What is your problem?

Do you not want us to talk about hunting and the issues associated with hunting?

I'm not the only person in Pennsylvania that talks this way.

In fact I thought that I was one of the only people that felt this way until I started looking on the Internet for some answers and found that there were about 250,000 people in Pennsylvania asking the same questions as I was.

Most of them have the same theories as I do and the ones that didn't - seem to have stories that are exactly the same as mine.

I do not harbor any ill feelings towards the Game Commission as a whole. I only feel that they are doing a poor job of managing the game that was entrusted to them by my forefathers.

My Grandfathers fathers first farm is now part of State Game Lands 31 in Jefferson County - not 5 miles up the road from my home.

We are proud of the fact that our land was used for the good of the Commonwealth. It's when you look at it today and there is now 20 - 30 gas wells on it and there is roads everywhere that are not open to public travel - but are open for the gas companies and the timber companies.

As a matter of a fact, the main road through SGL 31 is locked 10 months out of the year. The only way to travel from one end to the other is by foot most of the time. 5 miles is a long way to carry a fishing pole or a shotgun in search of Turkeys or small game.

I have not seen a turkey or a deer in the last two months. Not even a dead one.

Unless someone on the Internet speaks about it, it might go unnoticed until it is too late.

I'm grateful that you gave us someplace where we could discuss our views and opinions and exchange opinions and ideas. So please don't get me wrong here. All that I am saying is why did you get so upset that we were talking about it? Why wouldn't you want people to talk about it?

I am a hunter, my life revolves around hunting and fishing and the outdoors. Unless we do something right now, I fear that there will be nothing left for future generations.

Thanks,
The Rifleman

Hi Rifleman,

I'd guess that your input would be a little more welcome here, when you drop all of the conspiracy theory stuff.... and get back to the deer management issues.

I'll be frank - you are avoiding the questions of how many acres it takes to raise a deer in PA. If you don't know - be man enough to admit it.

Once you can answer that - everything else will flow from there. It really is the font of knowledge when it comes to deer hunting, like it or not.

Once you know how many deer you CAN have, then you can have a discussion about how many deer you DO have, and that will lead to the answer of how many deer you SHOULD be taking every year in PA. One two three. Basic deer management, and I guarantee you the deer don't care how many gas wells you have or what brand of trucks the game wardens drive.

I'm afraid your rants about the issue have cost you some credibility.

We'll leave this open for a while, I'll discuss with the other mods. But you have got to hold up your end of the discussion.

If the other PA deer hunters here would like to express their opinions - they are absolutely welcome. I mean that. We all can learn.

But one more rant about the PA Game Commission screwing everyone, this will get locked and be a forever banned topic, I guarantee it.

Well said, Mike.

Rifleman - as Mike says, we grow weary of the same old hash without facts - just rants. The thread was going in circles as a sounding board to vent personal feelings against the game commission. Your attempt to restart with a new thread for the same old worn out topic without responding to a request for factual information was irritating. That's why it was locked down.

Mike wants to indulge you and other Pa. hunters on this issue, providing something fresh and new can be added.

That, in a nutshell, is our problem.

unfortunately here in pa there is no solution to fix the problem just more of the same from the pgc, raise license fees make a new stamp to charge for that then say there is no money to fix problem and oh yea what problem

Hi Rifleman,

I'd guess that your input would be a little more welcome here, when you drop all of the conspiracy theory stuff.... and get back to the deer management issues.

I'll be frank - you are avoiding the questions of how many acres it takes to raise a deer in PA. If you don't know - be man enough to admit it.

Once you can answer that - everything else will flow from there. It really is the font of knowledge when it comes to deer hunting, like it or not.

Once you know how many deer you CAN have, then you can have a discussion about how many deer you DO have, and that will lead to the answer of how many deer you SHOULD be taking every year in PA. One two three. Basic deer management, and I guarantee you the deer don't care how many gas wells you have or what brand of trucks the game wardens drive.

I'm afraid your rants about the issue have cost you some credibility.

We'll leave this open for a while, I'll discuss with the other mods. But you have got to hold up your end of the discussion.

If the other PA deer hunters here would like to express their opinions - they are absolutely welcome. I mean that. We all can learn.

But one more rant about the PA Game Commission screwing everyone, this will get locked and be a forever banned topic, I guarantee it.

MikeG,
I believe that I sent you or who ever it was that asked how many deer and how many I thought our ecosystem could handle in a personal message the other day.

I think all you want to do is be combative.

The answer is; the state can support about 1 deer per every 25 - 50 acres of woods / wet lands.

The reason I put it to you this way is because you do not seem to understand the territory in Pennsylvania - one-person - maybe it was you was from Texas - which is a very arid climate.

Pennsylvania is an excellent place for deer habitat.

My point was that the springtime is wet followed by a semi dry summer - maybe only rains once a week or once every two weeks in the summer, followed by a cold wet fall and harsh winters.

That is the reason why Pennsylvania is so desirable for its timber products.

Red oaks, maples. White oaks, popular, quaking aspen, conifers, birch, elm, black walnut, chestnut, red cherry, Osage orange, devils club, locust, and many other species of trees grows here.

Because of the climate, the growing season for trees is long.

Indiana County boasts that it is the Christmas tree capital of the world because they ship over 1 million Christmas trees a year.

There is 16.6 Million Acres of forestland covering 58% of the state. Along with another 83,161 miles of rivers and streams.
3956 lakes, reservoirs and ponds covering another 161,455 acres of land accessible to the public. Fresh water wet lands covering another 403, 724 acres of land.

The wood products paper and furniture industries contributes 15 billion annually to the states economy and employs over 81,000 people, with a payroll of $2.1 billion dollars per a year in this state.

4.6 Million people spend $3 Billion dollars per a year in Pennsylvania to fish, hunt and watch wildlife in Pennsylvania.

That means that the recreationalists spends more money than the timber companies pays their employees per a year.

Which means that if we loose our hunting capacity our economy will suffer to the point that the State will soon be bankrupt.

unfortunately here in pa there is no solution to fix the problem just more of the same from the pgc, raise license fees make a new stamp to charge for that then say there is no money to fix problem and oh yea what problem

Duane, that is exactly the kind of personal attack / conspiricy theory stuff we asked people to NOT post.

MikeG,
I believe that I sent you or who ever it was that asked how many deer and how many I thought our ecosystem could handle in a personal message the other day.

I think all you want to do is be combative.

The answer is; the state can support about 1 deer per every 25 - 50 acres of woods / wet lands.



Rifleman, I do not know who you sent the message to. I can tell you that my PM box is full and I have not had time to clean it out for several years. Sorry! So you did not PM me.

If you emailed me through the forum - again, I apologize, but the email feature is apparently not reliable. Some get emails and some don't.

I thank you for posting that information. I see no reason why it can't be public, anyway.

OK - it seems, by chance, that I guessed correctly on the acres per deer.

The entire state is 29,000,000 acres, correct? I found this figure on a search engine; if it's wrong, well, it would not be the first time that some incorrect information was posted on the Internet, LOL :rolleyes:

29,000,000 acres divided by 25 is 1,160,000

29,000,000 divided by 50 is of course half of that, 580,000

That is the size your deer herd should be, to be healthy, somewhere between those two numbers. Correct?

I think it is pretty obvious that if you guys were killing over 400,000 deer annually for decades (by hunters) and what, 50,000 more by cars (as reported in the media - I guess that's correct), and some more by winterkill, well..... you needed a much higher deer density to give you a half a million replacement deer a year.

Factor in fawn mortality, poaching, predators, the ones that just up and die from old age, disease, etc..... I'd guess your deer herd must have been somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million deer, or roughly, 50% - 100% too large.

That's why the habitat is being destroyed, the timber companies are trying to reduce deer, and the car insurance companies are buying coyotes by the trailerload.

I think it's important to the discussion to first understand where you guys need to be. If we're not in agreement on that point, there is no further discussion possible.

Now we move to step two, which is to find out how many deer you have.

Like Ranch Dog pointed out - you MUST have a scientific method for determining this. We use spotlight surveys here. I'm simply not aware of any other method for doing this.

I'm sorry but asking people how many deer they saw is simply not a reliable, scientific method.

If the reported kill numbers are ANYWHERE close to being correct - you guys are actually getting your herd in balance, and taking about the right number of deer. Maybe too many in some areas, and not enough in others, but you need the game commission to break these figures out at least by county to figure out what to do next.

I'm going to touch on one last thing. I know your points about the economic impact of all this are certainly correct. It is really going to hurt. I am not ignoring this. You are emotional about this and I think that made the exchange a bit more confrontational than it needed to be. That discussion, however, needs to be between you (and other PA hunters) and the legislature / game commission.

If they can't fix it to your satisfaction - you guys are going to have to do it like we do here - spend money out of your pockets to improve the habitat. That's the only way to increase the deer herd numbers.

I don't mean to be cold and cruel about this issue. But it really comes down to improving your state to support more deer. Who is going to do that, I don't know.

I truly wish you and the other hunters the best in getting this resolved. Again, this is not a Texas vs. PA thing and we are simply trying to help you guys based on our knowledge of how to get more and better deer. We really are.

By the way I used the 29 million acre figure, instead of only counting the forested / wetlands, because deer can and do live in the cities, suburbs, etc.

Of course if you use the 16 million acre figure, the numbers go down quite a bit.

Mike G:

The carrying capacity of the habitat in Pennsylvania is very different in different parts of the state. The northern woods, where I infer Rifleman lives, is very different from the southern farm areas where I hunt. For years some northern forests were overpopulated with deer resulting in a marked browse line, limited reproduction of fawn does and a litter size of only 1 fawn per doe. The farm areas supported many more deer per square mile, were well fed, the doe fawns usually bred and adult normally gave birth to 2 fawns per year. The food supply was not a limiting factor, but in some areas the damage to agricultural crops became excessive. On my farm, before the herd reduction, the soybeans would be eaten to within a few inches of the ground (when green) for a hundred yards from the forest edge. Now there is very little being eaten and the deer are scarce.

The problem, as I see it, is getting the northern herds back in balance with the habitat and managing the farm area herds for maximal production while keeping the crop damage to acceptable levels. The low levels of northern deer herds should help the forests recover so that a carrying capacity can be achieved greater than the carrying capacity of the forest during overpopulation. An even bigger problem will be for the Game Commission to regain the support of the hunters.

Changing from a county based to a management unit based antlerless license allocation and data collection basis is a step in the right direction. Selling the changes as a "quality management" scheme to get hunter support was in my opinion a big mistake. There is little doubt that the deer have been overharvested in most areas, but fine tuning the doe harvest can work to get a better control of population numbers.

There are a number wildlife management technigues to estimate the numbers of deer other than spotlight counts. However, they are labor intensive and so not cheap.

Although the revenue to Pennsylvania appears (at first glance to be high), the licenses fees are dirt cheap. Although I own a farm in Pennsylvania, I must buy a non-resident license to hunt it (and wait until all first draw resident antlerless licenses are awarded before I can apply for a non-resident antlerless license to hunt my own farm). The non-resident license (good for small game, buck deer, spring and fall turkey) is $101 (resident is $13). The comparable combination of resident Colorado licenses is $92 for residents and $567 for non-residents. Both the Pennsylvania non-resident antlerless deer and bear licenses are less expensive than the comparable resident Colorado licenses.

Are the Pennsylvania resident hunters willing to pay the costs of better management?

Irv,

I wholeheartedly agree that the habitat management needs to be done in much smaller units than statewide, and the density numbers of course should reflect this.

What we do here, for example, is not only include the deer numbers seen on a property, but also calculate the amount of open land (pasture) vs. wooded / brush.

Those percentages are worked back into the numbers so not only are the estimates better, the TPWD can give very specific recommendations for each property (as well as a general county-wide estimate for those properties not participating in the survey).

FYI, the reason I hammered on the density numbers over and over again is that for us to have a meaningful discussion, we MUST first have some common ground. Doesn't matter if it's a formal debate, casual conversation, argument, marriage, bar fight, whatever - that is a basic rule of negotiation. When we can agree on the overall herd numbers and harvest goals, the rest gets a whole lot easier.

I also agree that the quality deer management is a separate issue from the density issue. I doubt if it was well explained to the hunters.

Your last sentence sums it up very well.

Are the Pennsylvania resident hunters willing to pay the costs of better management?

Rifleman,
I believe it was me that you PM'ed on the Pennsylvania deer post. I didn't respond through the PM, I responded through the main thread. But in all of the responses that this generated, I think it was taken the wrong way. That was not my intention.
The basic problem is that you may have a limited resource to begin with.

There are many ways to manage your deer herd, but you need to get the right folks together to make that happen. The state, hunters and the loggers. If your figures on economic impact from the hunting community are right, then no state politician could turn his back on you.
We have an excellent game & fish department because we as sportsmen make a huge $$ impact on Texas.

I got off that thread because it seemed there were a few posters with chips on their shoulders about this issue. It wasn't going to go anywhere. My brain tells me that this thread will be no different.

But here's a thought for you. The lease I manage down here on a scale of 10, I would give it a 7.5 to 8 score.

With our deer per acre, the state says that we could kill one mature buck per 500 acres. Those are trophy bucks, not culls. But all of our hunters have agreed to the same conditions with higher standards. We average one buck per 800 acres.. That means that all 21 hunters will not kill a trophy buck every year. But they will see 30-40-50 good bucks during the season, they will kill their two doe if they want and Lord knows how many hogs and turkey. There are thousands.
With supplemental year round feeding, we are seeing better racks every year. 130 class bucks are common. No one is complaining about these rules because no one wants to kill bucks where you cut off the horns and throw them on the garage floor, we all want trophy bucks. Something to be proud of.

This ranch is within 1 1/2 hour of a huge metroplex.
The hunters pay, depending on the pasture, anywhere from $1500.00 to $2250.00 per gun, plus they provide the feed. They hunt every week-end for three months and another month during spring. They spend a lot of money on their hobby. Believe me when I tell you that this is not that high of a figure.
I use to work in Philadelphia, and there was a neighborhood bar on every corner. I was with guys who I know spent $50.00 per week-end just on beer. That will scare $2500.00 per year real quick.
Those of us who are serious about our hobby, do spend money on it. THat's the way it is.

Opinions are okay, but they are nothing to base a state wide deer management program on.

As I said before, I really hope that it works out for you guys.

Here is a "deer map" from the Quality Deer Management Association. PA has an average density of one deer per 29 acres (+/- by county).

I've spent some time on that web site reading what the biologist's and others interested in quality deer management (and not all hunters are interested in that) are saying about the health of the PA deer heard. Most of the management controversy stems from public land only having 1 deer per 71 acres. Sounds like the National and State forest lands need to turn to a permitted kill (buck and doe tags) if that habitat will support more deer.

As I quickly read the text on the various threads I found no mention of the buck to doe ratio (or missed it).

The one thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was the habit regeneration figure. It stands at only 44% but is up from the 24% at the start of the doe reduction program. PA hunters, that's simply awful. As a landmanager I can assure you that your deer hunting does not have a future. Here in Texas, if it's not over 100% we start killing deer. The deer we kill are does! If you don't want to shoot does, don't worry about it because with this regeneration rate mother nature is going to take care of it. As I write these words deer aren't filling bellies and reproductive systems are shutting down to conserve what food the deer are seeing at the jaw. It is already cast in stone, you will see less deer this year than you did last year because your deer herd is exceeding the carrying capacity of the land and you did nothing about it.

We are starting to get someplace here but now is the time to explain some things to you.

First off, Pennsylvania is not a lease.

You cannot control the number of hunters per a acre or a square mile.

Country folk hunters will go back to the same old tree that their daddy stood beside when he got his big buck in 1955.

You cannot get them to move until all the deer are gone from that area. By the time that it does happen, most of them will quit hunting before they are willing to move to a different area.

It is not a matter of how many deer per a square mile or acre.

When you have factors - such as poachers - a person that shoots more than the limit.

When you have people that shoots does on the first day of the season - because all they want is the meat.

City Slickers are only out for one thing, a good time.
They are willing to travel to where ever they have to go to get a deer or be successful - because they have more of a disposable income to spend.

When you have a system where people can hunt doe's in more than one county - but not on different sides of the highway.

Then you have a problem.

I live in a area called 2D

I know that it is comprised of parts of Jefferson, Armstorong, Westmoreland, Venango, Clarion County, Indiana County. any hunter with a 2D permit can shoot antlerless deer in any area in that part of the management area.

Where as with the old County System - if you had a permit for Jefferson County, you could only hunt Jefferson County.

Now with the new system in effect, when you clean out your favorite hunting spot, you can get in your vehicle and drive down the road to the next county and clean out my favorite spot also.

The greed drives people to do strange things.

Add to that - the fact that since PETA and all the crazy women that said that they did not want to wear furs anymore and did not want them poor little animals hurt. Stopped buying real furs and the trapping industry came to a stand still.

Most if not all of the fur industry has left Pennsylvania.

Back when I was a kid, I can remember when there was bountys on different animals. Now some such as weasels and opossums was only $.50 It still was a incentive to trap furs.

$.50 bought you two bottles of Mountain Dew or Coke or Pepsi in a returnable bottle.

Some Hawks had bountys on them along with other predator animals.

The system of checks and balances was in place and there seem'd to be lots of game.

Rabbits, grouse, deer, turkeys, squirrels, phesants

We are starting to get someplace here but now is the time to explain some things to you.

First off, Pennsylvania is not a lease.



It will be. I guarantee it.



You cannot control the number of hunters per a acre or a square mile.



Yes you can. You issue tags for public hunting areas. And the landowner or lease manager can (must!) control the number of hunters. No permission .... you are trespassing and call the law. That simple.



Country folk hunters will go back to the same old tree that their daddy stood beside when he got his big buck in 1955.



See above.



It is not a matter of how many deer per a square mile or acre.



You are partially correct. It is a combination of deer per square mile, and hunters per square mile.



When you have factors - such as poachers - a person that shoots more than the limit.



Every state has this problem. That's why we have game wardens, laws, etc.... I don't mean to be flip, but you keep pointing out all these 'problems' that simply are not unique to PA. They aren't the cause of your problems and the cure is the same everywhere.



When you have people that shoots does on the first day of the season - because all they want is the meat.



Shooting a doe the first day of the season, or the last day of the season, has the same net effect on the population. I fail to see how this is relevant, nor the next two paragraphs that I did not copy into the reply.



Now with the new system in effect, when you clean out your favorite hunting spot, you can get in your vehicle and drive down the road to the next county and clean out my favorite spot also.



If the state is issuing too many tags for the area - that is the problem you need to take up with the state. Ask them for their deer / habitat numbers, how many tags they are issuing, the success ratio, etc., and then take the conversation from there.




Most if not all of the fur industry has left Pennsylvania.



The rest of the country - likewise. Fur prices are down, that is why people aren't trapping. Again, not a issue unique to PA. Go predator hunting and encourage your friends to do the same, if you feel it will make a difference.



Some Hawks had bountys on them along with other predator animals.



I believe all raptors are federally protected. Not much the game commission can do about that.....

I'm sorry to have to pick apart all of your posts. However, many of the 'issues' that you are talking about, are simply not relevant to deer hunting, not unique to PA, or far beyond the control of the game commission.

More later when I think about this further.

Further thoughts -

I have sat down and read an aticle in the American Hunter magazine, about shooting such-and-such in Africa. The author goes on and on about how the trophy fees ecourage the locals to not poach and protect the game, because it's a better deal for them to let the (lawful) hunters shoot the critters.

Then a few pages over there is a vitrolic letter to the editor, denouncing hunting leases in this country as being the end of all sport hunting, etc.

Hmmm.

What do you suppose the hunting lease does? It takes a non-productive (even destructive at times) asset, and turns it into something valuable to the landowner.

My father-in-law, from another state that shall remain nameless, talks about farmer shooting deer and leaving them to rot in the fields via lawful depredation permits. He sure would like to see those deer available to the hunters!

Then in the next breath, he sure doesn't have good things to say about landowners leasing their property to out-of-town hunters, and kicking all the locals off.

He can't see any irony in his two opinions.

When the landowner assigns no value to the deer - do you think they will lift a finger to help the deer herd?

When the landowner sees the deer as a valuable, productive resource, do you think they will expend some effort to ensure a quality deer herd?

For public land hunting, of course, the solution is different - to simply limit the amount of hunters.

Here is a "deer map" from the Quality Deer Management Association. PA has an average density of one deer per 29 acres (+/- by county).

I've spent some time on that web site reading what the biologist's and others interested in quality deer management (and not all hunters are interested in that) are saying about the health of the PA deer heard. Most of the management controversy stems from public land only having 1 deer per 71 acres. Sounds like the National and State forest lands need to turn to a permitted kill (buck and doe tags) if that habitat will support more deer.

As I quickly read the text on the various threads I found no mention of the buck to doe ratio (or missed it).

The one thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was the habit regeneration figure. It stands at only 44% but is up from the 24% at the start of the doe reduction program. PA hunters, that's simply awful. As a landmanager I can assure you that your deer hunting does not have a future. Here in Texas, if it's not over 100% we start killing deer. The deer we kill are does! If you don't want to shoot does, don't worry about it because with this regeneration rate mother nature is going to take care of it. As I write these words deer aren't filling bellies and reproductive systems are shutting down to conserve what food the deer are seeing at the jaw. It is already cast in stone, you will see less deer this year than you did last year because your deer herd is exceeding the carrying capacity of the land and you did nothing about it.Good Job, Dog.
That pretty well explains it all. Wonder if anyone is listening?

Let me put it to you like this.

You cannot believe the propoganda that the Pennsylvania Game Commission puts out.

Basically what you are saying is that if you cut down a tree - you want 100 percent of the saplings that sprout out of the ground to grow.

We all know that is not a realistic number.

Reason that we know that is because of what I learned studing the second world war.

There was a battle that took place in the first world war - in a little place called the argon forest.

Again in the second world war there was a battle in a place called the Argon Forest.

Now if the trees were damaged by the shelling and the troops that would have had to cut down the trees for firewood and protection - wouldn't you think that they could not have reproduced in a time span of about 25 years.

The Argon Forest was purposely planted by humans and not left to reproduce by iteself - like we did up until about 20 years ago when we harvested trees in the forests.

The trees were planted a exact distance apart - so as to optimize the light from the sun. When trees are too close together - the canopy will not let the light in for the smaller trees to develope and they will not grow.

If you enter a forest and all you see growing on the forest floor is ferns - then you know you have a unbalanced ecosystem.

The reason being is that the canopy is to thick and the light is not reaching the forest floor and new plants cannot reproduce.

The way to solve that it to log it out and start over.

We actually plant more trees in the National Forests than what we take out today according to all the literature that I have been reading that was published by the National Forest Service.

I am not for the loggers stealing the timber for themselves and filling their pockets with money and leaving.

I was ran over by a logging companies truck 9 years ago and I have only worked about 9 months since then because of ruptured discs in my lower back. If anyone was against the logging industry - it would be me. Considering that I took a $100,000 setttlement out of court and signed off all medical rights for the rest of my life and now I cannot go back to my previous occuaption - Carpentry and I cannot make a liveable wage.

On the other hand, if you take away the last thing that gives me any enjoyment - hunting - you might as well shoot me right now and get it done and over with.

Private Property is logged on a regular basis because the land owners needs money to support the amount of expense involved in the ownership of land. Taxes, school taxes, insurance etc...

Where as the Federal Government used the money from the sale of timber to finance the country up until the 1960's when people started complaining about our natural resources and how we needed to protect them for future generations.

A forest is a renewable resource. It will grow back as long as you are willing to give it time.

You cannot expect the deer not to eat the trees.

However, I can show you many places where the state has put up fences and chased out all the deer in a experiment to see if the deer are actually making a impact on our forests.

As far as I can see, there are just as many trees growing outside the fence as there are trees growing inside the fence and all the talk about the deer damaging the trees is a bunch of hooey.

Rifleman, let's try this another way.

If you have finally gotten some control over the deer herd, the next thing you need control over is the number of deer hunters.

The herd got reduced by about half. The numbers you provided confirmed this needed to be done. Even you can't argue that. We can debate whether it is 900,000 deer or 1,000,000 deer, or 1,100,000 deer. But we are past debating whether it should be 1,000,000 deer, or 2,000,000 deer.

I suspect that the number of deer hunters needs to be reduced, also by about half.

You can reduce that by issuing fewer tags, raising the price of tags, or some combination of both.

I'm sorry if you can't afford any more expenses regarding deer hunting, but the world economy is not going to stop for you.

Supply and demand. Fewer deer = more expensive deer.

Deer economics are no different than any consumer goods.

A million deer hunters can't go deer hunting when there are only a million deer, and everyone go home happy (or have any deer left). Half a million of them need to hunt somewhere else, or take up golf.

I take it, you'd prefer to draw for tags, so as not to raise the expense. That's an issue you need to take up with your fellow deer hunters, elected officials, and the game commissioners.

Good luck with that.

The day may be coming when Pa. and other eastern states will have to do as a lot of western states where the hunters outnumber the game - start going to a draw system for limited numbers of tags for each area.

As an example, in Arizona the local game warden will survey and recommend the commission issue "X" number of permits for an upcoming season for ALL big game species (javelina, turkey, deer, bear, antelope, elk, bighorn, buffalo) that are unique to that area. Some areas are further broken down to "X" number of tags for archery, handgun, muzzleloader, youth, antlered and antleress. When you apply per species, you have 5 choices of hunt numbers to chose from, which are controlled by staggered by open/close dates and area. This keeps hunters spread out over a couple of months with restricted numbers in any given area at any given time.

It DOES NOT stop recreationists from using the same areas for non-hunting purposes (camping, hiking, atv'ing, horseback riding, etc) Prime hunting seasons are prime recreating times, also. The state has a hunter harassment law, but that doesn't stop folks from sharing the woods with the hunters and spooking game.

We don't have the luxury of over-the-counter tags except for cougars and small game. Everything else is tightly controlled by restricted draw applications. Each year you apply but don't get drawn (happens frequently), you earn a "bonus point" which supposedly enters your name in the random draw as many times as you have bonus points for the next year's drawing. Sometimes you go for years without getting drawn while others seem to get drawn year after year. Nothing you can do about it, though.

You might want to mull over the above and see if you would accept such an arrangement to better manage your hunting in your area, or just let it keep on going in the direction it seems to be heading.

Midwest too. Both Missouri and Kansas have had draws for tags for years. In Missouri in the areas where my relatives hunt, they pretty much get the tags they want, but that is due to low hunter density (and I would have to credit the MDC as well for doing a good job with the resources). I am pretty sure Colorado started tags for mule deer and elk too, although they could be bought over the counter as late as 1995.

Nobody in the country is going to be able to avoid this issue, eventually.

perhaps i can also add some info that has had a significant effect in my home area. a local farmer has rented some property behind my house to plant vegetables. as plants start coming up he claims deer damage to us and has his farm hands shoot deer by spotlight well after dark. he has no permit or any special permissions to do this. the land owner does not allow hunting on the property. the pgc had been called on a regular basis for 3 years, nothing was done thus my discontent for the pgc as this farmer was shooting deer past 10:30pm no more than 75 yds from my house and 4 other houses. again this formed my discontent for the pgc. later we got a game warden from 2 counties over involved he is kind of a stickler and after camping out in our neighborhood for two days he nailed the farmer who had 3 deer and a fox all shot in the name of crop damage. during a later investigation owls, and a blue heron were found shot in the name of crop damage. when all this was looked at along with the 60 some gut shot deer that were found on a neighboring lease shot by his brother they were told to stop. THAT IS IT!stop. my disdain and so called personal attack against the pgc is not a personal attack but found in actual happenings and i am sorry if you do not like that but this is to have a conversation about the facts and when they are not willing to enforce the simplest laws such as safety zone,no night hunting for anyone and poaching i cannot support anything they do until they do it right

I haven't weighed in on this subject, including the other Magna Carta thread, because currently I'm not a PA resident. However, at one time I was and grew up in Susquehana county PA. At that time, 1950- early 1990's, deer were very plentiful and "everyone got their deer" (residents) plus more. The deer herd was plentiful and road kills were frequent. In the 70's, there were more & more cars (late 80's) with Jersey & NY plates showing up. It finally got to the point where you couldn't get a seat at the diner for breakfast and opening hour sounded like Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. Eventually, it looked like there was "a hunter behind every tree". In the early 90's, me & the guys just didn't go out openning day (didn't want to get shot), we went walleye fishing on the Susquehana River. Everywhere you went, there was a hunter with a gun. Also, the hunters were in "packs" driving deer...it was legal in PA for humans to drive deer. So, you would station some hunters on a forest line & a bunch of guys would start on the other side of the woods and drive the deer to the hunters. The non-residents knew this and showed up in the appropriate group size. Although I'm sure that some non-residents don't get permits, I've never read where PA ran out of non-resident permits. Between the residents and non-residents, you just have too many hunters and habitat that won't support a larger deer herd.

I'm just supporting what the moderators are saying, above.

Best,
Dan

P.S. I'm happy now. Up here in the northern Adirondacks, there were only 68 bucks harvested this year in the "town". Not one under 200lbs., but if you want to hunt here, ya' have to be in real good shape just to make the hike in. Dragging the deer out is a real Olympic feat. There's not a lot of deer due to the severe winter kill, but what survives are monsters. Woods are very thick, very cold, tough to maneuver through, rugged up& down and just plain miserable. But, you're alone and the deer are BIG. This is 444/45-70 territory!

Duane, you need to be having conversations with the county prosecutor about this....

I strongly suspect that all of the official investigation into the incident, is a matter of public record. Get a copy, and go from there. You have the right.

First off thank you for reading into this a little further.

Now the plot thickens

Instead of limiting the amount of hunters on the State Forest lands and the National Forest lands.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission has issued DMAP permits - which gives an unlimited amount of doe tags to any hunter that wishes to hunt in one of these areas.

So basically what they are saying is that they would love to eradicate all of the deer off these areas so they can get back to growing timber.

Because it is not affecting their pocket book when the hunters no longer go to the big woods to get a deer. They do not care if you wipe them off the face of the earth.

A very good point is Cooks Forest. In 1976 my family and I went on a vacation to Lake Erie - Erie PA and on our way home my mom decided to stop off at a relatives house for a short visit.

If we would not have stopped at the relatives house - we would have been in Cooks Forest when the Tornado went through - there is no doubt in my mind.

When we did get there, they were cutting pine trees off the road to make it passable to automobile traffic.

That tornado was one of the first ones that came through Pennsylvania that did not just touch down on the mountain tops - but was more like a bulldozer. It went from the tops of the hills to the bottom and cut a swath like a scythe..

Yesterday we were traveling through Cooks Forest - the last known stand of Old Growth - Virgin White Pine and Hemlock on the east coast. I noticed something different, where the tornado went through. The small trees were so thick that you could not even see through them. You could not walk through them and you definitely could drive a bulldozer through them.

Those trees reproduced by themselves, because over the years Mother Nature dropped pinecones on the ground and the seeds were in the soil. All it really needed was sunlight to make them grow.

http://www.cookforest.com/activities/natural-resources.cfm

As for the Pennsylvania Game Commission and their farmers program.

The State of Pennsylvania will pay the expense to any farmer to put up an electrified deer fence to keep out unwanted deer and animals.

Unfortunately that is a very expensive proposition, it is usually only done for apple farmers and beekeepers.

The other farmers have agreements with the state as to how many acres that they own and how much crop damage they experience and how many deer per a month they are allowed to shoot.

I heard stories when I was in high school back in the early 80's of farmers that were allowed to shoot as many as 30 deer per a month.

Most of the farmers allowed hunters to harvest deer on their property in order to keep deer numbers in check.

Then there are the dope farmers - that are growing marijuana in with their corn - that do not want the public on their property and do not want the public to see how many deer per a month that they shoot.

They will shoot deer and just leave them lay.

One game warden did prosecute in one such case, and the farmer got into trouble because they shot over 120 deer and 4 black bears, and did not report it to the game commission and the game commission came back and said that they should have donated the meat to needy people, food banks and what ever to properly dispose of the deer and put it to good use instead of just letting it rot in their fields.

In my neck of the woods - there was a farmer that shot over 300 deer in one year. Now there are no more deer of a appreciate able numbers in an area that is known as Burkett Hollow - because of the needless slaughter that went on there 6 years ago.

The farmer was within his rights to shoot a couple of deer per a month for crop damage, but not that many. But that was about the time of the RED TAG PERMITS.

When a man that is the Adult Probation Officer for Jefferson County tells you the story and his family owned a large part of the land 100 + years ago and his family lives right there. You cannot doubt that the story was not true.

If anyone could have gotten in trouble for this - you know that this man's family would have been the one for shooting the deer. Because the Adult Probation Officer had the political connections to get them people in trouble.

But nothing happened because it was cheaper for the game commission to let them shoot as many deer as possible with the RED TAG SYSTEM - then to pay the farmer for CROP DAMAGE.

Well...................

This thread is right back where it started - a rant about the Pa. game commission.

Unless someone will bring fresh information or opinions, this thread too, will be closed.

Why did that log truck run you over....?

The PA game commission realized that they needed better control of where deer were hunted heavily and where to ease up on hunting, and finally changed from issuing doe tags by county to using deer management units. The big problem is that they made the management units way too big. Each unit covers too much area of differing deer habitat. In the southeast part of the state we have a lot of deer, just not in areas where many people can get permission to hunt. Valley Forge park is loaded, the suburbs are loaded near the housing developments, but where there is enough room to hunt they have been eradicated.

Guys, this is kinda sad.

Deer hunting is allegedly important to you, but you can't spend 39 cents, or whatever, on a letter to the county prosecutor to find out what the resolution of a case is?

If you don't agree with the depredation laws - get them changed. I'll bet most states have depredation laws. By the way - if the deer were more valuable to the farmers than the crops that were damaged - they'd save them for the hunters. Same with the timber companies. It's just economics.

If the management units are too big - start writing letters and calling elected officials. That's a huge problem right there. Joe, that was good information, and the sort of thing that I hoped this thread would bring out.

Too many tags - same. But you PA hunters are going to have to take the lead on this issue. If you don't it will get solved for you one way or the other, and you may not like the solution.

Deer mangement is here to stay. The information isn't hard to get, either. I looked up some of it on your game commission web site, and Ranch Dog found more. TPV contributed deer management information too, and honestly, I forget who all else. We really did try to help you guys understand what is happening, and why.... but I'm getting a lot of second and third hand stories, conspiracy theories, and complaining for my efforts. It doesn't even matter if they are true. The end result is exactly the same, if you don't put any effort into this.

By the way you will have substantially more credibility with whomever you communicate, if you are educated a bit on the density issues and whatnot. Call them up with your conspiracy theories and rants, and you get a polite thanks, if that, and end of conversation. Start asking detailed questions on densities, herd estimates, number of hunters, etc., etc, and you'll have a productive conversation.

Volunteer your time to help do deer surveys. I guarantee they need manpower. There's no end to the things you can do to help out, but none of them involve arguing about it on this forum.

Get off your butts and do something besides complain. I wish you luck, but luck isn't going to solve this problem.

Ok, don't have time to read the entire thread at the moment but I saw an article in the Patriot News (www.pennlive.com, don't know if the article is online or not) on Sunday where the statistics from the PA Dep of Conservation of Natural resources were published. I don't have all the details in front of me but the jist was, at the beginning of the new management program there were approx 22 deer per square mile, now there are something like 9.73 deer per square mile. These numbers are from a FLIR survey by a state agency. My biggest gripe is that the game commision get complaints that the deer aren't there like they used to be, so instead of explaining their theories or why it is this way there answer is usually something like "they're still there, you just aren't hunting deep enough" Well according to DCNR we have reduced the herd by over 50%. If this is the way hunting has to be so be it, but my gripe is I would like some transparency from the game commission.
I am still trying to learn and apply other states experience/knowledge to my situation.

Rifleman, I understand your frustration, I am frustrated too, but that is no excuse to be rude to the Moderators and others, I have been a member here for a long time (not as long as some, but longer than most) and believe me, the moderators ARE good people, I have a lot of respect for them and the job they do, you don't have to agree with them, but at least be respectful, They are trying to be helpful and help us understand what has worked in Texas and why it worked.

I'd like to post more questions/info/comments later if the thread stays open long enough

JB, I'll agree that the PA G.C. hasn't done a good job explaining this. It's pretty bad when you have to look to people out of state to get some idea of what is going on and what deer management is. Not only do they have a difficult job managing the deer herd, they have an equally important (and difficult) job educating the hunters.

However.... if they are getting some of the knee-jerk responses that we got in this thread, I can see how they would get defensive about the whole thing. Doesn't excuse the lack of information, but it is human nature (unfortunately) to get defensive and clam up when attacked. I read in the American Hunter that Gary Alt was getting death threats. That is a pretty sad commentary on our times, when the person trying to help gets that sort of welcome.

Hunters insisted on the Pittman-Roberson act being implemented to save disappearing game populations. You guys are going to have to do a mini-version of that..... go to the G.C. and insist that they start implementing the next strategies: limiting numbers of hunters in particular management areas, smaller areas if needed, fewer tags if needed, increase license fees to cover costs (and frankly to thin out the hunters somewhat), or start drawing for tags, etc., etc. By the way our out of state hunting license (with tags included) is about $250 I think....

I'll repeat something I touched on earlier - reducing the deer herd by some amount doesn't reduce the amount of deer seen during deer season by that exact amount also. They will sit tight if they can, that's what prey animals do. Drop the herd in half and I'd be surprised if you saw a quarter as many deer. Here, there are two times of the year when you just don't see hardly any deer - right in spring when things first green up, and right when the acorns drop. They don't have to move 5 feet to eat, why should they?

Every year, the guys I know who use game cameras get pictures of bucks on film, that nobody ever sees in the season. And they're back the next year, too.

Your questions are always welcome, JB.

A big part of the GC's problem is the hunters never saw a problem. The hunters were pretty universally happy before the new management plan, the biggest rub was with the antler restrictions because the majority of the buck we saw were spikes and 4's. After about 2 years people started to realize, Oh crap, we killed all the deer, we aren't seeing them like we used to. Here comes the second part of the problem, hunters start going to the game commision and saying we don't like it anymore, we need to slow down the harvest, and they say screw you, we don't care what you want, you'll take it and like it and by the way, we want more money, so the hunters respond by saying why do I want to go sit in the woods and not see anything, screw them and they don't buy a license, Now the game commission says well, license sales are down by double digit percentages, must be the fact that we are required to have hunters SSN's on their liscense application (proof to how they fool themselves)(incidentally, I think we have had 2 straight years of declining license sales in the double digit percentages, Could be wrong), then it dawns on them that they are headed towards going broke, so they run to the legislature to ask for a license increase, the legislature says you won't get a license increse until you start to listen to the hunters, but they continue to ignore the hunters and complain that they are under funded. If the game commission cares more about a quality deer herd than money, they sure the heck aren't showing it.

I don't know much about the bear management program, but from what I heard, back in the late 70's and early 80's (before my time) the bear were pretty scares, so they closed the season and limited tags and now PA is becoming a trophy bear state, seems to me the same logic would apply to deer management.

Failed to mention the GC does have a Landowner Mangament Assitance program. The program is, you can have a tag for every 5 agricultural acres or one tag for every 50 acres for other land owners. The only restriction is that it has to be land open to the public and the tags are for doe/button bucks only. http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&q=158749
If I did the math right, 9.73 deer/sq mi equals about 66acre/deer so on farm lands you have 13 tags per deer which doesn't seem logical to me. Plus if you figure a 1:1 ratio, wouldn't that mean that you would have 1 doe in every 132 acres bringing it to 26.4 tags for every doe on farm land or 2.64 tags per doe on other land.

This seems to be the latest revision of theh position paper from the game commission on deer management, but I can't find any information on the practical application of these criteria/standard on the individual WMU's on the website
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/management_plan4_06.pdf

Our Game Commission is mostly unresponsive to the wants or needs of hunters. Their web site isn't indicative of anything except tell 'em what they want to hear. I wasn't in favor of Gary Alts plan from the first time I read of it. My thoughts about antler restrictions run similarly to those of Texas. We took the course almost opposite of you Texans as we are required to pass on inferior racked deer. I said then and still say shoot the spike bucks, small three and four point and one-antlered deer, of which we have many. Leave the larger racked deer alone for a few years to enable them to pass on their genes. That would have been good for the total herd. I spoke with Gary Alt (he called me after a letter to the editor) and the man seemed rabid and paranoid. His mind-set was that all spike bucks are yearlings and thus next years trophy. I told him that wasn't true and some spikes were that way because of their genetics. How dare I, with no degree in game management, suggest his plan was the wrong approach? I knew of one buck in particular that had an 8 point rack his first year, and he was easily recognized because he was about 50-50 white & brown. Very distinctive. I became less of a fan of Alt on that evening.

And, yes it is very difficult to not slam the PGC. Most here don't believe anything told by them. The PGC touts the game lands but the name is now a misnomer. They should now be called timber lands. Too small to harvest and too large to allow any underbrush to grow. Massive clear cutting is needed but doesn't seem to happen.

Yes, changes are here and sadly they will never return to the way we had it in previous years. Sad times for traditional Pennsylvania hunters.

Hey, Mike -

The non-res deer license is $300, plus another $5 if you buy off the internet.

'Course, this license covers all kinds of whitetail and mule deer, plus 4 turkeys and all the small game you're entitled to and unlimited varmits.

I'm almost to the point of just biding my time until we have a huntable population of wild hogs

One thing that no one mentioned was the FACT that Gary Alt was the person that brought back Bear Season and did lot's of studies on bears.

When the PGC found its self in trouble, they called in Gary Alt to help.

Gary Alt was the Sacrificial Lamb of the whole affair.

First thing they did was honoring him with an Honorary Doctorate Degree - to make him sound more important.

Second thing they did was to tell the hunters that they were going to take away the system of County Management because there were too many counties to manage.

Third thing they did was implement an antler restriction - in hopes that the older hunters would turn down small bucks - so that the junior hunters could harvest them. Which they did = only there is no way to tell who shot a deer when it is out in the woods and nobody is looking.

Then they got their license increase and they implemented even more antler restrictions - which led to bigger antler deer being shot for a year or two - but less deer in general in the woods.

When the number of deer decreased until people were not seeing deer anymore - then the local hunters said why should we buy a license to see nothing. Out of town hunters had parties and tore up and burned their doe tags in hopes of stopping the slaughter of antlerless deer.

That is about as stupid as buying a new car and driving it into a telephone pole.

The part about not wanting to give their sos number is hog wash - a propaganda move by the PGC to cover their tracks about there not being any deer.

The deer are still here, just that they are no longer in the traditional places. When you go 30 miles south of I 80 = you can find deer. The deer in the Northern Counties - North of I 80 are hurting.

Gary Alt retired he did not quit!
They knew his schedule and knew that he was going to retire and gave him the scapegoat job of changing the way we hunted deer in Pennsylvania.

The amount of antlerless licenses has not decreased; they just changed the names of them to suit the demands of the hunters. There is no law as to where you can hunt at - anybody can go anywhere and shoot a buck.

Anybody can apply anywhere and get an antlerless license. Most people can send for and get a bonus license. So how do you figure that you are going to control the amount of antlerless licenses being used in a certain area when there is an unlimited supply?

Most counties have a State Park or a State Forest or Allegheny National Forest - north of I 80 and within 30 miles south of I 80 - and there is an unlimited supply of DMAP permits available to shoot does.

Farms can apply for and get as many Red Tag Permits as they want, and the hunters do not even have to pay for them.
Like others have said, you leave it open for the regular seasons and after the seasons are over - they assess the property and if there are still deer there - they issue permits until the hunters quits coming or the deer are gone.

With the Red Tag system, there are no laws as to how the deer are to be shot.. You can use bait, you can use a spotlight, you can shoot in safety zones, you can shoot out the window of your vehicle, and you can shoot off your ATV.

All the PGC is concerned with is getting rid of the crop damage deer. Not having to pay for crop damage and keeping the farmers happy.

The regular system of a guaranteed license for a Landowner Antlerless Deer License is for anyone that owns more than 50 acres and keeps it open for hunting.

You cannot add the acres up and get more than one tag per a year. If you own 500 acres - you still only get one guaranteed Antlerless Deer License. It's for the Landowner or any member of his or her family - and it is not transferable.

They have to go to the courthouse with their deed or a copy of their taxes and apply for it - over the counter. They do not have to wait for a drawing to receive their license. It is issued on the spot.

Gary Alt was not a deer biologist - by trade, he was a bear biologist.

The PGC's thought was that he had done such a good job of restoring the bear population to the point that there was adequate numbers to resume hunting them that he was the best candidate to fix the deer situation in PA.

The original reason for antler restrictions that they gave was because of declining numbers of Junior Hunters - less than 18 years old.

They felt that if you gave them unlimited opportunities to shoot does and also let them shoot the subordinate bucks that it would be an enticement to get them to adapt to modern hunting.

With all the competition from sports in the schools to video games - where they get instant gratification without leaving the comfort of their own homes to single parent homes where they kids are not growing up with a father in the house or a role model to take them hunting anymore.

The PGC has relaxed their rules to the point where there are now Youth Hunts where they do not even need a license - and also mentored hunts where you take a kid hunting and they give you special early seasons and also where you can let a little kid shoot your Spring Gobbler if you want.

There are hunters out there that think that this is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

There are also hunters that will tell you that with all the liabilities out there today - where people are so eager to sue someone when something goes wrong or an accident happens that they do not want strangers on their land and they do not want to take a kid hunting and also to the point of where people are only out for themselves

Steelbanger, on our antler restrictions here, it's one unbranched antler, or better than 13" spread and 8 points. Stuff in between gets to walk.

So anything that was a spike on one or both sides could be killed in the restricted areas.

Not everybody agrees on the spike issue - but you sort of have to draw the line somewhere. I've shot spikes that we had trouble lifting in the truck, they were every bit a full-grown mature buck. Trouble is, some people will shoot button bucks and not realize what they are doing. Anyway - no system is perfect.

Branching the antlers every year, I suspect, is also dependent on nutrition. Some years we just have spikes coming out of our ears, and some years, you hardly see any.

Back to the license issue. Double-digit decreases are probably a good thing - sorry to have to say that. You just can't have a million hunters chasing a million deer. If the GC didn't anticipate that consequence - shame on them. If that's their only source of revenue, then they are doubly stupid.

It sounds like the farmers are getting way too many tags, but again, you can't have the discussion till you have the survey numbers for the area. If an area needs thinned out, it needs thinned out. But after each season you have to assess where you are and what needs to be done next year.

It really sounds like they just did not think through the resources required to make this work.

Back to the license issue. Double-digit decreases are probably a good thing - sorry to have to say that. You just can't have a million hunters chasing a million deer. If the GC didn't anticipate that consequence - shame on them. If that's their only source of revenue, then they are doubly stupid. Not saying its good or bad, just the way they try to spin it is indicative of how screwed up (deluded?)they are, everybody knows that the hunters are fed up and aren't buying licenses, they say its the Social Security number. I honestly believe that they think we are stupid.

It sounds like the farmers are getting way too many tags, but again, you can't have the discussion till you have the survey numbers for the area. If an area needs thinned out, it needs thinned out. But after each season you have to assess where you are and what needs to be done next year.
That's my point. They say, here's your tags, have a nice day. No questions asked

Ken, I forgot we raised the out-of-state license to $300. I can see that being the next step for PA - probably revenue-neutral, but maybe encourage more residents to get back into hunting if they feel like the state isn't overrun with out of state hunters. Certainly it will be more palatable to the elected officials, who don't count on votes from out of state.

It should be relatively easy to hit each state web site and get an average for out of state deer licenses/tags.

Oh and the SSN. Maybe that's a federal law? We have to do that, too.

Back to the spikes... if there is even some small probability that a spike would ultimately turn out to be a lesser deer than one that had forked horns, I think you need to shoot them. Shooting one buck or another is just an exercise in probability, you are guessing which one will be better next year, and which one will pass on better genes.

Now, there is a lot to judging a deer on the hoof, and just because it has forked horns doesn't mean it will ever amount to anything. But, few of us are good enough to say that a 6-point or whatever is already past his prime and needs to go!

It is easy, however, to take a quick look at a spike and know what you are looking at.

The counties in Texas that are under antler restrictions bear some resemblance to the northeast. They are rural, but the landholdings are badly fragmented. Lots of people have 10 or 20 acres and think they can do a lot of deer hunting on that for cheap! Not gonna work.

Ranch Dog can comment more on that as he's in one of those areas, if he's still following this thread. Overall I think the restrictions have worked out pretty well.

The SSN requirement here is so that the state can find the "Deadbeat Dads" that ordinarily can't be found any other way. Guess the sorry cusses won't support their kids, but just gotta go hunting! :(

It sounds like the farmers are getting way too many tags, but again, you can't have the discussion till you have the survey numbers for the area. If an area needs thinned out, it needs thinned out. But after each season you have to assess where you are and what needs to be done next year.


That's my point. They say, here's your tags, have a nice day. No questions asked

Well.... it's more than that, JB. Right now a PA farmer looks at a deer, and evaluates whether the crop damage the deer will cause will exceed the cost of a bullet to put in it's head! That's literally the value proposition for the farmer. Obviously, the hunters put a value higher than say 50 cents or a dollar on the animal.

When you lease a property to hunt.... suddenly the farmer WANTS to see deer running around. It brings in money. There are many areas of Texas where the grazing rights for cattle are much less than the hunting rights for deer. You better believe those farmers are glad to have deer.

To be fair most of our crop depredation issues are with hogs, not deer. But crop damage is crop damage, to the farmer.

I don't know what the PA state laws are on crop depredation. Maybe you guys need to reevaluate that, too.

The SSN is a fed requirement, but the point is that is NOT why we see double digit decreases in consecutive years, despite the GC's claim.
I understand the farmers position, we have a small farm on the side and several of our customers are fruitgrowers, apples mainly (turns out deer like apples) so I understand the economics of crop damage. Another problem in PA is, most tracts of land are pretty small so its hard to manage a quality herd when every one has different goals

Yep. I'd be curious if the G.C. is required by law to give out free tags to farmers - can't imagine they would not charge some nominal fee, if they were allowed to?

I would like to invite everyone on this forum that is interested in talking about deer hunting and deer hunting in Pennsylvania to join

http://pennsylvaniahuntingforums.com/index.php

I am the forum administrator there - as of this week and I will approve anyone that wishes to join.

I believe that I am using up too much of your bandwidth here talking about issues that only concerns one state.

Before I go I will leave you a web address for a local sportsmans group that just started their campaign against the PGC.

http://www.padeerdefense.org/html/pgcletter.php

Here is what John A. Imhoff had to say,

Dear PGC,DCNR, managers, directors, and commissioners;

The alienated hunters of this state would like to know why sound scientific management practice has been replaced with policy makers who dance in secrecy and political rhetoric all the while defending this radical, undefined ,and grossly flawed deer mgt. policy?

Why the secrecy? Why the secrecy in the deer counting models? Why did the last model fail? What is the new model ,and how does it work?

What is the targeted deer density? 5.5 Deer per sq. mile as the environmentalists want for the next 30 years, or the 15 per sq. mi. stated on DCNR placards? What is it? When do we stop killing deer Mr. DuBrock ? Where are we going?

How does this macro-managed deer policy protect local deer populations from overkill disaster? What safeguards and assurances are you offering us?

The DCNR's extensive infra-red deer survey reported 23 deer per sq. mi. (top end) and a dismal 8.8 (low end),or an average of 15 per sq. mi. not 37 per sq. mi. as reported! That's a 60% discrepancy, were doe allocations adjusted accordingly? Why not?

Why wasn't a responsible decision made to fly over the areas of greatest hunter complaint? Why was there no concern?

Why were the testimonies of hunters with dismal “deer sighting” reports declared to be insignificant “here say”, while the minority who said otherwise were exalted to fame? How shameful and revealing of your intentions.

The truth we know declares that the sport of deer hunting, its industry, and its future hinges on “deer sightings”! Why is such an important factor regarded as “here say” by the managers in this state? Ask the tens of thousands of hunters who quit how important it is!

The Blue Knob sportsmen discovered 5.5 deer per sq. mi. in their I-R survey.Considering that and the mass of other complaints across WMU-2C, how do you justify the 26 doe permits issued per sq. mi.?

Surely any concerned professionals would be moving with great caution after admitting they don't have a handle on the deer population, why isn't ours? Surely we wouldn't risk overkilling the deer and alienating more hunters in the face of a financial crisis , would we?

This practice of secrecy and undefined rhetoric in the name of deer management science is laughable. It not only serves to discredit your professionalism but it also exposes your attempts to cover up your vulnerabilities.

Vulnerabilities that would expose the anti-deer politics and those mysterious “circles “driving this radical policy who Cal Dubrock seeks to please .

Vulnerabilities that would expose the virtually non-existant foundation this policy is founded on a “FAILED” deer count model!

This deer management policy lacks integrity, the sportsmen know it and you know it..This is a disgrace! This great state and its hunters deserve better than this. WE deserve answers that carry substance! Where are they?

It is the intent of the Pa Deer Defense to mobilize hunters and organizations to join ranks and “get tough”. Overkill of the deer population any where in this state should be considered a crime and those responsible should be held accountable.

Sincerely yours,
John A. Imhoff
Padeerdefense.org

OK -

That's just about all that needs to be said on the subject. We've tried to let everyone that had something to say express their thoughts. Some have expressed them more than once.

Time to draw this discussion to a close.

Thread locked. Any further attempts to ressurect this topic will be deleted upon discovery. Thanks to everyone for their understanding why we regret this action for the sake of saving some much needed bandwidth for other topics.