became tired of arguing with hunters.
I saw Dr. Alt give his presentation in Franklin and thought the new policies were long overdue. I hunted the big woods for the experience of being able to stretch my legs and feel unrestricted. No posters and very few hunters. This was back in the 70's and 80's. At that time the older hunters talked of the good old days when they saw 100's of deer a day and could wait on a nice buck. The steep hills had deer trails that were "pounded in so deep that it made easy walking". Well in the 70's and 80's the timber was coming to pole size and bigger there was no underbrush it was browsed clean. I spent time in the winter months hiking and backpack camping and observing the deer. What a sad situation by spring they were gaunt and starving. I doubt there is anyone that is alive today that could tell us what a healthy understory should look like in those forests. It would take decades for the flora to regain its rightful self with very low deer presure.
I am a deer hunter and I know you are all deer hunters. HYowever we are not the only consumers of recreation and commerce in the outdoors. Dr. Alt talked of bringing the deer population back into balance with the habitat. He also said that there would be some problems with implimenting this new proposal.
Had we not brought the deer herd down and tried to improve the damaged habitat how would we be seen by the general public. Our policies and actions are what we as hunters are going to be judged by. I have spent most of my life in contact with foresters and wildlife biologists and can recall discussions in the late 60's and 70's on the stressed habitat. It is an issue that has never been adressed properly untill Dr. Alt and some responsible others steped up.
Without question other organizations were concerned with our out of ballance habitat. You have all experienced the overpopulated bluegills in a lake and understand there are to many for the habitat. It does not matter how big your aquarium is if you only put a little food in you can perhaps support two big fish or a hoard of stunted sickly ones. Deer are no different it allways comes down to food. The whitetail is not a mature forest inhabitant. Early succesion forest is the whitetails domain. Hence its population explosion years ago.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 14:32:27
(permalink)
Treesparrow-- While I agree with some of your post I'am going to take a look at it from a different perspective.
I too hunted the forest from the late 60's through early 90's and saw much of what you talk about. It's true that as the forest came into the pole stage the deer numbers dwindled from their high's and the deer health was not as good as when I first started hunting there.
Where we differ is you think Alts policies were necessary and the hunters were the enemy for fighting his policies. I think the enviromentalists are the enemy and Alts policies were not necessary had the forest been managed for timber production rather than Eco-System management after it reached harvest stage where it was when Alt started his crusade.
The reason for all the deer in the first place was all the flora and fauna that erupted after the mature timber and evergreens were harvested in the early 1900's and earlier, allowing the sunlight to reach the forest floor where all the various seeds were patiently waiting for a bit of light to sprout.
When the timber reached pole stage it started to shade out that growth and the deer naturally reduced themselves as nature intended. Sometimes nature is a bit rough but it got the job done.
The situation we have now is the timber has been ready to harvest but whenever the ANF tries they get a lawsuit from the Enviros that ties them up for years. On the state forest the DCNR just gave control to the Enviros under the guise of FCS rather than fight them in court. The result is they put half of the forest off limits to timbering and there are restrictions on most of the rest. So much for any light reaching the seeds lying there.
As far as taking decades for the flora to return even with low deer numbers I believe history suggests otherwise. Example 1 = We only have to look at what happened in our own state in the 1900's when the sunlight hit the ground. Example 2 = Remember out west some years ago when the Enviros wouldn't allow logging or prescribed burning and the resulting devestating foest fires that destroyed millions of acres of pine and other trees. Remember all the hand wringing and wailing the greens were doing and how everyone thought the land was ruined and would be a virtual desert for decades? Remember three years later when the same scorched earth was alive with new plant growth and they were documenting new flowers never seen there before.
They didn't kill off the mule deer or elk to acheive that. What happened was the light finally got to the forest floor. The same thing will happen here when the forest industry and politicans tell the enviromentalists to kiss off and start managing for timber production and not for old growth forests.
This whole situation is not the deer or deer hunters fault. The ANF and State Forest were ready to timber LARGE sections long ago. It's just easier to blame us than it is to address the real problem and timber more than a few acres at a time.
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5040
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 15:15:27
(permalink)
I am cutting logs in the ANF right now.
The fools are cleaning out all the small(5") hard maple and beech which is a loose money job for a logger and are letting stand Cherry trees 3-4' on the stump that are rotting away.
Some of these trees are worth up to 5K and will fall to the ground and rot, they are loosing money daily...
I know I wouldn't be deer hunting here, very little sign and I have only seen one doe and a fawn since February. She just walks off of the skid trail about a 100' and watches me go by...
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 18:10:32
(permalink)
Bings..
I have posted many time how terrible the ANF is and that I do not understand why anyone would want to hunt there..
So now you are there daily in that area of 2F.. what are you seeing that would feed a herd of browsing deer ???
any understory at all, what kind of saplings in the 4-7 feet are present ???
|
Skip16503
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4028
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/04/04 23:06:24
- Location: Erie Pa
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 18:14:18
(permalink)
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5040
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 18:15:50
(permalink)
Beech brush and ferns..
Some grass growing in the old skid trails but it's all a closed canopy.
I'm making small holes in it but not enough to bring in much light.
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 18:31:33
(permalink)
Much of SGL# 54 right around here is the same way HUGE expensive Cherry trees just rotting and as you said falling over... and nothing else... ferns-ferns-ferns in the woods.. thank goodness for the local farm crops and some crab apples trees that are loaded this year... even with the trees falling over and allowing some sun light in nothing is left to replace the "better" trees... thanks for the report
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: 2F Bonus tags ???
2011/08/11 19:56:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: World Famous
Any reason why there are so many doe licenses left? The non-resident opportunity idea is gettin thin. Could it be most hunters are upset with the "low" deer population, and are doing their part to try to increase the herd? They probably didnt read the deer plan....WF
The reason there are still slightly more antlerless license left then last year at this time would be because there were more allocated to begin with. Sales this year have been and still are higher than last year for the same time periods. Here are the antlerless sales total for the end of each week and up to today, compared between last year and this year. Weekly period…………….2010………………2011 1st week…………………..216,232…………..217,291……first week of residents only 2nd week………………….359,568…………..360,605……second week of residents only 3rd week………………….407,271…………..411,701……non-residents could apply 4th week………………….548,712…………..566,318……first week of 1st round unsold today……………………..591,483…………..615,347……Thur. of second week unsold 5th week………………….597,028…………..N/A until the end of the day tomorrow 6th week………………….637,464…………..N/S until the end of next week total allocation…………..814,623……………902,000 As you can see antlerless sales are moving better this year than last year. If we use your analogy we would then have to assume hunters aren’t as unhappy about the deer numbers, the Game Commission deer management program or working to save the deer herd as you seem to be wanting people to believe. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
|
|