Commissioners, others, decry Game Commission deer policies

[MaxPower]

Here is a FACT for you- the only thing PGC cares about is $$$. Want proof? Propose a seperate Sunday Hunting tag a for $10 and watch the GC jump behind it w/ FULL SUPPORT until it is law. Then listen to the BS they publish about why it has taken so long and blah blah blah. Money talks and the facts can't be heard over the roar of the cash registers. Seriously WCO- best stick to game regs/legal topics while posting here. If it is not w/in your paygrade or PROFESSIONAL background/qualifications, you are falsely representing and I WILL MAKE SURE IT COMES BACK TO WHERE IT CAME FROM with FULL REPERCUSSIONS.

[Activist]

Bluetick,

In reading your reply I see a consistent train of deceit and it is apparent you are interested in your point of view and not a professional discussion. You minimize, accuse, and insinuate without justification. Want proof here it is:

1. "he was 'one' of the people in the brain worm research" Eveland discovered it! This is obviously an unimportant detail to you.
2. "I have as much credibility as anyone else" Really!? Based on what? Why won't you put up 'your' credentials and background? I know; more unimportant details!
3. "Your documents have been found lacking" REALLY! By who-you?! It is easy to say this because in your world 'you' don't have to prove we are wrong-just make the accusation.
4. "Misinformation is a hallmark of your efforts" Again you base this on what-YOUR point of view? In case you are living in a bubble, politically speaking, you may want to check with members of the legislature from both sides of the aisle who will correct you here!
5. "Far easier to claim a grand conspiracy" These are your words and not ours. We believe that there are certain individuals who have acted for reasons other than the best interest of wildlife and our heritage of hunting. Your failing to accept this possibility demonstrates serious flaws in your objectivity.
6. "My reading of ACSL shows an organization that has a militant tone" WOW now this one is 'really' a stretch even for your ramblings! IF you mean that we believe government works for the people and should be accountable to them then I guess we are guilty. Virtually everyone on this forum, yourself excluded, believes in accountable government and 'that' is why we created the website so that we can offer documents not capable of being posted here.

Have you gone to the Penn State Main campus and seen the plaques about John Eveland's record of accomplishments and his credits? I suspect not!

You do get to one very interesting point and that is H.R. 642. Now perhaps you can explain the difference between a resolution and law and while you are at it you can explain why Senator John Pippy refused to accept the demands to have this run through the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee when it was first brought to him!

You also avoid talking about the manipulations of the legislature by 'former' Rep. Levdansky, who was a key player in moving the essential elements within H.R. 642 to the floor when 'everyone' in the legislature knew Levdansky could never have written them. Oh, and let's not forget Dr. Tim Schaeffer's RFP (Request for Proposal) that was the same as Levdansky's earlier proposal (both of which were rejected by Rep. Staback). Now since you check facts, HOW could both RFP (Levdansky's and Schaeffer's) be identical when submitted three (3) months apart? Copies of these are on the site also.

Oh and let's not forget that when the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee notified stake holder groups about the RFP's on auditing the PA Game Commission the ACSL (the oldest and largest County Sportsmen's League in the state) was 'not' notified but Mothers Against Drunk Driving was!? Levdansky was the Secretary of this committee.

Another note is the fact that EVERY sportsmen's club (14) in Levdansky's district opposed his reelection. This 'was' the deciding factor in his loss. I spoke at every one of these clubs and let the members see our documents and they subsequently questioned Levdansky in person to their great dissatisfaction. Additionally, not one club member in ANY of these clubs was happy with the current Deer Management plan and they all reported diminished numbers of deer in the field. I know, they must not have 'gotten the memo' to wait for your OK before agreeing that we have a problem with Deer Management! I can give you their addresses so you can visit them and let them no how much more knowledgeable you are on these issues.

Furthermore, perhaps you can explain why the deer harvests have fallen for the last six years or why there wasn't any science behind the Gary Alt program. Unlike you I have done my due diligence and visited the PGC headquarters in 2002 where I was told exactly that AND Gary Alt never provided the information he promised me in front of hundreds of hunters at several different presentations he made on the current deer plan.

Between Feb. 6 - April 6 of 2006, DCNR conducted an aerial survey (FLIR - Forward Looking Infrared Survey) to determine deer population densities in parts of 5 State Forest districts, 6 State Game Lands, and one State Park. With the exception of Ridley Creek State Park which does not allow public hunting, the report indicates a total of 6,515 deer were found on the 669 square miles of public land surveyed. That is equivalent to 9.73 DPSM (deer per square mile), or to really put it in perspective…. just 1 deer per 66 acres. Since you posture yourself as checking the facts it seems odd that you talk about Eveland's credibility more than issues like this unless of course you don't care about the 'facts'!

Then there is the assertion that deer over browsing impacts healthy forests AND YET in DCNR’s 2006 Browsing Impact Report for Pennsylvania State Forests, Table 4 indicates that 89% of the species monitored for regeneration showed little or no browsing; 96% showed no, light or moderate browsing; and only 4% of the species targeted showed heavy or severe browsing. This indicates to us that deer are having little if any impact on our State Forests, and contrary to popular opinion we already have healthy forests. There's them pesky facts that you avoid bringing up again!

Or how about the fallacy of more and bigger bucks? You avoid mentioning the steep fall off in Boone and Crocket deer in PA since 2001 that hunters were sold this current plan in the hopes of obtaining.

Perhaps you can explain why the New York deer harvest report shows that (believe it or not NY still uses numbers-I know 'you' knew that) all the counties in New York that border Pennsylvania’s northern tier had a buck kill between 6 and 9.9 bucks per square mile. In other words, just over the imaginary line from Pennsylvania these New York counties had a buck kill per square mile that most likely exceeded the total number of deer that exists per square mile in the adjacent Pennsylvania counties! Evidently, they have no regeneration problems.

Yes and 'we' do question the deer management team when it continues supporting 10 year old data (The Diefenbach Study) while realizing deer herds have been reduced by over 50% (or more in our estimation) in some management units! (From WMI Audit Data). Dr. Rosenberry and the deer management team continues to reject ‘any’ possibility of a significant impact on the PA Deer population-we disagree!

Lastly, it is apparent you have no idea as to what we have been doing to work within the system. In addition your intimation that by answering 'your' questions we will have 'all' hunters in support of our positions pre-supposes you speak for 'all' hunters. Incredibly arrogant.

I herewith withdraw the 'ball' from your court! You haven't earned it and certainly don't deserve it and will forward more appropriate attire-a green cheer leading costume with a big PGC patch on it.

Kim Stolfer
Legislative Committee Chairman
Allegheny County Sportsmen's League
www.acsl-pa.org
Chairman
Firearms Owners Against Crime
www.foac-pac.org

[MaxPower]

Bluetick,

In reading your reply I see a consistent train of deceit and it is apparent you are interested in your point of view and not a professional discussion. You minimize, accuse, and insinuate without justification. Want proof here it is:

1. "he was 'one' of the people in the brain worm research" Eveland discovered it! This is obviously an unimportant detail to you.
2. "I have as much credibility as anyone else" Really!? Based on what? Why won't you put up 'your' credentials and background? I know; more unimportant details!
3. "Your documents have been found lacking" REALLY! By who-you?! It is easy to say this because in your world 'you' don't have to prove we are wrong-just make the accusation.
4. "Misinformation is a hallmark of your efforts" Again you base this on what-YOUR point of view? In case you are living in a bubble, politically speaking, you may want to check with members of the legislature from both sides of the aisle who will correct you here!
5. "Far easier to claim a grand conspiracy" These are your words and not ours. We believe that there are certain individuals who have acted for reasons other than the best interest of wildlife and our heritage of hunting. Your failing to accept this possibility demonstrates serious flaws in your objectivity.
6. "My reading of ACSL shows an organization that has a militant tone" WOW now this one is 'really' a stretch even for your ramblings! IF you mean that we believe government works for the people and should be accountable to them then I guess we are guilty. Virtually everyone on this forum, yourself excluded, believes in accountable government and 'that' is why we created the website so that we can offer documents not capable of being posted here.

Have you gone to the Penn State Main campus and seen the plaques about John Eveland's record of accomplishments and his credits? I suspect not!

You do get to one very interesting point and that is H.R. 642. Now perhaps you can explain the difference between a resolution and law and while you are at it you can explain why Senator John Pippy refused to accept the demands to have this run through the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee when it was first brought to him!

You also avoid talking about the manipulations of the legislature by 'former' Rep. Levdansky, who was a key player in moving the essential elements within H.R. 642 to the floor when 'everyone' in the legislature knew Levdansky could never have written them. Oh, and let's not forget Dr. Tim Schaeffer's RFP (Request for Proposal) that was the same as Levdansky's earlier proposal (both of which were rejected by Rep. Staback). Now since you check facts, HOW could both RFP (Levdansky's and Schaeffer's) be identical when submitted three (3) months apart? Copies of these are on the site also.

Oh and let's not forget that when the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee notified stake holder groups about the RFP's on auditing the PA Game Commission the ACSL (the oldest and largest County Sportsmen's League in the state) was 'not' notified but Mothers Against Drunk Driving was!? Levdansky was the Secretary of this committee.

Another note is the fact that EVERY sportsmen's club (14) in Levdansky's district opposed his reelection. This 'was' the deciding factor in his loss. I spoke at every one of these clubs and let the members see our documents and they subsequently questioned Levdansky in person to their great dissatisfaction. Additionally, not one club member in ANY of these clubs was happy with the current Deer Management plan and they all reported diminished numbers of deer in the field. I know, they must not have 'gotten the memo' to wait for your OK before agreeing that we have a problem with Deer Management! I can give you their addresses so you can visit them and let them no how much more knowledgeable you are on these issues.

Furthermore, perhaps you can explain why the deer harvests have fallen for the last six years or why there wasn't any science behind the Gary Alt program. Unlike you I have done my due diligence and visited the PGC headquarters in 2002 where I was told exactly that AND Gary Alt never provided the information he promised me in front of hundreds of hunters at several different presentations he made on the current deer plan.

Between Feb. 6 - April 6 of 2006, DCNR conducted an aerial survey (FLIR - Forward Looking Infrared Survey) to determine deer population densities in parts of 5 State Forest districts, 6 State Game Lands, and one State Park. With the exception of Ridley Creek State Park which does not allow public hunting, the report indicates a total of 6,515 deer were found on the 669 square miles of public land surveyed. That is equivalent to 9.73 DPSM (deer per square mile), or to really put it in perspective…. just 1 deer per 66 acres. Since you posture yourself as checking the facts it seems odd that you talk about Eveland's credibility more than issues like this unless of course you don't care about the 'facts'!

Then there is the assertion that deer over browsing impacts healthy forests AND YET in DCNR’s 2006 Browsing Impact Report for Pennsylvania State Forests, Table 4 indicates that 89% of the species monitored for regeneration showed little or no browsing; 96% showed no, light or moderate browsing; and only 4% of the species targeted showed heavy or severe browsing. This indicates to us that deer are having little if any impact on our State Forests, and contrary to popular opinion we already have healthy forests. There's them pesky facts that you avoid bringing up again!

Or how about the fallacy of more and bigger bucks? You avoid mentioning the steep fall off in Boone and Crocket deer in PA since 2001 that hunters were sold this current plan in the hopes of obtaining.

Perhaps you can explain why the New York deer harvest report shows that (believe it or not NY still uses numbers-I know 'you' knew that) all the counties in New York that border Pennsylvania’s northern tier had a buck kill between 6 and 9.9 bucks per square mile. In other words, just over the imaginary line from Pennsylvania these New York counties had a buck kill per square mile that most likely exceeded the total number of deer that exists per square mile in the adjacent Pennsylvania counties! Evidently, they have no regeneration problems.

Yes and 'we' do question the deer management team when it continues supporting 10 year old data (The Diefenbach Study) while realizing deer herds have been reduced by over 50% (or more in our estimation) in some management units! (From WMI Audit Data). Dr. Rosenberry and the deer management team continues to reject ‘any’ possibility of a significant impact on the PA Deer population-we disagree!

Lastly, it is apparent you have no idea as to what we have been doing to work within the system. In addition your intimation that by answering 'your' questions we will have 'all' hunters in support of our positions pre-supposes you speak for 'all' hunters. Incredibly arrogant.

I herewith withdraw the 'ball' from your court! You haven't earned it and certainly don't deserve it and will forward more appropriate attire-a green cheer leading costume with a big PGC patch on it.

Kim Stolfer
Legislative Committee Chairman
Allegheny County Sportsmen's League
www.acsl-pa.org
Chairman
Firearms Owners Against Crime
www.foac-pac.org

Serve, volley and game.

[B2Luv2Hunt]

Serve, volley and game.

Hell I will give him the Set also, if not the Match.

[R.W.J]

Here is a FACT for you- the only thing PGC cares about is $$$. Want proof? Propose a seperate Sunday Hunting tag a for $10 and watch the GC jump behind it w/ FULL SUPPORT until it is law. Then listen to the BS they publish about why it has taken so long and blah blah blah. Money talks and the facts can't be heard over the roar of the cash registers. Seriously WCO- best stick to game regs/legal topics while posting here. If it is not w/in your paygrade or PROFESSIONAL background/qualifications, you are falsely representing and I WILL MAKE SURE IT COMES BACK TO WHERE IT CAME FROM with FULL REPERCUSSIONS.

I post on my own time. I will post my opinion just as any other member. If something is out of my educational or training realm, I would rather admit it than blow smoke.

[A-5]

I post on my own time. I will post my opinion just as any other member. If something is out of my educational or training realm, I would rather admit it than blow smoke.

WCO R.W.J I will argue with you on these topics all day long but to be fair, I have always at the end thanked you for your efforts. The only thing we (hunters) would have liked you to say is yes the PGC could do a better job at spending money, or whatever the subject of the day is. I understand you want to defend your organization but it is just silly at this point. Honestly you haven't came on here and said $67,000,000 is a lot of money an the PGC needs to live within their means. W.C.O you said the PGC has't had a Lic. fee hike in 13 years making sound like they are doing their best to work with us, when they have tried to get hikes approved to stick it to us but have been denied. You do not understand our thought process either, You told me in so many word if your so smart work up a budget and hand it in. That comment seems a little harsh your basically saying we've done all the cutting we can you try it. PGC has not done all they can and it's offensive for you to act like they have. Here is how it works if the money is't there spending $7,306,202 on game land construction and maintenance is offensive, If the money isn't there $365,388 on conservation reserve enhancement program is offensive. Hunters in general have a conservative right mind set work hard and earn what you have mindset. The left spends money on programs and such with money they don't have. Your organization has that leftist mind set you want to spend money on stuff that has nothing to do with saving animals from the evil hunters. All we want is honesty and I do thank you for your time on this and all subjects spoken on the PAFOA.

[dk99358]

Here is how it works if the money is't there spending $7,306,202 on game land construction and maintenance is offensive,

By law, they have to spend X number of dollars from each antlerless tag on habitat work. Gamelands are habitat, therefore money is spent on them. Also, things like border marking is important, do you want the neighbors using the gamelands like it is their backyard?

If the money isn't there $365,388 on conservation reserve enhancement program is offensive.

Do you know what CREP pays for? To take marginal land out of agricultural production and convert it into habitat. It pays for tree planting and establishment along streams. What do trees do? Provide food and habitat for wildlife, shade the stream so the water temp is better suited for fish and the leaves provide food for various stream critters that then become fish food. They also filter sediment and nutrients that runoff from surrounding crop fields before they can enter the stream. CREP pays for fencing to keep the livestock out of the stream so they can't crap in it nor cause streambank erosion. Some city (maybe yours) is drawing it's water from that stream, cleaner water results in less treatment cost for them and ultimately you.

The PGC has cut many areas of the budget resulting in reduced services. Was there room for cuts? Apparently. Can they continue cutting? I doubt it. Have you cut your budget to live on the same amount of money you were getting 13 years ago?

Before you jump down my throat, let me add this. I believe there were too many deer in Pa. I believe the herd reduction was spotty. Some areas were hammered, some still have too many deer. Don't forget, they warned everyone before they started the plan that it would take years and be painful. They didn't lie and say it would be rosy or easy. The PGC is not perfect. They have a lot of stakeholders with different opinions of the proper number of deer. My dad was on the advisory council for WMU 2E. Agriculture thought there should be 25% fewer deer, the hunter representative thought there should be 400% more.

How do you create a plan with a range like that?

Dale

[JayBell]

as a reminder... dont make subtle or overt threats of any kind on this forum, you will get a timeout.

[XD40coyote]

I wonder if coyotes are having any signifigant impact on deer. Esp on deep snow winter yards. There seems to be more and more coyotes taken in PA each year, indicating that their population has spiked. The average weights are 35-40 pounds for adults, and wolf like behavior has been detected, which matches the DNA studies on eastern coyotes. Wolf like behavior means packs and hunting deer in packs.

About a decade ago, NB or Quebec wildlife managers noticed a higher than normal mortality among caribou in a region ( a subspecies of caribou some refer to as woodland caribou). At first they thought the abundance of black bears was to blame, that the bears were eating the caribou calves. Wolf #'s for the area were low, but there were alot of eastern coyotes. After completing the study, it was concluded that the coyotes were the worst culprits on calf mortality.

Maine showed a terrible problem of coyotes killing deer that were in deep snow late winter yards. So they put in a snaring program to thin the coyotes out, and it seemed to be working, however animal activists came in and somehow got the snaring program cancelled (I think using ESA and canada lynx accidental catches). I am not sure if these deer herds have been decimated as a result.

I know that NY state has alot of coyotes too, so if the counties butting up to northern PA counties have the same habitat, same # of coyotes and bears, but the NY side has more deer, that the problem certainly sounds like a PGC mismanagement.

[A-5]

By law, they have to spend X number of dollars from each antlerless tag on habitat work. Gamelands are habitat, therefore money is spent on them. Also, things like border marking is important, do you want the neighbors using the gamelands like it is their backyard?

Do you know what CREP pays for? To take marginal land out of agricultural production and convert it into habitat. It pays for tree planting and establishment along streams. What do trees do? Provide food and habitat for wildlife, shade the stream so the water temp is better suited for fish and the leaves provide food for various stream critters that then become fish food. They also filter sediment and nutrients that runoff from surrounding crop fields before they can enter the stream. CREP pays for fencing to keep the livestock out of the stream so they can't crap in it nor cause streambank erosion. Some city (maybe yours) is drawing it's water from that stream, cleaner water results in less treatment cost for them and ultimately you.

The PGC has cut many areas of the budget resulting in reduced services. Was there room for cuts? Apparently. Can they continue cutting? I doubt it. Have you cut your budget to live on the same amount of money you were getting 13 years ago?

Before you jump down my throat, let me add this. I believe there were too many deer in Pa. I believe the herd reduction was spotty. Some areas were hammered, some still have too many deer. Don't forget, they warned everyone before they started the plan that it would take years and be painful. They didn't lie and say it would be rosy or easy. The PGC is not perfect. They have a lot of stakeholders with different opinions of the proper number of deer. My dad was on the advisory council for WMU 2E. Agriculture thought there should be 25% fewer deer, the hunter representative thought there should be 400% more.

How do you create a plan with a range like that?

Dale

If X=$2 (I'm just saying I don't know the actual number) per antlerless tag
I ran a quick number and it resulted in a number of around 1.5 million dollars, there were over 750,000 doe tags sold in P.A. this season. How does that compare to the over $7,000,000 spent? I'm not saying I'm correct in all the things said here, I'm saying there is room to improve spending but they just want to charge us more instead of spending less. To tell you the truth I'm sick of a $67,000,000 agency wanting more money.

I'm not here to jump down anyone's throat. I do bust balls and I do argue but I try to respect peoples points, and I like debate's. With that said I have had to reduce my spending from 13 years ago. I no longer have cable for one thing and not one charge card, the only thing is a card open for one particular store if I want to charge something thats all. I have made changes and it's offensive when a WCO comes on here and tries badly to defend those losers he works for. WCO RWJ is not a loser but the people he works for are. Am I correct that in and above the plants and restoration that is paid for with crep, the farmer gets paid for 5 years his highest wage he has ever made. Sounds like a good deal to me pay someone for no work. In a good economy maybe but in these tuff times the PGC should cut everything possible. Second all of this and this goes for all of the public agencies Fed, Local, PGC all of them stop wasteful spending across the board. If it is not a necessity I do not want money spent on it. I would love to know the final cost on a WCO's cruiser, In my world a truck, cb, and a cell phone=ing say $25,000 should work, but I guarantee it's closer to $40,000 than 25,000. In all of this, not one person that support's the PGC agree's with me that the problem in P.A. It's not that you have to agree with me, but lets fix the problem not just try to defend it.