Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

here are the numbers from today and this time last year based on the second day for unsold doe tags. Thefigures indicate the number oflicenses still available and the parenthesied numbers are the total that are/were to be sold for that year.

8-23-2005 8-29-2006
Tuesday Tuesday
1A, 12,205 (40,000); 1A, 8,959 (42,000);
1B, CLOSED (27,000); 1B, CLOSED (30,000);
2A, 32,260 (55,000); 2A, 30,535 (55,000);
2B, 60,794 (68,000); 2B, 61,295 (68,000);
2C, 12,647 (53,000); 2C, 6,074 (49,000);
2D; 11,205 (56,000); 2D, 3,711 (56,000);
2E, CLOSED (21,000); 2E, CLOSED (21,000);
2F, CLOSED (30,000); 2F, CLOSED (28,000);
2G, CLOSED (29,000); 2G, CLOSED (19,000);
3A, CLOSED (27,000); 3A, 2,800 (29,000);
3B, 10,735 (41,000); 3B, 9,759 (43,000);
3C, CLOSED (32,000); 3C, CLOSED (27,000);
3D, 10,510 (38,000); 3D, 6,691 (38,000);
4A, 7,167 (35,000); 4A, 1,227 (29,000);
4B, 6,423 (35,000); 4B, 2,337 (31,000);
4C, 3,960 (39,000); 4C, 2,242 (39,000);
4D, CLOSED (40,000); 4D, CLOSED (40,000);
4E, 14,465 (38,000); 4E, 14,620 (38,000);
5A, 17,292 (28,000); 5A, 14,037 (25,000);
5B, 31,779 (56,000); 5B, 24,881 (53,000);
5C, 55,428 (71,000); 5C, 54,359 (79,000);
5D, 19,300 (20,000). 5D, 18,699 (20,000).


I'm not going to make a percentage for each number. I'm sure one of our bean counters on this board will do that. But the license sales dont look much different overall. Using this "rough snapshot", demand is up a bit in 1A,2A,2D,3B,3D,4C,AND 5C. Demand is about equal in 1B,2E,3C,4A,4B,4D,4E,and 5A Demand is down in 2B,2C,5B AND 5D

This isnt a perfect evaluation because some WMU's changed their allocations up or down and the assessments above were adjusted to be based on whats sold rather than whats left. In 2G, the allocation is way down and it sold out early both years so say what you like about it. I'd guess that some of the demand from 2Gthem got spread out into adjacent WMU's. 2D for example is much closer to being sold out at this time as opposed to last year. 2F sold out much quicker in the first week.

License demandseems to berunning just about the wayNeville said in some other threads.I guess the USP will have to find another way to spin things.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I hate to get into this whole debate over QDM, overall, I believe the intentions are good, but license allocation (in SOME WMUs) was overboard. I, for one, live and hunt in 2G, and can attest to the drastic decline in the deer population in the past 3 years in particular. It's obvious the PGC is aware of this due to the drastic decrease in license allocation, so let's hope we start to see a turn around in 2G.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I tend to agree, Matt that 2G needs some relief. Not from personal experience but from accounts by people on here whose judgement I respect. It appears that witha 35% reduction in doe tags that the PGC agrees that HR has gone a bit too far in 2G.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Actually there is has not been an increase in the antlerless allocations for unit 2G or the north central part of the state.

I will post the five average antlerless license allocations since 1957 along with the allocations for unit 2G so you can see the real facts about the number of license allocated.

Years……………allocation per square mile of land mass

57-61…………………………8.08
62-66…………………………7.06
67-71………………………..11.73
72-76…………………………9.93
77-81………………………..12.18
82-86………………………..11.68
87-91………………………..16.47
92-96………………………..13.49
97-01………………………..12.83
2002…………………………18.06 (single year of data)
2003…………………………12.64 (first year of management units – data for unit 2G)
2004…………………………12.64
2005…………………………..7.05
2006…………………………..4.62
03-06………………………….9.24 (average 2G antlerless license allocation)

I will agree that it appears the deer numbers are once again on the increase in unit 2G this year. That is most likely the result of the past year’s low harvest, due to so few antlerless license, combined with the good mast crop and mild winter allowing for increased fawn recruitment this spring and summer.

But this is all off topic, so I will also post that it appears to me that antlerless license sales are right on par with what would be expected.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Ok, so maybe I worded that incorrectly...I meant in conjunction with the new extended two week concurrent season, specialy muzzleloader, youth hunts, etc. The majority of the data you provided were allocations when there was only a 3-day doe rifle season, late muzzleloader season, and archery of course. I'm not even blaming you guys over attempting to drive the deer herd into the ground, I simply am observing what I've experienced...I've grown up on that same 90 acres that I know like the back of my hand, as well as the 1200 acres at our cabin, and I can tell you there are drastically fewer deer. The cabin herd isn't as bad as my nearby land, and I do attribute that to my original point of allowing so many extended seasons and special seasons while maintaining the current allocations of previous years. Like I stated in another post, my neighbor in the first year of the two week rifle doe season shot 10-11 doe on their 100 acre tract. Considering it was post rut, that was even more detrimental on the local population.

But like I said, I'm not going to jump on the PGC witch hunt bandwagon, I'm just stating my opinion on my local area. I'm glad to see the decreased allocation.

P.S. My dad has been a HTE instructor for 20+ years, so again, you know where I'm coming from.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

"RSB" did you forget to take into consideration "DMAP" in your calculations?

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Actually, can someone find or post the Anterless harvests of, say, 5 years prior to the AR's, up to the current last year harvests? Also a breakdown of those taken by archery, muzzleloader, and rifle? I may completely wrong in my above statement as a whole for pa (it certainly stands for my local area). Maybe the antlerless harvests haven't increased as drastically as I may think (again they have in my local area, I'm just not sure statewide), but I do know bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters generally don't contribute to the majority of the antlerless harvest (for example, in the 2000-2001 year, there was a anterless harvest of 301,379. Of that, bowhunters contributed to 40,069 anterless, and muzzleloader contributed to 29,216). That's a total of 69,285, or roughly 22% of the total antlerless harvest NOT taken by a rifle.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I would like to see counties have one year with doe season, and one year off. Back and forth.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

interesting...i didnt look at them all..but the area i hunt(1A) has seen a major decrease in sales. thats what a week diffrence in time almost..which means alot when we talk antlerless sales and last year was higher a week earlier in time. ill continue to doe hunt there because i still know spots that have a big healty population.

might mite. eveeeryone would like to see doe seasons changed and the population back up etc. but the PGC wants the herd lowered ACROSS the state. between human/deer conflicts and deer eating themselves out of a home etc it needed to be done. and our buck herd was pretty sad before. i see less deer then before. but its nice to see antlers now!! buck numbers seem to be way up IMO. when we get the herd where they want it they will relieve numbers enough to KEEP them stable and where they want them. hunters complain....but dont see that there is an actual plan, and it is being followed..and carried out by hunters. im kinda excited to see what the future has in store for PA. i miss the days of seein 20-30 deer a day easy, but i do like seeing more bucks. weve always had good genes..just never gave many a time to grow big racks. i think we just may become one of the known hotspots in the future. also gota change hunting tactics a bit. gota find the new deer hideouts and hunt them diffrently. i used to think you could sit dang near ANYWHERE in the woods and see atleast a deer on the rifle opener. now you have to hunt a little harder and smarter...not saying you dont..but PA hunters in general. i still see the sammmme guys sitting the same stumps and stands every year. they are the ones that cry the hardest. the other guys that chap my @$$ are the guys that complain there are no deer, then they shoot the only doe/yearling/button buck they see. ill continue to take a doe here and there. but if that was the only deer i seen all season i wouldnt kill it. and i wont cry theres no deer. there must be deer if im seeing and killing does.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Actually 1A is up considerably in license sales. the allocation went up by 2000 and the other number is whats left not whats sold. So at this time last year there were more unsold doe tags in 1A than there is now

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

When you look at the facts it doesn’t appear that the antlerless deer harvests in unit 2G are out of line with the historical and traditional harvests for the north central part of the state no matter the length of the seasons.

Here is the data in five year averages of antlerless deer harvested per square mile of land mass.

Years…………antlerless harvest per square mile

82-86…………………….3.71 (all north central counties)
87-91…………………….5.55
92-96…………………….4.32
97-01…………………….4.11
02-04…………………….5.36 (only a three year average)
03-05…………………….3.01 (three year average for unit 2G)

I don’t have the breakdown by weapon prior to the concurrent seasons but I can provide the totals for the period since the inception of the concurrent seasons.

The data is for WMU 2G for the three average from 2003 -2005.

Deer classification……………archery………….. muzzle loader……………trad. Firearm

Antlered………………………710………… ………..57……………………..7237
Antlerless……………………..813………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦1463…………………..10,113

[font="times new roman"][size=3]If you desire to break it down to harvests per square mile you can do so dividing that total harvest data by the 4114.04 square miles of land in unit 2G.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Have you included DMAP figures in this listing?

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Seems to me that demand is up compared to last year, Bob.
If the majority of hunters believe there are too few deer, it would
seem that they are still willing to shoot the last ones left.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I personally beleive that the majority of hunters think there are fewer deer but not too few and they are either satified with the current trends or taking a wait and see attitude believing that the deer herd will recover quickly if things go too far. RSB has said that deer numbers seem to be up a bit in 2G which is the WMU where many of us believethat isappears as if HR may have gone a bit too far.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I'm just curious, does anyone here hunt public land in unit 3D? Do you think over 40,000 doe tags is realistic? I'm counting DMAP also. I know where we hunt you are lucky to see a doe. Are you seeing the same thing?

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

my bad BTbowhunter.....i dont know what i was thinking lol. alot of guys sent 2nd round..i checked monday and there was like 16k left!..thats probably where i got screwed up..big drop in a days time

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Well gosh! Who are they gonna use to reduce the herd? Do these people
have minds?
People have no principles anymore. I know I can only control what I do.
If I personally believed there were very few deer left, I'd be damned
if I would go out and shoot does. I guess personal responsibility doesn't
supersede "I got mine" when it comes to hunting.
OR, could it be that most hunters do not feel that deer numbers are too few?
I think there are plenty of deer where I hunt at home. Up at camp is a different story. I wouldn't shoot does up there.

R.S.B...How are numbers doing in the ANF? How about Highland TWP, Elk County? This would be WMU 2F I believe. We didn't hunt there last year because we all tagged out in archery at home. We hunted there for 2 days the year before last and all we saw was lots of coyotes and 1 doe and 1 fawn between five hunters. As I said, I wouldn't personally shoot does there in 2F from my observations from 2 years ago. But then again, things can change quickly with deer reproduction.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

[/color]Pennsylvania White-Tailed Deer & Black Bear Harvest Reports, 1915-present
[/color][font=verdana,arial,geneva]




Year
Antlered Harvest
Antlerless Harvest
[align=center]Total Deer[/align]
[align=center]Bear Harvest[/align]

1915
1,287 Buck
CLOSED Doe
1,287 Total Deer
188 Bear

1916
1,722
CLOSED
1,722
435

1917
1,725
CLOSED
1,725
368

1918
1,754
CLOSED
1,754
387

1919
2,939
CLOSED
2,939
472

1920
3,300
CLOSED
3,300
420

1921
4,840
CLOSED
4,840
510

1922
6,115
CLOSED
6,115
563

1923
6,452
135136
6,460
500

1924
7,778
145146
7,904
929

1925
7,287
1,029
8,316
470

1926
11,646
1,295
12,941
660

1927
14,374[/color]
CLOSED
14,374
321

1928
CLOSED
25,097
25,097
427

1929
22,822
CLOSED
22,822
447

1930
20,115
5,979
26,294
707

1931
24,796
70,255
95,051
501

1932
19,724
CLOSED
19,724
247248

1933
20,480
CLOSED
20,480
586

1934
21,137
CLOSED
21,137
CLOSED

1935
23,802
46,668
70,470
402

1936
18,804
CLOSED
18,084
356

1937
39,347
CLOSED
39,347
537

1938
CLOSED
171,662
171,662
384

1939
49,106
14,581
63,687
535

1940
40,995
145,580
186,575
524

1941
19,271
CLOSED
19,271
593

1942
30,860
CLOSED
30,860
373

1943
23,931
14,951
38,882
382383

1944
28,411
CLOSED
28,411
394

1945
24,575
1,085
25,660
403404

1946
31,110
4,209
35,319
413[/color]

1947
31,475
63,568
95,043
569

1948
33,608
CLOSED
33,608
434435

1949
46,602
84,121
130,723
444445

1950
23,302
31,515
54,817
354

1951
34,582
37,952
72,534
474475

1952
27,164
37,829
64,993
484

1953
37,384
16,252
53,636
493

1954
40,915
CLOSED
40,915
504

1955
45,044
41,111
86,155
513

1956
41,921
CLOSED
41,921
524

1957
49,254
55,862
105,116
533

1958
46,738
65,187
111,925
542[color=#ffffff]

1959
38,270
51,902
90,172
551

1960
38,776
29,887
68,663
392

1961
38,705
17,327
56,032
580

1962
42,266
30,647
72,913
589590

1963
48,204
36,212
84,416
599600

1964
49,231
41,903
91,134
609610

1965
65,150
34,638
99,788
619

1966
58,722
60,031
118,753
628629

1967
78,268
66,147
144,415
638639

1968
62,038
79,836
141,874
648

1969
59,923
56,761
116,684
657[color=#ffffff]

1970
53,350
46,336
99,686
CLOSED

1971
55,602
48,625
104,227
688

1972
62,633
44,582
107,215
697698

1973
70,316
56,575
126,891
707

1974
70,689
54,963
125,652
716

1975
71,986
66,209
138,195
725

1976
64,084
57,949
122,033
734

1977
74,879
71,199
146,078
CLOSED

1978
61,698
59,543
121,241
CLOSED

1979
58,864
55,930
114,794
767768

1980
73,196
62,281
135,477
921

1981
73,322
75,208
148,530
819

1982
72,113
66,109
138,222
807

1983
70,233
66,060
136,293
1,529

1984
76,500
63,680
140,180
1,547

1985
76,097
85,331
161,428
1,029

* 1986
150,359
149,655
300,014
1,362

* 1987
157,547
177,242
334,789
1,556

* 1988
163,106
218,293
381,399
1,614

* 1989
169,795
218,806
388,601
2,213

* 1990
170,101
245,460
415,561
1,200

* 1991
149,598
238,417
388,015
1,687

* 1992
163,159
198,065
361,224
1,589

* 1993
165,214
243,343
408,557
1,790

* 1994
157,030
238,051
395,081
1,365

* 1995
182,235
248,348
430,583
2,190

* 1996
153,432
197,565
350,997
1,796

* 1997
176,677
220,339
397,016
2,110

* 1998
181,449
196,040
377,489
2,598

* 1999
194,368
184,224
378,592
1,740

* 2000
203,221
301,379
504,600
3,075

* 2001
203,247
282,767
486,014
3,063

* 2002
165,416
352,113
517,529
2,686

* 2003
142,270
322,620
464,890
3,000

* 2004
124,410
284,910
409,320
2,972

* 2005
120,500
233,890
354,390
4,164

Year
Antlered Harvest
Antlerless Harvest
[align=center]Total Deer[/align]
[align=center]Bear Harvest[/align]
* Deer harvests in these years are calculated harvest, rather than reported. The adjustment was made to reflect declines in successful hunter reporting rates.
[/size]

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I'm not sure where you got those numbers for? Care to provide a link? If they're even close to accurate with the adjustments, it's clear doe harvest have increased drastically starting in the 90s, before QDM and the bonus seasons, but the largest harvests were after QDM went into effect (which is expected given the additional seasons).

RSB, could you provide me a link to your numbers you've been giving in previous posts? Plus what's the PGC's feeling about 2G's deer population? I would assume the much lower allocation is an indicator of something, considering that's a much lower allocation than most of the other WMUs.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Here is the link, it is on the PGC site.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=493&q=159232

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Thanks...for some reason after searching the site a day ago I couldn't find that.:D

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I'm kind of confused about the numbers here...that adjustment that is indicated in red begins in 1986, and the numbers drastically increase compared to the previous years trends (1985 had ~161,000 total harvests, and then in 1986, it's up to ~300,000?) How were these adjusments made? Was there a steady decline in reported hunter success in the years preceding? The numbers don't indicate that, yet after the adjustments are made, why such a drastic increase?

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Matt I beleive that prior to 1986 the PGC only published the kill based on actual report cards recieved. They also checked deer processors against reports to obtain a reporting rate. in 1986 they began publishing a kill based on the actual cards multiplied by the appropriate percentage based on their reporting rate.

This would be an example of how the kill gets calculated since 1986 The actual numbers mean nothing. They're just picked at random to show how it was done.

Report cards recieved 100,000
deer checkedbt WCO's at butcher shops 1000
% of deer checked at butcher shops where report cards came in 50%
Total estimated kill 200,000

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

That's when they started the calculated harvest, looks like there were a lot of lazy hunters.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Thatnks for the clarification BT. I wasn't sure what method they used to base their estimate.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Curious if anyone can lay their hands on a link for the number of hunters per yearfrom say 1970 up to the present ?

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

The data I posted does not include DMAP harvests since they are not included in the calculated harvests.

It seems that the DMAP deer harvests are very insignificant in the big picture of deer harvests though.

During the 2004/2005 season there were only 34,135 DMAP permits across the entire state. Of those permits 7,946 hunters reported killing a deer and 19,874 hunters reported that they did not kill a deer. There were 6,315 hunters that didn’t file a report.

At that rate there were 0.76 permits per square mile and hunters reported harvesting an additional 0.18 deer per square mile. Even if you were to assume that all of those hunters that failed to report had actually killed a deer, which I am sure didn’t happen, it would only have increased the statewide harvest by an additional 0.32 deer harvested per square mile.

Even if you were to assume that all of the deer killed had come from units 2G and 2F, due to those areas having the most DMAP permits, it would only have only increased the antlerless deer harvest in those two units by 1.22 deer per square mile.

Therefore when you look at those facts in a logical and objective manner it is obvious that even with DMAP harvests included the 2G antlerless harvests have not been excessive when compared to past harvest history.

Perhaps it is time for hunters to face that fact that the environmental factors instead of high hunter harvests are what have been controlling the preseason deer populations in the northern tier areas of poor habitat the past few years.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Well, yes Beenthere/Deerfly the generally accepted principle of both antlerless allocations and antlerless harvests tend to decline when the deer population is reduced, regardless of what caused the population reduction.

That really shouldn’t be any surprise if a person looks at the data with a logical and unbiased mindset.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

RSB, could you pleas answeremy questions above. What environmental factors are we talking about here? Just curious here.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Actually I can not provide a link since it is not on a web page. It is in my computer based on the deer harvests relative to the amount of land mass in the various Counties, Regions and wildlife management units.

Yes, the lower allocation in unit 2G does have significance based on the fact that it is obvious that the deer population in the unit is lower then it has been in any recent years or perhaps anytime in our lifetime.

There are other influencing factors that are also being evaluated though, such as the habitat conditions and what influence that has on the health of the deer herd. Right now they have backed off of the harvests in the unit until some of those other factors can be more closely evaluated.

Contrary to what some people would have you thinking and believing the professional wildlife managers are trying to do what is best for the future of both the deer herd and the hunters. Sometimes though what is best for both the deer and hunter has to provide primary consideration to the year round food supply needed to support more deer or even in some cases fewer deer.

The total picture is a lot more complex then just saying if we don’t shoot so many of them there will be more deer. In reality it just doesn’t work that way, at least for more then very short term.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I’m not sure what questions you are referring to unless they are the ones I already answered. I didn’t really talk much about the variables of the environmental factors though so I will do that now.

The annual post season deer populations are greatly influenced by the previous year’s food and winter conditions. When you have a fall with little or no mast crop the deer don’t put on as much weight before the winter sets in. So that alone can be an environmental influence that can and will affect the next year’s deer population. I will explain more about how that actually affects deer populations a bit later in this post.

The next environmental factor that has a serious impact is the depth of the snow cover and the length of any adverse winter snows. In the northern tier and mountainous regions elsewhere across the state once the snow gets deep in the winter the deer are forced off of the ridges and plateaus and into the river and creek valleys to what are typically referred to as wintering grounds. At this point there can be all kinds of good browse or food on the higher ground but it isn’t of any value to the deer because they can’t get to it.

When that happens and deep snow cover locks the deer into primary wintering grounds the deer will seriously impact the available food supply. While that is happening the deer are all losing weight and sometimes that weight lose is significant. If a deer loses over about 1/3 of its body weight it is probably going to die even if the snows disappear and the deer can now find all the food it wants.

But, the real problem is not with winter mortality of the deer, which generally doesn’t happen in great numbers. The real problem comes from reduced fawn survival rates the next spring. When the doe doesn’t have enough high quality food through the winter and the spring she produces an under weight fawn and that fawn then has little chance of surviving after it is born.

To show how much of a factor the poor winter food conditions can have fawn survival I am going to provide some data from a research project in Michigan that was designed to measure the affects that the nutrition of the doe would have on fawn survival rates. To do that they provided various amounts of natural food supply to captive deer and I am going to show the fawn mortality percentages for each group of deer.

Food value……………………………………… ………….fawn mortality
Good winter to good & moderate in spring……………………….12.2 %
Poor winter & good spring……………………………………†¦...35.1 %
Poor winter & moderate spring……………………………………53 .7 %
Poor winter & poor spring……………………………………†¦â€¦92.9 %

These fawn mortality figures are only including loses from nutritional factors and don’t even include any predation. So through in some normal predation and it isn’t too hard to see how much of an affect the length and severity of the winter can have on the next year’s fawn population. If you have two or three years of these harsh environmental years in a row you start getting into a compounding factor and the deer populations drop very rapidly.

I believe that is exactly what we just experienced here in the northern tier and across our more mountainous regions of the southern tier. We just had a year with a good mast crop followed by a more mild winter so I suspect we will also see some deer population improvement this year, but we also have to remember that it was compounding of bad years that got us to the low level and it will take a compounding of years to fully recover from the lean year.

Think of it this way; half of those fawns that died within a few days of being born during the previous three years were button bucks. You will never see nor harvest one of them though because they died soon after being born. The other half were doe fawns and they will never be seen or produce a fawn because they died soon after they were born. The bottom line is that you have to have good fawn recruitment if you want good deer numbers in the future. To have good fawn recruitment you have to have good habitat, but it isn’t even enough to have good habitat unless it is also where the deer need it during the harshest of winter conditions.

Most of those environmental factors we can’t control so all we can do is understand that there will always be some major fluctuations in deer populations resulting from the variables of the environmental factors.

Some things in both life, as in nature, we just have to accept while trying to make the best of them by learning to understand and expect them.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Since we’re in the data sharing mode, here is some data of mine (no direct link available), but it is based directly on PGC website data. I would tend to question the 2005 results, as the PGC Buck Harvest number of 120,500 is too much of a “round number� to suit my taste.

Year ….... Buck Harvest success / general tag
1998 …... 16.9%
1999 ……. 18.8%
2000 ……. 19.5%
2001 ……. 19.3%
2002 ……. 16.2%
2003 ……. 13.9%
2004 ……. 12.2%
2005 ……. 12.4%

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Do you have better numbers, Yano? If so, what is the source?

UNtil someone comes up with a better system for estimating the deer kill for Pennsylvania, I guess we have to accept the PAGC numbers as the best available.

Actually, there is a better system available to us. It would be for all hunters to obey the law and send in their report cards when they harvest a deer. That nearly 60% of us are too lazy to do so, or refuse to do so for whatever stupid reason they have, speaks volumes about us as a group. What should the public perceive about us? That we refuse to help make the system work, but gripe about it anyway?

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Better reporting ratios would definitely help the PGc's credibiliyi if nothing else

I would say that the penalty for not isnt severe enough but, afterhaving my son accused of not reporting on a DMAP when I personally sent the thing along with mine and my other son tells me that there is more than one problem. (They had mine and the other son)

I also had a friend get a fine a few years back for not sending his card in and he swears that he did.

It seems that we ought to have an online reporting system (with a printable receipt for the hunter)

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

"That nearly 60% of us are too lazy to do so, or refuse to do so for whatever stupid reason they have, speaks volumes about us as a group."

Yup and amen. I've suspected for some time, that themany ofthose that sneer about sending in reports as required and refuse to do so, are the very same people who tend to grumble incessantly about the game commission, blaming them for anything under the sun.

The PGC isn't close to being perfect, but neither are they the incompetent stumble bums that many like to make them out to be. Sorry, no data or links to prove my point, just a hunch after having spent many years listening to hunters flap their gums.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I'd bet that the majority out there views the PGC as "about average" for a government agency. That's not a condemnation but unfortunately, it's not exactly a compliment either. The few occasions that I've had to interact directly with agency personell has been mixed about 50/50. Some were indifferent beaureacrats and some were helpful, caring and courteous.

Overall, based on my experience for a government agency, I'd call them remarkably average.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

"I believe that is exactly what we just experienced here in the northern tier and across our more mountainous regions of the southern tier. We just had a year with a good mast crop followed by a more mild winter so I suspect we will also see some deer population improvement this year, but we also have to remember that it was compounding of bad years that got us to the low level and it will take a compounding of years to fully recover from the lean year."

I understand fully what RSB is saying here, but there is one issue I see that is being totally missed:What happens when the PGC keeps adding more and more days, seasons, DMAP programs, combined buck/doe seasons, and more liberal bag limits EVERY YEAR over the course of a long term period WITHOUTtaking into account fawn recruitment or winter severity EVERY YEAR?

Does thePGC eversay "well we had bad fawn recrutiment this spring, so we will cut out the early muzzleloader season", or "we had alot of deep snow and ice this winter, so we aren't going toallow kids/seniors to kill either bucks or does this year?" No they do not! Instead, every year, they come up with some new fangled method/season of killing more deer ... especially does. [:@]

Consequently, there really is no opportunity for a "compounding of years to fully recover from the lean year." Instead, any slight improvement in the population in the short term is immediately negated by increased harvest pressure due to theincreased availability of opportunities for hunters to fill their tags in the short term.

Also, the claim that it will take the compounding of several good years to overcome the lean one takes a very "optimistic" stance that the following years will be good ones as well. The next few years could just as easily be the worst ever just as it easily as they could be good. it seems to me that it would be best to have the deer population At or NEARits carrying cpacity NOT WELL BELOW it in order to maintain some insurance that the population would not be subject to a total crash in the event of a widespread environmental disaster.:eek:

I just wish someone could explain to me how all the available browse and habitat for deer in the NC part of the state deteriorated to the point that it could no longer support a healthy deer herd when it was able to supportlarger herds for decades with only a 2-day anterless season and 2 weeks of buck.Shouldn't the regeneration of food and browse been able to take advantage of the reduced pressure by deer IMMEDIATELY after the removal of more deer, sincemost browse and low level food sources do not take decades to mature?

In most of my ecology and biology studies, Ilearned that population dynamics were directly related to the carrying capacity of the land. (i.e. the population is controlled by its available food sources.) If the deer were truly eating themselves out of house and home like the PGC claims, wouldn't their numbers have been shrinking on their own rather than burgeoning even without any hunter predation at all?:eek:

I say get rid of early muzzleloader, get rid of DMAP, get rid of seniors/youths having the opportunity to shoot either sex, get rid of late muzzleloader/bow & go back to an early archery, 2 weeks of AR buck and 2 days of doe.Almost like it was when very few hunters were _itching, deer were plentiful, and PA was one of the premier deer hunting states in the entire country (albeit without the spike and forkhorn harvest.)


I truly belivethat the AR program is a great wayto allow bucks to live longer. However, the effectiveness of AR is being negated by the increased anterless harvests and increased hutner participation opportunites. After all,they aren't getting a chance to grow larger racks if they are being killed as button bucks, killed in late muzzleloader afterthey drop their antlers,etc.

Havinglived and hunted my entire life on PA public lands, and recently moving from PA to NJ, I know that I am on the fence about purchasing an expensive out-of-state license this year after seeing so few deer during the past 2 seasons. I am sure that there are multitudes of others that have already thrown in the towel. Unfortunatley,PA will continue to loserevenue sources if they can't provide a decent enough population of animals for hunters tofeel it is worththe money and effort to pursue them.

Now, if anyone wants to try to tell me that "I don't see as many deer becasue I don't hunt hard enough" I will extend you an invitation to go hunting with me for the entire first week of buck in 3B this year.I am sure you will find out that many of us are not lazy "stump sitters" that keep planting their butts in the same stand loctaions every year, and we are definitely not seeing many deer at all anymore.

Also, does anyone know whether the PGChas any factorsto increase the harvest rate to account for illegal poaching,animals killed by vehicles that are able to limp off of the orad before they perish, or the # of young and adult animals that are being killed by the SIGNIFICANTLY increased coyote population?

- Gr8ful

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

Since the report cards are pretty much meaningless maybe we should all send one in whether we shot something or not. When the deer killed jumps 60% they won't know what to do.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I got a better idea.How bout we all just comply with a simple request and start sending in the self-adressed postage paid card every time we kill a deer.That would solve all the issues.

RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
 

I've got even a better idea. ALL license holders must return a kill report by a certain date, regardless of success or failure to be eligible to hunt the next year.


R.S.B...How are numbers doing in the ANF? How about Highland TWP, Elk County? This would be WMU 2F I believe. We didn't hunt there last year because we all tagged out in archery at home. We hunted there for 2 days the year before last and all we saw was lots of coyotes and 1 doe and 1 fawn between five hunters. As I said, I wouldn't personally shoot does there in 2F from my observations from 2 years ago. But then again, things can change quickly with deer reproduction.