ChasintheTrophys

well i know when i started hunting we used to go to potter county and you would see a herd of 20 -30 deer run past you . now your lucky to see deer on the mountain !

Scott Gags

The population density of deer is still way to high nearly everywhere in the the state, even with the reduced numbers we are seeing today. The environment was never intended to carry a population this high. The forage is seriouly compromised and deer cannot get to their potential even when they make it to 4 and 5 years old. I hunt in Allegheny cty and am seeing as many deer as ever.The deer are definately larger and the new state record buck came from within a 1/2 mile of my home. A big part of the deer regulations are environmental and not to maximize the head, and that is fine because that helps ensure hunting will continue despite the PETAs of the world.

dirz1

Everywhere in the state the deer population is to high? That is comical. I don't want to start an argument with you but it might be like that in Allengheny County but not on game lands in 4C, 3D, 4D, I could keep going. Also,a big part of the deer regulations are enviromental? Somewhat but your forgetting about the timber industry and insurance companies. Believe me, wildlife is most definitely subservient to the timber industry. I am all for the Antler Restrictions but the Game Commission continues to make decisions based on guesses. That is not my opinion that is a simple Fact. In an article on there website they admitted that the harvest reporting system AND there estimate of deer population is flawed and incorrect. Tell me how in the world that they can continue this type of deer management(increased doe seasons) without knowing what they are really dealing with. I really think the ramifications are becoming worst as this continues

CAMPFOURCORNERS

MY CAMP IS IN ELK COUNTY, THATS WMU 2F AND WHEN I FIRST STARTED HUNTING 14 YRS AGO IT WAS NOT UNCOMMON FOR ME AND MY DAD TO SE 50 DEER A DAY. GRANTED 99% OF THOSE DEER WERE DOES WE STILL SAW A LOT OF DEER. LAST YEAR OPENING DAY I NEVER LEFT THE WOODS ALL DAY AND ALL I SAW WAS A COUPLE GLIMPSES OF TAILS SO I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THE DENSITY IS NOT HIGH EVERYWHERE ONLY PLACE DENSITY IS HIGH IS WHERE THE CITY SLICKERS ARE IN ALLEGHENY AND IN EASTERN PA

dgm67

Has anyone checked the record books? Has PA added to B&C P&Y more than normal?

AJ52

Just curious as to how or what the "insurance companies" have didlee squat to do with deer populations in PA

BTBowhunter

It's simply another urban legend.

I've been in the insurance industry as an undependent agent for 30 years and have never once heardANY insurance comapny even mention deer inPA.

To anyone who has a hard time believing that, think of it this way...

Insurance companiesare a lot like the casino or the racetrack. They dont know who is going to cause a payout but they've have become pretty good at figuring what the payouts will be when they work with large numbers.If you win at the racetrack, you arent taking moneyfrom the track but it comes from the pool of wagerers. The track has already taken their share. If you have an insurance claim, there is little difference. Rest assured that the insurance company has taken their share. As a matter of fact, something like deer claims actually helps the insurance indutry make money. It's something they can plan for and charge for. Larger premiums mean larger profits. In the big picture, the kind of claim that causes the insurance industy worries about is the kind where they cant consistently predict the frequency or severity. Things like 9-11 or a group of natural disasters occuring in the same area in a short period of time.

dirz1

When there is more deer that means more deer causing accidents and injuries to people. This costs insurance companies. BTbowhunter makes some good points however, the insurance companies will pocket much more money if they don't have to pay out for these such accidents. You don't think insurance companies donate money to the Game commission????? On the PGC website they stated one of the reasons for the deer reduction was not only enviromental but also due to increasing amount of accidents.

Sylvan

I did actuarial work many years ago for insurance companies and Btbowhunter is correct. Insurance companies pay out claims from the money they collect in premiums. If you don't pay for coverage for hitting a deer they don't pay you when you hit one. The more people worry about hitting a deer the more people buy the coverage and therefore themore money the insurance company makes. So in a wierd way, the more deer the better for the company.Granted the less people that make a claim, the less moneyis paid out but that isn't the entire picture. The company knows statistically how much money they are going to be paying out for a given area. From that they know how much to charge individuals for coverage to insure themselves of a good profit. You can bet your last dollar that if it weren't profitable for companies to cover for deer damage they simply wouldn't do it. This is just an old explination for why there are less deer that is told over the deer camp dinner table. It seems logical on the surface but it just isn't true.

dirz1

I have been doing a lot of arguing about the PGC deer management system. For the record, I would like to state that I agree with the Antler Resitrictions which are in place. Nothing has made me feel better than letting that small buck walk pass my stand.