2 - “Factors Affecting Regeneration” Page 41-43. In this section WMI does a good job of bringing together the many problems facing PA’s forests. “There was a consensus among scientists and forest managers that excessive deer browsing was the primary factor limiting forest regeneration, and that forest regeneration could be achieved where deer numbers were regulated” is an unacceptable statement. Consensus is not fact and WMI should have pursued peer-reviewed studies to substantiate the “consensus” among scientists.
The replacement of oak and hickory with beech and birch is a serious concern in PA. It is easy to ascertain deer can not be responsible for this gradual transition of our forests. Acid rain is the culprit and has been over the past fifty years. The PGC and the DCNR have continuously blamed the deer. Consequently, millions of deer have been killed in the name of improved regeneration and the plan has failed miserably.
In these two pages, WMI tries to explain in the most scientific and historical terms that the entire “kill the deer to save the trees” agenda isn’t working. It is far more complex than just killing deer. A major attitude adjustment is needed at the PGC, DCNR and within the forestry community. They need to come to grips with the necessity of liming and/or burning our forests.
Summary:
WMI has clearly recommended eliminating fetus counting to determine deer health. Apparently, the current methods of measuring forest regeneration are woefully inadequate as well. You must read the audit carefully. No responsible deer management program solely based on forest regeneration can proceed in a scientific or intellectual manner without first testing all soils for their pH levels. I am fearful that if we do not change directions we will soon hear deer are responsible for global warming.
3 – “The Deer Model” Pages 11-24 WMI put a great deal of work into determining the response of the PGC’s homemade SAK model. It should be more widely known that there is no deer management industry accepted model when antler restrictions are in place. Antler restrictions and intense doe harvesting cause hunters to be unusually selective and near impossible to pattern their behavior and choices. The PGC’s deer model is complex requiring a three-year look-back to continuously adjust and confirm numbers. There is a high probably of error compared to a conventional SAK deer model, which estimates harvests and populations for the current season and year.
The PGC claims the success ratio, survival and mortality rates plugged into their model was derived from deer research. These ratios are so generous, new research should be conducted immediately.
A major disappointment in WMI’s audit is the declaration that PA currently has 850,000 to 1,280,000 deer. This represents a mere 25% decline in the population from the onset of our deer eradication program. WMI was remiss in not establishing a total PA deer population prior to the current program using old harvest numbers and conventional SAK models. It is believed by many with realistic supporting evidence that in 1999-2000 PA’s deer population was closer to 1 million, not 1.6 million as Gary Alt claimed. Reducing the starting herd number to a realistic level would indeed reveal that after almost 10-years of intense reduction PA’s current deer herd is dangerously low. Combined with extremely high numbers of coyotes and record numbers of bears, PA deer herd may be unsustainable in the commonly referred to “predator pit” scenario. WMI has well established in this report that the PGC’s method of calculating harvests in woefully inadequate.
A written analysis of the PGC’s homemade SAK deer model is a rather lengthy process. The yearly harvest numbers, 1.5 year-old buck survival rate and 2.5 year old buck survival rate injected into their SAK model create unbelievable deer numbers for those who actually hunt and observe the lack of deer in our forests.
If we use an estimated 40,000 square miles of huntable area in PA and deer densities of 5 to 10 deer per square mile, we arrive at approximately 200,000 to 400,000 deer in the Commonwealth. This would match our hunters’ observations and the FLIR flights conducted over a substantial sample area. The error of WMI was to input the PGC’s harvest data without question even after declaring their harvest data collection methods were inadequate. Additionally, WMI should have subjected the PGC’s survival and harvest rates for 1.5 and 2.5 year old deer to intense scrutiny. The lack of 3.5 year old and older deer in the harvest numbers is proof that the antler restriction program is a dismal failure.
Additional Observations and Recommendations:
While much has been accomplished by this audit, there is still great deal more to explore and analyze. USP is requesting WMI be retained once more to explore some of the following issues.
1 – A study to determine the true impact of coyotes and black bears on the fawn and adult deer population. These finding should be incorporated into the SAK model.
2 – WMI should be required per this audit to determine the number of deer in PA per the harvest results of the late 1990’s prior to the deer reduction program.
3 – A study to determine why so few 3.5 year old and older deer are showing up in our yearly harvests.
4 – Harvest data from Special Regulation Areas should be removed from the statewide totals and handled separately starting in 2010.
5 – Soil sampling from every county should begin and become a permanent part of deer management and forest regeneration evaluations.
6 – The PGC has an obligation expressed in Title 34 Section 322 to serve the interest of sportsmen by preserving and promoting recreational hunting and furtaking by providing an adequate opportunity to hunt the wildlife resources of the Commonwealth. The discussion needs to move to the public forum and the goals incorporated in the PGC’s Strategic Plan for all to review.
7 – The US Forest Service’s Nancy Tilghman Study needs to be revisited. An investigation as to why the study revealed PA’s forests can carry 22-30 deer per square mile without significant forest regeneration impacts and today we have far less deer and allegedly continuous regeneration failures.
Compiled by:
Dr. Charles Bolgiano, USP Legislative Liaison
Jim Slinsky, Broadcaster, Columnist, Consultant