Archery Talk Forum banner
5861 - 5880 of 6132 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
12,619 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5,861 ·
It is not about deer disappearing, its about them migrating to places where only a select few can get to them...and before anyone suggests ponying up and buying some ground, I'd suggest they look at the costs to do so in these areas. What you would spend for a 10-15 acre lot in Chester Springss or Glenmoore, would buy you a camp and 35+ acres just 4 hours away.
Meanwhile the PGC and DCNR spent a $1/4 million a few years ago to "study whether deer move to where hunting pressure is less". One of the times I found the PGC to be totally exasperating. Really? How was that money well spent? You could have just talked to your biggest constituents. Oddly, hunters spend a lot of time in the woods and can probably shed some light on such things. But sometimes it seems like we are the last ones they listen to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacobh

· Registered
spoon & crockpot proud member......killing tomorrows trophys today
Joined
·
34,797 Posts
Meanwhile the PGC and DCNR spent a $1/4 million a few years ago to "study whether deer move to where hunting pressure is less". One of the times I found the PGC to be totally exasperating. Really? How was that money well spent? You could have just talked to your biggest constituents. Oddly, hunters spend a lot of time in the woods and can probably shed some light on such things. But sometimes it seems like we are the last ones they listen to.
And the Penn State deer blog has multiple articles about collared deer and tracked movement once the statewide gun season opens……free.

Maybe they had some grant money they needed to use up.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,223 Posts
That's 100% true but I can see Scott's point.It's tough to travel when you're used to being able to hunt out the back door.I never lived in a house where I couldn't do just that and never would.
Growing up it wasn't unusual for a few of us to get home from school and grab a shotgun and go. Within a 10 minute walk we had all the hunting we wanted. By the mid 90's I had gone from 15-17 farms in the area that I had permission and even encouraged by the owners to hunt down to 2. The 2 had houses that had sprung up around them so that shooting a rifle could only be done in certain directions. It's a shame for those of us that enjoy hunting but the world is and has been changing.
I now feel fortunate that I "only" have a 30 minute drive to get in a stand.
 

· Registered
Mathews Chill X
Joined
·
6,904 Posts
I’m in region B and usually that’s what I do but I’m sure as u heard here it’s been brought up numerous times by a member that we were hit with EHD so we didn’t hunt it this year. Pa I haven’t hunted in 2 months now. I got a doe and a buck and stopped hunting so the herd could “survive” yet I still did wrong in some eyes. We hunt Worcester and wicomico counties in Md. again if I went there and shot deer I’d be wrong too. So damned if I do and damned if I don’t. I just laugh though because guys say don’t shoot them when herd is low why buy a license? So then if I don’t and others don’t hunter numbers go down and we’ll according to this thread that’s bad too right? So either way I’m wrong
I think at this point you both need to agree to disagree. Neither is breaking the law, and neither is willing to change his position regardless of what the other says. Both have valid points, but what’s the point of beating a dead horse. Let’s just move on and keep things civil.
 

· Pay It Forward
Joined
·
27,191 Posts
Rarely does governmental spending seem to align with public sentiment regardless of how right or left leaning that particular public many be leaning. Add to that general occurrence the fact there are specialized sub-groups each of which have strong beliefs, often based more on personal bias with a smattering of facts for good measure and it's sure easy to see how governmental spending discourse is born.....heck, this thread has only roughly 20-30 consistently contributing members and our small group would likely not unanimously agree how to spend.

I've said it before....if I could waive a magic wand I would make two specific changes...
1 - you cannot purchase a license or tag until you have reported on every tag that you had purchased the prior year. In the very least this would help data collection processes. I am likely naive about it, but I'd like to believe that folks are less dishonest than they are careless. I want to believe that if REQUIRED to do so, hunters would report accurately their harvests, as opposed to simply NOT reporting anything at all - which I believe is an EPIDEMIC in our State and as such significantly skews data points that the Commission uses in their work to shape everything from WMU boundaries, tag allocations, timing and length of seasons, etc.... It would help clear up urban legends of guys buying 30-tags antlerless tags in regulated WMUs and then burning them...it COULD perhaps decrease or in the very least reshape the need and processes used by biologists with regard to pellet counts, etc... I am not a data geek or anything, but I do very much believe in the notion that bad data into the thinking machine yields bad decisions out....I doesn't take Master's degree in actuarial science to simply look at the disparity in license/tag sales and ESTIMATED harvest reports to notice something isn't adding up. I wouldn't think it would be an overwhelmingly difficult or cost prohibitive process. A completed survey required at each point of sale or the transaction is denied.

2 - a REAL partnership with private landowners that in some way incentivizes them to open their property to public hunting. The program MUST require evidence that the property is open to public hunting, that consideration is given to new hunting members each year and rosters are adjusted accordingly and that harvest data is required to be submitted. The current program is a COMPLETE FARCE with virtually zero oversight. I know of two specific folks in 5C who take advantage of this and their 'public roster' is ONLY family and a friend or two. I specifically directed at least 10 people to each of those property owners this year and all 10 were told, by both owners - sorry our property is at hunter capacity this year. One landowner did allow one father to take his son on a doe only hunt the first week and the kid shot a doe opening Saturday...that was it....the only hunters hunting is 207 acres are himself, his two son-in-laws, his brother-in-law, his two nephews, and one co-worker. Interestingly, those same 6 have been on his roster for the last 5 years.
I know this would be much more of an undertaking and require a level of oversight that may be impossible to design/staff, but done well it could certainly have MUCH more of a significant impact in the regulated management areas than adjusting tag allocations, season timelines, and allowing feeders, COMBINED. There are SEVERAL LARGE tracts (100+ acres) of privately owned ground, ground owned by universities and colleges, hospitals, real estate holding companies, conservancies, municipal townships (yes that is considered private), these are the very places where deer numbers far exceed the habitat's ability to sustain. I challenge any 5C/D locals to cruise 401 west of Ludwigs corner towards Warwick Furnace, South Campus areas of WCU, Linvilla Orchards, Tyler Arboretum, Penn State Brandywine, Neuman University, or the old Devereux Benito, Sleighton Farm and Glen Mills School properties at dusk and dawn and not lose count of the deer you see. YES, many of these properties do have hunting that is often reserved for select members, often employees or others with direct connections, NOT the public and RARELY is there any meaningful management strategy other than fill what tags those members have in their pocket.

Yeah, I know...pie in the sky....but if meaningful change in successful harvests in the regualted WMUs is what they are after, simply lengthening seasons, increasing tags, and allowing feeders isn't going to get it done....again, even the skewed data that they do have highlights that fact....almost no changes in the etimated harvest totals over the last decade during which time, boundaries have cahnges, seasons extended, tags increased, new weapons (crossbows, rim fire, etc..) and feeders.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,658 Posts
Things have changed for the worse,which is why I sympathize with Scott and everyone else dealing with it.At the same time,there's nothing any state agency can do about it.We have a similar issue in this part of the state where huge timber companies are selling off their land.to Investment corps and then immediately lease them rather than keeping them open to the public and DMAP'd like they previously were.The difference is,while you may lose a spot,there's still an unlimited amount available.I'm used to it though because almost every good spot I have is good because it's early successional habitat.Those spots eventually mature,turn into worthless pole timber and the carrying capacity plummets.Finding new spots to hunt is a constant cycle for me but it's one of the things I like about hunting.I'm not sentimental with spots.admittedly,it's much easier for me to move on than expect Scott to.
 

· Registered
I don’t hunt for the sport I hunt for the meat
Joined
·
27,508 Posts
I think at this point you both need to agree to disagree. Neither is breaking the law, and neither is willing to change his position regardless of what the other says. Both have valid points, but what’s the point of beating a dead horse. Let’s just move on and keep things civil.
I’ll agree. As far as I’m concerned I won’t respond to his posts if he doesn’t respond to mine. I’m perfectly fine with that!!! Again I just answered a question about what thoughts were on the new doe tag process. This is what it turned into
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,658 Posts
Rarely does governmental spending seem to align with public sentiment regardless of how right or left leaning that particular public many be leaning. Add to that general occurrence the fact there are specialized sub-groups each of which have strong beliefs, often based more on personal bias with a smattering of facts for good measure and it's sure easy to see how governmental spending discourse is born.....heck, this thread has only roughly 20-30 consistently contributing members and our small group would likely not unanimously agree how to spend.

I've said it before....if I could waive a magic wand I would make two specific changes...
1 - you cannot purchase a license or tag until you have reported on every tag that you had purchased the prior year. In the very least this would help data collection processes. I am likely naive about it, but I'd like to believe that folks are less dishonest than they are careless. I want to believe that if REQUIRED to do so, hunters would report accurately their harvests, as opposed to simply NOT reporting anything at all - which I believe is an EPIDEMIC in our State and as such significantly skews data points that the Commission uses in their work to shape everything from WMU boundaries, tag allocations, timing and length of seasons, etc.... It would help clear up urban legends of guys buying 30-tags antlerless tags in regulated WMUs and then burning them...it COULD perhaps decrease or in the very least reshape the need and processes used by biologists with regard to pellet counts, etc... I am not a data geek or anything, but I do very much believe in the notion that bad data into the thinking machine yields bad decisions out....I doesn't take Master's degree in actuarial science to simply look at the disparity in license/tag sales and ESTIMATED harvest reports to notice something isn't adding up. I wouldn't think it would be an overwhelmingly difficult or cost prohibitive process. A completed survey required at each point of sale or the transaction is denied.

2 - a REAL partnership with private landowners that in some way incentivizes them to open their property to public hunting. The program MUST require evidence that the property is open to public hunting, that consideration is given to new hunting members each year and rosters are adjusted accordingly and that harvest data is required to be submitted. The current program is a COMPLETE FARCE with virtually zero oversight. I know of two specific folks in 5C who take advantage of this and their 'public roster' is ONLY family and a friend or two. I specifically directed at least 10 people to each of those property owners this year and all 10 were told, by both owners - sorry our property is at hunter capacity this year. One landowner did allow one father to take his son on a doe only hunt the first week and the kid shot a doe opening Saturday...that was it....the only hunters hunting is 207 acres are himself, his two son-in-laws, his brother-in-law, his two nephews, and one co-worker. Interestingly, those same 6 have been on his roster for the last 5 years.
I know this would be much more of an undertaking and require a level of oversight that may be impossible to design/staff, but done well it could certainly have MUCH more of a significant impact in the regulated management areas than adjusting tag allocations, season timelines, and allowing feeders, COMBINED. There are SEVERAL LARGE tracts (100+ acres) of privately owned ground, ground owned by universities and colleges, hospitals, real estate holding companies, conservancies, municipal townships (yes that is considered private), these are the very places where deer numbers far exceed the habitat's ability to sustain. I challenge any 5C/D locals to cruise 401 west of Ludwigs corner towards Warwick Furnace, South Campus areas of WCU, Linvilla Orchards, Tyler Arboretum, Penn State Brandywine, Neuman University, or the old Devereux Benito, Sleighton Farm and Glen Mills School properties at dusk and dawn and not lose count of the deer you see. YES, many of these properties do have hunting that is often reserved for select members, often employees or others with direct connections, NOT the public and RARELY is there any meaningful management strategy other than fill what tags those members have in their pocket.

Yeah, I know...pie in the sky....but if meaningful change in successful harvests in the regualted WMUs is what they are after, simply lengthening seasons, increasing tags, and allowing feeders isn't going to get it done....again, even the skewed data that they do have highlights that fact....almost no changes in the etimated harvest totals over the last decade during which time, boundaries have cahnges, seasons extended, tags increased, new weapons (crossbows, rim fire, etc..) and feeders.

1.I've already beat this one to death.
2.How would they incentivize any private land owner to opening up their land?I will say this.I have some experience with attempting this in rural Clearfield county and it was a very difficult task.I couldn't even begin to imagine how hard it would be to do so in an actual population center.

Managing game is actually very easy.Managing the people is not.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,658 Posts
Joe,the lack of common sense and reasoning is so hard to describe when it comes to wildlife and people.I lived it for about 10 years and it made me never want to deal with anything on a political type basis ever again.Many of these solutions really aren't that difficult but getting people onboard is.It's not always easy to win over emotions with facts.It should be but it isn't.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,223 Posts
Rarely does governmental spending seem to align with public sentiment regardless of how right or left leaning that particular public many be leaning. Add to that general occurrence the fact there are specialized sub-groups each of which have strong beliefs, often based more on personal bias with a smattering of facts for good measure and it's sure easy to see how governmental spending discourse is born.....heck, this thread has only roughly 20-30 consistently contributing members and our small group would likely not unanimously agree how to spend.

I've said it before....if I could waive a magic wand I would make two specific changes...
1 - you cannot purchase a license or tag until you have reported on every tag that you had purchased the prior year. In the very least this would help data collection processes. I am likely naive about it, but I'd like to believe that folks are less dishonest than they are careless. I want to believe that if REQUIRED to do so, hunters would report accurately their harvests, as opposed to simply NOT reporting anything at all - which I believe is an EPIDEMIC in our State and as such significantly skews data points that the Commission uses in their work to shape everything from WMU boundaries, tag allocations, timing and length of seasons, etc.... It would help clear up urban legends of guys buying 30-tags antlerless tags in regulated WMUs and then burning them...it COULD perhaps decrease or in the very least reshape the need and processes used by biologists with regard to pellet counts, etc... I am not a data geek or anything, but I do very much believe in the notion that bad data into the thinking machine yields bad decisions out....I doesn't take Master's degree in actuarial science to simply look at the disparity in license/tag sales and ESTIMATED harvest reports to notice something isn't adding up. I wouldn't think it would be an overwhelmingly difficult or cost prohibitive process. A completed survey required at each point of sale or the transaction is denied.

2 - a REAL partnership with private landowners that in some way incentivizes them to open their property to public hunting. The program MUST require evidence that the property is open to public hunting, that consideration is given to new hunting members each year and rosters are adjusted accordingly and that harvest data is required to be submitted. The current program is a COMPLETE FARCE with virtually zero oversight. I know of two specific folks in 5C who take advantage of this and their 'public roster' is ONLY family and a friend or two. I specifically directed at least 10 people to each of those property owners this year and all 10 were told, by both owners - sorry our property is at hunter capacity this year. One landowner did allow one father to take his son on a doe only hunt the first week and the kid shot a doe opening Saturday...that was it....the only hunters hunting is 207 acres are himself, his two son-in-laws, his brother-in-law, his two nephews, and one co-worker. Interestingly, those same 6 have been on his roster for the last 5 years.
I know this would be much more of an undertaking and require a level of oversight that may be impossible to design/staff, but done well it could certainly have MUCH more of a significant impact in the regulated management areas than adjusting tag allocations, season timelines, and allowing feeders, COMBINED. There are SEVERAL LARGE tracts (100+ acres) of privately owned ground, ground owned by universities and colleges, hospitals, real estate holding companies, conservancies, municipal townships (yes that is considered private), these are the very places where deer numbers far exceed the habitat's ability to sustain. I challenge any 5C/D locals to cruise 401 west of Ludwigs corner towards Warwick Furnace, South Campus areas of WCU, Linvilla Orchards, Tyler Arboretum, Penn State Brandywine, Neuman University, or the old Devereux Benito, Sleighton Farm and Glen Mills School properties at dusk and dawn and not lose count of the deer you see. YES, many of these properties do have hunting that is often reserved for select members, often employees or others with direct connections, NOT the public and RARELY is there any meaningful management strategy other than fill what tags those members have in their pocket.

Yeah, I know...pie in the sky....but if meaningful change in successful harvests in the regualted WMUs is what they are after, simply lengthening seasons, increasing tags, and allowing feeders isn't going to get it done....again, even the skewed data that they do have highlights that fact....almost no changes in the etimated harvest totals over the last decade during which time, boundaries have cahnges, seasons extended, tags increased, new weapons (crossbows, rim fire, etc..) and feeders.
the only hunters hunting is 207 acres are himself, his two son-in-laws, his brother-in-law, his two nephews, and one co-worker. Interestingly, those same 6 have been on his roster for the last 5 years.

If nothing else this line made me realize how different you guys in the SE corner have it. 6 people on 200 acres here and I want no parts of that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,658 Posts
People are crazy.I have a neighbor who owns about 50 acres with a small strip of about 25 acres directly bordering the front of my property.He has a shooting house down below my house,less than 100 yards away.He's a great guy.We're very good friends but nobody including me is allowed to even look in the direction of his property.Every year he plants a few patches of corn totaling maybe 10-15 acres and every year he complains that he only gets a few 5 gallon buckets because the deer and bear hammer it.Every year he calls the PGC and threatens to shoot them for crop damage but he isn't legally allowed.The funny thing is,he won't shoot a deer from that shooting house unless it's right before dark because he doesn't want to blow the deer out when people may still be hunting because he doesn't want them running onto someone else's property to get shot lol.I can't make this up.
 

· Registered
I don’t hunt for the sport I hunt for the meat
Joined
·
27,508 Posts
the only hunters hunting is 207 acres are himself, his two son-in-laws, his brother-in-law, his two nephews, and one co-worker. Interestingly, those same 6 have been on his roster for the last 5 years.

If nothing else this line made me realize how different you guys in the SE corner have it. 6 people on 200 acres here and I want no parts of that.
God Chris I wish
 

· Pay It Forward
Joined
·
27,191 Posts
the only hunters hunting is 207 acres are himself, his two son-in-laws, his brother-in-law, his two nephews, and one co-worker. Interestingly, those same 6 have been on his roster for the last 5 years.

If nothing else this line made me realize how different you guys in the SE corner have it. 6 people on 200 acres here and I want no parts of that.
Chris, that would be a GODSEND for me...I had local access to 90 acres with 5 others and thought I was in heaven....killed a nice buck and as many doe as I wanted almost every year.

Things in suburbia are certainly different than in other parts of the State. I am fortunate to have the 160+ acres in Potter that are owned by family and there are times there are 5-7 folks on that spot, most feeling like they have their own little slice of heaven.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,658 Posts
I leased 1500 acres last year with 14 other guys.It was one of those open to the public places that got sold and the new timber company leased.Not wanting to lose access,several of us got together and leased it.It's very informal.There's no foodplots,patrolling,strict rules etc.It was always hit and miss based on the mast crop but when there's a good one,the hunting is good.It's also only two miles from home so it's convenient.I always loved hunting it because it's thick and steep so it didn't hardly get any pressure.Now we have our own locks to the gates so access is easy and these guys hunt the crap out of it.There's literally treestands everywhere.We hunted it several times during rifle season and even with 1500 acres,it was way too crowded for my tastes.I'll stay in it for the convenience but it was much better prior.
 

· Pay It Forward
Joined
·
27,191 Posts
Sounds like a nice set-up Doug. We're on an approximate 600 acre lease in Coudersport that sounds similar. We have 10 members; 6 are all my family members, 4 are from the family whose personal property borders the lease, so we do have eyes there all of the time. Our 6 have close to 18 stands, the family of 4 have a few as well. Rules are relatively simple, each member could take a guest at any time, but only one buck per member....so if I take a guest and my guest shoots a buck, that's MY buck.....all harvests are reported to President...there was a time when the biologists required jawbones, but that has passed. Been relatively good relationships among all members. Can only think of one instance that was a little 'fuzzy'.....
 

· Registered
Bear Archery Wild. Team #9 - 9 TInes the charm
Joined
·
2,662 Posts
Sunday we got 2 in of snow and today it is snowing pretty hard, we already got an extra 2 inches today , but we are expected to get another 3.

Sky Black Plant Botany Architecture
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,658 Posts
I didn't know most of these guys prior to getting in on this.I like them though.They're mostly a lot younger than me and most have kids.They take the kids and they hunt their arses off.I like the fact that they hunt and take their kids but this place gets far more pressure than any other piece I've ever hunted.We don't keep records but as far as I know,they took at least 14 bucks and I don't know how many doe.There's no rules about bucks but they all seem to hold out for nicer deer except for the kids.There were at least 6 or 7 really nice bucks killed this year.Jprdan and I only killed two doe each on that property.To my knowledge they didn't run any other hunters off and during the off season have no issues with people riding ATV's on it.If I was serious about killing a buck,I wouldn't hunt there much.The only real plus to leasing it compared when it was open to the public is the fact that you can drive or get an ATV to just about any dead deer.The down side it,they can drive back and haul in big ladder stands as well.
 
5861 - 5880 of 6132 Posts
Top