T_in_PA3

germain,
I got for the entire state for all years DMAP has been implemented. Funny thing with DCNR, you email them asking for information and they are more then willing to send it to you. I got all kinds of DMAP numbers.

DougE

The hunters shouldn't have a say in who gets voted in as a commissioner.If they were elected positions,what would stop an anti-hunter from running and getting voted in?What's big money and who's getting paid off?Where's your proof?

germain,DMAP'S have remained the same in district 9 and the last I talked to our district forester,he had no plans on increasing the number.

T_in_PA3

District 9
1 dmap area in '03
added 2 more for 3 total in '04
same 3 in '05

19,799 acres in '03 with 395 coupons available and 97 deer harvested.
64,917 acres in '04 with 1800 coupons available and 284 deer harvested.
61,690 acres in '05 with 1800 coupons available and 298 deer harvested.

Areas might be the same but acreage calculations may vary depending on method used. This my assumption on the acreage difference in '04 & '05 based on my experiences with mapping data.

DougE

Nothing really changed there is the last two years.The district forester is a friend of mine and he said they wanted to have time to gather data before they made any changes.Sounds reasonable to me.Hunters are harvesting about 3.2 dpsm with dmap tags in there.That's hardly wiping out the herd.A huge tornado blowdown runs through the middle of this district that offers alot of cover.It's not an easy place to get deer out of.the surrounding habitat is classic mature overbrowsed hardwoods with nothing but ferns and laurel in th eunderstory.This was one of the first areas flown over this year so those results will be interesting.I bet they easilycome up with more than 20 dpsm.

Phil from Maine

I know I can not speak for PA but, here in Maine the problem is the same.
Low deer numbers mean less out of state hunters. The price of gas means less dollars and less dollars mean less management. The start for us as I see it was the big clear cuts of the 70s. Our deer started declining in rural areas and the woods were still being selectively cut. They started the antlerless deer permit system and yet the deer continued to decline. Tall growth habitat was removed so the winter months they had it harder to find the cover needed. The only places the deer numbers seam to rise is around the populated areas. During the deer decline our moose population started to rise and that it did. They rose enough to start a moose lottery system and even a moose aution for a handfull of lucky people. The coyote population rose along with the moose population. Now Maine has fallen to less lisence sales as the good hunting days have all but dissapeared. It would appear that the planning up here has backfired but, with this past mild winter maybe ( just maybe ) things will start a slow process of turning around. For as far as coyote sitings you can drive around here and are bound to see one a night. Does not sound like much,
but nearby here 2 years ago coyotes wiped out twenty three pregnant does. They chased them from there deer yard and into a river. Last year a group trapping caught 54 in a twenty mile radius but, nobody would see very many there? So I guess the problem here is bigger than what meets the eye. Anyways I sure hope PA has better luck at turning things around before it becomes like here.

DougE

That's just thing.Things are turning around here.Allocations have been drastically cut in the areas of the state where the herd has been decreased.The last two winters have been mild with good mast crops.We had bad weather for the first two days of our rifle season when the majority of deer are killed.Alot of deer were saved and alot more will be born.I simply fail to see how things are so bad and I live in the unit that has the lowest deer densities.

People keepasking for the state to cut more timber like you're describing in Mainebut most fail to realize that if you cut much more than 1% a year,eventually a high percentage will be in pole timber which has the lowest carrying capacity of any forest type.You obviously have a habitat problem or you'd be seeing an increase in the population if there's less pressure like you describe.

germain

Doug,the kill rates are so low in the demap area because the populations are down below 10 dpsm in some areas.With those numbers that kill rate of 3-4 dpsm aint too bad.

Thanks again T,good stuff there.
But don't go thinking I'm gonna start liking the DCNR just because they gave you the info so quick.

DougE

I have no concrete proof but I'm willing to bet that few hunters burned their regular 2G tag in this area.It makes no sense to do so if dmap's were available.I killed a dmap doe in this area every year and never considered using my 2G tag.I hunted that area on the first day of archery last year.I killed a big doe and saw 5 other deer by 8:00am.Somehow I doubt they were the only deer in a half mile radius,considering all the sign I saw.In fact,a bunch crossed infront of my truck as I was leaving that morning.The deer herd is way down by S.B. Elliot state park and near Mitches restaurant.Why would they be there in the first place though?

The pellet count and FLIR reports will be out for that district pretty soon.I have a very hard time believe the dd is anywhere near 10-12 dpsm.It may be that low in the one dmap unit on Rocton mountain where the habitat is so poor but it's no where near that low in the tornado area.If it is that low,it's not because of the hunters.No way could the hunters go into that area and decrease the herd that much.I hunt right in the middle of that tornado area during bear season andrarely ever see a hunter in that mess and far more guys hunt that area in bear season than they do in deer season.The hunters post all around the open woods in deer season just like they do in bear season.Unfortuanately for them,the deer and the bear like the heavy cover.Before you say it,the habitat is poor in the tornado area.It's mostly beech,striped maple and devil's club.Poor food source but excellent cover to hide in.The hunters did not drastically reduce the herd there.

Crazy Horse RVN

"Allocations have been drastically cut in areas of the state where the herd has been decreased."??? You meanDECIMATED!Just ask Tom Boop, member of the PGC's Board of Commissioners from area 2G. Now, who would know what's best for area 2G but a Commissioner who lives there?

The mast crops have been good the last two years. So good that the acorns are still on the ground from the previous year because there are NO deer to eat them.

We did have bad weather for the first 2 days of the rifle season. That prompted a great many hunters to crack a doe and call it a season rather than continue to hunt for a buck. Imagine 12 days of doe season thanks to the wisdom of the biologists (and managers) at the PGC.

Last year the PGC cut .4%. Far less than the 1.% called for in a 100 year rotation plan. It should be noted that of the agency's 1.4 million acres of Game lands 93% are in timber. (That figure isfrom the Game News magazine )

I think PA can afford to cut a little more timber. Has anyone read the Grouse Study Report on the PGC web site. Just read the Abstract and pages 36 and 37. Those few pages tell it all.

Ruddyduck