Cornelius08

Unified Sportsmen of PA

2010 Deer Audit Analysis

March 3, 2010


Deer management as practiced by the PGC is a complex undertaking that engages the hard sciences of biology and statistics and the soft sciences of ecology and sociology. Together, they are critical components for the PGC to properly manage deer, the State’s most popular and economically important species. On February 16, 2010 the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee accepted a PGC Deer Audit executed by the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) titled “The Deer Management Program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission”.
Frequently during the course of the Report, WMI pointed out major deficiencies in the PGC’s deer management program. The Report also periodically mentions successes. Paradoxically, the Report claims the scientific foundation of the PGC deer management system is sound, but there are important components identified that need revision, improvement, modification, abandonment and additional evaluation and assessment.
With so many major recommendations by WMI that bear heavily on deer management, it is difficult to accept that the PGC’s deer management is scientifically sound or on a fundamentally sound foundation. Neither deer population estimates, the Sex-Age-Kill (SAK) model, harvest estimates, deer health evaluation, forest regeneration analysis or the Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) process received very high marks from WMI. The determination by WMI that antlerless allocations using PA’s SAK methodology in conjunction with poor harvest data is flawed and unreliable is a theme USP has emphasized for a decade. This is a glaring example of the “garbage in – garbage out” scenario alive and well in the PGC’s deer management.
In overview, on a scale of 1 to 10, the audit must be considered a 5. Scot Williamson must be commended for his hard work as this was no small undertaking. The seven major recommendations of WMI are indeed excellent. These are all improvements our hunters have requested for years. It is satisfying to finally see these recommendations in writing by an organization of WMI’s stature.
However, WMI missed the mark completely in a number of critical areas. Often, Mr. Williamson spoke in generalities or the “general consensus” of the people he interviewed. He glossed over critical issues or didn’t investigate deep into other issues. The audit did not answer the most critical question of all. How many deer die we have in this state before the Gary Alt deer reduction program began?
A comprehensive critique of a 90-page document is no small undertaking, as well. Below is a summary of the positives revealed in this report followed by the areas that should be investigated in much greater detail.
The USP thanks WMI for undertaking the Deer Audit and thereby contributing to the resolution of many long-standing PGC deer management difficulties.

Positives from the Executive Summary:

1 – “Improving the SAK” – While “improving” is always a plus, the PGC’s homemade SAK model is not a nationally accepted, peer reviewed model. It may never function reliably or accurately. More on this later in this analysis.

2 – “Revising harvest requirements” – Our sportsmen have believed for decades that the PGC’s buck harvest projections are quite generous. Regardless of the PGC’s support for their “butcher store feedback” an entirely new system must be developed. Our hunters have no confidence or respect for the current butcher store system.

3 – “Publish herd estimates” – This is a long-overdue procedure that our hunters are demanding. However, it will require significant changes in PGC policy to return us to quantifiable deer management. We may need to abolish antler restrictions and reset the clock to obtain accurate starting numbers.

4 – “Eliminate deer health” as a goal. - While this is an excellent suggestion for the moment at some time in the future deer health monitoring should be resumed. However, examining road-killed female deer and counting their fetuses is a waste of time and resources. PA’s reproduction rate of 1.5 hasn’t changed in 50 years.

5 – “Improve forest regeneration metric” – While improving any system sounds reasonable, our entire forest analysis system is bias, unscientific and must be abandoned. More on this later in this analysis.

6 – “Create a Statewide CAC” – Excellent suggestion and our hunters look forward to the first meeting.

7 – “Increase communication with stakeholders” – Excellent suggestion and our hunters look forward to meeting the other stakeholders.

Negatives from the Audit:

1 – “Factors Facing Regeneration” – Page 40 – 41 - As you read through this critical section you come to realize WMI revealed a great deal of information. Something that wasn’t said that everyone needs to realize and retain is the fact that the PGC nor the DCNR or the commercial foresters can grow hardwood trees with soil pH’s below 5. Can’t be done. It is a biological impossibility. The source for that fact is Dr. Lee Frelich, mentioned in this audit. Even if we are successful at starting certain species behind fences, they are doomed to perish in the future or at best grow so slowly they will not have significant economic value in the future.
WMI speaks of silvicultural prescriptions for our forests, which a fancy word for tree farming. If we are going to tree farm PA, we will always have conflicts with deer. In essence, we are allowing foresters to establish our goals for regeneration in direct conflict with wildlife management. The US Forest Service has been monitoring our regeneration since 1990. It is difficult to recall a year in the past 20 years when regeneration was considered satisfactory and when we had our deer herd under control. Obviously, something is not working or perhaps it is time to revise our goals. WMI found plenty wrong with the PGC’s method of measuring regeneration and finished-up their assessment by stating that the plot sizes established by the US Forest Service are too small. WMI didn’t concisely comment in one or two sentences that our methods for measuring regeneration are unacceptable; they said it in many sentences.
Untouched by WMI, the true, core deer management fallacy is once again, the absence/presence theory. If a tree species is absent from the woods, allegedly there must be too many deer present. This is the erroneous mindset driving our deer management for decades. The US Forest Service’s continuous regeneration evaluation should be abandoned in its entirety. No other state utilizes their services. It would not matter if we killed every last deer in this state, we will not achieve satisfactory regeneration. Our soils are in terrible condition.