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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!