holy crap please tell me that is not RSB from huntingpa.....about time a few of you guys get over here......same ole chit just a diffrent board lol....welcome about RSB....get the rest of the gang over here. i been here way longer then huntingpa...just cant take "these" threads and all the other whinning at huntingpa too much....but it seems they still pop up here from time to time...

A little tip about doe apps. guys. What I have found (since the switch to mailing them to Harrisburg) is that I actually get mine back quicker if I do not put them in the mail Friday or Saturday morning. If I mail mine Saturday afternoon or Sunday then I usually see mine back within 2 or 3 weeks. If I mail them in on Friday or Saturday mornings then I do not see them till after I get my second round back.

Don't know how it is for the rest of you folks.

Yes "Denny F" that was me speaking at that hearing. Unfortunatly there were very few pro firearms speakers at that hearing. It was predominately Anti's that got the most attention. If they enact that proposed legislation NO ONE in Pennsylvania will be able to buy or sell more than one handgun a month. Other cities and towns will be able to "regulate" who gets a Concealed Carry Permit. (Get ready to "suck up" to Law Enforcement in your town.) We had all better make sure where our state level politicians stand on this issue. And the meeting wasn't just about Philly. There were reps there from "Steeler" country as well as York and Harrisburg. There will be other hearings sometime in the near future in Harrisburg and York as well. Perhaps we should all make an effort to attend and speak.

Now for the good Game Warden's comments....
I was at my camp the last couple of days in lower Bradford County. Specifically Game lands 12 and 36 (Kahill Mt.). I took a walk down one of the firetrails for about 2 miles. I took my French Britt with me hoping to locate some grouse, and also my 357. Actually I was using the dog as bait for a Mountain Lion hoping for an attack on the dog so I could kill the lion and drag the dastarb down to the Regional PGC office in Dallas for pictures with me the cat and RSB in the latest issue of Penn Game News.
(I promise, the first time I see a Mountain Lion I will kill it.)

In any event, in the 2 mile walk I encountered exactly one set of deer tracks, 3 droppings of coyote scat, two sets of turkey tracks, one grouse flush (scared the lleh out of me) lots of old dried out deer droppingsand little else. Folks I know who regularly ride ATV's (illegally) on the Game Lands say they see very few deer as opposed to what they see on local farms. (By the way, the locals monitor the whereabouts and work schedules of the Game Wardens so they know when and when not to ride on GL.)

Try to remember that RSB is a soldier in the PGC LE group. I'm sure that he backed Gary Alts every move. I'm sure that he went along with the agency's claim that PA has 1.6 million deer. I'm also sure that when you encounter him in the Game Lands parking lot he is going to check your back tag to be sure it's signed, and if not will be more than happy to issue you a citation. That's just the way good soldiers operate.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see an article in the Penn Game news showing the success of our Board of Commissioners and the executives (especially Cal DuBrock) of the commission hunting the first day of rifle season on PA State Game lands. Complete with photos. After all, aren't the Game lands the "Jewels" of PA?
Canyou envisiona photo of Schleiden, Isabella, Palone and Boop along with Roe, Schmit, DuBrock and maybe even RSB in front of the Game Lands sign with a passel of big antlered bucks on opening day. WOW!!! What a story!!! WOW!!!! What a photo!!!!!

Not me , This year all I have to do is got to the local general store and buy a doe permit.

If the Game Commission was infallible I just might agree with you. However, if the PGC grossly overestimated the size of the herd and issued too many doe permits, then an overharvest occurred.
Many people think that this is exactly what happened when the PGC claimed that there were 1.6 million deer and upped the permits and extended the doe season. Now that the PGC finally admits that they don't know how many deer there are and sharply reduced the permits, particularly in certain WMU's, it seems that they too think there was an overharvest. Otherwise, just keep selling more tags -- it's not like they don't need the money!
Personally, if no one has any idea of how many deer there are, then I don't know how it can be determined whether or not it happened. We need real numbers and the PGC better spend money on that if it wants to get away from the junk science that's driving the ship right now.

OK now let me get this straight. Crappy habitat = too many deer were surviving just fine (Very Bad thing!). Great habitat = Hardly any deer but boy can the two that are left eat good (Great News). If the habitat is getting so much better, why does antler growth still suck? I'm seeing 1 1/2 yr old spikes in my community where the deer even get hand outs. It seems to me if there used to be a lot of deer the habitat could support them or they all would have starved to death. Going by current logic if we converted all of PA into a desert we would have about 2 million deer.

When are the tags actually due...I am sending out on monday. I live in Altoona.

Apparently many people fail to understand how deer populations are influenced by the local habitat combined with the environmental conditions.

We had more deer a few years ago because we were under harvesting them, due to the previous public and political pressures, but we also have several lucky years combined with those reduced harvests. The lucky part was that we had almost a decade of very mild winters combined with reasonable to great mast production. That provided ideal conditions for abnormally high deer populations.

The problem with those high deer populations is that they can’t be sustained once you get more normal or harsh winters with no mast crop even if hunters hadn’t harvested any of them. In fact if the hunters would have harvested fewer of the deer it might well have resulted in an even more severe crash of the deer populations.

What really cased the deer populations to decline over most of the state was the increased deer harvests, which was the agencies efforts toward getting the herd under control before harsh environmental conditions caused a crash, combined with those harsh environmental conditions that arrived before we had succeeded in getting the deer population in balance with more normal hard winter food supplies.

If you take a look you will see how the areas hardest hit with low deer numbers today had experienced about ten years of reduced antlerless harvests during the same time we had mild winters with good mast crops. Then you will see that the deer herds crashed following three years of failed mast production combined with two back to back winters of prolonged periods of deep snow conditions that forced the deer to spend almost two months in the habitat depleted wintering grounds.

The result was several years of reduced fawn recruitment because mom didn’t get enough food, through the winter, to produce fawns that weighed the minimum amount to survive after being born. One year of the reduced fawn recruitment is bad enough and hunters will start to notice a reduction. But, when you get back to back years of the reduced fawn survival and recruitment you start to get a compounding factor kicking in and it takes more then one year for hunter to start seeing the deer numbers increasing again.

On the plus side is that during those years of reduced deer numbers we started to get some habitat recovery because there weren’t the maximum number of deer the habitat could sustain. Now we are once again starting to see the deer numbers on the increase due to another good mast crop followed by a mild winter.

The problem is going to be if we don’t continue to keep the deer numbers at a low enough level that we continue to get habitat recovery. If the habitat starts to go down hill again then we can guarantee that the deer populations will crash again the next time we experience multiple back to back years of harsh environmental conditions. The environmental factors are always going to have some influence on the annual fawn recruitment, and thus the post season deer numbers, but when you have habitat that allows for the environmental factors to have total control of the deer recruitment factors then you are no longer managing the resources but simply allowing nature to control the factors. There are some people that think that is what would be best but they are wrong when it comes to species that have few natural predators yet the capacity to both increase their population rapidly and adversely affect their food supply. If we don’t control species with that capacity their numbers do stabilize but it is always at a low number that is subject to boom and bust cycles based on the changes in the environmental influences.

The bottom line is that hunters and high hunter harvests was not what caused the present decline in deer numbers in this state. It was the previous lack of habitat protection and restoration that caused the low deer numbers of the past few years. The habitat is now starting to improve and so are the deer numbers. But, we have to remember that the habitat has to come first, it can not be the other way around because no species can exist for more then short term without having enough nutritious food to both sustain them and allow for surviving offspring.

For the guy that is seeing better habitat and still seeing spikes I will simply answer by saying that can be a positive sign too. Perhaps that means the improved habitat combined with the better buck/doe ratio, from antler restrictions, resulted in more juvenile does making breeding weight the previous fall, getting bred and producing a fawn. A higher percentage of those fawns from juvenile does will be born a few weeks later then older does which then results in their buck fawns being spikes as yearlings. That is not a negative but a positive since those bucks wouldn’t even have existed in the past.

There is a lot more to deer management, and in the normal fluctuations in the deer numbers, then just how many deer were shot by hunters. Until hunters wake up to that fact they will continue to push the wrong buttons that will continue to harm the future of good and sound wildlife management principles. It has been the lack of hunter understanding and knowledge that has been the biggest stumbling block toward having long term sustainable and higher deer numbers over much of this state. We could have more deer, than we presently have, if the hunters and politicians would allow the professionals to do their jobs with the best knowledge available. But, the hunters and politicians don’t allow the professionals to do what is best for the resources so we will continue to do the best we can with our hands tied.

Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County

Some of the things you spoke about may be correct "RSB." Then again, some of those things you say may be PGC BULL$HIT!

Try and keep in mind that the agency lied when they said PA had 1.6 Million Deer on the hoof.

They continually lie about the yearly deer kill. Your asking intelegent people to believe that your agency can derive accurate kill figures when LESS than 40% of hunters return report cards. The PGC has conjured up a "Magical, Mystical Method" of calculation and made NO improvements to the equation in decades if ever. Oh, why doesn't the agency have a 1-800 number for reporting? Or...how about reporting on line?I know, the PGC knows best,..right?

Your agency allowed Dr. Alt to pursue a state-wide deer program with NO OVERSIGHT! Unheard of anywhere in the United States!

Only this year has there been any consideration for an Urban Deer Management Plan. I guess that element was simply forgotten by the Great Gary Alt, and all of the deer biologists on staff.

Because of this lack of oversight and accountability, a state-wide deer management program was initiated without first having test studiesor a basic pilot program in which to glean this vital information.
In fact, the proper designation for such an action in the scientific community is often labeled "Junk Science."

And now we find out that the agency has had secret meetings (JAN-05) with DCNR. Remember, DCNR is the biggest user of DMAP. DMAP was originally intended for privat landowners. DCNR advocates deer densities of ZERO.

Sorry "RSB" but no one is buying into your propaganda. Try selling it on "Wolf Pile" or possibly "Slaughterpa."

Well the cat is out of the bag now I guess. I was SHOCKED 2 weeks ago when the minutes of those secret meetings arrived on my desk. How dare the DCNR and the PGC to act in this manner and try to sell it to us as game management.

It's no wonder that the PGC is being sued by the USP and now I think we will see why the PGC wanted no part in handing over any information when the USP requested it.

At one time, I had the utmost respect for those in charge of manageing our wildlife and our forests. No more. As far as I'm concerned, they appear to be nothing more than abunch of snakes in the grass.