RSB--First off when I debate you I am not attacking you or questioning your postings as an individual. I realize you are a paid employee and spokesperson for the PGC and it's policys and would not expect you to deviate far from that path so it's the PGC's actions I am questioning.
As I see it the PGC had a politically driven policy change affecting how it viewed various wildlife in early 2000 and it was made their mission statement.It was driven in part by the pressure exerted on the politicans by the Audubon. I know it was worded very carefully so any action they took would be very difficult to prove wrong.(deer numbers for example) I read the Audubon and Audubon Incite and have followed their actions and reasoning for years. It is also true that not all their own members agree which is why they do not allow deer hunting on their lands while telling us to kill them on ours.They are very interested in controlling what happens on the state game lands and you know that IMO. They are also not alone in that desire.
As for old growth forests, history tells us that when Pa was covered in old growth pine and hemlock forests the deer herd was stagnent at 5-7 DPSM. It wasn't until the timber was cut and the sun reached the floor that there was a huge regrowth and the corresponding growth in deer numbers. It was the combiniation of the maturing forests not being cut and already high deer numbers that led to a problem. I noticed you were very careful to only mention old growth being beneficial near creek bottoms even though you know the plan is much greater than that. I understand there were deer problems in some areas but also understand there was a large political shift towards non hunting activities taking center stage since Rendell took office which was already brewing even before. Not necessarly a conspiricy but a noticable change in priorities.

 

Quote :

what caused the drop if not the reduction in deer and the hunters going or doing something else as a result.

1.. people stayed in the southern tiers because deer populations and better deer are now plentiful there and not in the northern tiers

2.. the baby boomers are getting older and many are leaving the sports of hunting and fishing.. especially trout fishing where to be real successful a lot traveling up and down trout streams may be necessary...

3... young people are not as interested in either sport... too much high tech stuff to occupy their time

4... many of todays' working adults find it necessary to work as much as possible to make ends meet...  I know I hear this all the time... folks saying they do not even come to camp as much because they need the OT on a Saturday and a one day trip is not an economical adventure... and many say they stayed away because of activities their kids are into both sports and school..

BUT of course you have heard these arguments before and still want to cry the "it's the deer" bull... granted there are folks that will agree and even take up your argument.. but they are just really not willing to look at the facts...  they rely on opinion pieces in the papers or studies from years gone by....... and of course they have no idea how to fix it so the blame goes to the PGC... and they enjoy the arguing..


I'll ask this -- if it's all because of poor deer numbers why are the visitor numbers at state parks, cook forest, etc also declining in the northern tiers ?????

they talk all this tourism.. but under todays' economic situation...  folks just are NOT spending money and going on short vacations

S-10 i am not arguing with you in private or other wise.  I will never agree with you and i will never see any validity in your tactics or opinions.  I ignored you since you are like talking to a brick wall.

MY POINT IS YOU NEED TO REALIZE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IS NOT JUST ABOUT DEER!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me with some aptitude of intelligence and minus your conspiracy theories why wildlife management is in any way anti hunting?  It promotes balance is that a bad thing?  Oh wait it means a few less deer and as you would say it my money needs to be spent on deer damit!   The world and everyone it must be out to get you

Until you walk out of your deer only frame of mind and get rid of your deer bias crap.  Most of us here are looking at the entire picture.  

--Last edited by flyfisher on 2009-03-16 21:51:44 --

S-10 wrote:

"Not necessarly a conspiricy but a noticable change in priorities."

Yeah its simple they decided not to listen to constituents that are as crazy as you!!  So I say #### deer because it is guys like you that turned me off of hunting in the first place. You call me closed minded and greedy look in the mirror you are the one who only talks about deer I have been the  one that talks about managing for all wildlife.  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-17 06:43:45 --

Quote :

As I see it the PGC had a politically driven policy change affecting how it viewed various wildlife in early 2000 and it was made their mission statement.It was driven in part by the pressure exerted on the politicans by the Audubon. I know it was worded very carefully so any action they took would be very difficult to prove wrong.(deer numbers for example)

Actually from being a person being both on the inside and very vocal on this deer management issue for a couple of decades know I think you are very wrong about happened to change the deer management policies of this state.

Though Audubon, along with many other resource professionals and groups, supported and even advocated getting deer numbers in balance with their habitat it was the leading wildlife and habitat management professionals within the Game Commission that affected the increased harvests to better control increasing deer populations. In fact I put a lot of work into promoting those increased harvests by getting everyone I could, both in house, the State Legislature and the general public out here to see the affects the deer were having on their own food supply and populations. I was there to help Doctor Alt see the magnitude of the problem. In fact my wife pictured pointing out the differences between inside and outside the fences in some of his slide and video programs that were put together before he took his first program on the road to the public.

No make no mistake about it. Today’s deer management is being done for the best long term benefits of the deer, their food supply and includes the hunter interest. To the best of my knowledge the deer program has been implemented for no other reason then providing a better future for the deer and hunting, even though other species will also benefit from having good deer management.

Quote :

They are very interested in controlling what happens on the state game lands and you know that IMO. They are also not alone in that desire.

I have heard of lot of groups that want more use of the game lands. The State Legislature and their failure to adequately fund the Game Commission are the only once that pose a serious threat to the future integrity of game lands though.

Quote :

As for old growth forests, history tells us that when Pa was covered in old growth pine and hemlock forests the deer herd was stagnent at 5-7 DPSM. It wasn't until the timber was cut and the sun reached the floor that there was a huge regrowth and the corresponding growth in deer numbers. It was the combiniation of the maturing forests not being cut and already high deer numbers that led to a problem.

That is very true.

The only thing that needs to be added is that by the end of that lumbering boom deer were almost extirpated in the state. The lumber camps killed everyone they could to feed the lumber camps and if they had more then they needed they salted it, shipped it to the cities on the spring lumber rafts and then sold it on the market within the city.

Deer were restocked in the state between 1906 and 1925. During that time there were 1192 deer stocked n various areas of the north central and mountainous part of a few other areas of the state. Those deer came from various states and private deer propagators within this state.

Quote :

I noticed you were very careful to only mention old growth being beneficial near creek bottoms even though you know the plan is much greater than that.

I wasn’t being careful to only mention or not to mention anything. I don’t know of any plan to keep anything a secret at all.

I only mentioned old growth in the valleys because that is where the deer go to find wintering grounds habitat so that is where that type of habitat is most valuable to the deer.

The only people I have ever heard screaming for unlimited old growth are a few people that know as little about forest management as many hunters know about deer management. The professional forest managers are not trying to establish more old growth forests at all, in fact they are very outspoken against large areas of old growth.

Quote :

I understand there were deer problems in some areas but also understand there was a large political shift towards non hunting activities taking center stage since Rendell took office which was already brewing even before. Not necessarly a conspiricy but a noticable change in priorities.

The increased initiatives toward more tourism aren’t a shift away from hunting activities. They are nothing more then an addition to the hunting and fishing activities that already occur though during brief periods of the year.

Fewer and fewer hunters are coming north to hunt and now preferring to stay closer to home for their hunting opportunities. That is nothing more then a result of the increasing deer number in the southern parts of the state. We have been watching that shift in hunter numbers within the areas for many years now. AS hunter numbers declined in the northern tier most of those hunting camps became summer retreats with people in them every weekend instead of just a few weeks out of the fall. With that shift also came the need to develop the infrastructure to accommodate those tourists during and for their summer recreation.

That is not anything undermining hunting and nothing more then people being smart enough to adjust to the changing needs and demands of the public to protect what we have while still allowing people the opportunity to use it wisely.

Dick Bodenhorn      

RSB== You can claim all you want about the Audubon not trying to control what happens on the state Game lands but the internet is full of their own articles indicating they already are. Simply type in AUDUBON PENNSYLVANIA STATE GAME LANDS and read any of a couple dozen articles of their bird areas,where they are,  what is being done to improve their bird areas, and what they want done. You talk about all wildlife but it is Birding areas the hunters funds are being spent on. There are 28,000 Audubon members in Pa, the last I read and 900,000, hunters. Their concern is only birds, Flyfishers is only pelletheads, and you expect hunters to foot the bill. I hope you enjoy working for the DCNR if you are lucky enough to still have a job when this is all over.

My concern is not only fish you idiot i have not claimed to be only concerned with trout in any of the post on this thread.  I am concerned with all wildlife not just the ####ing deer.  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-17 08:16:55 --

Are you a child or do you just act like one. If you don't have anything to offer except name calling your not worth talking to. You are starting to sound just like one of doc's old friends when he didn't get his own way. You wern't a general before you became a flyfisher were you?  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-17 08:19:44 --

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, go argue with yourself, I've got better things to do today. Have a wonderful day. Bye

whatever s-10 go talk to the little green men and come up with some more wild ideas.

I am curious were you obducted by little green men?  

--Last edited by Flyfisher on 2009-03-17 08:26:14 --

Quote :

You are starting to sound just like one of doc's old friends when he didn't get his own way. You wern't a general before you became a flyfisher were you?

mentioning that guy could get ya thrown a long way there S-10    

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-17 08:20:11 --

S-10 I am done agruing with you.  you will never agree with what i have to say just as I will not see things the way you do.  

I really think you need to look at the bigger picture but I if you haven't yet you never will.  I am a lot younger and a lot more open to new ideas and that comes with the territory.  You are lot older and a lot more stubborn so there is no use talking any sense to you.

I went with attacking you because you don't seem to listen to what any of us have to say anyway.  You just want to get under peoples skin and you did that.  I will never respect any of your opions and you will have to except that.  I don't agree with the old school all about the deer managment.  That is what got us into the mess we have now.  I can except that you will never look at it anyother way.  To you PETA and Audobon are taking over the world .

And the sadiest part is that most folks non--hunters, non-anglers, etc seem to agree that both Peta and Audobon are groups for NUTS  



running around naked to prove a point....
throwing paint on someone fur coat...
fish have feelings ...
fish to be called kittens...


now what's that tell you....

 
NUTS that what they are NUTS !!!!!  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-17 09:37:46 --

Doc wrote==mentioning that guy could get ya thrown a long way there S-10

  I thought you might still remember him.    

a real IDIOT  !!!!

RSB--These folks seem to be credible and if I read it right their first phase appears to be a significant increase in old growth. It also appears to be already in progress

www.manometmaine.org/documents/LSOG_Jenkins.pdf ·

RSB==An increase of half a million acres to start I think is significant and it is in progress.

jenkins p 30-36
... of Forestry state forest lands and proposed old-growth system. Other public forests include the Pennsylvania Game ... options for restoring old-growth conditions on state forest lands ...

www.umass.edu/landeco/teaching/ecosystem_management/labs/2007/Oldgrowth/Jenkins%20et%20al.... · Cached page· PD