The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
MEMORANDUM

Posted: February 20, 2013 03:32 PM

From: Representative Deberah Kula

To: All House members

Subject: Excluding public lands from the Deer Management Assistance Program


In the near future, I will introduce legislation that will exclude public lands from the PA Game Commission’s Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP).

<span style="font-weight: bold">DMAP has had a disastrous effect on hunting in our Commonwealth.</span>

Statewide, the number of hunters – both adult resident and junior resident – has dramatically decreased over the past decade. That decline in hunter participation represents a potential loss of $285 million in direct economic activity. And that number doesn’t include the untold thousands of hunters who no longer travel from out of state to hunt in PA.

Locally I, like many of you, have heard a constant narrative from the hunters in my district about the lack of deer in the woods. These are seasoned, experienced hunters who have hunted the same areas for years and can recognize when deer populations steadily decrease.

The Game Commission has had their run with DMAP – and it has succeeded only in weakening hunting in our state. Damage has been done, but it is not irreparable. Please join me in helping our sportsmen and sportswomen begin to reclaim our great hunting heritage.




http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legi...;cosponId=11797
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
The Pa Legislators need to stay out of the wildlife management arena and allow the agency they authorized to do their job.
This is another case of meddling in something they have no qualifications for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,221 Posts
I believe the DCNR under Corbett has been a big user of DMAP's? I wonder if Corbett would sign such a bill? I would think not. But, who knows. I see she is from southwest PA. We know there are no deer in southwest PA. That explains it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
In her district there is absolutely no shortage of deer on public or private land.

It is absolutely amazing that she could even consider a bill like this. Some one needs to take her for a simple ride any evening around her district and let her keep count of the deer numbers she see's. No spotlight - just ride - though it isn't like she isn't or can't be aware of the deer numbers by the carnage along the roads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,881 Posts
Wow, I see no problem with state forest dmap. What's the big deal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,276 Posts
HomeintheWoods said:
The Pa Legislators need to stay out of the wildlife management arena and allow the agency they authorized to do their job.
This is another case of meddling in something they have no qualifications for.
yep!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,293 Posts
BlackBruin said:
Wow, I see no problem with state forest dmap. What's the big deal!
They greatly expand the number of doe tags allocated by the PGC for WMU's. Since deer don't live exclusively on State Forest land they should be part of the total number of anterless permits allocated by the PGC.

It looks like DCNR isn't following up on the mandatory reporting system either. Reporting rate for harvest/no harvest is less than 40%. It looks like they aren't policing the permit holder who fail to report otherwise there would likely be more fluctuation in the number of permits issued from one year to the next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,221 Posts
If they can look at the forest and see it is being browsed heavily, they issue more DMAP tags. It has nothing to do with reporting rates or how many WMU tags the PGC issues. Overbrowsing is overbrowsing. Either there are too many deer or there are not. The observation is based on the health of the plant community. The plants tell the story. Not deer population estimates, harvest estimates, or reporting rates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,874 Posts
Every DCNR district does miles and miles of browse impact surveys.They do the same transects every year,monitoring what's regenerating and how the deer are impacting it.Last year they took every unit out of dmap in Moshannon state forest because they startrd seeing better prefered regeneration and less impact by the deer.DCNR has a much better handle on the deer and habitat situation that any clueless politician.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,874 Posts
pappybear said:
BlackBruin said:
Wow, I see no problem with state forest dmap. What's the big deal!
They greatly expand the number of doe tags allocated by the PGC for WMU's. Since deer don't live exclusively on State Forest land they should be part of the total number of anterless permits allocated by the PGC.

It looks like DCNR isn't following up on the mandatory reporting system either. Reporting rate for harvest/no harvest is less than 40%. It looks like they aren't policing the permit holder who fail to report otherwise there would likely be more fluctuation in the number of permits issued from one year to the next.
They tried enforcing it the first year dmap was available.They wasted time and resources sending out letters to those that didn't report.In the end,they couldn't do anything about it due to the "lost in the mail" excuse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The DMAP harvest is also included in the harvest estimate now.

Look at that link in the second post of this thread for tags issued verse harvest. DMAP is a low percentage activity. The number of deer statewide and by WMU is very small in the big picture. But, DMAP does allow DCNR and private landowners to mange the land they own or control ofr the purposes they have in mind, or need to address.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
dce said:
Every DCNR district does miles and miles of browse impact surveys.They do the same transects every year,monitoring what's regenerating and how the deer are impacting it.Last year they took every unit out of dmap in Moshannon state forest because they startrd seeing better prefered regeneration and less impact by the deer.DCNR has a much better handle on the deer and habitat situation that any clueless politician.
absolutely!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,948 Posts
The DCNR does manage their land the way they see fit. If it was up to them, they would have no deer at all to interfere with their giant oak croplands that are the state forest. That is the truth of it. The DCNR does not give one hoot about hunter satisfaction or herd health. They care only about maximum productivity of their oak crop. Their version of a "healthy" forest is one that produces a maximum oak yield with as little intrusion from other species as possible, with the exception of cherry. Look at any forestry graphic of a healthy forest and then look at what grows in northern 2e or 2g. Anyone who hunts up that way, tell me I am wrong.
A DCNR forester will openly tell anyone out there that Striped Maple holds no cover or nutritional value for game. I have personally witnessed deer gorging on striped maple night in and night out all through summer. Striped Maple holds no timber value, which is why it is sprayed and killed year in and year out by the DCNR.
It is the inconsistencies in agenda that bothers me about DMAP on state forest lands, specifically Moshannon SF. They arent concerned with "habitat". They are concerned with their timber crop, and that is it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,276 Posts
Wow, after I thought I've heard it all. You'd rather have striped maple over oaks and cherry. I'm speechless.

You are so misguided its not even funny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
The DCNR does manage their land the way they see fit. If it was up to them, they would have no deer at all to interfere with their giant oak croplands that are the state forest.
Would you have it any other way? We hire these guys to grow our forest not raise our deer. We are lucky it is cheaper to let us help them with the deer problem than it is to do it any other way.

Their version of a "healthy" forest is one that produces a maximum oak yield with as little intrusion from other species as possible, with the exception of cherry.
I don't agree with that at all. However I would rather hunt a forest like that than one without oak and cherry.

A DCNR forester will openly tell anyone out there that Striped Maple holds no cover or nutritional value for game.
If he or she did they would be wrong. But it is more likely they would tell you that striped maple holds less nutritional value over the life time of the tree than oaks and that would true.

Striped Maple holds no timber value, which is why it is sprayed and killed year in and year out by the DCNR.
That is partially true. It hold no timber value. But the reason it is removed is because it prevents trees of both timber and nutritional value from growing as it could without the maple.

It is the inconsistencies in agenda that bothers me about DMAP on state forest lands, specifically Moshannon SF. They arent concerned with "habitat". They are concerned with their timber crop, and that is it.
That is their job to be concerned with the forest and the timber crop. The habitat aspect is secondary and coincidental to their task and goal. Waugh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,948 Posts
No, actually, that is not what I said. I said a healthy forest, I.E. many different kinds of plants and trees. Not what happens up in the great moshannon forest. I'm not saying I would rather have striped maple over oak and cherry. I am saying that I don't call killing a naturally occurring tree because it is of bad timber value maintaining a healthy forest. I call it farming high dollar lumber. Deer, striped maple, mountain laurel, they all get in the way of said crop. You can call me crazy if you want, but I have been working in those woods for many years and seen what goes on with my own eyes.

Case in point, on a spray job in 2006 I was told by a DCNR forester that striped maple is an invasive species and provides no nutritional value for wildlife.

See link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acer_pensylvanicum
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,948 Posts
I am not saying for one second that I do not want to see oak and cherry. I simply said that if it were up to the DCNR, that is all there would be, no undergrowth, no subgrowth, just oak and cherry. That IS NOT a healthy forest. Sorry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,221 Posts
The Moshannon is the poster child of decades of deer overbrowsing. I was shocked when they eliminated DMAP's for their district.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,874 Posts
GobbleBuck said:
The DCNR does manage their land the way they see fit. If it was up to them, they would have no deer at all to interfere with their giant oak croplands that are the state forest. That is the truth of it. The DCNR does not give one hoot about hunter satisfaction or herd health. They care only about maximum productivity of their oak crop. Their version of a "healthy" forest is one that produces a maximum oak yield with as little intrusion from other species as possible, with the exception of cherry. Look at any forestry graphic of a healthy forest and then look at what grows in northern 2e or 2g. Anyone who hunts up that way, tell me I am wrong.
A DCNR forester will openly tell anyone out there that Striped Maple holds no cover or nutritional value for game. I have personally witnessed deer gorging on striped maple night in and night out all through summer. Striped Maple holds no timber value, which is why it is sprayed and killed year in and year out by the DCNR.
It is the inconsistencies in agenda that bothers me about DMAP on state forest lands, specifically Moshannon SF. They arent concerned with "habitat". They are concerned with their timber crop, and that is it.
I can tell you for a fact that you're wrong.I've spent a lot of time with the District forester from Moshannon state forest that retired over a year ago.He's a serious hunter and cared a great deal about the deer and the habitat.Unfortunately,Moshannon state forest had way too many deer for way to long and the habitat took a beating as a result.The deer herd in that area needed drastically reduced.Now that the herd has been reduced and they're getting better regeneration,they took every single unit out of dmap.Not one area in Moshannon state forest(district 9) is enrolled so how can you possibly say they want every single deer dead?When it was dmap'd,I used to kill a minimum of 2 deer every year and never had a problem finding deer.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top