IMHO thats a pretty ballsy move since theres quite a bit of upset deer hunters.....but i agree.....i spent something like 75 bucks this year...with an extra turkey tag and 4 doe tags....thats like a dollar a day to me.......all i can say is they better start working to make the hunters happy.......they can jack up prices all they want but i know all to many guys that quit already.....and more to come if stuff dont shape up.......i know theres still a good bit of deer out there.....and i know its the hunters that killed the does...but what do you expect......give out more licenses hunters are going to kill the deer thinking the agency knows what its doing...not trying to turn this into a debate...but most of us seen the effects of HR...just hope it turns out for the best...ive never shot a mature deer with a small body....i dont think they had much problem eating!!! but oh well....i myself only plan to be in the state another 3-4 years if everthing works out for my future........

Bowhunter,DCNR isn't calling the shots.Yes they were told do do what ever was politically necessary to get the herd reduced.That's right on their website and it was imperative that they did that to keep their forest certification.No doubt politics were involved.However,last year the PGC reduced the allocations in 2f and 2F byover 40% and DCNR threw a fit about that.They also wantedto allow baiting,group hunting and no limit placed on the amount of dmap tags an individual could get.The PGC didn't cave into any of that and greatly reduced the allocations last year,despite DCNR'S wishes.As you can see,DCNR isn't calling the shots but it's easy to imagine the situation if they were.

Bowhunter,you also have to realize that more land aquizitions are not going to be more frequent,even with an increase.The PGC is only allowed to spend $400 an acres and that type of land is getting hard to come by.I believe it would take an act of legislation to get that changed.

Cardeer,$20 doe tags is something I'd support but then people would be screaming it's all about money.This has been considered before.

Mauser,the PGC cannot cave into the wishes of the hunters who want more deer than the land can support.That's what happened over the past 70 years and that's why the forests are in the poor condition they are.We simply had way too many deer for way too long and it will take a long time with much lower deer numbers to fix the problem.I live and hunt in 2G where much of the complaining is taking place.I see the poor shape of the forest from years of overbrowsing and I'm seeing signs of recovery now that the herd has been reduced.Even with a much smaller herd,I'm having no problems finding and killing deer on public land.Where the habitat is poor,there's few deer in these parts.Where the habitat is staring to recover,there's plenty.Now isn't the time to change ditrections and start increasing the herd too fast.Any progress made with the habitat will be lost and we'll be looking at another population crash when we have the next severe winter.

Less deer is abitter pill for many to swallow but unfortunately,it's themedicine we need right now.

GOOD NEWS...heck I thought you were going to say they tossed the bunch out on their ear..there has never in this county been such mistrust of any outdoor organization by the vast majority of hunters that support it..they have mishandled the ball for a long time and it's now coming back to bite them bigtime!! When an agency is not believed at a level higher than this it's usually replaced....credibility= ZERO and that might be giving it more than it's earned... $34 ,, $29 for this and that, an extra $20 and a $21, here a $20 there a $20....I spend $100's of dollars every year in all the states that surround PA and in NONE is there a perception of it's wildlife management like ours..too bad, from over a million to 635 000 adult licenses...vast majorities of land now off limits to regular JOES..something has gone amuck !!!!!

Good posts again DougE. Things are no different here in NY. Alot of guyshereIn NYstill don't have a clue why we need HR. One or two bad winters in a row and alot of deer will starve to death. Our winter brouse is in a bad state.

I absolutely,unequivocally, support a license fee increase!! To do differently would continue to put additional pressures on an already stretched-past-the-breaking point organization. Regardless of how you feel about the PGC, their demise could only lead to unthinkable alternatives.

Frank,you're correct about the mis-trust.With all the rumors and conspiracy theories floating around out there,it's easy to see where things are heading.I'll be the first one to say that Alt made alot of ridiculous claims that could never come true.His crazy rhetoric definately put a wedge between the hunters of Pa and the PGC.Things would be alot better today if he'd have just stood up and focused on the habitat and the need to reduce the herd instead of waving racks over his head.honesty goes a long way and he was short in that department.Still,the biggest problem is that very few hunters understand the relationship between the deer and the habitat.Ask most hunters to differentiate between a beech,oak and striped sapling and they can't do it.the hunters need educated and someone somewhere failed to accomplish that.I'm living with alot less deer but I have no problems with it because the state of the habitat is terrible around here.we're finally starting to see positive results now that the herd is down but it won't happen overnight.Instant gratification and game management will never go hand in hand.

Doug,

Great post. The only thing I can add is on the quote above. The statement is 100% on. But to sell and idea to hunters, big racks go over allot better than less deer. Othrrwise it would have never started...

As for the license increase. Ours have been going up to in MA. But if you think about it, I could spend 100$ easy taking my girl to a show, dinner, and drinks. Thats only one night. For less than that I get 365 days of hunting and fishing at pennnies per hour....

On the land that is managed by the DCNR DMAP tags are readily available. And what criteria are met to obtain tags for state forestland? Ask and receive? I read all over that the DCNR is attempting to manage the deer on their land well deer management is not their job that job belongs to the PAGC. Yet we sit back and accept the idea that the DCNR has the right to as many DMAP tags as they want. I hunt state forestland and I ran into a forester and asked him where are the deer? The small area was given 125 DMAP tags. His reply to me was I work this land year round and I do not hunt here need I say more. When those that are in the area year round wont hunt it do to the herd decimation over the past 5 years. The PAGC has a tough road ahead as far as its credibility with hunters. Gary Alt did more to disenfranchise hunters from the PAGC than any anti hunting organization could have ever done. A license increase may be needed but so is doing what’s best or at least listening to those that pay

Iagree with you about Gary Alt.

DCNRknows what'shappening on their land better than the PGC does.They have more forester and biologists out in the field than the PGC does.I'm suredmap was abused in certain areas of the state but that isn't the case in every district.I live in district 9 and the district forester is a very good friend of mine.Two seasons ago they considered expanding dmap to other areas of the state forests herebut decided not to in the end because they started to see favorable regeneration in these areas.People can keep beating this to death but the habitat was terrible on the state forests around here.The only regeneration occuring around here was in an area that got leveled by a tornado in 1985.The herd exploded there and after about 12-15 years it turned into pole timber and the deer started to disapear somewhat.Unfortunately the huge herd completely devistated the surrouning forest and now the understory is nothing but ferns.We had two back to back winters in 2003 and 2004.The mast crop was minimal those years and there was very little if any preffered browse.Take a look around these state forests some time.One deer needs to eat about 5 lbs of browse a day to survive a hard winter.Multiply that by 60-90 days and the number of deer present.Once you do this,it's easy to see how even a small herd can ruin the habitat when the habitat is already stressed.When you have little browse and a heavy snow cover,what do you expect the deer to eat?Alot of deer died those yearsand fawn recruitment went way down.Once a doe loses 25% of her body weight,she will most likely either abort the fetus and reabsorb it into her systen or the fawn will die from malnutrition shortly after birth.These effects take a year or two to show up in the herd and that's what we're seeing now in this part of the state.This is habitat related and the worst thing we can do is to let the herd rebound before the habitat can be fixed.We had too many deer for way too long.It's as simple as that and now we have to pay the price with lower deer numbers.