MeatHunter2

Wow, talk about bias on the web. As you folks can tell Chicory is against a change in the old ways. Just by the quotes he posted, which are only the negative ones, you can tell. Don't think this is representative of the majority of hunters in PA., by any means, as this would be his goal. There is a faction of people from a 600 member club who appose just about anything the PA game commission does. I can only guess he is a member. I hate to demean anyone in public, but to give you out of staters some background, it's hard to avoid doing.
All of those quotes he posted are from members of the USP, a splinter group of guys that once belonged to the much larger PFSC (PA Federation of Sportsmans Club), but didn't see eye to eye with it's membership, so they started a club of their own. Now they claim they have 40,000, 45,000, or I've even seen 60,000, depending on which way the wind blows. Now they just claim tens of thousands since recently claims have been questioned. I ask one of their officers last year and he said about 600 actual members, but if a sportsmans group buys a membership we include all their members. They always seem to be about boosting the perception that more people agree with them than actually do. They've even became the, for lack of a better word, laughing stock of the PA outdoor's community. Heck, they even create bogus survey's and attempt to pass them off as legitimate un-biased ones. That is until hunters started questioning their methods, then it was quitely dropped. Coincidently, the Commissioner quoted is also a member, and the owner of a deer lure company. Can you say conflict of interest?

But on to the PA deer management plan and the man that helped organize it all. Deer mngt. is a very complex issue with alot of variables involved, but in a nutshell. Deer numbers have been at an all time high, and I agree that in recent years it's mostly been in the urban area's where hunting is limited. PA is no different than other states and have growing herd sizes. Three to Four decades ago we had most of those large numbers in the mountainous regions of the state. Those large numbers were never controlled and damage was done, hence the lower numbers in those area's in the last 2 decades. Those large past herds combined with more recent insect, disease, and poor soils have made it very difficult to grow quality deer food and that also means quality timber.
We also have always had a lop-sided harvest of deer, taking as much as 85% of our bucks while only taking around 50% of the doe. This lead to a spread out breeding season and a growing herd. The plan was for antler restrictions to save 50-75% of our yearlings, of which a large part are spikes due to poor nutrition, and create a larger breeding age group for the following year. And naturally those 2.5 year olds sport larger antlers for their second set. Meanwhile offering a larger harvest of does to hunters, which they have been doing (so much for opposition) quite well over the last 3 years.

So the plan was to create more bucks with larger bodies and antlers and less doe to bring the herd into balance with the available food. And it's undeniable that it has happened. The herd is smaller. and bucks make up a larger percentage of the herd. And to top it off there's been some dandy racks taken for those interested in those. Taxadermist's are loving it!

There's always 2 sides to the story.