|
Post by jakebird on Jun 25, 2009 8:10:39 GMT -4
You always paint the worst doomsday scenario of the habitat. The truth is that large regions of the state supported much higher DD for many years without reverting to the ferns and striped maples that ocured in some areas of the NC.. SOME reduction was needed in SOME areas. The PGC blanketed the state with HR, not based upon the particulars of the regions. I can show you PGC statements from the late nineties that praised the quality of habitat in the Michaux state forest (South mountain) which encompasses a great portion of that unit, yet they set DD goals for that WMU (5A) of 6 dpsm based on regeneration within the state forest and "human conflict" in such a rural area? Oh yeah...then they abandoned those goals the following year following the public outrage, and based it on herd health/ habitat health while substantially raising the acceptable mimimum for fair and good regeneration? Show us ANY method to the madness, other than the common denominator of reduction. This deer management resembles a feather blowing on the breeze as much as it resembles anything. Constantly changing goals and criteria, constant contradictions, glaring discrepancies....and only one constant. Reduce the herd! (Econuts and timber companies win and hunters lose in this scenario!) They will require the herd be kept at very low DD indefinitely to preserve their radical levels of biodiversity and keep PA atop the timber industry. No state forest ever had a goal of 6 dpsm.Show me a link praising the habityat of Michaeux state forest The goal was for wmu 5A. Michaux state forest is the largest parcel of public land in the region and consititutes a very significant chunk of it. The article praising it was in the old Pennsylvania Sportsman magazine from 1998 (sadly bought out by Game and Fish which sucks), but it contained commentary from PGC officials praising the quality of the habitat, due to the frequent timbering operations in the area. I can't get a link, but I might be able to scan or copy it. I kept as many of those old issues as I could when they got sold. Best PA hunting mag I've stlll ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 25, 2009 9:07:44 GMT -4
yep.I agree aboutthat mag.It's a shame it's gone.
Not saying it's never happened but I've yet to see the PGC make specific comments about the habitat on state forests.
Those cleracuts are close to 12 years old now and of very little use to deer at this point.Furthermore,if they were cut in state forests,I't's surprising they weren't fenced.
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jun 25, 2009 11:15:06 GMT -4
I haven't hunted south mountain (michaux) for a couple years, but my buddies hunt it every year and I do hunt a nearby game lands. Sounds like they are still cutting regularly within Michaux...I have seen fence, exclosures in the southern end near waynesboro and fairview, but the cuts in the northern end near mt holly i 've never seen a fence. Remember too, that they were praising the habitat and quality of the hunting and the health of the deer coming from that area before everything changed. When they were still managing the herd based on MSY...deer numbers were high, hunter satisfaction was high, and you didn't hear much about browse lines or regeneration problems.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 25, 2009 12:00:29 GMT -4
And that very well could be the case.I can show you specific areas in 2G that have always had decent habitat.there's could be be a ton of reasons for that though.Hunting pressure could be higher there,soil could be better and there couild be alternative food sources close by.Unfortunately,there's no way for the PGC to manage down to those kind of levels.DCNR has alot more people on theground than the PGC does and believe it or not,that have a good handle on what going on in the state forests.I believe that they should be managed sctrictly with dmap tags and leave the gen allocation off those properties.
|
|
|
Post by algerine on Jun 25, 2009 16:23:36 GMT -4
I agree Doug.
I also believe that the SGL's in the urban/suburban areas that get hammered and are showing great regen, Should be managed differently than the rest of the WMU.
Our system needs more flexibilty and localized control.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jun 25, 2009 16:50:56 GMT -4
First step, cutting doe allocation in most areas. 2nd in the very worst areas use dmap and have the plenty of tools we already have available to landowners wishing for fewer deer....
Its that simple. Beats the hell outta statewide blatant slaughter.
Course that would mean most of the state would have MORE not less deer and that just doesnt fit the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 25, 2009 17:48:21 GMT -4
I agree Doug. I also believe that the SGL's in the urban/suburban areas that get hammered and are showing great regen, Should be managed differently than the rest of the WMU. Our system needs more flexibilty and localized control. I agree 100%.I wont even send out for a doe lisence this year.All of my hunting will be on dmap properties.
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jun 26, 2009 8:09:43 GMT -4
And that very well could be the case.I can show you specific areas in 2G that have always had decent habitat.there's could be be a ton of reasons for that though.Hunting pressure could be higher there,soil could be better and there couild be alternative food sources close by.Unfortunately,there's no way for the PGC to manage down to those kind of levels.DCNR has alot more people on theground than the PGC does and believe it or not,that have a good handle on what going on in the state forests.I believe that they should be managed sctrictly with dmap tags and leave the gen allocation off those properties. Sounds similar in some aspects to the public land/ private land tags they tried for a season then abandoned. I do think it is a good idea to separate the allocations and I was sad to see them abandon it so soon. I would not be totally against the idea of DCNR controlling doe harvest via DMAP on the state forests, as long as they were kept at reasonable levels. I hate to say it but I DO trust DCNR a little bit more than PGC at this point. No general doe allocations for use on state forest. PGC issued tags would be good only on private land or SGLs.. I could possibly support that, though our reasons may not be the same, I believe that by DCNR issuing a fixed amount of DMAP tags for each individual state forest, it is a step towards managing smaller units, a step the PGC seems reluctant to take, and that's the way I would have to see it done, not a general SF tag, but a fixed amount per each forest, or even sections of a forest only valid on that specific parcel. Of course DCNR would have a task on their hands of patrolling and enforcing that it was being followed.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 26, 2009 8:59:24 GMT -4
There isn't enough statewide data to make the WMU's any smaller.
Right now,each district forester has to apply for the amount of dmap tags in his district.In most cases,these districts are broken into much smaller dmap units.I think Moshannon state forest has at least 6 different dmap units,each getting a different dmap allocation.These guys have a very good understanding of what's on the ground concerning both regeneration and deer numbers.The dmap program is an excellent management tool but far too few landowners take advantage of it.
DMAP reporting is also mandatory,whether you kill a a deer or not and that reporting rate is also very low.I'll see if I can find out the numbers for MSF.Two days ago,I called up Seneca resource corp to get a couple dmap coupons for some property in elk county.They actually send a postage paid report card,complete with a short questionaire out with every coupon.They require everyone who gets a dmap coupon to send that card in so they can better manage their property.Their land manager told me that they get less than 60% returned.That's aweful.Everyone says they want better data and they all b*tch about the statistics but the truth is,the majority of people refuse to do their part.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jun 26, 2009 9:21:30 GMT -4
"There isn't enough statewide data to make the WMU's any smaller." Doug the hunters of this state dont need or want to hear that garbage excuse repeated over and over from pgc when its not even valid. It is proven across the country that smaller wmus can and do work. For them to claim otherwise is absolutely absurd, asnine and arrogant, not to mention completely deceitful. If it doesnt "fit in" with our current system, then CHANGE/TWEAK THE SYSTEM. If other states, including some of the best in the nation can do it. So can we. They are placing far too much emphasis on the importance of having that data in the first place. Because if you have decent habitat, its been proven time and again you will have healthy deer, and if you dont have healthy habitat, then you may or may not, but you know you must work on the habitat anyway....which in turn would also be addressing herd health, needed or not. Having said that, I agree completely with monitoring herd health, so that some data is available, more or less just for the sake of doing so, and that could be done over larger areas and or longer time frames if necessary, but it wouldnt need to effect allocations or herd levels, since its not the determining factor now anyway. Just something to keep tabs on. Even with the large wmus currently it could very accuratedly be argued that there isnt enough NOW to draw any hard conclusions anyway so would we really be losing anything?."The dmap program is an excellent management tool but far too few landowners take advantage of it." Who are you or I to judge how many are "too few" utilizing dmap when its their property and their decision? IF they arent really concerned with fewer deer, which they apparently arent if they arent taking advantage of the tools available, I see no problem with that??
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jun 26, 2009 11:10:51 GMT -4
That's what I thought DMAP was for...a tool to serve the mangement wishes of the landowner/ manager...whether it is Joe Schmoe, or the DCNR. MR. Schmoe may manage his land for as few or little deer as he pleases, and if he wants help reducing or stabilizing his herd , he applies for permits. Low participation seems to indicate that few private landowners want to manage their properties for fewer deer....or just don't want their land open to the public in order to do it. I have no problem giving management power solely to DCNR for state forests as long as general allocations by the PGC reflected that DCNR would have all reign on state forest land, and that being the case, general allocations in most WMU's should be measurably decreased, due to no need to factor the SF's into the harvest equation. As a govt agency, I believe the DCNR would be subject to a better system of checks and balances, than the PGC, esp if HGFC still held oversight. PGC would have a burden lifted from their shoulders as they would have NO CONCERNS over deer mgt on state forest at all. general antlerless allocations (inevitably much lower) would serve as a general management tool for private land dominated landscapes and state game lands. I think the idea, while basically a pipe dream, wouldn't be a bad move. It would also force hunters to carefully consider where they want to be hunting and make conscious decisions about doe harvest, due to the specifics that would exist in the application process.
|
|
|
Post by Twowithone on Jun 26, 2009 12:54:33 GMT -4
doug if their getting less than 60% replys why do they keep issueing the licenses to the same people. That was thought about for the general license also at the time if you didnt reply about a harvest of a deer no license or at least a nice penalty.
|
|
|
Post by algerine on Jun 26, 2009 13:44:09 GMT -4
"or just don't want their land open to the public in order to do it."
DMAP lands do not have to be open to the public.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 26, 2009 13:56:25 GMT -4
doug if their getting less than 60% replys why do they keep issueing the licenses to the same people. That was thought about for the general license also at the time if you didnt reply about a harvest of a deer no license or at least a nice penalty. They don't.
|
|
|
Post by Twowithone on Jun 26, 2009 16:41:19 GMT -4
So doug is it like people get dmap tags for 1 yr and their done cause they dont report their tags use. To have less than 60% compliance with a rule like they have that number seems small even if they only sell 1000 Dmap tags.
|
|