RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Well explain how they are goanna browse when they can't move. And yes they dig up the snow to feed. Haven't you ever seen the leaves dug up from deer feeding? Yes, the acorns should float to the top of the snow as does oil on water. No digging required at all in heavy snow or covered in leaves..:D

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

A logical conclusion would be,Deer will starve every year if the snow fall is heavy enough.That's life in the wild in ANY state not just PA.

Similar holds true in shallow lakes that experiance a hard freeze and then snow on top for extended periods.Depletes light,oxygen etc...= above average fish kill.

That's life in the water.So where do we go now??

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Why can't the deer move right now?I saw tracks all over the place on my way to work this morning.I realize deer eat acorns and sometimes dig through the snow to get to them.That isn't the point.The point is that during winter,a deer's primary diet should be browse.You need sufficient,high quality browse to sustain healthy deer through the winter.We can't rely on a mild winter and we can't rely on mast crops that don't produce every year.We need to manage deer based on the amount of available browse.Less browse will mean less deer.Too many deer means less browse and the cycle will continue with less deer.If deer are starving during the winter do to poor food sources,the anser is to kill more until the habitat recovers.Adding more deerfor the habitat to support makes no sense.Therefore,managing the deer herd based on the deer's health makes complete sense.If this winter keeps going theway it's going,fawn recruitment will definately be impacted negatively in areas of poor habitat.I'm glad I did my part and killed several doe this year.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Deer will struggle to move but in a snow like we are having now (12 -16 inches) they can move to browse -- if browse exist.

Same as how they'll move to do anything. If they can't move they are stuck. Not just from browse but from digging in grazing areas also.

They need, easier to reach, browse.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Where is the article about these deer that need to be shot and are apparently starving.Where's the topic starter???

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

On a mountain lion track with Bailey hill.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

i am here reading how you as moderator are acting..you should ban yourself..

next, the article was on page 3 or 4 that someone put on ,i guess you did not read that..

next, my lawyer told me i cannot put pictures on here, you should know copyright..i offered to mail the picture to btbowhunter,he declined..

i can mail it to you but it seems, you only want prove that sproul does not have it..

whatever, keep bashing people here and use your buddies to help..

what a moderator!!

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

I will appologize for 1 thing only and then Ban myself later.

The article was posted on page 5 by someone else.You Sir just had to add your own little spin to an otherwise good explanation as to why these animals needed culling.

I read nothing in that article that led me to believe the above statement.


For that maybe you should be Shame on you

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Sproul, you can use "my lawyer" --- he says it's ok for you to post pictures.
:D

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

you are one with balloon,and your buddies.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

you better get another one if he does not know copyright laws ..could get you in deep do do!!

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

AJ be careful where your swinging that balloon.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Thank,s for the reply sproulman. It does make sense since theyre in their two different groups and with a lot less of the one group being doe,s he would have to find them out to do his mating and so on. thanks.;)

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

georgepoker did you notice northpa did,nt say how long he,s been hunting he must be an Alt fan an gettin free koolaid:D

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Sproulman, you know that's not what I said. For the record, I refuse to give my home address to someone who doesnt even have the balls to put his real name in his profile.

You never addresseed the fact that those photos you're talking about are simply AP file photos of healthy deer from somewhere else and not the starving deer from the fenced federal facility in the article. Did you smply assume them to be from that facility without checking into it or did you lie? Either way, your whole point in starting this thread is meaningless because the deer pictured are not the deer that the feds need to have shot.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

No free koolaid for me. That's the "end of the deer hunting world" crowd what goes to the koolaid trough.
If I could remember what year I started hunting I'd tell ya, but tain't no reason to hide that fact that I'm older than dirt. It was in the 50's for sure when I whacked my first wabbit. I'd guess 1957 or 1958.
An "Alt fan." Not particularly, but I am a fan of human intelligence and those who have a quest for learning.
I have this odd thought that people who spend their lives in the field studying wildlife, and researching data from radio collars FLIR surveys and such, just might know more than the armchair guy who goes and sits in the woods 20 hours a year, versus 1,000 hours per year. Then spends 200 hours a year whining about how the real expets don;t know what they're doing......

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Nice picture I saw that also in Field&Stream:D And thats their job being in the fieldsomeone dropped the ball big time on this one. Do you think an agency like the g/c is going to tell the hunters we really messed up. Now their screaming about feeding the deer and c.w.d. which the folks out west dont even know whats going on with it all they know it kills deer an elk and its been around for a long time it could be a form of cancer for all they know but these are the xperts an scientist and what have you and were to beleive these folks.:D

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

3 gibblers, you really are some kind of fantasy island trooper.
That pcitures was taken in my yard by me -- you are so full of it.
Ya just need to grow up to about 12 or 13 years of age.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Look in the mirror sometime.:D:D:D:D:D

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

very very neat pic north.Get's my blood pumping.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

The 2003 mortality data was the result of 2002/2003 winter conditions which was the first hard winter in many years. Since that was the first hard winter we had experienced in many years the wintering grounds were still in pretty fair condition when winter started and it took about all of that long hard winter to degrade the wintering grounds food supply. That is why the 2003 mortality data wasn’t real high yet.

The 2004 mortality, which was the highest in a long time, was the result of the 2003/2004 winter. Even though there were fewer deer that winter there were still more deer forced into the wintering grounds then the food supply could sustain in a healthy condition. The wintering grounds habitat had not recovered from the devastating affects of the previous winter with the deer being locked onto those wintering grounds for so long. Then with two years in a row of those harsh, prolonged winter conditions it really hurt both the deer survival and the fawn recruitment rates for that spring and resulted in the high winter mortality.

In the spring of 2005 the deer populations and recruitment rates still weren’t up to par because there had been very little mast crop in the fall of 2004 and the wintering grounds were still in very poor condition from the previous two years of harsh winters. It usually takes several years for the wintering grounds habitat to recover from a harsh winter. Even though we have now had two fairly mild winters many of the wintering grounds areas in my district still show signs of major and serious damage yet from the winters of 2002-2004.

Those variables in the fall mast conditions and the lack of habitat recovery, from the previous year, combining with the winter snow conditions and length of winter all affected the winter survival rates for both the adult deer and the fawn recruitment rates for that year. That is why the winter mortality rates were higher during the season winter even with fewer deer then the year before and also why the mortality was still high in the spring of 2005 following a relatively mild winter.

My comment:[/b]
[/b]

Quote:

---

Then in 2005 we still didn’t have a mast crop and though the winter wasn’t as long or harsh the habitat still hadn’t recovered from the years of being over browsed. The recruitment was somewhat improved the next spring but we were into the compounding factor by then of having fewer deer to reproduce due to the fact that the does that should have been producing fawns didn’t exist because they had died within a couple of days of being born back in the spring of 2003

---

Your response:


The data showed the dead deer foundin the spring of 2005following the 2004/2005 winter. There had been no mast crop the previous fall andthe habitat still had a lot of damage from the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 winters so the mortality was still higher then it had been during the previously mild winters.

The good acorn mast crop you are referring to didn’t occur until the fall of 2005. That excellent mast crop during the fall of 2005 combined with the mild winter in 2005/2006 resulted in a better fawn recruitment rates in 2006 and the reason most hunters reported seeing a few more deer last hunting season then they had seen the previous couple years.

I pretty much agree with those observations and comments.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

I'm thinking 93/94 was worse?

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

first, on pm,i feel that is a private talk..if you are offended because i said YOU DECLINED,without going into why you did not want to give out your address..

i feel that was personel between you and me on PM..

next, article and picture i have NEVER said it was a picture of deer from somewhere else, article said it wasfrom the area in artcle..

NOW you are saying the picture is fake,not taken there..

you mean to tell me that they put a picture and article in paper,showing healthy looking deer,then say they are starving?

how do you know this?why would the AP supply this info to newspapers all over country when you say its LIE..

learn one thing, SPROUL does not lie!!

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

It's done all the time in print and on TV news. A very common practice.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

i guess you cant believe very much that you read in paper..if that picture is not of starving deer and btbowhunter has info its not,why would AP do such a thing..

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

The article was about deer and the picture was that of a deer.When they run articles about huntingin Clinton county just prior to deer season,do you really think every picture was taken in Clinton county?

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

the article was about STARVING and diseased deer,not of a DEER!!when they run article in clinton county of healthy deer,which has always been,none are starving, they show healthy deer..

why would AP show picture of healthy doe when the PGC says they are starving?i think we need to get get PENN STATE GIRLS to trap a few and do a study?see how far back they are , WAYBACK!!

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

OK. Either the newspaper is lying by putting a picture of healthy deer in an article that is about deer that are supposed to be starving, or it is the blame commission that is lying about the deer starving. I think it is obvious which you want everyone to believe. Thanks for making that fairly clear. You can quit now.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

The snow conditions of 93/94 might have been worse in some area of the state then they were here but the winters of both 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 were worse in this part of the state then anything we have had in more then two decades, at least in the affects on the deer herd.

In 93/94 and then again in 95/96 we had some very deep snow conditions but in both cases the snows didn’t last long before they were melted off providing a mid winter break up. In 93/94 we then got another major snow fall with deep conditions late into the winter but the deer had a break in mid winter that saved a lot of their energy levels.

We also saw more winter mortality following those winters and reduced fawn survival rates or fawn recruitment rates during the spring and summer. Hunters also saw slightly fewer deer during the fall hunting seasons, because of reduced fawn recruitment, following the winter of 95/96 though that didn’t seem to be the case in this area following the winter of 93/94. Most likely the reason hunters didn’t see or harvest fewer deer the year after the 93/94 winter was likely due to the fact the deep snows that year hit right before the antlerless deer season, which greatly reduced that year’s harvest, and then the winter snows melts off and allowed the deer to make it through that part of the winter in pretty good condition until the late winter snow got pretty deep again for a while.

There is a major difference though between having one hard winter, that affects the fawn recruitment, then there is when you have two or more winters in a row that have snows so deep and prolonged it affects the fawn recruitment rates. With just one hard winter the deer will move into the wintering grounds, hammer the food supply there, some will possibly die and usually the fawn recruitment will be lower the following spring and summer. But if the next winter is more normal the deer herd has the opportunity to bounce right back again with normal or even improved fawn recruitment. When that happens the hunters usually don’t really even notice the affects of the one year of reduced fawn recruitment.

One of the other major factors that kick in, when you have more then one back to back hard winter with deep snows, is that the deer wintering grounds don’t get a chance to adequately recover from the previous year’s damage before the deer are forced to survive there for a second harsh winter. Many people don’t realize that here in the North Country the deer can’t even use some of the best habitat during winters with deep snow conditions. Once the snows get deep the deer are forced off of the ridges and plateaus and down into the thermal cover of the stream and river bottoms. Those areas are usually pine, hemlock and rhododendron bottoms where there is typically less snow and the deer can feed on the weighted down hemlock boughs and rhododendron, both of which are a winter grounds staple deer food in this area of the state.

What happened in the North Country during the winters of 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 is that the deer got forced into the wintering grounds early in 2002 and then locked there until late winter of 2003 so they pretty well cleaned up all of the browse they could get to or reach. Come spring the small hemlock trees had about five feet of limbs eaten off of them with the bottoms, that were under the snow, nice and full and the tops were nice and full where the deer couldn’t reach the limbs. The rhododendron branches were browsed back to limbs the size of a man’s finger and would have been eaten back even more if the deer had been able to chew the limbs back further.

Then when the winter of 2003/2004 came along early and once again dumped a pile of deep snow the deer got forced off the ridges and plateaus and into the same wintering grounds they had been forced to live on and deplete the year before. Those wintering grounds though had not had enough time to recover from the damage they had experienced during the 2003/2004 winter. The deer were locked onto those wintering rounds late into that year too but with even less food then they had the year before. That is why we saw even higher winter mortality and even lower fawn recruitment rates following the 2004 winter then we had seen the year before.

Those wintering grounds where so seriously damaged by the end of the 2003/2004 winter they still show major signs of the damage even though we have had two years for them recover. That isn’t a good thing because right now we have enough snow the deer are moving off of the ridges and plateaus and into those same wintering grounds they were on in those other hard winters. Hopefully these deep snow conditions don’t last long or we will see both reduced survival rates and fawn recruitment again this spring and summer.

The next big factor of having two or more back to back hard winters is you start getting a compounding affect reducing the deer populations. With the second year of hard winter you start to see where the does that should have been producing fawns didn’t exist because they had died within days of being born instead of surviving to replenish the deer populations the next year. That is why the hunters, like the wildlife survey teams, saw the major reduction in deer numbers following the 2003/2004 winter instead of following the 2002/2003 winter.

That compounding factor is also why it is taking a couple of years fro the deer herd to bounce back after those multiple years of reduced fawn recruitment. When you have a compounding factor in affect in the reduction it will also take a compounding factor (multiple years) for habitat and population recovery.

I will now post the number of deer the survey teams saw per square mile on their routes for the years surrounding these winters so all can see those affects. The same routes were traveled each fall using exactly the same methods and time periods here in Elk County.

Year……………Deer seen/square mile…………………….% change from previous year

2001……………………..32.34…………… ……………………..(+ 29 %)
2002……………………..36.18…………… ……………………..(+ 12 %)
2003……………………..32.12…………… ……………………..(- 11 %)
2004……………………..20.38…………… ……………………..(- 37 %)
2005……………………..17.36…………… ……………………..(- 15 %)
2006……………………..22.22…………… ……………………..(+ 28 %)

As you can see the winter of 2002/2003 resulted in a slight reduction in the number of deer being seen the next fall. But, the major reduction in the number of deer being seen didn’t occur until the fall after the 2003/2004 winter. The deer herd still declined, though by a reduced percentage, following the 2004/2005 from that compounding factor we talked about because the does that should have been having fawns that year didn’t exist because they died when they were born the previous couple of years.

By the fall of 2006 the compounding habitat and deer population recovery effect was starting to work and the survey teams here in Elk County were seeing an increase in deer numbers.

There is a lot more that affect the deer populations then just the number of does hunters are shooting each year and that is what hunters really need to both understand and accept if we are ever going to have the best possible deer numbers for the future. In many areas of the state we have reached the point where the habitat and annual environmental conditions are controlling the peeks and valleys of the deer population instead of the hunters controlling them. Once that happens history has shown that the deer populations will generally be lower then they could have been had we protected the habitat instead of over protecting the does.

It is all more complex then many people are willing to accept or in some cases to even think about. That is, and has been, the biggest affect at reducing both the deer food supplies and the deer populations over the past decades.

Isn’t it time to change that folly by using scientific management instead of just using public and political demands in the future?

R.S.Bodenhorn

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Thank-you for taking the time to post the interesting info.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Another example of newspaper showing pictures not really related to the topic. Saturday's Harrisburg Patriot newspaper had a big ole headline something like "Totally Unacceptable" referring to the I-78 traffic and people being stranded and a story on that. The picture below the headline show traffic on the turnpike backed up because of a hazardous leak from a tanker accident.

Different highway, totally different incident. Didn't stop them from using the two together though.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

r.s.b,this is why thegovernor should be concerned and put his foot down onthe DCNR..they have manpower/equipment to cut lots of openings in woodswhich will allow new growth..

there is no lumbering or food plots for deer..even controlled burning would help..but remember, even with great deer feed does not mean there are deer or fawns..

look at sgl252 in williamsport,i hunt there a lot..

not many deer BUT great habitat..they do a good job there growing things but few deer..fawn recuritment is not good there,i wonder WHY??

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

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.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

this is where sproul disagrees with r.s.b..you can have best habitat in elk county butifoverharvest of the older doe and hunters are shooting fawns, you will not have much of a recuritment next year..

habitat and weather are notonly factors, OVERHARVEST OF OLDERDOE/FAWNS is the main reason, i feel that we are seeing less fawns..

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Certainly an over harvest of does will result in fewer deer but the facts of the scientific research indicate that the does were not over harvested and were much more likely to have seriously under harvested.

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. 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.

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.

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.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

Funny, reading this information, about the problems with relocating deer, that Governor CORSLIME in NJ and his little cronies at NJD of FW want to spend millions on relocating animals instead of letting hunters in to keep this in check. Put the meat to good use.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

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.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

May I say that is because more land was purchased and opened for hunters to increase the harvest report. Land that was closed to hunters in the past has became open for them. Special regulation areas as to decline the numbers of deer human casualties. If you look thru the new areas that have been opened for hunters you will see these counties above have had more land open to harvest more deer to increase your data. They open land where hunting was not permited before as in the suburbans. Your goanna have lots of deer being harvested and increasing your data. Now if you did not include these new lands open to hunting, What would your data chart show? It's like opening a 3 or 4 mile area that's never been hunted and taking50 to 100deer from that new area and then adding it to your data above. And yes that will increase the numbers of deer per SQ. miles for that county. The data is not as accurate as it might seem.
Just a thought to ponder on.

RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
 

I don't think anyone is trying to say that limited access can protect deer.However,if you have 15 huys hunting on 160 acres,you're seeing way more pressure on that 160 acres than any public land in the nc region of the state sees.In my experience the most heavily posted land gets hunted much harder than most of the public land in the northern part of the state.Small areas can certainly be overharvested but if the habitat is good,the deer will be back.I can show you an area that is around 200 acres.Part of it is owned by a timber company and the rest is owned by a farmer.All of it is open to the public.This past summer Iwatched a bachelor herd of 16 bucks for weeks in the farmers fields along with at least that many does and fawns.this is actually typical for this spot.I have some friends whose houses border this area and they only know of about 2 bucks that were killed.This area gets driven about twice a day for the first couple of days and re-driven on both saturdays.It gets pounded.I was in there a couple weeks ago and never cut a single track.Were all the deer killed?No way.there's just no reason for them to be in there now but I'll guarantee those fields will be full during the summer.

Ihunt private property near my mothers house in Wyoming county.It's posted heavily but it gets pounded much harder than the public land out here.I rearely even hunt the private land in Clearfield county because there's way too many people.

The habitat on the public land near Greenwood road and Around rockton mountain is some of the most pitiful areas of the state.I can't tell you what the habitat looks like on any of that private land because I've never been on it.However,the deer only get bothered on Moshannon state forest for about two weeks of the year.If the habitat wasn't any better on that private land,the deer wouldn't be spendingall their time on that property for the remainder of the year.How do you know there hasn't been substantial logging or foodplotsplanted in those areas?