Obviously you didn’t understand much of what you just read concerning the data you just posted.

I’ll try to help those who have the ability to learn have a better understanding though, even if it is too complex for some people to grasp.
Some states do have more and even smaller management units but that really doesn’t mean they have better or even different management objectives or goals then what we have right here in Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania we have twenty-two different management units that range in size from 835.45 square miles to as large as 4114.04 square miles. The size of those units is based on the basic consistency of the habitat, land ownership, soil types, human densities and various other factors being pretty much the same with only minor variances. Since some parts of Pennsylvania has large areas of consistent habitat types that isn’t heavily fragmented with other habitat types we don’t have to have as many small units as states that do have more fragmented habitat types to accomplish the same objectives.

That fragmentation of habitat and population areas is what makes it necessary and desirable for some states to use more and sometimes smaller management units but it still doesn’t mean they have any more management goals or objectives within those units. What really occurs is that all of the like habitat units are managed with the same data and management objectives even though the size of the individual units under that management objective might vary in size. That is pretty much the same thing that Pennsylvania used to do when we had county management unit boundaries. What we all need to understand is that just having a lot of smaller units, that are managed with the same management data and objectives, isn’t going to result in any major changes in the management direction or the management results.

There aren’t millions of tags given out either, that is nothing more then nonsense promoted by people that want misrepresent the truth to promote a misguided agenda.

Throughout the history of deer management in this state the number of antler less license allocated within the state has been increasing because the deer herd has been expanding into all areas of the state and in many of those areas the deer populations had become very high. That means the statewide allocations had to increase to keep up with the ever increasing deer populations within a few areas of the state. In other areas of the state the antler less allocations have not increased and had instead actually been decreasing for some time prior to recent years of fewer deer.

I am going to post the units where the antler less allocations were at their highest over twenty years ago with the allocations per square in the counties that presently make up those units.

Unit……….88-92.………...93-97.……..…..98-02.…………..03-07.………....08
1B………..19.62.………….18.46.………… 19.04.……………14.83.…………14.17
2F………..20.99.………….19.96.………… 20.43.……………14.44.…………11.61
2G………..16.21.………….13.08.………… 12.30.…………….8.65.…………..6.32
3C………..16.56.………….13.19.………… 16.29.……………15.11.…………12.51
4D………..17.02.………….14.13.………… 14.56.……………16.97.…………14.57

As you can see the big woods units were issuing more antler less licenses twenty years ago then they have during any period since. You can also see that the number of antler less license in unit 2G have been in a steady state of decline for over twenty years, yet hunters say there are few deer in that unit. Based on that alone shouldn’t a reasonable person be starting to recognize that fewer license and low antler less harvests hasn’t worked to build higher deer numbers? It should also be pretty obvious that the line about it only being about money must be purely horse-puckey.

I also want to point out that the statewide allocations today are not as high as the allocation of some past periods even though the deer populations had increased in many areas of the state during those earlier time periods.

Years…….Statewide allocation…………hunter success rate/license to harvest one deer
1996.…………831,658.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.21
1997.…………736,190.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.34
1998.…………889,900.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.54
1999.…………882,200.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.79
2000.…………874,900.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..2.90
2001.…………779,500.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..2.76
2002.………..1,028,600.…………………… ……….2.92
2003.………..1,104,000.…………………… ……….3.42
2004.………..1,039,000.…………………… ……….3.65
2005.…………879,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.76
2006.…………859,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.80
2007.…………865,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.04
2008.…………849,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..N/A

From this data, combined with the above data showing the reduced allocations in the big woods and mountainous units, should be proof for any reasonable person that antler less allocations are neither excessive or about money.

R.S. Bodenhorn