|
PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Here's the report:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=167625&A=11 GAME COMMISSION RELEASES 2005-06 DEER HARVEST ESTIMATES HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Game Commission officials today announced that the total deer harvest estimate for 2005-06 seasons is 354,390, down from the previous year's harvest estimate of 409,320. While the antlered harvest was similar to the previous year, the reduction in the antlerless deer harvest followed changes in antlerless license allocations, which were decreased in response to declining deer population trends in most Wildlife Management Units (WMUs). "Going into the year, we expected WMU antlerless deer harvests to drop in most WMUs because the Board of Game Commissioners approved an overall antlerless deer license allocation that was down 15 percent from the previous year," said Carl Roe, Game Commission executive director. "For example, in WMU 2G, a 44 percent reduction in the unit's antlerless deer license allocation resulted in a 42 percent drop in the antlerless deer harvest. Most of the changes in the antlerless harvest can be accounted for by the change in antlerless allocations, and demonstrates the strong relationship between antlerless license allocations and harvests. "Also, as general hunting license sales are down by five percent this year, it is unreasonable to expect the overall deer harvest would have increased." The Game Commission's 2005-06 antlerless deer license allocations were intended to hold deer population trends steady until the agency's Deer Management Section completed development of a new system of measures to gauge the impact of deer on themselves, the habitat and people. That work, which should provide a solid foundation to manage deer more knowledgeably and progressively, is nearing completion. The 2005-06 antlerless harvest was 233,890 compared to 284,910 for the 2004-05 seasons. From 2004-05 to 2005-06, antlerless harvests varied from a drop of 42 percent in WMU 2G to an increase of 6 percent in WMU 2A, where the allocation remained the same from the previous year. The statewide antlerless deer harvest was comprised of 23 percent button bucks, which is about average. The 2005-06 antlered deer harvest was 120,500 compared to 124,410 for the 2004-05 seasons. Between 2004-05 and 2005-06, antlered harvests varied from a decline of 27 percent in WMU 4B to an increase of 24 percent in WMU 2B. As a direct result of the three-point and four-point antler restrictions, almost 50 percent of harvested antlered deer were 2.5 years old or older this past season, compared to only 20 percent being that old prior to antler restrictions. "Overall, we are pleased with the percentage of older bucks in the antlered harvests, and we continue to receive overwhelmingly positive comments about antler restrictions," Roe said. Calvin W. DuBrock, Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Management director, noted that weather, once again this year, played a role at the beginning of the rifle deer season. "Most deer are harvested during the first two days of the rifle season," DuBrock said. "This year, hunters in some areas experienced heavy fog on ridge tops during the opening day, while heavy rain impacted the second day in many areas. As a result, harvests during the first two days were down from 2004-05, but increased on the first and second Saturdays. "Given the antlerless deer license allocations provided to hunters, we are pleased with the overall results. The 12-day concurrent season increases hunter opportunity, reduces much of the variability in hunter effort associated with shorter seasons and unpredictable weather, and gives our deer management team a more consistent method of monitoring the impacts of the harvest. Given the relationship of antlerless license allocations to antlerless harvest, the 12-day season is a win-win situation for hunters and managers." DuBrock noted that deer harvest data, as well as comments from hunters, demonstrates that the agency's efforts in recent years to reduce the deer herd in some WMUs are working. "We are asking hunters to work with us and endure some short-term pain, in terms of lower deer densities than in the past, so that we can achieve long-term gain, in terms of better habitat that supports deer and other wildlife for all Pennsylvanians. In fact, many hunters, landowners and foresters have commented to us about the changes and regeneration they're seeing in the forests they hunt or manage. "Hunters have once again performed an important service for the rest of society by controlling the state's deer herd. They do it willingly, and without burden to taxpayers. They also will enjoy many nutritious meals from the venison they added to their freezers or provided to needy families through the Hunters Sharing the Harvest program." DuBrock pointed out that deer harvest estimates are necessary. If all hunters who harvested a deer would send in their harvest report card, as required by law, harvest estimates would not be needed. However, the agency began using reporting rates to estimate deer harvests in the 1980s, when reporting rates began to drop. This year, less than 40 percent of hunters who harvested a deer sent in their harvest report card. "Many Pennsylvania hunters are following through with their responsibility to report deer they harvest, and they obviously do believe reporting is important," DuBrock said. "But the loss of information created by so many other hunters not reporting their deer harvests isn't helping the Game Commission in its efforts to manage deer to the best of its ability for all Pennsylvanians." Although the current reporting rates reduce the precision of harvest estimates, they do not affect the validity of the results or procedures. "The Game Commission's method of estimating deer harvests was designed to account for reporting rates that are less than 100 percent," said Dr. Christopher Rosenberry, who heads up the agency's Deer Management Section. "The approach the agency uses to estimate deer harvests recently underwent an independent, scientific review and was found to be scientifically valid. In addition, the agency's harvest estimates represent a substantial data collection effort on the part of the agency's personnel." DuBrock noted that, each year, roughly 10 percent of the agency's personnel - working throughout the state - check and record information from ear tags on harvested deer. This year nearly 29,000 deer were examined. This sample is then cross-checked with nearly 136,000 report cards submitted by hunters to determine reporting rates for antlered and antlerless deer by WMUs. Deer harvests are then calculated using information from these tens of thousands of deer harvested. "Now that these harvest data are compiled, the Deer Management Section in the Bureau of Wildlife Management can begin to assess the impact of last year's harvest and prepare antlerless license allocation recommendations for the executive director to review, prior to presenting it to the Board of Game Commissioners for its consideration," DuBrock said. "Additionally, as directed by the Board, we will explore possible changes in season lengths for the 2006-07 seasons." The Board of Game Commissioners will be meeting on April 17-18, at the agency's Harrisburg headquarters, 2001 Elmerton Ave., just off the Progress Avenue exit of Interstate 81. The meetings will begin at 8:30 a.m. on both days. On April 17, the Board will hear public comments on the proposed 2006-07 hunting and furtaking seasons and bag limits that were given preliminary approval in October. The Board also will receive agency staff reports and updates. On April 18, the Board is scheduled to take official action to finalize the 2006-07 hunting and furtaking seasons and bag limits. The Board also will set antlerless license allocations by WMUs on April 18. As was announced last year (see News Release #020-05), DuBrock noted that last year was the final year of providing county harvest estimates, as the Game Commission has completed its transition to WMUs. Harvest figures for the Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP), which enables landowners to target hunter pressure where needed, are not available at this time, and were not included in these harvest results. Bowhunters took 60,940 deer (31,730 antlered deer and 29,210 antlerless deer), compared to 62,460 deer (28,070 antlered deer and 34,390 antlerless deer) in 2004-05. Muzzleloader hunters harvested 25,240 deer (1,200 antlered deer and 24,040 antlerless deer) last year, compared to 31,270 deer (1,090 antlered deer and 30,180 antlerless deer) in 2004-05. Deer harvest estimates by WMU are as follows: WMU 1A: archery, 1,630 antlered, 1,530 antlerless; muzzleloader, 80 antlered, 1,410 antlerless; total, 5,500 antlered, 13,400 antlerless. WMU 1B: archery, 1,780 antlered, 890 antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 antlered, 780 antlerless; total, 6,400 antlered, 10,700 antlerless. WMU 2A: archery, 1,840 antlered, 1,520 antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 antlered, 2,080 antlerless; total, 8,500 antlered, 19,600 antlerless. WMU 2B: archery, 2,720 antlered, 4,110 antlerless; muzzleloader, 80 antlered, 1,060 antlerless; total, 5,200 antlered, 14,500 antlerless. WMU 2C: archery, 1,730 antlered, 1,150 antlerless; muzzleloader, 90 antlered, 1,310 antlerless; total, 7,400 antlered, 13,700 antlerless. WMU 2D: archery, 2,700 antlered, 1,650 antlerless; muzzleloader, 90 antlered, 2,170 antlerless; total, 10,000 antlered, 22,100 antlerless. WMU 2E: archery, 860 antlered, 460 antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 antlered, 690 antlerless; total, 4,100 antlered, 7,500 antlerless. WMU 2F: archery, 890 antlered, 360 antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 antlered, 740 antlerless; total, 6,000 antlered, 8,300 antlerless. WMU 2G: archery, 520 antlered, 380 antlerless; muzzleloader, 60 antlered, 800 antlerless; total, 5,000 antlered, 6,200 antlerless. WMU 3A: archery, 620 antlered, 720 antlerless; muzzleloader, 30 antlered, 1,060 antlerless; total, 4,000 antlered, 8,700 antlerless. WMU 3B: archery, 1,000 antlered, 930 antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 antlered, 1,430 antlerless; total, 6,000 antlered, 10,900 antlerless. WMU 3C: archery, 860 antlered, 820 antlerless; muzzleloader, 30 antlered, 1,230 antlerless; total, 5,800 antlered, 11,200 antlerless. WMU 3D: archery, 840 antlered, 780 antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 antlered, 950 antlerless; total, 3,900 antlered, 7,300 antlerless. WMU 4A: archery, 450 antlered, 440 antlerless; muzzleloader, 70 antlered, 830 antlerless; total, 3,700 antlered, 7,600 antlerless. WMU 4B: archery, 810 antlered, 590 antlerless; muzzleloader, 30 antlered, 720 antlerless; total, 3,600 antlered, 6,600 antlerless. WMU 4C: archery, 1,670 antlered, 1,100 antlerless; muzzleloader, 70 antlered, 1,260 antlerless; total, 5,900 antlered, 9,800 antlerless. WMU 4D: archery, 1,020 antlered, 630 antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 antlered, 920 antlerless; total, 5,600 antlered, 8,400 antlerless. WMU 4E: archery, 1,130 antlered, 950 antlerless; muzzleloader, 20 antlered, 1,040 antlerless; total, 4,500 antlered, 9,100 antlerless. WMU 5A: archery, 550 antlered, 560 antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 antlered, 680 antlerless; total, 2,400 antlered, 4,700 antlerless. WMU 5B: archery, 3,000 antlered, 2,530 antlerless; muzzleloader, 70 antlered, 1,280 antlerless; total, 7,400 antlered, 11,700 antlerless. WMU 5C: archery, 3,940 antlered, 5,060 antlerless; muzzleloader, 90 antlered, 1,390 antlerless; total, 7,700 antlered, 17,600 antlerless. WMU 5D: archery, 1,090 antlered, 2,050 antlerless; muzzleloader, 20 antlered, 190 antlerless; total, 1,500 antlered, 4,200 antlerless. Unknown WMU: archery, 80 antlered, 0 antlerless; muzzleloader, 0 antlered, 20 antlerless; total, 400 antlered, 90 antlerless. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Wops, sorry about that 308, I didn't see yours when I posted mine. [:o]
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Numbers mean nothing. I know the anterless total in 5c is wrong, to high . Lots ofpeople played games with their report cards this year. Plus thousands of doe tags were burned or filled out as a kill which never happened .
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
I did a bit of analysis of the harvest figures, comparing this year with the year before (2004 and 2005).
Total for the state 2004 2005 % decrease Antlered deer 124,410 120,500 -3.4% Antlerless deer 284,910 233,890 -16% Total kill 409,320 364,390 -13.5% Some WMU figures were down more than the average and some were down less. What really frosts my Post Toasties is that the reporting rate statewide was about 40%. This means that 60% of our "sportsmen" are too lazy to mail in a postage free postcard, and then want to grouse about how inaccurate the estimates are. Sad commentary on our sport, isn't it. Further, it would appear that those who said that there aren't any deer were blowing smoke as usual. In 2C, where posters are saying that there aren't any deer, over 20,000 total deer were taken. Somebody must be seeing them. Maybe it's the hunters who spend time in the woods who are getting all the deer? Hard to shoot them when you are in the cabin drinking brewskis, or at home on the 'puter griping on some message board. Ah well. Let the party begin. I for one am looking forward to next deer season, and the total kill in my WMU was down 28% from that in 2004. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
So you guys played games with the report cards, cardeer? You have personal knowledge of that? What a sportsman you are. You should be very proud of yourself.
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
ORIGINAL: lost horn Wops, sorry about that 308, I didn't see yours when I posted mine. [:o] |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Wow, what a coincidence. PA's drop is about the same precentageas several surrounding statesthat also experienced a decline in deer harvests from the previous season.
:eek: Whaddya think, alien abductions? ;O) |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Numbers mean nothing. I know the anterless total in 5c is wrong, to high . Lots ofpeople played games with their report cards this year. Plus thousands of doe tags were burned or filled out as a kill which never happened . |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
ORIGINAL: patrkyhntr So you guys played games with the report cards, cardeer? You have personal knowledge of that? What a sportsman you are. You should be very proud of yourself. THE DEER I SHOT WAS A SPECIAL HUNT ON CLOSED PRIVATE LAND BELONGING TO A POWER COMPANY.AREA HUNTED ONLY 1 DAY A YEAR. ONLY PLACE I COULD HUNT WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE.AS LONG AS THE PGC LIE TO THE HUNTER PEOPLE WILL GROUP TOGETHER AND DO THINGS TO FIGHT BACK.AGAIN I SENT IN MY CARD. OH BUT I CAN SHOW YOU DOZENS OF DEAD DEER ON A PILE ROTTING.THE GREAT PGC GAVE A DEVELOP[ER THE PERMISSION TO SHOOT THEM AT NIGHT TO CLEAR THEM FROM THE 2600 ACRES SO THEY WONT BE PROBLEM FOR THE NEW HOME OWNERS. Oh THAT WAS A GREAT ETHICAL MOVE.JUST LET THEM ROT |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Since you and your buddies play games with the harvest reporting system, please tell us how you would fix it. Also, since you don't believe or trust the blame commission, how about a source for some facts that you do trust. It seems to me that you are all gripe and no solution. I'll see if you post something worth reading in your next post, and if you don't, I have better things to do than to read this sort of trash.
It is interesting to me that most "sportsmen" in Pa. seemed to enjoy taking two or more does every year for about five years, but are oh so surprised when this resulted in a reduced deer population. I sat through one of Gary Alt's traveling dog and pony shows, and while he was busy rattling those nice antlers on stage, he was also talking about the need to REDUCE THE HERD. I keep coming back to the same thing. What part of "herd reduction" don't people understand? So the population in your area is down 70% is it? Let's take the WMU I hunt in, 4A. Just in the past two years, 2004 and 2005, the doe harvest dropped from 22,000 in 2004 to 7600 in 2005. That is a pretty big drop in harvest. Now, if the blame commission was falsifying numbers, cardeer, don't you think they could have done a better job and made this look better? I sure could have. The total deer kill in 4A was down 28% in those two years. Wouldn't you have made it look better than that, cardeer? You are one of those who looks for a conspiracy where there is no logical reason for there to be one, but don't let that stop you. If the harvest figures are not accurate, us "sportsmen" have nobody to blame but ourselves. Playing games with harvest report cards is so blatantly stupid that it defies anything in the way of common sense. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
I would not send in a card if I did not in the past. I believe that the PGC would increase doe allocations if more people sent in their report cards. Think about it, they would use that as a justification of an increase in kills so we must have a population increase, therefore we better increase the doe tags and make more money on the license sales.
I don't like thinking this way, but I certainly do not want to do anything to increase doe allocations in my unit. I hunt in 4c where it used to be perfect hunting. See 2-10 year per day (12 hours) during archery. This year I saw 1 deer in over 50 hours of archery hunting. Nice 8 pointer that I killed, but what is left for next year. I think it is a total joke that they say the numbers went down becuase the allocations went down. The numbers went down because no one is seeing any deer. A CARD MAILED BACK SHOWS AN INCREASE IN THE HERD AND THEREFORE AN INCREASE IN NEXT YEARS TAGS!!!!! |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
ORIGINAL: Chipcz A CARD MAILED BACK SHOWS AN INCREASE IN THE HERD AND THEREFORE AN INCREASE IN NEXT YEARS TAGS!!!!! |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
What surrounding states have reported on their 2005/2006 seasons.
2005 WV kill: 35% lower than 2004; 11% fewer buck, 37% fewer doe, but several counties were closed to doe hunting. 2005 NY kill: 14% lower than 2004; 35% fewer "doe" tags sold. 2005 OH kill: 3% lower than 2004; they think their herd has decreased by about 7%. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
I have to agree w/ whitetail deer.
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Wow! another rocket scientist heard from. With thinking like this, it is no wonder that so many don't send in harvest report cards. My pappy used to say, "Beauty is only skin deep, but dumb runs clean to the bone."
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Sending in a report card if you've killed a deer is an ethical hunter's obligation. Trying to skew the system only hurts everyone. If it were manditory for everyone to report regardless if one killed a deer or not we could put to rest the accusations that the PGC is fudging the numbers.
In reading the report I do take issue with these particular statements: 1. This year, less than 40 percent of hunters who harvested a deer sent in their harvest report card. How much less than 40 percent? Surely the agency must know? 2. Although the current reporting rates reduce the precision of harvest estimates, they do not affect the validity of the results or procedures. Does anyone really believe this statement? 3. Harvest figures for the Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP), which enables landowners to target hunter pressure where needed, are not available at this time, and were not included in these harvest results. The agency (PGC) removed this requirement from DMAP requirements, why? Don't they want accurate figures, or as accurate as is possible? Statements such as theseplace the PGC under greater scrutiny. The truth is, their failings are many, much like their "Magical, Mystical" Deer Harvest Formula. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
i love how they say the weather was a big factor.. gotta love it..
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Only if you entrust our future and our heritage in the hands of a few that may not have our best interests in mind.
Where I hunt it will never be the same. Dumb,hmmmm - I have a BS in Business Administration and I got my Masters degree in Environmental Business Studies. I love the outdoors and the great sport of hunting in PA. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Just goes to show that one can be educated but not smart, IMO. How old are you?
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Yes, I guess it is all wrong to completely change the data that the PGC regularly receives so that when they extrapolate the numbers it comes out that we have an upward spike in deer population in my hunting area. Then they can use that data to make sure they continue to reduce the numbers in my WMU.
I better quick send my card in so that my 1 kill looks like 3 hunters have had success and now they can bump up our allocation next year. That is much smarter. They use the theory that if more are getting killed the population must be rising and not falling as they want it to. Again, do I want to trust my love of PA and the outdoors in the hands of those that don't really know what is going on in my neck of the woods. Extrapolating the report cards is foolish and shows nothing. This year I took a walk after the only good snowfall we had along the appalachian trail. I walked 4 miles in and out through absolute lush prime hunting land. In the past runs crossed at many of the good cover areas. This year I saw what looked like a mother and 2 fawn tracks in those 4 miles. The fields in the area did not have a single track. That was around 48 hours after the storm. hmmmmm |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
A CARD MAILED BACK SHOWS AN INCREASE IN THE HERD AND THEREFORE AN INCREASE IN NEXT YEARS TAGS!!!!! |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Sending in a report card if you've killed a deer is an ethical hunter's obligation. Trying to skew the system only hurts everyone. If it were manditory for everyone to report regardless if one killed a deer or not we could put to rest the accusations that the PGC is fudging the numbers. I think that every hunter should be obligated to fill out a report card regardless of success or failure to be eligible to buy a license the next year. If you cannot fill out a card, you should not be trusted with a weapon in the woods of PA. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
I took the same sort of walk in the state gamelands on which I hunt, and was amazed at how many deer tracks I cut across. If I were hunting in the area you are, I probably would look for another area. You don't say what section of the Appalachian Trail you walked. Most of the trail is along ridgetops from the Delaware Water Gap to the Susquehanna. I would not expect to see much in the way of tracks at the top of the mountain in my area. The deer in January are usually lower on the mountain, but then, this is what my 52 years of experience as a hunter has taught me. It isn't how far you walk or how hard you hunt. It is how smart you hunt.
It still boggles my mind that you think sending in a card would cause the allotments of antlerless licenses to increase. You say you have a college degree, but make statements like that. Somebody has filled your head with a bunch of baloney, and it wasn't the blame commission. I expect allocations to be reduced in some of the management units, but it won't be because you are one of those who disobey the law and don't act like an ethical sportsman. If allocations are reduced, it will be because the herd has been reduced to below what the habitat can support, or because the habitat has started to recover. There is only one word for people like you, and that is unethical. Don't be too proud of yourself. People like you are the problem, not the solution. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
"If it were manditory for everyone to report regardless if one killed a deer or not we could put to rest the accusations that the PGC is fudging the numbers."
I hate to be the bringer of news in this way, but it is mandatory to send in a harvest report when you harvest a deer. Here, from the digest you got with your Pennsylvania license to hunt: "Within 10 days, hunters must report deer harvests to the Game Commission in Harrisburg using the report card supplied with each hunting license." Not reporting your kill makes you a violator of the law. A violator of the law is an outlaw. Now, do those of you who don't send in your report cards feel better since you know what you are? |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
I know lots of true sportmen and evory one havenever missed sending in a report card when they shot a deer,but I can't speak for the brown It's down croud I would guess they dont.
THIS NOT SENDING IN REPORT CARDS STARTED BACK IN 1985IT WAS A LIE THEN AND IT IS A BIGGER LIE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
ORIGINAL: patrkyhntr Since you and your buddies play games with the harvest reporting system, please tell us how you would fix it. Also, since you don't believe or trust the blame commission, how about a source for some facts that you do trust. It seems to me that you are all gripe and no solution. I'll see if you post something worth reading in your next post, and if you don't, I have better things to do than to read this sort of trash. It is interesting to me that most "sportsmen" in Pa. seemed to enjoy taking two or more does every year for about five years, but are oh so surprised when this resulted in a reduced deer population. I sat through one of Gary Alt's traveling dog and pony shows, and while he was busy rattling those nice antlers on stage, he was also talking about the need to REDUCE THE HERD. I keep coming back to the same thing. What part of "herd reduction" don't people understand? So the population in your area is down 70% is it? Let's take the WMU I hunt in, 4A. Just in the past two years, 2004 and 2005, the doe harvest dropped from 22,000 in 2004 to 7600 in 2005. That is a pretty big drop in harvest. Now, if the blame commission was falsifying numbers, cardeer, don't you think they could have done a better job and made this look better? I sure could have. The total deer kill in 4A was down 28% in those two years. Wouldn't you have made it look better than that, cardeer? You are one of those who looks for a conspiracy where there is no logical reason for there to be one, but don't let that stop you. If the harvest figures are not accurate, us "sportsmen" have nobody to blame but ourselves. Playing games with harvest report cards is so blatantly stupid that it defies anything in the way of common sense. I WOULD HAVE MANDATORY CHECK IN STATIONS TO START,FINES FOR NOT CHECKING IN A DEER WOULD BE 2000.00 AND LOSS OF HUNTING PRIVILAGES FOR 5 YEARS. UTILIZE OUR COLLEGE STUDENT.OTHER STATES DO.COLLEGE STUDENTS IN A ENVIROMENTAL FIELD RECIEVES COLLEGE CREDITS FOR COUNTING DEER IN THE FIELD. PLANT FOOD PLOTS IN ALL GAMELANDS,OTHER STATES DO KEEP ANTLER RESTRICTIONS BUT BACK TO A SEPERATE DOE SEASON IN GUN. PAY LAND OWNERS WHO DO NOT ALLOW HUNTING TO OPEN THEIR LAND TO 1 HUNTER FOR EVERY 20 ACRES PGC TO ORGANIZE BOW HUNTS IN THE BURBS AND FEDERAL PARKS MICROMANAGE UNITS TO BIG RIGHT NOW ONE DEER PER PERSON WHERE NUMBERS OUR DOWN ACCORDING TO A BETTER COUNTING SYSTEM WITH PROPER GAMELAND FOOD PLOTS AND PRIVATE LAND OWNERS WHO MOST ALREADY PLANT FOOD FOR THE DEER A 18 DEER PER SG MILE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS. PRY SOME MONEY FROM THE PA HUNTER THAT JUST TAKES FROM THE SYSTEM AND PUTS NOTHING BACK INTO IT RAISE THE LICENSE TO 35.00 TO SORT OUT THE WELFARE STYLE HUNTER AFTER THE DEER POP IS BACK UP TO HIGHER LEVELS AND A GOOD COUNTING METHOD HAS BEEN USED THEY CAN CUSTOMIZE THE ALLOCATIONS CUT THE TIES WITH THE TIMBER COMPANIES AND THEIR PAY OFFS GET SOME COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE AVID HUNTERS,NOT SATURDAY AT A SPECIAL PAY PRIVATE HUNTIN CLUB I FORGOT 20.00 ARCHERY TAG,20.00 MUZZY TAG AND 20.00 PER DOE TAG |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
So whats your point?????
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Yes, I knew it was manditory to turn in a report card upon legally killing a deer, but also remember that the agency allows DMAP the option of not turning one in. That being the case one could argue that they aren't really interested in obtaining an accurate accounting.
Just how many deer did DMAP account for, 100, 1000, 20,000? Doesn't it matter? What I find most disturbing about thematterconcerning report cards is that the PGC knowsless than 40 % of we hunters return them and in all these years have not made any changes in the system to improve their accounting system. That begs the question...WHY ??? |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
a card is not goanna make a diffrence sent in or not if you don't listen to the hunters.The hunters who been hunting for a while and sees a decline in deer should be enough evidence that the deer heards on down.blame the fog and rain,how lame of an excuse.listen to the hunters who know the deer herds in the area they hunt.the spend more time in the wild than the pgc does.For the pgc to say the deer heards have not been declineing over the years shows that they don't spend much time out hunting rather than looking for violations to increase their money and not care about the wildlife in the state.i never sent a card in and will prob never.if they are to stupid to see the reduction in deer then they need to hire a new team who actually hunts and can see what is going on in the woods.This is like going to school and doing paper work and come out and get a job without any hands on training and telling people who have been there they are doing it wrong.if they are goanna be ignorant enough to keep selling doe liscense when the heards are down and they know they are.I and i am sure many people will still keep buying them.and that will be over a million doe tags each year till there is only 100 doe left in the state.Then they will only issue 500k tags..It doesn't matter if thecard is sent in or not.It's about the money...if you don't believe that then your an idiot....
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
A good example. Thank you.
|
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
patrkyhntr- boths sides of this topic has idiots. for the record i send in my report cards. one thing the PGC could do would have every hunter send in a card, even if they didnt get a deer. if they dont send it in they dont get to hunt the next year.
enough of the cards though its important, we still have deer numbers going down. you might ask me "what part of HR dont you understand" well i do understand, and i was against it from the get go. i've always been for AR but i think they could take it to another level. they can say lower tags was the reason for the deer numbers but we still had buck numbers down, and for them to say weather was a reason is just crap. how many years are they going to use that one. im not a "sportsman" who says theres no deer, but i am one that sees danger in the future. i would just hope that in areas where "sportsman" say the numbers are low that the PGC will reduce the number of tags. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
I agree with your idea of requiring every hunter to submit a hunting report card at the end of the season, or to do so online. I propose that the penalty for this would be that an individual not submitting a hunting report would not be allowed to purchase a hunting license for the following year.
Further, I agree with you that there are idiots on both sides of the AR/HR debate. It should be past debate now. We have AR, and we have also reduced the herd. Perhaps it was for good reason and perhaps not. Some on both sides of that question are also idiots. While nobody who read the entire Audubon report, or any of the tremendous volume of literature other than that on the subject, would deny that there are problems in our forests, there are those who simply don't care. All they want is to be able to kill a deer, any deer, with the least amount of effort. Those days are gone. If you want to be a successful hunter it will take real effort coupled with a good bit of luck. I don't fear this, nor should you. What you should fear is the mentality that the forests are there to produce deer for hunters and the rest of the ecosystem can go to he11. This view is worse than shortsighted, but many hold it, and will hold the blame commission hostage until they get what they want. That is what I fear, not harder hunting, my friend. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
A couple of comments,
first in response to Denny's post concerning the harvest rates in WV and NY.Both states have admitted to overharvesting and plan on reducing tags accordingly.WV had the biggest problems with the over harvesting on state lands,the same problem we have here in PA. My second comment is about the decline in harvest rates in 2G.I hunt southern 2G but know alot of people who hunt in southern Potter county.Most of these guys are good experienced hunters and have been saying the deer numbers are getting dangerously low.The 25% decrease in bucks harvested in that WMU confirms what they have been saying.And this is a 25% decrease over 2004 which was down also! My third comment is about report cards. All hunters should fill them out,no excuse.If we got even 80-90% participation there wouldn't be any estimating in the harvests.And most likely the current method of estimating is high. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
ORIGINAL: patrkyhntr I agree with your idea of requiring every hunter to submit a hunting report card at the end of the season, or to do so online. I propose that the penalty for this would be that an individual not submitting a hunting report would not be allowed to purchase a hunting license for the following year. Further, I agree with you that there are idiots on both sides of the AR/HR debate. It should be past debate now. We have AR, and we have also reduced the herd. Perhaps it was for good reason and perhaps not. Some on both sides of that question are also idiots. While nobody who read the entire Audubon report, or any of the tremendous volume of literature other than that on the subject, would deny that there are problems in our forests, there are those who simply don't care. All they want is to be able to kill a deer, any deer, with the least amount of effort. Those days are gone. If you want to be a successful hunter it will take real effort coupled with a good bit of luck. I don't fear this, nor should you. What you should fear is the mentality that the forests are there to produce deer for hunters and the rest of the ecosystem can go to he11. This view is worse than shortsighted, but many hold it, and will hold the blame commission hostage until they get what they want. That is what I fear, not harder hunting, my friend. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
The guys who play games with report cards and fight the GC on everything had better be happy the when DCNR becomes in charge of hunting and there is no more GC. Just think of it...game lands sold, deer gone, hunting no more, Mmmmmmmmmm.
"look at those purdy flowers and the birdies that go "Tweet Tweet"! "Don't ya just love a dead, mature forest floor?" |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Those Sabb driving Al Gore Sticker back Pack telescope watching people are the savior of the northern tier, didn't you know!!!
 |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
ORIGINAL: lost horn AUDUBON, That's all I needed to hear, I read their report they blame evorything on the "woods rats" deer. The Audubon is anti hunting. They can stick that report where the sun don't shine!!!!!!!!!!!! |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
Oh boy, I have been waiting for another PA deer debate thread to pop up. Luckily, everyone is remaining fairly civil unlike past years. ;)
I sincerely do not understand what the debate is about. Harvest report cards, by law, must be turned in within 10 days of the kill. Not doing so is breaking the law. Where is the confusion? If you do not like the law then you need to share your opinion with the people that have the power to change it. Why you wouldn't want to know how many deer are harvested each year is a bit beyond me though. How would anyone effectively manage the herd if they were unaware of how many deer are out there as well as how many are killed each season? Now, if it is the actually reporting method that is the problem then I would love to hear some viable alternatives. Personally, I fall into the group that believes we should have to turn a tag in before getting another at least in some areas and in reference to specific situations. That would definitley increase the percentage of reported harvests. ;) |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
I gotta nickel sez them what refuse to comply now, will still figure out some way to not comply with whatever reporting system someone else comes up with.
[8D] States with mandatory check stations also have some problems with those that refuse to cooperate, so there is still a "fudge factor" that must be computed to arrive at their figures. Read elsewhere that Michigan is takeing steps to change their system and have admitted they have hadproblems with non-compliance. Our system in PA is not without shortcomings, but those that make their living at such things, have decreed that our system is within their standards of statistical accuracy and is a valid system for calculating deer harvest numbers. I have never had a problem taking a few minutes to fill out the postcard and sending it in, don't understand why anyone else would have a problem complyingwith the system. |
RE: PA HARVEST NUMBERS
If what you are saying, Denny, is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," I agree. I would like to see some minor changes made in the license year and the reporting system. I would like to see point of sales licence issuing. As a part of that sale, the purchaser would have to answer questions about his hunting success the past year. For example, he would have to state whether or not he harvested deer, how many, and in what WMU. The same for turkeys.
If everyone would just send in a postcard, nobody would have to think up changes. I guess it is just too hard for some. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.