ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"The facts and history of the deer in both forestland and highly mixed farmland or residential areas all clearly do show that high deer populations can’t be sustained long term without a healthy forest."

And despite pgcs new ridiculous claims,reasonable numbers of deer shouldnt be making forests "unhealthy" in those habitat types in the first place. Many states have those type wmus density goals setin the 30' and often upwards of 40 dpsm. Except for us in Pa withour "science". [:'(]LOL.


You are correct that reasonable numbers of deer don’t make a forest unhealthy. But, unreasonable numbers of deer do lead to an unhealthy forest. That is why the forests are categorized and the attempt made to keep deer populations in check once the scientific measuresthe forest provide asthey are becoming unhealthy.

Several areas of the state are presently indicating that they do have an unreasonable number of deer or their forest habitat would not be in such poor condition.



"During the summer months whether forest habitat is high or low quality many deer can be sustained by eating grass from lawns and hay from farm fields with little complaint from the farmer or lawn owner. But, high deer numbers will also eat a lot of farm crops and neighborhood gardens during the summer and that starts the deer/human conflict problems that lead to the over whelming none hunter/public demands for fewer deer. Thus both more crop damage kills, red tags and increased antler less allocations and hunter harvests in the future."

Has nothing to do with anything if the cac has voted and the human conflict ispercieved aslow. If a few farmers still need more deer killed and lower deer density than "reasonable" deer numbers in a wmu, then they have the tools you mentioned and are more than welcome to use them so the rest of the wmu doesnt have to be held needlessly low.


That really isn’t entirely correct. Many farmers don't want burdened with killing deer several nights a week or even per month.

The CAC can only be used to reduce deer numbers to a level that is below the natural carrying capacity, they can‘t force a deer population to be higher then the natural carrying capacity. Only the affects of nature, combined with a healthy habitat, will allow a deer population to be sustainable at an increased population level.

Man simply can’t demand the forces and effects of nature be changed, no matter what he wishes.



"As that forest food supply starts to decline more deer move out into the neighborhood shrubs and ornamental landscaping causing damage them. "

Again, I dont think what is being argued here is "human conflict". That is an issue all its own, and if the cac addressed it, I dont see it as an issue. Afterall, that is what its for isnt it?


In many areas human conflict issues are more of an issue then most hunters know or want to believe. That includes your area.



"Even with that having been explained I will also tell everyone right now that those areas with a good mix of farmland, forestland (good quality or not) and small landowner plantings that come with high quality soils areas will probably always result in higher deer numbers then the poor soil big woods areas. But, even though rich soil, mixed habitat areas will have higher long term sustainable deer numbers with a healthy forest habitat then that they will have with poor forest health. "

Not when it is factored in to regeneration assessment that if deer are actually browsing anything, (acceptable regeneration or not), as ANY reasonable number of deer WILL DO, the herd will be knocked down. If existing factors do not equate to fewer deer, another is added.


No, it is all done scentifically with the same methods and criteria for all areas of the state.

If some areas are coming up poor it is because they are poor and most likely have more deer then the habitat is going to be able to sustain for the long term.