Allegheny vs NC
 

Rsb and me were having a discussion in the deer starving thread but I made a new thread on this subject because we were kinda off topic.On my next post I'll paste what he said and go from there.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

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.Deer in Allegheny have places of refuge which results in plenty being saved.Now the habitat is in good condition there so the does are healthy enough to give birth to multiple fawns in most cases.And on top of that bears and coyotes are few and far between compared to the NC.So I think it's alot more to the high harvests in areas like this then just good habitat.There's other factors and I still think they come back to the first one being lack of access or places of refuge.Then the fewer predators,better winters,and good habitat play off that.
I agree alot of places in the NC have bad habitat and alot more predators but still the herds were reduced drastically by HR.And that brings us back to the original discussion of whether or not SGL's in the southern counties can be overharvested and from what I've seen on different occassions this can be the case.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

How can you believe the deer are being protected in the special regulations counties when the hunters are harvesting more and more of them every year? How can you think the deer are being protected, by the limited access, when hunters were in fact nearly doubling the deer harvests in those areas every five years?

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

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

GAME COMMISSION RELEASES 2004-2005 DEER HARVEST ESTIMATES
HARRISBURG - The Commonwealth's deer harvest estimates declined about 12 percent over the past year, down from an estimated 464,890 in 2003-04 to an estimated 409,320 in 2004-05, according to Pennsylvania Game Commission figures released today. Historically, this year's deer harvest estimate is the sixth highest since 1986, when the agency began calculating deer harvest results.
The 2004-05 antlered deer harvest was 124,410 and the antlerless deer harvest was 284,910, compared to 142,270 for antlered deer and 322,620 for antlerless deer the previous year.
Bowhunters took 62,460 deer (28,070 antlered deer and 34,390 antlerless deer), compared to 65,100 deer (30,960 antlered deer and 34,440 antlerless deer) in 2003-04. Muzzleloader hunters harvested 31,270 deer (1,090 antlered deer and 30,180 antlerless deer) last year, compared to 35,860 deer (1,240 antlered deer and 34,420 antlerless deer) in 2003-04.
Overall, compared to the 2003-04 harvest results, the 2004-05 statewide antlered deer harvest was down 13 percent, ranging from a decline of 35 percent in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 2G to an increase of 13 percent in WMU 4B; and the statewide antlerless deer harvest declined 12 percent, ranging from a drop of 48 percent in WMU 2G to an increase of 51 percent in WMU 2B.



"What these harvest figures reinforce is what we've been hearing from many hunters - they didn't see or harvest as many deer this past hunting season in some areas," said Calvin W. DuBrock, Game Commission Wildlife Management Bureau director. "Harvests declining by more than 20 percent in WMUs 1B, 2C, 2E, 2F, 2G, 3D and 4D coincide with areas where hunters have expressed their concerns of too few deer.



However, harvest data in some units - such WMUs 2A and 5C - indicate good populations.


"As we've been saying all along, deer populations and their trends are not the same across the Commonwealth."

But my well has water and yours don't means you are a liar? I think it does compare to what they stated above.

And how many years prior to the above have they been giving out multiple tags? Of course the harvest will be higher over the years. But that will soon decline with multiple tags. It use to be one doe tag. Now it's 2 tags plus that hunters can recieve. So yes the dear increase will be shown. But like I said. It won't be like that long with the multiple doe tags. You will see a huge decline as you have in other counties.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

You guys are both right!

RSB

I think what Germain is trying to say is that Allegheny County deer have many "sanctuary" areas where they are essentially "protected". As a f'rinstance, I hunt in a suburban control area that while allowing hunting, also has ares where the deer can escape hunters entirely.

Germain

RSB has a very valid point as well in saying that the habitat is so much better in Allegheny County and therefore deer are still present in high numbers.

You are both partly rightin your references about Allegheny County. I can speak with some measure of accuracy here after being involved with a very tightly controlled suburban deer control program for the past 12 seasons. We have successfully taken an 8 square mile area from around 100 deer per square mile to something around 40. the bowhunting part of the program now takes around 100 deer per year and the sharpshooters take something more than that each year (mostly where bowhunting isn't feasible or has failed to produce enough kills) the fact that there is enough good quality food (we call em Chemlawn deer) is why the fawn recruitment rate still allows such a high kill in 8 little square miles. In the very small area that I hunt, it seems like if I kill 5 does per year, they stay stable. More than that and my sightings go down the next season. Kill less than that and my sightings go way up. My area does border an area that is private property but is unposted and open to the public so other hunters are also killing deer in my area from outside theborough .

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Chemlawn deer ..I like that BTB.
We have a similar situation here in T.L. This year was the first year that bow hunting has been allowed here(other than poachers) and alot of the deer never enter the wooded areas where hunters are. They will stay around the houses and golf courses where the food(my shrubs) is plentiful. The wooded areas for the most part have terrible habitat from browsing , but not around the homes where the food is. We have a mini-Pa. here on a smaller scale. NC type habitat in the wooded areas and Allegheny co. habitat around the homes.
The result of overbrowsing is Very apparent as browse lines are visible to theUNTRAINED eye, and there are no deer there.

As we take more deer in the next several years I'm sure the habitat in the wooded areaswill recover and some of the deer herd will move away from the homes. At least that's what the homeowners wish for.
Our intentions here in Treasure Lake are the same as the PGC in PA.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

I hope your success is as good as we've had here. You guys will be hamstrung a bit by the limit on your doe tags up there. It wouldnt have worked here with the one or two doe tags per hunter you can get up there. Does TL have DMAPS?

We started 12 years ago doing what the PGC is trying to do with the whole state. I realize it's an oversimplification to say it that way but the basic goal is the same. ObviouslyPA have run intosome snags by trying to manage a whole state this way but overall it has worked very well here on a small scale.

When I firstjoined that hunt, the bucks were big bodied with mostly nasty junky racks although there were some monsters as well. There were also plenty of old does. Some very old. Now the population is at a much more manageable number and we have a healthy herd without the extensive damage to the local landscaping and gardens.

One landowner I hunt for had over 150 rhododendrons around his house and not one had a single leaf below head height when I first met him. Now, his rhodys are leafed out and healthy. (He still cant keep hastas though) In the borough we hunt, they used to average almost 200 car/deer collisions each fall. Now it's around 20 or so. And yet we still have a good huntable population. My log shows 61 does since the start 12 years agoand I've also taken 4 good trophy bucks there. Most of those were in more recent years. A good friend in the program has similar results.

Sounds like you guys are on the right track.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

We dmap'd Treasure lake this past year and plan on expanding it even more this year.Treasure lake is loaded with deer but the herd is definately alot smaller now than it was just 5 years ago.We suffered substantial winter mortality after the winter of 2004 and fawn recruitment was definately effected.

The deer in this area are very dependant on the mast and landscaping.Without either,the woods around here would be just as deerless as much of our state forests.The deer are lucky in one aspect because residents generally have to fight if they want to cut trees down.As a result,the residential areas are loaded with huge oak trees.When there's a good mast crop,they flock in to these areas.When that's cleaned up,theysimply change their diet to all the landscaping.We have aboput 3500 acres of undeveloped land.Much of the timber has been highgraded and the only regeneration is low quality beech and some striped maple in places.As a result,once the acorns start falling,many of the deer can be found in the residential areas.

You can look at what they're eating and tell if they're starting to struggle.My landscaping never gets touched when we have a mild winter and a good mast crop.When we have a bad winter,they start eating rhodedendren aeven holly.I foundover a dozen dead deerin the spring of 2004 in an area of about 1000 acres.That same spring we were doing a deer census with PSUand the groupI was with found 5 deer in a 76 acre patch of woodsthat died as a result of malnutrition.We busted open their femurs.

This area is a good illustration how deer populations fluctuate in poor habitat.Recruitment and deer numbers goes upwhen there's plenty of mast and a mild winter.The population goes right back down when the winters are severe.The only answer when this happens is to kill alot of deer to get the herd below the carrying capacity.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

About the PSU doing deer census. What you said is partially true. The reason they died is from vehicle collisions. To injured to eat or move to browse. This was not from lack of food. The deer in treasure lake get fed by the residence up there. But the dead deer you talk of are victims of collisions. You forgot to put that in your statement above. From broken legs and jaws is why they starved to death. That is a fact. If you would like I am sure I can get a report from PSU and post it for you to see. Just because you break the femars that doesn't tell you the whole story of what caused it to starve. Lack of investigation and an autopsy and your story on dead deer in the spring that starved to death is just speculation of how they starved.
Many deer come to the roads to eat salt. Many deer are hit because of this. They died just because there was no food. That is ridicuous as they come. I bit in that year all the deer you seen was skinny and ribs showing to during late winter and early spring. Try to support an agenda with inaccurate information as you are doing is not cool or cant be respected.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

I'll use a small SGL in Lebanon county.There's hardly a place for a deer to hide.Orange everywhere...I'm not kidding.The few deer that are there live to see next year by high tailing it to the posted land.Now take Alleghent county.There's alot more posted land with a better oppertunity for more deer to escape.Those deer that do escape don't have the habitat problems and predators of the NC so fawn recruitment is even better.
Now open all that Allegheny county up to hunting with hunters coming from anywhere and everywhere creating the orange army and I'll darn well guarentee you those deer numbers will be drastically reduced good habitat or not.In other words an area can be overharvested well below the carrying capacity of that particular area.I don't see how anybody that ever hunted can deny this.
Let me repeat,if you open Allegheny county up to hunting {public hunting}for anybody in the state,the deer numbers will be drastically reduced!

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

These deer did not die from being hit by cars.They starved to death because thereis a lack of browse.Some residents do feed the deer but they feed them corn and not enough to keep a herd this large from starving.Thereweren't even any roads in the vicinity of thedead deer and we found as many as 4 dead deer togther.I doubt they got hit by a car over a half mile away,starved from broken jaws and then all decided to huddle together and die.No.They starved from lack of adequate browse.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Yet you are so sure of this without autopsy? This is just a assumption without any proof.There was no way a deer can crawl thru the woods with broken legs or travel with broken jaws. Everyone of them deer died of starvation from no food and was not hit by a car. Yep we believe that. Not without an autopsy being done though. We want scientific proof and not assumptions.



I foundover a dozen dead deerin the spring of 2004 in an area of about 1000 acres.That same spring we were doing a deer census with PSUand the groupI was with found 5 deer in a 76 acre patch of woodsthat died as a result of malnutrition.We busted open their femurs.

If I seen dead deer in a group of 4 I would of posted it with the above. More lies without proof. How much do you get for your propandayou post on here? Everything is just opinions without scientific proof. You can not prove this. So there it will be dismissed with question marks.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

No lies here.A 76 acre patch of woods isn't very big and we found five dead deer in there,4 were very close to each other.Mark Hogan from the united bowhunters of pa was with me and so was Dave Jackson from PSU's cooperative extension office.We busted open the femurs on at least three of those deer and the bone marrow was red,a sure sign of starvation.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

There you go, now I can certainly seewhere and how your intelligence level can be rated.

Ireally don’t know why you would drag up a news release that says there are fewer deer in some parts of the state. That is pretty much a no-brainer. No one would even dispute that fact, but that most certainly doesn’t answer the questions about why there are those differences n deer densities. That is what I am trying to help people recognize and understand. Many people are just like you and have this mind set that any deer population reductionsmust have been created by hunter over harvestsyet they have absolutely no data to support that opinion. They don’t have data to support that opinion because that opinion is incorrect and all of the real deer data proves that over harvestopinion is actually wrong. Yet many hunter insist on hanging onto that opinion no matter what thereal facts are.

Now I will try once again to help you, and the others with your mind set, understand some of the factors of evidence that prove that hunters have not over harvested the deer and that over harvest is not the reason we have areas with fewer deer today.

First I will tell you right up front that, YES, there are differences in the number of deer across the various areas of the state. There always have been and there always will be. The variances from one area to another result from any number of variables that include differences in the soil types, the amount of forest opening, the tree species composition and where it is located in relation to other habitats, the amount of normaland annual or abnormal snow fall and also not the least of which how long the deer population was too large for the available habitat in any particular area and how much damage might have occurred to the food supply over a variable number of years or decades.

Some of those variables can be somewhat controlled and some of the previous mistakes, of allowing too many deer for too long, can be somewhat corrected. But, other differences such as the fact that some areas have rich fertile soil, to grow good plant and deer browse species, while other areas have no top soil and are covered with rocks and no plants or browse species can never be changed.With those variables people with a lick of sense should be able to figure out there will also be major differences in the number of deer the land can support, orhow many deer they will see, from one area to another. Unless we can train deer to be healthy, and produce lots of fawns, by eating rocks some areas will just never have as many deer. People should be able to figure that out by simply applying a little common sense.

Your thought process on the reasons for and what happens more tags is not at all correct either. Now I will explain how your thinking concerning antlerless license numbers is flawed.

Back just a few decades pretty much all of the state’s deer hunters had to come uphere to the north central third of the state to hunt deer because that was about the only place they could find deer. Over the past few decades though the number of deer greatly increased in the parts of the state that once had very few deer and naturally that also shifted the areas where many hunters wanted to hunt. Since there have been fewer hunters willing to travel to the north central part of the state, where once everyone want to hunt, there simply aren’t enough hunters to buy all of the antlerless licenses in any areas of the state,when hunters can only buy one antlerless license.

The number of antlerless licenses being allocated, for the counties or WMUs, has always been determined by the number of deer that need to be harvested multiplied by the number of license it takes to get one deer harvested. In some areas it takes four or more license to harvest one deer, so there are always going to be more license available in some areas of the state then hunters that can purchase them if they can only get one license. Since there are more license then hunters you have to allow hunters to buy more then one license, in some areas, or they simply couldn’t buy all license needed to reach the level of deer harvest required to keep the deer population in balance with their food supply. That has long been a problem for long time now, and one that far too many people simply fail to understand. Thatfailure to understand and accept is alsowhy we now have destroyed deer habitat and crashing deer populations in much of the more remote areas of the state.

I am going to post the antlerless deer license allocation history along with the recent hunter success rates for the northern part of the state so you can see that the allocations really haven’t increased nearly as much as people think. With the hunter success rates (number of license to harvest one antlerless deer) you can also see that the hunter success rates have changed very little over the years.

North Central Region and WMU recent years antlerless allocation per square mile of land mass and recent hunter success rates:

Years………………………….license/sq.mile………………license/antlerless harvest

57-61……………………….8.08
62-66……………………….7.06
67-71………………………11.73
72-76……………………….9.93
77-81………………………12.18
82-86………………………11.68……………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦3.15
87-91………………………16.47……………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦2.97
92-96………………………13.49……………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦3.12
97-01………………………12.83……………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦3.12
03-06…………………….....9.24…………… 03-05…...3.07(WMU - 2G)

As you can see the number of antlerless license and harvests per license, in the old traditional deer range, has not changed much over the entire history of deer licenses, so your argument of more doe license in recent years really has no bases of validity or fact.

Since I take it, or somewhat assume, you are really more concerned that they are going to issue too many license and harvest too many does in the Southwest part of the state I will post the same data for that area as well.

Southwest Region and WMU recent years antlerless allocation per square mile of land mass and recent hunter success rates:

Years………………………….license/sq.mile………………license/antlerless harvest

57-61…………………….4.03
62-66…………………….3.82
67-71…………………….6.60
72-76…………………….7.51
77-81...........……………..9.50
82-86……………………11.85………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦3.91
87-91……………………16.19………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦3.32
92-96……………………19.69………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦3.20
97-01……………………23.89………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦3.49
03-06……………………28.99……………03-05.…….2.88(WMU – 2A)
03-06……………………45.68……………03-05.…….4.54(WMU - 2B)

As you can see there has been a major shift in where hunters buy antlerless license today compared to just a few decades ago. There has also been a major shift in where the hunters have been harvesting the majority of the deer over the past few decades too. The hunters have been harvesting more deer per square mile around the city streets of Pittsburgh then they have in the remote areas of our public land for about the past two decades, which is about twenty years for those that don’t know how long a decade is. But, it sure doesn’t seem to be causing a decline of deer numbers in those areas. In fact hunters can’t kill enough deer there to keep up with the recruitment and many areas are now using professional sharpshooters to control the over abundance of deer because hunters can’t get enough of them.

Now just so people can see the differences between those two areas with the statewide average I will also post that data.

Statewide antlerless allocation per square mile of land mass and recent hunter success rates:

Years………………………….license/sq.mile………………license/antlerless harvest

57-61……………………………..6.62
62-66……………………………..5.84
67-71……………………………..8.64
72-76……………………………..8.40
77-81……………………………..9.43
82-86…………………………….11.08……… …………………………3.62
87-91…………………………….16.06……… …………………………3.32
92-96…………………………….17.00……… …………………………3.42
97-01…………………………….18.38……… …………………………3.51
03-06…………………………….21.68……… ……………03-05.……..3.46

Now after reviewing all of the facts surrounding antlerless license allocations and the harvest histories, across the state, I have to say that I simply can’t find one shred of evidence that supports the conjecture and opinion that there are too many antlerless license being issued or that too many deer are being harvested.

In fact, all of the evidence I can find indicate that if anything we should be issuing a lot more license and at least attempting to harvest more antlerless deer in even more areas of the state.

I know that is a shock for a lot of people to even think about. But, I have been studying this topic for about thirty years now and I simply can’t find any evidence that supports the opinion that we have or even could over harvest the deer herd any place there is suitable habitat to support more deerwhen using legal hunting methods and seasons. We have tried tooverharvest the deerin the special regulations areas of the stateso hunters there have not been able toharvestas many deer as possiblewith unlimited license and greatly lengthened seasons. They can’t even over harvest the deer, or so it seems, with the unlimited doe harvests. Now theyusesharpshooters and spotlights and they still might not be able to harvest enough to control or prevent the herd increases.

So in view of the facts why would you be worried about too many doe license?

Now if you have some facts that counter these please provide them. I have been looking for facts that would support those over harvest opinions for three decades now and I can’t find any facts that support that opinion. I must also say that opinions should never be permitted to override factual scientifically generated and supported data.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

I know it seems logical that the posted property of Allegheny County and other areas with posted property, or limited access, is what allows the deer herd to avoid over harvest in those areas. But, I don’t believe that is the real case. I have hunted in both Allegheny and Washington County, on both public and posted private land, and have also hunted the large expanses of public land in the northern tier.

I can tell you right now, with absolute certainty, that we have far more unhunted land serving as deer sanctuaries in these remote areas around here then anything you could find in Allegheny or Washington County combined.

Though the southern counties, and management units, have a good number of small protected properties they are both relatively small and most also get some hunting pressure. The thing that really saves the deer there isn’t that they don’t get hunted, but more the fact that the habitat is so thick you can’t see the deer inside them or even chase the deer out of them to where hunters can shoot them.

I tried to chase deer out of some of those thick brambles on the private land I hunted so my sons and hunting companions could shot them. By the time I had gone a hundred yards I was so tore up I looked like I have been attacked by a bobcat. Though I could hear deer going back behind me I couldn’t see them to shot one of them. In short the vast majority of the deer were unharvestable simply because the habitat wouldn’t permit hunters to maneuver the deer to where they could be shot. The deer simply become nocturnal and unavailable for harvest.

In the northern tier we have very similar types of habitat though much larger, and of far less food value, then the blocks of private land in the southwest. But, they are impenetrable and under harvested for a different reason. Here in the northern tier we have impenetrable laurel patches that are huge, some as much as 25-50 acres, which are so thick you can’t fight your way through them, even though the deer get inside them to avoid hunters. I have tried to chase deer out of them too, but it simply can’t be done. They just move out of your way and let you go past. The deer can here you the entire time you are busting your way through and they simply move to one side or the other and let you go past them. I have tried to track deer out there, in the snow, and it simply can’t be done and you will not see them while you are in there either. I once wounded one, in late muzzle loader season, and it got into one of those laurel patches. It took me about two hour to get to see it as it circled back and forth and over our own trail several times. I couldn’t get it to come out of the laurel and I never did get to see until it had lost too much blood and was just too weak to go any further.

Besides the laurel patches we have lots of 50 to 60 acre clear-cuts that are so think the deer can hear you moving in them the entire time and once again they just move out of your way as you try to chase them out. We also have areas with large swamps of several hundred acres that are full of deer, but you can’t go in after them because the water is just too deep and risky. We sometimes kill a few deer in the early morning or late evening around those areas as they slip up because don’t stick with their normal nocturnal movements and patterns.

I have never seen man tracks in many of those areas because they are simply not huntable even though they have deer tracks all around them from deer that move in and out of them at night.

We also have a number of large land tracts with very limited hunting that protect tons of deer. One hunting club is just shy of 9000 acres (that is about 14 square miles) where they only have 100 members and hunt only 4-point to a side and larger bucks. Their membership voted not to harvest any does last year. There is another area nearby that is over 12,000 acres (over 18 square miles) that is only open to a couple dozen high paying guests and there are typically less then 20 does killed per year on that land and then only because they permit their drives a day or two per year to hunt the land.

I would suspect areas like that protect far more deer then any place in Allegheny County, or anywhere else in the southwestern counties. Though I will agree that there are many small protected properties in the southwest that act as safe havens for deer, I think they are but a drop in the bucket compared to the safe havens for deer here in the northern tier areas. We have much larger areas that are either unhuntable or only open to small numbers of hunters that all to often don’t even harvest antlerless deer on those lands.

During the time I hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties I would see more hunters per hunting hour then I see while hunting here in the more remote areas of the north central during the entire deer season.

People will have a mighty hard time convincing me that the difference in deer densities, between the two areas, has anything to do with the availability of areas for deer to escape hunters. I am very much convinced that the difference in the deer densities, between the northern areas and the southern areas, is almost entirely habitat related.

I am convinced that difference rests in the fact that the northern areas have protected the deer instead of the habitat to the point the habitat was destroyed and can no longer support very many deer. Conversely the southwestern areas of the state started harvesting more deer as soon as the deer numbers started to increase there. By doing that they protected the habitat instead of over protecting the deer. That has allowed the deer herds in those areas to stay higher then they could have if they had protected the deer instead of the habitat.

Every single piece of factual evidence or logical conclusion I can find or come up with indicates that if we want to have the maximum numbers of deer in the future we need to stop protecting the deer and start protecting the deer food. If the food is there the deer will be there too. But, if the food isn’t there it will be impossible to have many deer there. That would violate the most basic laws of nature and that simply doesn’t happen for more then short term periods of time.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

You are simply grasping at straws to discredit the facts because you don’t what to believe or accept the facts.

Sticking your head in the sand really doesn’t protect you from reality, it just limits your knowledge of the realities and the dangers that might or might not surround you. The ostrich with his head in the sand never sees the lion until it is on top of him. Having his head in the sand did nothing more then limit his knowledge and prevent him from forming an appropriate action to avoid disaster.

It sometimes amazes me that people thatthink like that, live so long. There must be someone else looking out for them and protecting them while they have their heads in the sand.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Dead deer found in woods = starved to death because of no food.
Where is the autopsy so say these animals was not injured that cause the starvation? Femurs said it starved to seath. Fine. But don't conclude that it was from lack of food with an autopsy. That animal could of been hit by a car or gut shot. But did you all do an internal skeloton check on this animal or gut them open? Nope, you just presumed they starved to death. Think again who has whos head in the sand when it comes to looking for answers. I am the one looking for answers you all are making answers from an assumption without physical evidence other than ferum test and saying yep, It starved to death.. All I am doing is asking for hard evidence to say it starved because lack of food and not an accident. I bet you do a test on them deer and they all have had an accident other than no food source.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

You know , it's funny how you sound like someone else who used to post here. He's gone and you show up w/ no profile info.

Things that make you go HHHMMMMMMMM!!!!!

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Like I said, you are grasping at straws.

I have examined a lot of deaddeer over the years and some of them have been winter kills. I am sure I have examined a whole lot more deer that died of winter mortality, or any other cause, then you have or likely ever will.

Though there are some deer that you just can’t tell what the cause of death was, or what contributing factors might have been involved in some of those that died of malnutrition, there are also a lot that you can simply and positively say died of starvation.

When I walk a draining, in the wintering grounds, and find two, three or four small, deer laying dead in a relatively small area and they all have red bone marrow I pretty well know they died of malnutrition. Then when I look around and see that they have eaten all of the hemlock boughs they could reach (leaving the small hemlocks bare of any boughs fro about five feet, other then what is buried under teh snow pack) and had then resorted to eating the beech back to the size of a pencil I already know what they died of without needing a more complete necropsy. But, then when I look in the rumen and find it full of beech browse it is very conclusive that they plain and simply couldn’t find anything nutritious to eat and died of starvation.

Now take a couple of minute to see if you can form a couple of rational thoughts and yourself this question, “Why would three or four wounded deer, that are miles from any major road, all go to the same place, in a prime wintering grounds to die of starvation a month or two later, but only after eating everything they could find�?

That simply doesn’t make senseto any logical thinking person, though it might for someone grasping at straws and not wanting to accept the fact that many areas have had more deer then the habitat could support for far too long.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Here's your sign, deer handler:
1. Newer "soft" bumpers on cars aren't effective in killing deer at point of impact thus deer can travel far before dying.
2. Deer are evolutionary cousins to elephants. (antlers are tusks)
They share the same trait of going to "dying yards' as elephants do, when faced with old age.
3. New road treatment compounds using sand/salt-based chemicalscause the tongue to swell and asphyxiation follows. :eek:

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

LOL;)

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

And that makes sence that these deer starved to death in a group? Yep they just gave up and they was hungry and died together. None of them left to look for food and they all died in this small area. What logic is that for us to think? Why would they stay together after one dies. Are they devoted to the dead one. Your saying at the exact time they all starved to death in these groups you all found. And you want people to believe this? For a deer not to get a mile away from a main road and die as it is hit by a car is like saying a deer can't run more than a hundred yards after it's been shot in the vitals. Are we hunters supposed to believe this especially archry and have witnessed these things our selfs. Do not deer use the same trails as other deers? And can this be the reason you find them together in an area dead? Like I said to many questions to be answered to say they had no food. I am sure all the deer in that area looked very skinny and just barely survived because of no food then. Got any pics to prove this to us? I didn't think so.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

We can all see that your knowledge of deer and deer management is as good as your mastery of the english language and your spelling skills.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Come on Deer handler.
It is just too easy to make a joke out of your inadequate reasonings.
You obviously are lacking in knowledge when it comes to wintering deer.
I don't mean that as an insult, other than to say, you just have not learned these things yet.

Family groups of deer winter together and will experience the same affects of weather and lack of food. Deer are not people. They will not appoint one to go search for food and report back to us.
They are reluctant to leave yarding areas, possibly because of being in an already weakened state and realizing they are vunerable to predators and also because starvation is a cunning affliction. The onset of starvation is not necessarilly painful. Anyone who has fasted, by choice or circumstance, for pro-long periods, or anyone who has experienced anorexia can attest that a "calm" feeling leads up to injurious starvation.

Why would they "not" stay together after one or two dies? They spend 24 hours a day together and rely on each other to warn of danger. Again, deer are not humans and are not spiritual nor are they repulsed by death.

For you to think that several deer, in one immediate area could, in a similar time period, suffer from injuries or lethal wounds and then "go to" andcollect in one area and die from wounds, is simply -- way, way out there.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Maybe thoughs No. are high for a reason?? To show them to the DCNR???
I think I chose the wrong state to move to..

We knew this was coming. We didn’t know when or how, but we knew a “deal� was in the wind. When DCNR Secretary Mike DiBerardinis lifted the six-month moratorium on land transfers from conservancies to the PGC, scuttlebutt said Commissioner Russ Schleiden promised DCNR a deal to kill more deer on State Forest Lands in trade. On November 15, a PGC/DCNR meeting came together and Secretary DiBerardinis put his cards on the table. I have the minutes of that meeting and they are ugly.
There were four issues DCNR wants resolved to their liking. The issues were an easier method of distributing DMAP coupons, multiple DMAP coupons per hunter, an extended rifle season for deer and an agency cooperative forest regeneration study.
As you read through these minutes it becomes apparent that DMAP is a burden to administrate. There is much discussion of establishing a “Point of Sale� system whereas hunters can buy doe permits across the counter or on the Internet. This has become quite common in other states.
However, DCNR wants to take it a step further and allow hunters to buy multiple DMAP permits. It seems that in some areas of the state, the Pocono’s and Tiadaghton State Forest were mentioned, DCNR can not sell all of the DMAP coupons. DCNR’s Merlin Benner stated that hunters had a 21% success rate on DMAP properties, although we don’t know if hunters are using their traditional doe permits or DMAP coupons, first.
In a big breakthrough, DCNR let it be known they are using “aerial infrared mapping� techniques to survey deer populations. This is extremely critical because the PGC has told us for years that this technique is too expensive to verify their deer population numbers. It is laughable that DCNR would pick the Pocono’s for such work. Merlin Benner stated there were 460 deer in 123 groups in one Pocono area DCNR surveyed. Think about that. This equates to 3.7 deer per group, hardly what I would call a population explosion.
The extended seasons suggested by DCNR is where it really gets ugly. DCNR is requesting opening the rifle deer season earlier, an early muzzleloader season open to all weapons, a September DMAP rifle season for does only and two more weeks of rifle season. I think it would be safe to say any of these policies would clean up the remnants of our deer herd quite effectively.
DCNR is also calling for a cooperative regeneration study with the PGC to “build public support� for destroying our deer herd. This one is born out of that same old story, “if it is not growing in the woods, the deer must have eaten it.� The lack of science in this theory is reprehensible. All of these suggestions must be submitted to the PGC Executive Office by December 20 for them to be voted upon at the January meeting.
Based on all that has happened in the last three years, I think it is quite accurate to say the PGC has lost control of deer management in PA. The close political connection between Secretary Mike DiBerardinis and the Governor has proven to be too much political clout for the PGC and our Commissioners to handle. Our Commissioners have “buckled at the knees� to every demand DCNR has put forth. DMAP should have never passed as a management tool unless DCNR was able to prove excessive deer numbers by infrared aerial survey as fact. With the worse acid deposition problem in the nation, DCNR, the PGC and Dr. Gary Alt have consistently blamed our deer for merely trying to stay alive in our collapsing forest ecosystems.
It now appears DCNR will not be happy until literally every deer on State Forests Lands is dead. Rapid, unnecessary decimation of our deer herd will significantly impact license sales in subsequent years. Our hunters will either quit hunting or those with the resources will go out of state. I hope this doesn’t happen, but a license sales crash is quite possible. I am confident when this occurs, DCNR will be the first to criticize the PGC and suggest merger of the agencies under DCNR is the only logical solution.
As you read through these minutes you will quickly realize, once again, the preposterous threats made by Dr. Gary Alt. I am sorry, but he has lost all credibility as a deer manager and couldn’t leave us fast enough.
If any of the above causes you concern, I would not bother to call the PGC or our PGC Commissioners. They are meaningless and useless. I suggest you contact your legislators.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Tincup. I hope some passer byes are tossing coins into that cup. Apparently your fantasy movie deal got shot down for
"over-imagination."
What a bunch of pointless rambling and illogical "interpretations."

Seems as though you really dug into the "old" archives to find some of that hashed-over and over and over again, stuff.

You kids gotta get some studying done.

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Your comment and tirade make it rather obvious that you don’t have much of a grasp on deer management, forest management, where deer find their food in a forest habitat or how the deer/forest interactions affect one another or even their own populations and existence.

You don’t think deer and forests were unrelated issues with no affect on each other or themselves do you?

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Wow, are we going to have to go that far back to the very first square of deer interactions to start this educational process?

In the hard winters deer get locked into the wintering grounds by the deep snows. Then as winter progresses the condition of the deer deteriorates to the point they don’t have the energy to go off pushing through deep snows looking for food. So they just try to conserve energy by lying down. Eventually they don’t have the energy to get up to even feed. The head will roll back over their back and they linger on until they eventually die.

Some winter morality deer will even die outside the wintering grounds after the snows have receded. If a deer loses 30% or more of its body weight over the winter and then the winter opens up or the deer gets more food it is probably still going to die. Once they reach about 30-35% loss of body weight they will probably die within a few days to a week even if they are once again mobile and able to leave the wintering rounds. This problem of losing that much weight is much more pronounced in the younger deer but can also happen with older deer if the winter is real extreme.

The deer being locked into the wintering grounds is why it is common to find dead deer in groups.

Incidentally my winter mortality survey routes were all at least three miles from any paved roads. The furthest one was a little over seven miles from a paved road and more then two miles from the closest dirt road open to motor vehicles. Therefore, it would be a real stretch to suspect any of the deer on my mortality routes had even been hit by a vehicle.

By the way I also noticed that you pulled snippets out of my previous post that you could use out of the context, making it look like all of my quote, yetused to suit your cause. Don’t you feel more then just a little bit dishonest when you do something that?

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Allegheny vs NC
 

Welp boys,the charts,personal experiences,and discussion have been presented.The jury is out of session.:D
I come to the conclusion that I still believe the non access areas of Allegheny county are saving enough deer keep the populations stable.I still say if you opened the whole place up to public hunting like say sproul state forest those numbers would be drastically reduced.
In my closing arguements:D,I'd like to say that the good habitat and few predators help the fawns of those saved doe survive.On the contrary,I firmly believe the deer populations in the NC were reduced in this order by herd reductions,a few bad winters in relation with some poor habitat.However now in places I no longer feel there are enough hunters to keep those numbers down so factors like poor habitat and predators come into play.
Having said that it's a different story in these southern counties on public land.And as proof if I can find it I can give the link to another forum with pics of rothrock state forest that will show what I've been saying.If anybody is interested PM me and I'll hopefully find you the link.
I want to thank our resident WCO for taking alot of time to post charts and stats on the boards here.It's appreciated.
You boys have a good night .