Quote :

frank1 wrote : That's even funnier. In 1986 the buck harvest Washington Co. was 2997 compared 3327 in Elk and only 2356 in Forest. Then in 1987 the Buck harvest in Washington beat  the buck harvest in Elk.

I don't get the sarcasm in your responses.  It is a well known fact that the best deer hunting, as far as numbers go, was in the northern tier in the late eighties.  I hunted all across it, not just elk, forest as you keep bringing up.

It is true the the SW part of the state was beginning to increase it's harvest but no one mentioned Washington County when you asked them where the best hunting is the state was in 86.

The same can be said now.  Many will tell you the best deer hunting in the state is in the SW and SE part of the state.  I went were I felt the best hunting was.  I did not hunt my local woodlot were there were few deer.  If I choose to do that, I would blame myself if I did not see anything, not the PGC.

The point is this Frank1, if you feel the numbers are low were you hunt, find an area were you think they are higher.  The "good old days" as you see them are gone.  Things will get better over time if the PGC sticks to thier guns but deer hunting in the northern tier will never be what you want it to be.  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-06-10 17:08:14 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote :  I reject your advice because there is no reason why we shouldn't have twice as many deer as we currently have in my area.

According to who?  What area are you talking about when you refer to my area?

Also, you state that the deer should be managed for a true carrying capacity.  Do you feel that other species in that same ecosystem should take a back seat to the deer.  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-06-10 18:50:02 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote : The sarcasm is due to the fact that your claims are based on your perceptions and opinions rather than on the facts. Like so many others that support the PGC deer management plan ,you haven't taken the time to  learn the history of deer management in PA. The facts are that even in 1984 Washington Co. had 36 DPFSM which was higher than any of the NC counties  including Potter where they only had 23 DPFSM.

The facts are also that those 23 dpfsm were also significantly overbrowsing the forest due to a lack of agriculture that we are blessed with here in SW Pa.

And the history of deer management is better stated by saying the poor history of deer management.  Past history is not a good one.  The only mistake the PGC made with this new approach was not starting it long ago.  If it was, we would not be having this discussiuon.

so what you are saying is that you do not have FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE.... you are basing it on what guys are TELLING you ????

Quote :

I would just like to see the deer in those areas  managed  at the true carrying capacity of the habitat for my fellow hunters that do hunt the northern tier.

I can take you to so many areas of 2G that we could not see them all in one day...BUT the habitats would all have one thing in common... it could not support 3 dpsm...

I certainly do not believe the 23dpsm for Potter county back then either...  

Quote :

Coburn wrote : "The young ones just entering our sport will not be able to blame a lack of game because they never hunted inflated numbers" Dont worry, Im sure the rest of us will keep them educated as to what made the hunting so poor! Also, you may be correct, they may not complain, they very well may just quit after a few days of nothing but counting birds!

Okay, educate me on what made the hunting so poor.  

--Last edited by Buff on 2008-06-10 19:43:24 --

frank1 wrote:

Quote :

But, there are a lot of older hunters like Dr. Trout who might not have the ability or desire to do a lot of scouting or driving to new areas.

I'll take that one step further....

Dr. Trout realizes the need for the HR/AR programs the PGC started and supports them knowing that IN TIME deer hunting will get better and better and future generations will once again enjoy EASIER good deer hunting with more deer available.. you have to have HABITAT for good deer numbers THAT's A FACT .....

they (those that choose to hunt deer in the future) will have a better understanding of what it takes to be a successful deer hunter.. habitat..herd health..scouting.. food sources... time and yes even effort.... but they will have deer to hunt...

Back to me... what frank wrote is true and goes to support some of my thoughts on why guys quit...

when I no longer have the ability or desire to travel to where deer are or scout for where the deer REALLY are... I'll QUIT....

NOT because of lack of Deer....

It will be because of loss of desire and abilities....  has NOTHING to do with deer numbers or the PGC... the curreent deer herd is HUNTABLE.... and deer are there...

IT's about ME... just like those complaining now... IT's about Me holds true for them too.... it's what makes them and their friends happy... has nothing to do with anything but that.... re-read the quotes that frank posted from the complainers...me.. me.. me...

I moved here in 1987 from Pittsburgh for 2 main reason...

FISHING and Deer Hunting...


and when THAT DAY comes... I'll always have the memories I have of my two loves... Fish and Deer...

Could I have stayed in PGH and made more money.. better home.. better social life... YEP YEP YEP... BUT those are not my loves so I moved to where that was.... Jefferson County area.... and will NEVER regret that decision...  

Quote :

frank1 wrote : Once agian you are dead wrong. The previous deer management plan was based on 20 years of research. the current deer management plan is based solely on unproven theories that  since have been proven to be wrong,

That right there says it all. Now that is something that is funny.  

Might be time to shut this thread down ????


Here is a COMPLETELY UN-TRUE statement....
[quote]
The previous deer management plan was based on 20 years of research. the current deer management plan is based solely on unproven theories that  since have been proven to be wrong,[/unquote]

The truth is that way back in the 50s outdoor writers, biologists, and the PGC knew the deer herd was getting out of control.... in fact there was a Pa. Game News in the 50s that was published and the entire magazine reads like it was written today...

I have other articles from the 60, 70s and even the 80s, stating the condition of the forest and the over large deer herd.. even major winter kills back then... so the deer were being managed by 2 major influences...

1.. hunter satisfaction
2.. political pressure on the number of doe tags..

Pa is ahead of the game with their new program.. I just posted a piece where New York may follow us.... so where's the
""theories that  since have been proven to be wrong""

What theroies have been wrong

PLEASE do not post those things that compare Pa to states that have nothing like what we have here in Pa....climate.. number of hunters... poor habitat.. lots of posted land..etc

and what "therores " do you feel the PGC is using.. most of what I see is based on science.. biology... forestry... etc...

where's the theories

One of my favorite articles is...

Why there are less deer in Northcentral Pennsylnvaina

It was written over 20 years ago...  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-10 21:39:58 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote : [quote][Okay, educate me on what made the hunting so poor./quote] The answer to your question is obvious. Antlerless allocations resulted in harvests that exceeded recruitment resulting in fewer over wintering deer  densities and lower sustainable harvests.

First, deer hunting isn't poor. it's always been great for me.  It's the winer hunters same old hunting practices that are poor.

The answer is letting to many deer for to many years so every "Joe" was happy because he got to kill "his" deer after sitting two hours on a stump the first day of buck season, the deer ate their house and home and the habitat could not support the number of deer, thus the recruit problem. Ater a harsh winter, doe will abort or the fawns are born weak and don't make it long after birth with Mom having poor or little food the previous winter. The doe comes first.

Go to the PGC website and look at the number of successful hunters and the number of nice bucks.

And as has been said, I can't wait until the PGC scores bucks this month. I should be interesting when they post the results. I have a buddy that is getting his scored, it should score around 160.

Penn,

Nice post.  You are right, instant gratification is what many desire and those that want to work for thier accomplishments are falling to the wayside.

Penn wrote --

Quote :

The whole world is changing and I for one am glad I'm on the downside because God only knows what is in store for the future.

What took you so long... I started thinking that way 10 years ago  

And it's not just about hunting or fishing...

look at the current congress and election...
it appears the majority of Americans want instant satisfaction too...

Let the government do it for me ----
seems to be the battle cry of many dems and reps.... the easier on me the better..

TAKE CARE OF ME- ME- ME... don't worry about the futre...

an exception might be Gore and his global warming campaign  and that's up for debate beween the experts if it is true or just an attempt to keep folks minds on something else rather than pay attention to the rape of our way of life here in the good OLD USA.....

Nice post Penn .. thanks for jumpimg in ....

Thanks for the info on fortgrundsow.com

There is alot of things there I have not seen....

Everyone should check out the 1950 Roger Latham game news though....

print it out for safe keeping !!!!




BTW.. I am waiting for info from the PGC about some of the claims made by frank1, especially the recruiting ones that he references with WCO Bodenhorn....  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-11 10:24:01 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote : One theory that was proven to be wrong was that improving the buck age structure would reduce the breeding period. There has been no improvement in breeding rates or the breeding period since ARs were implemented.. Another theory  was that herd health would improve as the herd was reduced. Instead statewide breeding rates decreased instead of increasing as predicted.

For discussion's sake:

In the past our antlered herd was comprised primarily of 1.5y/o with few deer above 3.5.

In the past and currently, significant browse lines were and are still evident.

In the past our D/B ratio was greater than it is now.

If you agree with those facts, are they not concerning to you? Or, are you willing to look past those in exchange for higher numbers of deer?  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-06-11 10:23:56 --

Quote :

Dr Trout wrote : Thanks for the info on fortgrundsow.com

Yes, there is alot of great info there.  I was aware of it and reference it often.

It is funny to look at the deer kills 20-30 years ago compared to now.  They were actual report card rates then though.

Quote :

If you read that article you will see that many of Latham's predictions failed to come true

I'll let the members of the board decided for them selves if his predictions came true or not....
I am not sure just what the differnce is between #6 and #7 though

1..an increased amount of recreation through a greater annual harvest
2..an improvement in the size,vigor, and trophy qualities of the deer
3..a more favorable sex ratio and increased production
4..a decrease in the number of spike bucks and a consequent increase in the number of antlelred deer with three or more points;
5..a near elimination of winter mortality resulting from malnutrition
6..a decrease in the undesirable effects of over-browsing upon forest reproduction and succession
7..a slowing of the rate at which the deer range is being ruined by overbrowsing, and the maintenance of a higher carrying capacity
8..a lessoning of the amount of crop damage and the number of deer killed for damage
9..an increase of other forest species
10..a better relationship between the sportsmen of the state, the game commission, and the landowners whoi are suffering deer damage...


Since that was done in 1950.. I'd say he was pretty much on target...8 of 10...

I'd say #1 has not been achieved YET.. but it will happen in time


and

#10.. is a dream... you can't please all the peole all the time... I guess Roger did not know that back then..

it was a kinder .. gentler time in our history

i.e. THE GOOD OLD DAYS