whats more important
 

whats more important, a healthy herd were everyone can have success, which means a large herd or a small herd. hunters see few deer, few deer are harvested but auto accidents stay low. so what would you rather have. deer and good hunting or safe driving year round.

RE: whats more important
 

Deer and good hunting. Safe driving is the responsability of the driver. When driving in deer country be aware of what to expect.

RE: whats more important
 

Exactly what you said!!!

RE: whats more important
 

more deer.... driver needs to watch out for there self.

RE: whats more important
 

Actually, this is in reply to Jimmy the foot's question.

If those were the only choices, perhaps your question might have some merit, but they aren't. Perhaps you might have phrased your question in this way:
"What is more important to you; having healthy forests or seeing lots of deer?" If your only concern is making deer hunting easy for you by having lots of deer so it is easy for you to find one to shoot, why then it is more important to you to have lots of deer.

Since us hunters have long cast ourselves to be the premier force for conservation, we need to take a different view than what makes our hunting the easiest. Conservation is not simply providing game for everyone to hunt. Conservation means making sure the resource is sustainable and that the ecosystems in which we live are healthy. If you don't agree with this, you aren't interested in conservation, but only in killing.

While there are those few and lonely voices in the state that blame the forest devastation on such things as acid rain and attempt to hold the overpopulation of deer that we had in the past blameless, those aren't credible. Acid rain doesn't produce a browseline. Acid rain doesn't allow lush growth inside a fenced area and a browseline outside of it. Acid rain doesn't eat all the underbrush and reduce populations of indicator plants and animals outside of fenced areas and allow them to florish inside.

As usual, you tend to oversimplify a complex problem. We had too many deer for our forests to support. That is a fact. Deer hunting in Pennsylvania has changed. That is a fact. In nature there is a maxim: Adapt or die. Us hunters will either have to adapt to the new situation or quit hunting. It is as simple as that, if you like simple choices. If you do quit hunting because it isn't as easy as you would like, you weren't much of a hunter anyway. Just my opinion.

RE: whats more important
 

You couldn't have summed it up any better.Well done.

RE: whats more important
 

Well said!

RE: whats more important
 

As for auto/deer accidents here in PA we have more rural roads then any other state in the country.As more and more land is developed and hunting access is lost these accidents will happen.
Most hunters I know want a healthy forest but also have a passion for hunting.
Having said that I don't want the extreme environmentalists controlling policy.The deer herd needed reduction in some areas and still does but on the other hand some big tracts of land have suffered overharvest.Hunters are simply asking for this to be corrected.
An example would be the Tioga state forest where the original goal was 15 DPSM.The flyover produced below 10 yet more DMAPS were handed out.
Not to mention the other areas below this goal where the forestry is asking for a three month rifle season.This to me is extreme and getting away from the original intent of the biologists.

RE: whats more important
 

I hope this doesn't come across as an attack post, because that is not my intention. I have resolved not to do those anymore, and it certainly isn't my intention to attack you germain. IMO, you are one of the more reasonable posters here.

As to having the "extreme environmentalists" controlling policy, I couldn't agree more, germain. I don't think we have that now. I do think the original goal of 15 deer per square mile was a bit high for a forest so badly damaged as the northcentral seems to have been. The deer population will have to be held at a very low level for several years until the forest recovers, and then will be allowed to rise to a sustainable level.

In a healthy forest, depending upon what stage the forest is in as respects maturity, varying populations of deer can be supported without damage (this assumes that no damage already exists). In mature forest, of which we have very little in PA., about 15-20 deer per square mile can be sustained. In pole stage timber, which makes up a whole lot of the state's forests, about 10 deer per square mile is maximum. In recent cutovers, perhaps as many as 35-40 deer per square mile can live, but they will reduce the regenerative capacity necessary for the forest to regrow.

I would be very happy hunting deer in a population density of 10-15 deer per square mile. Many areas I have visited have much less than that. Maine and the Canada prairie provinces for example have less than 5 deer per square mile over most of their area. On a trip to Manitoba in November of this year, I saw just over twenty total deer during a seven day hunt. There were two days in which I saw none. I was satisfied that I saw enough to keep me interested.

One other point. The one type of license that is sold in the state of PA that has increased in the number sold is the bear license. While there sure are way more bears in PA than there were back when I started hunting, the density is very low compared to that of deer, even where you and I hunt. Why is it that more people go bear hunting this year than went last year or two years ago? Maybe it is because the bear population is on the increase. Still, with about a hundred thousand tags sold and only 2500 or so bears taken, the odds are much better that you will get a deer than that you will get a bear. I have hunted bears many years in PA, and have never taken one here. Still, I continue to go bear hunting. And some say that they will give up hunting because there are so few deer. I guess it is a matter of what makes one happy. Just my opinion.

RE: whats more important
 

I answered the question as posed. Didn't need a serman of what the post didn't ask, save that for another thread instead of hijacking this one. Of course this is JMO.

RE: whats more important
 

Well said patrkyhntr everyone that is crying" NO DEER "should read your post.This may be a little off the subject of the original post, but these guys crying there are no deer have been driving me crazy. I am not good with words so I don't post to much on that subject. What they don't realize is that there should be less deer in most cases. In my area the winter brouse has been devastated by to many deer for the past fifteen years or so. Sure, everyone loves to see alot of deer but sooner or later it will mean trouble for wintering deer. It's not how many deer canthe land support in the summer, it's how many deer can the land support in the winter. Alot of guys are not thinking about wintering deer becausehunting season is over.

RE: whats more important
 

The reply was to something germain posted. If you consider it a sermon, you haven't been to church lately. JMO.

RE: whats more important
 

Sounds about right to me.

;)

RE: whats more important
 

IMO what happens here in the syracuse area is houses are being built all around the suburbs and then the deer move into or stay in the populated areas. We have a doe last year running through downtown syracuse.Just this yr we had a 10 point buck standing in shoppingtown malls parking lot. If you know this area there might be 2 arces of woods there. I believe waht happens is the deer are spotted or hit by cars and then everyone says there are to many deer. We as people started totake over thier lands and then when they get to close to our houses cars etcthe DEC decides there are to many.I hope this post doesn`t come off wrong.



Dam it I didn`t answer the ?. I`d go with the bigger deer herd.

RE: whats more important
 

I'm not sure who MD was responding to TH.I don't see any sermons just a discussion involving the topic of the thread.
Anyway,I don't take your posts as an attack.Although I disagree with 50% of your posts I do enjoy reading them.;)
I understand the different carrying capacities of different stage forests.
But if the forest is in bad shape we should try and repair it.Without sunlight hitting the forest floor that's pressed to happen.
As for the environmentalists they are blocking productive cuttings on nation forest land like the ANF but I see that coming to a state level also.
I appreciate your well thought response.

RE: whats more important
 

The reason here for the discussion is that the original topic is more complex then just a yes or no answer.

RE: whats more important
 

I'll just say I agree with what you posted but it was not an answer to the questionraised by the thread starterand somewhere you said the question should be reprashed. No harm intended, I just don't like seeing threads getting hijacked as this oneseems to be. No one is answering his original question. If there is another view to be spawned off of this thread it should have it's on thread, JMO, and I meanno harm.

RE: whats more important
 

No harm done, sir. It was not my intention to hijack Jimmy's thread. I was only commenting on what seemed to be a loaded poll question. If I were to be limited to only those two choices, what I would like to see is a large herd of deer and see lots of deer, if all things were equal. They seldom are. When he phrased the original question, it was very leading, and I didn't think it should go without comment. For example, if I opened a thread with the question: "Do still you beat your wife or your dog?"
( ) Yes. ( ) No.
Now, should that question draw a comment or two? I would certainly hope so, and I don't think I should be required to answer only yes or no. To answer NO would be to admit that I did so before and don't anymore, so in effect there is only one answer possible, that being YES. By the way, I beat neither my wife nor my dogs and never have done so.

RE: whats more important
 

I appreciate the thoughtfullness and intelligence of the opinions expressed!These are challenging issues and it seems as if many of us are having to deal with them.In the catskill mountains of New York we have over mature forests,no logging is permitted on state land.The sun doesn't hit the forest floor so there is very little browse and cover.In addition to that we have suburban sprawl where there is more and more land that is not huntable but because of vegatation and security from hunters and coyotes we have the vast majority of our deer herd being artificially supported in and around lowland residential area's.There are very few deer in the mountains because of the food and cover being in short supply and where the majority of the deer are you cannot hunt them.It is messed up.
I would much rather see fewer deer and see the forests be healthy than the other way around.
The Manitoba example is similar to what I experience every year hunting in northern Idaho.Very healthy forests,low deer densities but still quality hunting.