|
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: R.S.B. ORIGINAL: sproulman ORIGINAL: germain If it's close to williamsport sproul it could simply be one of those areas with easy access near a populated area that gets hammered keeping the number of deer very low.That does happen. habitat and weather are notonly factors, OVERHARVEST OF OLDERDOE/FAWNS is the main reason, i feel that we are seeing less fawns.. Elk County is much like the area where they have been doing one of the doe mortality studies in the fact it has large remote areas. Where they had the does collared, with mortality sensor collars, and could prove if they were still living or dead it was determined that the hunters in the remote areas were harvesting less then 11 out of every 100 does. That hardly sounds like an over harvest of the does. In the easy access area of the state where they are also monitoring the doe harvests with mortality sensor collars the hunters are harvesting less then 19 out of every 100 does. So it doesn’t appear that hunters are over harvesting the deer in that area either. In the areas of the state with unlimited antlerless license and where hunters have been legally permitted to harvest more does then they can squirrels the deer populations and deer harvests have both been steadily increasing. The deer populations have been increasing there because they have harvested enough deer for the past fifteen to twenty years to protect the food supply, which keeps the deer healthy enough to have high fawn recruitment. Here let me show you the antlerless harvests for a few counties over the past twenty years or so and then you tell us how they have over harvested the does in your home county of Clinton or in my area of Elk County. All of the data is in harvests per square mile so it can be compared in an equal manner. County………….…….82-86…….……87-91………..….92-96………..….97-01 Allegheny……………..1.5……………..2.5â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦6.8……………...8.1 Elk…………………….3.3……………..5. 3………………4.0……………...3.2 Cameron………………3.2……………..5.4†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦2.0……………...1.5 Clinton………………...2.4……………..4. 0………………1.8……………...1.9 Go ahead and explain to use how they have been able to harvest three or four times as many does per square mile in and around the city street of Pittsburgh for over ten years, without over harvesting the does, while harvesting less then two does per square mile is an over harvest in the remote areas of Clinton and Cameron County. The plain and simple fact is that all of the real evidence of the matter indicates that you can’t over harvest the deer populations where they live in suitable habitat to support more deer. If enough tags are given out year after year you can over harvest. That's a fact. The facts of the evidence also prove that hunters are not over harvesting the deer in the remote counties of this state and most likely aren’t over harvesting the deer anywhere in the state. The facts of the evidence go on to further prove that where hunters fail, or refuse, to harvest enough does the deer will damage their own food supply and then lower their own populations with reduced fawn survival rates My well has not gone dry and I still have water. So when someone tells me their well dried up they must be a liar cause I have water in this part of the state. . Bad weather can resort to the above I posted about. Deer can be over harvested. No fawns more tags= overharvested (bad weather is the cause of this) But how many bad winters have we had in the past 20 years and the herd stayed healthy and strong without a decline? It is also very obvious, to those willing to pull their head out of the sand, that the under harvesting of the does has been the greatest folly and mistake in the history of deer management in this state. If we had spent the past half century protecting the food supply instead of the does we would have a lot more deer then we have today. If we don’t start protecting the habitat and food supply now we are also going to have even fewer deer in the future then we have now. This has never been proven over the 20yrs. The deer remained high populated and healthy over the years. This is not a fact and cannot be proven thatwe will have less deer to hunt. What is a fact is we have less deer to hunt now because of all the killing of does.Deer are very hardy animals. Those are the facts the deer are telling us; we just need to be smart enough to listen to all of the facts they have been proving to us over the years. If we refuse to be that smart we will have fewer deer and less hunting opportunity in the future. If these are the facts then why have they been so healthy and abundant before all this talk about food supply?This can not be disputed. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: deer_handler ORIGINAL: R.S.B. ORIGINAL: sproulman ORIGINAL: germain If it's close to williamsport sproul it could simply be one of those areas with easy access near a populated area that gets hammered keeping the number of deer very low.That does happen. habitat and weather are notonly factors, OVERHARVEST OF OLDERDOE/FAWNS is the main reason, i feel that we are seeing less fawns.. Elk County is much like the area where they have been doing one of the doe mortality studies in the fact it has large remote areas. Where they had the does collared, with mortality sensor collars, and could prove if they were still living or dead it was determined that the hunters in the remote areas were harvesting less then 11 out of every 100 does. That hardly sounds like an over harvest of the does. In the easy access area of the state where they are also monitoring the doe harvests with mortality sensor collars the hunters are harvesting less then 19 out of every 100 does. So it doesn’t appear that hunters are over harvesting the deer in that area either. In the areas of the state with unlimited antlerless license and where hunters have been legally permitted to harvest more does then they can squirrels the deer populations and deer harvests have both been steadily increasing. The deer populations have been increasing there because they have harvested enough deer for the past fifteen to twenty years to protect the food supply, which keeps the deer healthy enough to have high fawn recruitment. Here let me show you the antlerless harvests for a few counties over the past twenty years or so and then you tell us how they have over harvested the does in your home county of Clinton or in my area of Elk County. All of the data is in harvests per square mile so it can be compared in an equal manner. County………….…….82-86…….……87-91………..….92-96………..….97-01 Allegheny……………..1.5……………..2.5â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦6.8……………...8.1 Elk…………………….3.3……………..5. 3………………4.0……………...3.2 Cameron………………3.2……………..5.4†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦2.0……………...1.5 Clinton………………...2.4……………..4. 0………………1.8……………...1.9 Go ahead and explain to use how they have been able to harvest three or four times as many does per square mile in and around the city street of Pittsburgh for over ten years, without over harvesting the does, while harvesting less then two does per square mile is an over harvest in the remote areas of Clinton and Cameron County. The plain and simple fact is that all of the real evidence of the matter indicates that you can’t over harvest the deer populations where they live in suitable habitat to support more deer. If enough tags are given out year after year you can over harvest. That's a fact. The facts of the evidence also prove that hunters are not over harvesting the deer in the remote counties of this state and most likely aren’t over harvesting the deer anywhere in the state. The facts of the evidence go on to further prove that where hunters fail, or refuse, to harvest enough does the deer will damage their own food supply and then lower their own populations with reduced fawn survival rates My well has not gone dry and I still have water. So when someone tells me their well dried up they must be a liar cause I have water in this part of the state. . Bad weather can resort to the above I posted about. Deer can be over harvested. No fawns more tags= overharvested (bad weather is the cause of this) But how many bad winters have we had in the past 20 years and the herd stayed healthy and strong without a decline? It is also very obvious, to those willing to pull their head out of the sand, that the under harvesting of the does has been the greatest folly and mistake in the history of deer management in this state. If we had spent the past half century protecting the food supply instead of the does we would have a lot more deer then we have today. If we don’t start protecting the habitat and food supply now we are also going to have even fewer deer in the future then we have now. This has never been proven over the 20yrs. The deer remained high populated and healthy over the years. This is not a fact and cannot be proven thatwe will have less deer to hunt. What is a fact is we have less deer to hunt now because of all the killing of does.Deer are very hardy animals. Those are the facts the deer are telling us; we just need to be smart enough to listen to all of the facts they have been proving to us over the years. If we refuse to be that smart we will have fewer deer and less hunting opportunity in the future. If these are the facts then why have they been so healthy and abundant before all this talk about food supply?This can not be disputed. R.S. Bodenhorn Yet another attempt to dispute the facts with nothing more than a bunch of opinions.  |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
Try it the other way around, Mine are facts based on the past. And my well has water so every well must have water. Is that a fact or an opinion? You give moretags than there are deerthey goanna be over harvested .That's a fact.
Deer are goanna be less if we don't protect the food supply?Depends on what the food supply is like. The past 20 years has continued to tell us that the deer are healthy and strong and abundant and food has not been a problem for them. That's a fact. |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: germain kinda ironic that the counties with access problems are the ones with constant or growing populations.Could it be more deer have escape routes to safe havens where hunting is limited or not allowed at all?This lets more deer alive to breed compared to say a SGL in a populated area with easy access.On the other hand elk,cameron,and clinton are loaded with public land.But those NC counties are not good examples of overharvesting compared to southern public lands. Let's look at an area Doug is familar with,greenwood rd.This has about 6 miles of heavily posted land with the same habitat as the state forest at the end of the road.Matter of fact the state forest actually has thicker cover then the private.Yet if you spot lighted on a good night you can count over a hundred deer on the private lands and once on the state forest if you're lucky a handful.Hmmmm,you would think with the high deer numbers in the private woods the deer would eat themselves out of the house and head to the state forest land where there should be some regen because of the low deer numbers since well let's see ah since HR started.:eek:Or could this be an access problem where the deer aren't getting harvested as much? So if does can't be overharvested and/or habitat is the main ingredient to deer populations compared to harvests I'd like to hear from some of the fellers on here who hunt posted land.I don't mean this question in a smart way because I'm sarting to hunt posted land myself but here it is, Do you think your deer numbers would remain the same if say 15 other rifle hunters hunted doe on your hunting land?This is based on say 100-600 acres. I can name quite a few SGL's in southern counties with low deer numbers compared to nearby posted woods where deer are plentiful.And most of those SGL's have better habitat then the private woods. Sorry but nobody will ever convince me that access doesn't make a huge difference in deer populations and that an area can't be overharvested below what the carrying capacity would allow. Once again take notice of the fact the data proves they have been killing a lot more deer per square mile in Allegheny County instead of protecting them with refuges as you suggested. If any placehas beenprotecting deer with no hunter access it is the remote and hard to hunt areas of our northern tier public land like what is found in Elk, Cameron or Clinton County. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
germain, you are right..i have privateland that has some deer left..next to me there is stateforestland, very few deer for MILES..
i really did not improve the habitat ,in fact, the stateforestland next to me,is better because it has cover and many oaks and good understory from logging.. reason i have deer is because i control the doe tags..i dont allow fawn to be shot..if doe is killed, its old one.. so, sproul, why are deer on your land and not stateforestland.. well, deer are not dumb and know this is safe place to be even tho the habitat is better on stateforestland.. you can drive for miles and not see a deer on stateforestland,then say 1 mile of privateland, 15 deer, then after the privateland, you hit stateforestland,not many deer, then hit privateland again,10 deer.. its this,DEER ARE SAFE ON PRIVATELAND AND OWNERS CONTROL THE DOE TAGS.. pgc /dcnr just keep killing doe and fawns and hunters are their tool.. pgc has no ideawhat is amount of deer that should be per mile in a given area or how many deer are there.. this is why they need a COUNTY ONLY ADVISORY GROUP..i will volunteer and be the scientific expert for my area..that should get a response, ha.. but 1 thing you can count on is i will be giving a good accurate account of deer left in that area,then other expertscan go with me and walk, yes walk and we will check HABITAT.. then we will get rendell to cut the MAPLES down ,let in sunlight, plant oak trees and chestnut trees,burn certain areas,plant feed on pipelines,sproul your a DREAMER! |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
This is Last Call to get this back "On Topic"
|
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
quote,I guess you somehow missed the fact that the deer harvests in Allegheny County, city streets, housing developmentsand all have been three to four times as high per square mile as what the harvests have been in the big woods and open to hunting public access areas of Elk, Cameron and Clinton Counties.
Once again take notice of the fact the data proves they have been killing a lot more deer per square mile in Allegheny County instead of protecting them with refuges as you suggested. quote You're losing me RSB.Of coarse the deer are protected in developements,streets,private woodlots and such where as the deer on big public lands in the past were hunted hard by more public land hunters as a result reduced. |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: AJ52 This is Last Call to get this back "On Topic" but pgc says they are diseased,so i guess they must be shot.. can anyone get a actual picture of deer in that area? |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
If enough tags are given out year after year you can over harvest. That's a fact. I will agree that an over harvest is possible where there isn’t suitable habitat to support more deer. But, the harvest facts in the areas of the state that have had unlimited antlerless license and harvests for the past fifteen years pretty well show that you can’t over harvest a deer population living in suitable habitat by using legal hunting methods and seasons. All you should have to do to recognize that fact is to look at how the buck harvests have increased in the special regulations counties since they went to unlimited doe harvests in the early 1990s. If the buck harvests are increasing it is a pretty well established fact that the entire deer population has increased. Here are the harvest facts in harvests per square mile for the special regulations counties. The most recent years are by management unit. County/area………….87-91…..……92-96…………..97-01……….…..03-05 (by WMU) Allegheny ant’less……2.5……………6.8…………⠀¦..8.1…………..………10.1 (2B) Allegheny bucks….......1.7……………2.7…………†¦..3.4…………..……….3.4 (2B) Chester ant’less……….3.0……………4.2……… ……..6.0…………………...7.9 (5C) Chester bucks…………1.8……………2.2………… …..2.6…………………...3.3 (5C) Bucks ant’less…………4.0……………5.3……⠀¦â€¦â€¦.5.6…………………....7.9 (5C) Bucks bucks…………...2.5……………2.2……… …….2.8……………………3.3 (5C) Delaware ant’less………2.3…………...4.9………⠀¦â€¦.5.7……………………5.1 (5D) Delaware bucks………...0.9…………..1.7…………⠀¦..2.0……………………1.9 (5D) Montgomery ant’less…..1.6…………...2.9…………†¦..3.7……………………5.1 (5D) Montgomery bucks…….1.0…………...1.2…………….. 1.8……………………1.9 (5D) Anyone that is even the least bit objective should be able to see that harvesting more does, and even more button bucks, where they have had unlimited antlerless license and suitable habitat has not resulted in harvesting fewer legal bucks. I think that is pretty convincing that they aren’t able to over harvest the does in suitable habitat even with unlimited doe harvests or the buck harvests couldn’t still be increasing. What is really amazing is that the buck harvests have even increased since the inception of the antler restrictions in the areas where they hammer the does. That happens because they protected their habitat instead of the does and good enough fawn recruitment to replace the additional harvest losses as a result. My well has not gone dry and I still have water. So when someone tells me their well dried up they must be a liar cause I have water in this part of the state. Bad weather can resort to the above I posted about. Deer can be over harvested. No fawns more tags= overharvested (bad weather is the cause of this) But how many bad winters have we had in the past 20 years and the herd stayed healthy and strong without a decline? That is why the buck harvests were declining in the north central counties even before antler restrictions, and even while the doe harvests were declining. County…………………………..87.91……⠀¦â€¦â€¦92-96……………97-01 Elk ant’less………………………5.3………⠀¦â€¦â€¦.4.0………………3.2 Elk bucks………………………...3.8………… …….3.5………………3.3 Clinton ant’less…………………..4.0…………†¦â€¦.1.8………………1.9 Clinton bucks…………………….3.1……………†¦.2.2………………2.6 Cameron ant’less…………………5.4……………⠀¦.2.0………………1.5 Cameron bucks…………………...4.0……………… .2.6………………2.4 Now mind you this was before antler restrictions or herd reductions. So, why would the buck harvests have been declining as the hunters harvested fewer and fewer anlterless deer unless the deer population was declining? Don’t you think the declining buck harvests was kind of strange since we were having very mild winters and good mast crops during those time periods that should have caused the deer population and harvests to increase instead of decrease? I simply don’t think the facts are supporting your opinions, if you really look at the facts. This has never been proven over the 20yrs. The deer remained high populated and healthy over the years. This is not a fact and cannot be proven thatwe will have less deer to hunt. What is a fact is we have less deer to hunt now because of all the killing of does.Deer are very hardy animals. If these are the facts then why have they been so healthy and abundant before all this talk about food supply?This can not be disputed. Just because you don’t want to believe the facts doesn’t make the facts any less valid. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: germain quote,I guess you somehow missed the fact that the deer harvests in Allegheny County, city streets, housing developmentsand all have been three to four times as high per square mile as what the harvests have been in the big woods and open to hunting public access areas of Elk, Cameron and Clinton Counties. Once again take notice of the fact the data proves they have been killing a lot more deer per square mile in Allegheny County instead of protecting them with refuges as you suggested. quote You're losing me RSB.Of coarse the deer are protected in developements,streets,private woodlots and such where as the deer on big public lands in the past were hunted hard by more public land hunters as a result reduced. The deer obviously weren’t being protected to increase the population if the hunters were killing more of them every year then had the year before. Your argument of the population increasing due to limited access could only be valid if the population were increasing while the harvests were declining. But the harvests have not been declining in the special regulations areas and instead the harvests have been increasing. Therefore, even though access is limited someone is still getting enough access to kill the deer in greater numbers each and every year. That is not protection from limited access or anything else other then the plain and simple inability of hunters to over harvest a population living in suitable habitat capable of supporting the existing deer herd. Meanwhile in areas with diminished habitat, whether it be in the north central regions of the state or inside this fence on the federal grounds, the deer numbers are going to decline to meet the decline in the habitat over a period of time dependant on the environmental conditions they are faced with. The deer in diminished habitat are going to decline to meet that habitat decline even if hunters don’t harvest any of them. In fact the fewer the hunters harvest the faster the natural decline in deer number will become. R.S. Bodenhorn |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:23 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.