ORIGINAL: germain
Having said that I don't want the extreme environmentalists controlling policy.The deer herd needed reduction in some areas and still does but on the other hand some big tracts of land have suffered overharvest.Hunters are simply asking for this to be corrected.
An example would be the Tioga state forest where the original goal was 15 DPSM.The flyover produced below 10 yet more DMAPS were handed out.
Not to mention the other areas below this goal where the forestry is asking for a three month rifle season.This to me is extreme and getting away from the original intent of the biologists.
I hope this doesn't come across as an attack post, because that is not my intention. I have resolved not to do those anymore, and it certainly isn't my intention to attack you germain. IMO, you are one of the more reasonable posters here.
As to having the "extreme environmentalists" controlling policy, I couldn't agree more, germain. I don't think we have that now. I do think the original goal of 15 deer per square mile was a bit high for a forest so badly damaged as the northcentral seems to have been. The deer population will have to be held at a very low level for several years until the forest recovers, and then will be allowed to rise to a sustainable level.
In a healthy forest, depending upon what stage the forest is in as respects maturity, varying populations of deer can be supported without damage (this assumes that no damage already exists). In mature forest, of which we have very little in PA., about 15-20 deer per square mile can be sustained. In pole stage timber, which makes up a whole lot of the state's forests, about 10 deer per square mile is maximum. In recent cutovers, perhaps as many as 35-40 deer per square mile can live, but they will reduce the regenerative capacity necessary for the forest to regrow.
I would be very happy hunting deer in a population density of 10-15 deer per square mile. Many areas I have visited have much less than that. Maine and the Canada prairie provinces for example have less than 5 deer per square mile over most of their area. On a trip to Manitoba in November of this year, I saw just over twenty total deer during a seven day hunt. There were two days in which I saw none. I was satisfied that I saw enough to keep me interested.
One other point. The one type of license that is sold in the state of PA that has increased in the number sold is the bear license. While there sure are way more bears in PA than there were back when I started hunting, the density is very low compared to that of deer, even where you and I hunt. Why is it that more people go bear hunting this year than went last year or two years ago? Maybe it is because the bear population is on the increase. Still, with about a hundred thousand tags sold and only 2500 or so bears taken, the odds are much better that you will get a deer than that you will get a bear. I have hunted bears many years in PA, and have never taken one here. Still, I continue to go bear hunting. And some say that they will give up hunting because there are so few deer. I guess it is a matter of what makes one happy. Just my opinion.