 |
 | |  |
RSB
I'm a VIP Member of PAbucks.com!!
Highest Ranked Member!!
| Joined: 04 May 2008 |
| Posts: 525 |
| Location: Elk County |
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 14375 |
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:00 pm |
|
 |
 |
[quote="faster1"]RSB "First off I am darn sure that you don’t spend nearly as much time in the woods unless you are a logger that works in the woods every day" RSB"Nor does the fact that I get my paycheck from the Game Commission have anything to do with my ability to see deer while I am hunting. Surely you don’t think deer appear in front of me because of where I get my paycheck do you" RSB"As for no deer on private timber tracts I have no idea without seeing the area in question"
i was unaware only loggers and certain game wardens were in the woods everyday and i'm sorry to suggest i did something more than you. um maybe deer dont appear in front of you because you are a game warden but shouldnt the general attitude of the public be something you should consider in all of this, at first i was thinking no hunters=no paycheck but after thinking about it you personally are a warden with tenure and know it would take something drastic to affect your job. what about newer wardens or hiring of new wardens? are you still getting a raise every 3 months or so or are they coming in one lump sum? where is that money coming from? typical politicing, once everyone is comfortable no one is going to rock the boat for changes, i bet you recently changed your political affiliation to please your union and the new goveroner?? i'm not referring to one timber tract, i am referring to several large pieces in different areas that hold few deer.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I most certainly do take public comments, as you put it their attitudes, into consideration. I actually believe it is you that has failed to give full consideration to the PUBLIC wishes and attitudes. The majority of the Public wants ALL wildlife and their habitats properly managed instead of the Game Commission just trying to provide an unreasonable number of deer at the expense of the other wildlife species, their habitats and even the long term future of good deer populations and hunting.
I openly praise hunters and any other public who learn and understand the interrelationships between wildlife species and their habitats. I also openly point out when hunters, or any other public, are making statements that are WRONG or just plain goofy opinions concerning the proper management of our resources, because I believe a large part of my job is to try educating people about what we REALLY need to have a sound future for both our resources and hunting. And, that also includes the future for having the best possible sustainable deer populations. What you and many other are demanding will not lead to a better future of deer or hunting because you are not considering the deer habitat as part of the total deer population equation.
As for your questions and comments about the future of the WCOs I can assure that the pubic is always going to have a need for wildlife management and protection so the Game Warden Profession is very secure. At one time hunters were proud of the fact that they were paying the way for wildlife management. When the day comes that hunter dollars aren’t enough to provide that public service the PUBLIC will demand that someone other than hunters foot that bill. That day is getting closer all the time and hunters like you are actually pushing that day closer to the forefront. What are hunters going to say when they are no longer the ones paying the way for wildlife management? Do you think anyone is going to listen to the demands of hunters when that day comes?
Dick Bodenhorn
|
|
|  |
| | |
| |
| | |
RSB
I'm a VIP Member of PAbucks.com!!
Highest Ranked Member!!
| Joined: 04 May 2008 |
| Posts: 525 |
| Location: Elk County |
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 14375 |
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:56 pm |
|
|
|
[quote="AR fan"]Thank you Dick you tell it like it is. ![[thumbup]](images/smiles/thumb.gif "thumbup") [/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try, but it seems there are many who just don’t want to accept or even hear about the realities of the deer/habitat relationship and how each affects the other and many other species in the process. That past and continuous reluctance of hunters to accept the fact that deer populations can be too high for their own good has been the single most cause of the low deer populations we have in many areas today. Many hunters simply refuse to see that and it will almost certainly lead to even more areas of the state with declining deer populations in the future. It is a real shame when it is the hunters that are standing in the way of having the best possible future for both wildlife and hunting, but that is unfortunately pretty much the way it is and always has been.
Thank you for being so open minded to those realities.
Dick Bodenhorn
|
|
| |
| | |
Rowpurt
I'm a 4 point buck on this forum.
My next goal is to become a 5 Pointer.
| Joined: 09 Sep 2010 |
| Posts: 7 |
| Location: Franklin, PA |
| Age: 66 |
Zodiac:  |
|
|
Game Tokens: 175 |
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:01 am |
|
|
|
[quote="RSB"] [quote="AR fan"]Thank you Dick you tell it like it is. [/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try, but it seems there are many who just don’t want to accept or even hear about the realities of the deer/habitat relationship and how each affects the other and many other species in the process. That past and continuous reluctance of hunters to accept the fact that deer populations can be too high for their own good has been the single most cause of the low deer populations we have in many areas today. Many hunters simply refuse to see that and it will almost certainly lead to even more areas of the state with declining deer populations in the future. It is a real shame when it is the hunters that are standing in the way of having the best possible future for both wildlife and hunting, but that is unfortunately pretty much the way it is and always has been.
Thank you for being so open minded to those realities.
Dick Bodenhorn[/quote]
Not to loose anyone's train of thought --- but I have a few questions and would like to be brought up to date on this deer/habitat relationship thingy. 1st question : Let's say I have 1 sq mile (or less if you prefer) of land that I want to "manage". What type of habitat do I need to maintain a healthy deer population ?
Bill |
|
| |
| | |
| |
| | |
bainpa
I'm a 12 point buck on this forum.
My next goal is to become a Member of the Pabucks.com Monster Buck Club.
| Joined: 27 Nov 2010 |
| Posts: 71 |
|
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 1900 |
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:04 pm |
|
|
|
[quote="faster1"]if my pay check came from the pa game commission i'd defend them too. now sit back and take the blinders off, how many years of declining license sales will it take before there is no more pay check. i would bet i'm in the woods far more days than you and i am sick of hearing how we just dont hunt hard enough or in the right place. by the wat RSB, why did you ignore my question about the private timber tracts with few deer??[/quote
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_XWCtL3EE
Please check this page 8 part series P A mis management by a pa biologist |
|
| |
| | |
| |
| | |
| |
| | |
bainpa
I'm a 12 point buck on this forum.
My next goal is to become a Member of the Pabucks.com Monster Buck Club.
| Joined: 27 Nov 2010 |
| Posts: 71 |
|
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 1900 |
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
[quote="RSB"] [quote="AR fan"]Thank you Dick you tell it like it is. [/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try, but it seems there are many who just don’t want to accept or even hear about the realities of the deer/habitat relationship and how each affects the other and many other species in the process. That past and continuous reluctance of hunters to accept the fact that deer populations can be too high for their own good has been the single most cause of the low deer populations we have in many areas today. Many hunters simply refuse to see that and it will almost certainly lead to even more areas of the state with declining deer populations in the future. It is a real shame when it is the hunters that are standing in the way of having the best possible future for both wildlife and hunting, but that is unfortunately pretty much the way it is and always has been.
Thank you for being so open minded to those realities.
Dick Boden
Please expand on these other game species that contend with a main food source of our whitetail . Most don,t contend with a deer for a food source that mainly feed on browse or crop foods . How many of the species are considered game on our $ hunting lic . And on your last statement hunters standing in the way of the future the future of what ? |
|
| |
| | |
Rowpurt
I'm a 4 point buck on this forum.
My next goal is to become a 5 Pointer.
| Joined: 09 Sep 2010 |
| Posts: 7 |
| Location: Franklin, PA |
| Age: 66 |
| Zodiac: |
|
|
Game Tokens: 175 |
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:20 am |
|
|
|
[quote="renegade"]Not that I'm any expert at food plots, but as a general rule you'd want something for all seasons. Winter is the most important season to provide food for because most other foods are dead or dormant, and the does are now supplying/feeding a fetus.
Woody browse is probably their mainstay this time of year so even doing some browse cutting (making a partial cut thru saplings and bending them over so the tops are accessible) on faster growing species like sumac will help. Sassafras, mountain Yew, or Dogwoods would also be some possible choices for planting. You could plant some winter wheat or other cool season grasses too if you have some open areas.
You should also try to provide a thick cover sanctuary in the center of your land where deer can feel secure. Don't hunt it or spend any time there. Deer have a big home range so you have to make yours the most desirable spot around that they'd want to call home. However bucks will come and go via natural dispersal.[/quote]
Thank you for the response and perhaps I should have mentioned that I do not own the land. An oil company owned it for more years than I've been hunting. I started in '58, and it has been open for public hunting all this time.
They recently sold it to an individual who is interested in the lumber. He too, has yet to "post" this land and the only stipluation that I know of is "No Vehicles". Therefore I will not be putting in food plots nor cutting browse. However, he started select cutting a small area in summer of 2009. Leaving the tree tops. (cover and browse). This is good - Right? This past summer (2010) he took another small area. Other vegetation on this tract includes wild cherry, maple, hickory, small patch of walnut(these were barren this year), an occasional thorn apple, huckleberry, sassafras, and saplings of all these species up the ying-yang. On the steeper slopes one will have grapevines while another will have a stand of beech. And as all things roll downhill, the narrow bottoms were so thick you couldn't crawl through. The tract is divided with a large gas line and two electric power lines. Vegetation along these are "natural" according to other right of ways I've been on in all these years. Access to this tract is very limited as it borders "posted" land and or residential/commercial property on all four sides. I really believe there is ample "habitat" here but I could be missing something. Am I ?
|
|
| |
| | |
| |
| | |
renegade
Administrator
| Joined: 18 Oct 2004 |
| Posts: 3392 |
| Location: Central PA |
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 58777 |
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
But it has been refuted over the years. He's just gathered all the "conspiracies" from the past 10 years or so and neatly packaged them. If the guy so fraudulently lied in his bio in order to gain some fictitious credibility, doesn't that raise a red flag as to the validity of the rest of his claims? The guy has bits and pieces of hearsay and no real proof, only claims, that he fits together to suit his agenda. Now admittedly I have not watched all of his video. It was like watching the movie Napoleon Dynamite. You only have to watch so much before realizing it's just a silly movie.
You have to wonder about the motivation behind this video. Here's a guy who was never really heard of who tries to work a behind the scenes deal with a politician to get $250k+ to single handedly do an audit. Other politicians found out and said no, lets do this in a fair, above the table manner so it will have some credibility with the sportsmen. Rep. Levdansky found a way to get the money using legislative means instead of having to raise the money or get it from the general fund. Meanwhile the Budget and Finance committee sent out letters seeking suggestions were sent to about 30 groups of sporting orgs. within the state. This Allegheny club, who's promoting the video, was erroneously left off the list of groups. This pizzed them off and they cried foul later on when the results came out.
Eventually bids for the audit were solicited and only 3 came in. Evelands and 2 other out of state businesses. Now besides Evelands being the most expensive and a one man operation, one of the criteria's the groups and the legislators mandated was to have a source outside of PA do this, in order to keep it unbiased and fair in the eyes of the sportsmen.
So both the club and Eveland have reason for sour grapes on this issue and now have what clearly appears to be a vendeta to play out.
Here's 4 pages of stuff on the audit prior to it being done I believe.
http://www.pabucks.com/deer-hunting-forum/viewtopic.php?t=5453&start=0 |
|
| |
| | |
RSB
I'm a VIP Member of PAbucks.com!!
Highest Ranked Member!!
| Joined: 04 May 2008 |
| Posts: 525 |
| Location: Elk County |
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 14375 |
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:24 pm |
|
|
|
[quote="faster1"]RSB, why are there not enough "hunter dollars" to sustain the pgc much longer...............................be honest with yourself in this answer because its pretty self explanatory.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is pretty much a no brainer to answer.
The Game Commission is and has been operating with hunting license funds that were based on the 1999 economy, when the last license fee increase went into affect. Since 1999 everything the Game Commission had to purchase to stay in operation (wages, vehicles, gas, maintenance, chainsaws, tractors, mowers, wildlife research materials, bear traps, tranquillizing drugs and equipment, hunter education materials, etc, etc.) has increased in cost. While the costs of operation have greatly increased over the past ten plus years the number of hunting licenses being sold has declined.
The Game Commission has cut personnel, vehicles and about everything else possible while still continuing to providing a reasonable service to the public and wildlife management. But, there are many things that need to be done that aren’t getting done because of the lack of adequate funding. If there isn’t a license increase the day has to come, and perhaps not to far into the future, when someone besides hunters are going to be funding wildlife management.
In fact even if Pennsylvania just maintains the normal national decline in hunter decline the day is going to come when hunters simply can’t be the only source of funding needed for adequate wildlife and habitat funding. I fail to understand why all of the state residents shouldn’t be paying for part of the wildlife management in this state, like they do in most other states. Every one in the state receives the benefits from sound wildlife management so why shouldn’t everyone pay a little instead of hunters paying it all?
Dick Bodenhorn
|
|
| |
| | |
RSB
I'm a VIP Member of PAbucks.com!!
Highest Ranked Member!!
| Joined: 04 May 2008 |
| Posts: 525 |
| Location: Elk County |
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 14375 |
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
[quote="bainpa"][quote="RSB"] [quote="AR fan"]Thank you Dick you tell it like it is. [/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try, but it seems there are many who just don’t want to accept or even hear about the realities of the deer/habitat relationship and how each affects the other and many other species in the process. That past and continuous reluctance of hunters to accept the fact that deer populations can be too high for their own good has been the single most cause of the low deer populations we have in many areas today. Many hunters simply refuse to see that and it will almost certainly lead to even more areas of the state with declining deer populations in the future. It is a real shame when it is the hunters that are standing in the way of having the best possible future for both wildlife and hunting, but that is unfortunately pretty much the way it is and always has been.
Thank you for being so open minded to those realities.
Dick Boden
Please expand on these other game species that contend with a main food source of our whitetail . Most don,t contend with a deer for a food source that mainly feed on browse or crop foods . How many of the species are considered game on our $ hunting lic . And on your last statement hunters standing in the way of the future the future of what ?[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying or the point I was trying to make about the affect deer have on the habitat and thus other wildlife populations. It is a well-known fact that deer are a keystone species that when left unchecked can and will adversely affect their food supply and total habitat. That means that an over population of deer will not only affect their own habitat and population numbers but also the habitat and populations of many other wildlife species, including many game species.
Deer populations that are excessive will affect the habitat used and needed by cotton-tail rabbit, snowshoe hare, grouse, turkey, beaver and even bear populations.
As far as hunters standing in the way of the future for better wildlife management, populations and hunting it all comes down to the fact that a large number of hunters have always failed to understand how important it is to keep deer populations controlled to the long-term limits of their habitat. Since they have failed to understand how important that is they have continuously used public and political pressures to force higher deer populations than were healthy for the deer and wildlife habitat. With that demand for higher populations it resulted in damaged habitat and that in turn has resulted in lower deer and other wildlife populations today than we would have now if we had kept slightly lower deer populations over the past decades when we had way to many deer.
The worst part if that unless hunters soon come to understand those facts it is going to result in even more areas of the state with damaged habitat and naturally declining deer populations even with hunters harvesting fewer deer. The bottom line is that you can and often will end up with even fewer deer in the future when you don’t harvest enough deer. Hunters have never understood that fact and that has resulted in the poor deer numbers and poor hunting we have in so many areas today.
Dick Bodenhorn |
|
| |
| | |
bainpa
I'm a 12 point buck on this forum.
My next goal is to become a Member of the Pabucks.com Monster Buck Club.
| Joined: 27 Nov 2010 |
| Posts: 71 |
|
|
|
|
|
Game Tokens: 1900 |
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:09 am |
|
|
|
[quote="RSB"][quote="faster1"]RSB, why are there not enough "hunter dollars" to sustain the pgc much longer...............................be honest with yourself in this answer because its pretty self explanatory.[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is pretty much a no brainer to answer.
The Game Commission is and has been operating with hunting license funds that were based on the 1999 economy, when the last license fee increase went into affect. Since 1999 everything the Game Commission had to purchase to stay in operation (wages, vehicles, gas, maintenance, chainsaws, tractors, mowers, wildlife research materials, bear traps, tranquillizing drugs and equipment, hunter education materials, etc, etc.) has increased in cost. While the costs of operation have greatly increased over the past ten plus years the number of hunting licenses being sold has declined.
The Game Commission has cut personnel, vehicles and about everything else possible while still continuing to providing a reasonable service to the public and wildlife management. But, there are many things that need to be done that aren’t getting done because of the lack of adequate funding. If there isn’t a license increase the day has to come, and perhaps not to far into the future, when someone besides hunters are going to be funding wildlife management.
In fact even if Pennsylvania just maintains the normal national decline in hunter decline the day is going to come when hunters simply can’t be the only source of funding needed for adequate wildlife and habitat funding. I fail to understand why all of the state residents shouldn’t be paying for part of the wildlife management in this state, like they do in most other states. Every one in the state receives the benefits from sound wildlife management so why shouldn’t everyone pay a little instead of hunters paying it all?
Here,s a few more no brainers no game no hunters . three of my neighbors deceided to stop hunting this year one is 66 --- 59---35--- all contend no game . two other neighbors that still hunt i asked what they were seeing a few . As we are into our last week of hunting i asked them if they we going out this week both said have to wait and see on the weather as the were not seeing much .
I am happy for you guys that are seeing deer but a lot of hunters aren,t ( I did run into an ex coworker yesterday that he and his brother both shot 10 pointers on the opener one was a 21 incher) As for the economy man its tuff all over as I am laid off myself now . so i have had a lot of time to hunt . I have seen seven deer six were tails one a one horn i saw on stand saturday . Tracks of deer in new snow very dam few . I posted of the doe allocations as 870,000 which i got from (nrahuntersrights.org) but as renegade posted the number he got was 814,000 we will use that # last year at one of the PA-GC seminars one of the biologist qouted 800,000 still an increase of 14,000 it does not matter if you reduced tags in one area and pass them out in another it is still a increase of 14,000 . I hunt 3 unites in norhwest part of P.A 1b mostly . Most of the hunters i know don.t shoot does but buy a tag to get it out of the second chance sale. My friends that do hunt doe are not fairing well . The PA-GC can,t keep passing these tags out we are not filling just for revenue . Increase the regular tag if you must at the risk of losing more hunters . I know its a lose lose situation . Here s a idea send a survey out to the hunters that bought a lic and post it on the PA-GC web page Well on a brighter note we still have two and a half days left and my guns in the truck.
|
|
| |
 | |  |
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:09 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 6 of 7
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
