RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

Buffalo and elk are good examples of what happened before we had a management agency. I would also include beavers in that scenario.

If we really are concerned about wiping out deer, all we need to do for reassurance is look at the continuing good harvest numbers. Our numbers have remained fairly consistent and deer have expanded their range, just in my lifetime, by 3 times the area.

The only real threat to deer populations is the threat of disease being spread by having too many deer.
Look at Wisconsin where entire regions were affected, (CWD),and even after giving hunters free and completely open seasons onculling unlimited numbers of deer, the deer came back in good numbers.

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

Good harvest numbers? The PGC has no clue how many deer there are in PA, so how can we say our harvest numbers are good? They may be too high, or too low.

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

I didn't mean to paint you with that broad brush Sproul. I agree with you on alot of things that you say, most notably that the timber is being allowed to mature too much to the point that the habitat is unsuitable for deer, and that the deer are being blamed for non-existant understory, when no understory can grow in a mature forest anyway. My point is that alot of hunters are commonly of the mindset that other hunters should be prevented from shooting does but if they see one "bang" it's dead, "I got mine" is all they care about. If you refrain from shooting a doe because you think there are too few deer in your area, you are truly a remarkable exception to the rule. Some people let their actions speak for themselves. I think you are one of them.

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

I suppose it's possible to wipe the deer out in PA but my point in the previous post was the mindset of hunters in past and present.Good thing for preservation/conservation or we'd all be in trouble.

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

Pahick, there is only one extremely small group of people who believe your statement. That group is very much smaller than the group that does believe our harvest numbers.

I know you probably will turn your head away from facts, but our methods have been independently reviewed and found to be valid within all scientific terms of determining deer numbers.
USP and Jim Slinsky went nationwide to try to find one single wildlife biologist who would speak against our methods and it back-fired on them so bad they tried to bury the interviews by misquoting select portions.

Here is something for your enlightenment:

This is a copy of an email from a hunter in Michigan to a biologist with Ohio's DNR about Ohio's check stations, etc. The hunter believes Ohio's method of counting dead deer is far superior than Michigan's. Perception is not reality.

Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI writes:

I believe that your method of mandatory deer check-in is the most accurate method of tabulating a season's deer hunting kill and believe that it would behoove Michigan's DNR to implement a similar program.
Why do you use mandatory deer check-in rather than Michigan's method which deals heavily in statistical demographics/information? Is there any data/study showing that mandatory deer check-in is a more accurate way of determining a season's take of whitetails?
Sincerely, Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI

======================================
Hi Milton,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your thoughts on mandatory registration (MR). As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey. Technically, I guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure non-reporting rates. In the 10 years that I've been here, I've been engaged in numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration. I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters[/b] who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be
desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.
[/b]
On the surface, MR seems like the "cats meow." You kill a deer, you bring it to the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were taken, but you're now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size of the upcoming fall population. In a perfect world, that might be the case. The reality is, we know (PA and MO come to mind immediately) that not everyone checks their deer. How many? Who knows for sure? In some years it may be as low as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and moreimportantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do. If you didn't check your deer and you were asked after the season via a phone call, if you checked your deer, what's you're answer going to be? My point is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at best. Moreover, if you don't know what noncompliance is, you don't know what the true harvest is either. So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that - an estimate. In large part it is because of tradition. It also is a very good PR tool. It gives us an opportunity to interact with our hunters. I like working check stations, as do many of my colleagues. The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall. On-site registration will be a thing of the past. Last year was the last time they collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now rely on processors for that data. Mandatory registration has its advantages. However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of the alternatives is not one. While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan's current system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than mandatory registration. Brent Rudolf, a good friend and someone whom I respect a great deal summed it up best with the following comments:

"Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance. When hunters are required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phone call, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations). Although we know that it is harder to garner a survey response from individuals that did not hunt or harvest any deer, we do capture information from these individuals and are able to generate confidence intervals. I believe PA has tried to estimate
non-compliance by examining how many deer checked at processors do not show up later in the reported harvest, but I don't remember what they've found from this. I don't believe WI tries to determine non-compliance at all, which means the number of deer registered is simply a minimum number of deer killed. This unknown element would especially be of concern when trying to summarize figures for individual units. Thus, I would disagree with your generalized statement that "registration enables us to manage deer on a finer scale... with greater precision". [/b]
Keith, precision in the harvest estimate is not known in either of our states, as it would require knowing the true harvest. Although providing
confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with the relatively wide range at the level of a DMU, they do provide a measurable means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest. Other general benefits of our system are that we generate measures of participation and effort."

Mandatory registration may help some to restore hunter confidence in the DNR estimates. However, I don't believe it will improve the estimates themselves.[/b]

I hope I have shed some "unbiased"[/b] light on the subject of mandatory
registration. Please don't hesitate to drop me a note if you have additional questions or need clarification on something. Again, thank you for writing.

Very best,

Mike

Michael J. Tonkovich, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
ODNR, Division of Wildlife

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

"Good thing for preservation/conservation or we'd all be in trouble."

That preservation and conservation is called “wildlife management” by the PGC.

Pahick does not even acknowledge that deer have tripled their range in PA in the last 50 years.

Sproulman does not even acknowledge that the very word "hunt" means to seek.

And many of the uninformed seem to think the DCNR is a hunter’s organization.......!

Also, many make outrageous claims with absolutely nothing to back them up and then when proof is offered to disprove their claims --- they simply do not address it.

Did you (anyone) know that around 1939 a group of hunters filed suit against the PGC because they believed that allowing the killing of "any" does would completely wipe out the deer herd in PA?

They even got legislators on their side to introduce legislation to prevent the PGC from starting a doe season.

The PGC had biologists from many areas supporting doe hunting as a proven scientific need to control deer numbers and save the forest habitat for the future of deer and other wildlife.

Does that sound familiar to today's USP efforts and outrageous claims?

If we had not had that controversy, with the legislature stepping in way back then, we would not be where we are now with facing the task of trying to balance nature and save our heritage for future generations.

Look at the other quality deer states like Ohio. They have virtually unlimited doe tags that can be gotten at WalMart 24 hours a day. Up to 7 tags per hunter for some regions and generally about 5 doe tags for any region.

Those who are shouting about our too many doe being killed do not even comment on that!!!

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

Originally the lack of regulated doe harvests did lead to alarmingly low populations hence seasons wetre established.
Responding to north's post I guess you could say I agree with most to an extent.The DCNR obviously isn't a hunter's org but it has and should keep recreation/open space as a main objective.Sometimes I think timber monies gets ahead of the focus and that shouldn't be the case.
I'd like to see a balance in those thick canopies with some cuttings to offset huge expanses of park like habitat.Those areas have been damaged now they need some man made help in the repairs.Unfortunately this won't be done because in alot of cases max yield won't be reached in the timber.
I'm not talking about eliminating all old growth because there's a few species that rely on that also.Let's face it,more critters then just deer rely on new understory for survival.

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

north,The problem with comparing states like Ohio is the difference in the number of hunters and the amount of public land.Private land can be self regulated but public land can't and this is mostly where the overharvesting occurs.
I have a friend who lives in Georgia now where the doe tags are pretty liberal.Problem is you better have some money to get good hunting cause unlike PA you don't simply get permission.In his part of the state there's very little public land if any.A few years back after moving a flood took his house out so money became an object therefore paying for a lease which is more expensive then here was out of the question.
My point is,here in PA our number of hunters and amount of public land and/or land open to hunting is uniqe.

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

Now wait a minute. I never said anything about deer expanding their range. Yes, we have greater number of deer in areas that were previously low. Thats not the point. The point is our GC doesnt even know how many deer are in the state. How can you effectively manage what you do not know? You cannot. And you can post as many biologist reports/emails as you like. The fact is our numbers are not even close to what the PGC says. Feild surveys are not completely accurate, mandatory report cards havent been handed in by many for YEARS. Alot of hunters have processed their own meat for years also. There are alot of flaws in our system, which you fail to acknowledge. And each year we continue the same basic priciples of tallying deer, the problem compunds itself.

Take a look around areas like Coudersport, Renovo, Dubois, Altoona, Saxton, Breezewood, etc. etc....poaching is a big problem in those areas, among plenty of others. Do poachers use meat processors? Last I knew they didnt. How are poaching numbers figured in the PGC's tallies? Deer vehicle accidents are getting higher and higher according to the insurance lobbyists. How are those numbers figured in? Do you see where im going with this? The fact is the PGC DOES NOT KNOW how many deer are in PA. And no other biologist from whatever state does either. You CANNOT manage what you do not know.

RE: PA News - USP Files Permanent Injunction against PGC
 

Germain I don’t understand what you mean by “the lack of regulated doe harvests did lead to alarmingly low populations.” I think you mean “high” populations.

There were “no doe” seasons back in the early years of PGC management.

My point though was that we had the “alarmists” way back then, when the PGC wanted to start a new thing --- doe hunting. The alarmists did bring political pressure to reduce doe allocations. That, in the opinion of almost every biologist and wildlife historian, is what led to the situation we now have.

I again suggest you research the DCNR website. I honestly think many of our hunters are confused about those missions and also, very eager to throw away the rest of what other non-hunting citizens have rights to expect from “their” conservation agency.
We would “like to see” the same things, but that ain’t in the cards.

The Ohio comparison is usually made by those wanting to point to quality deer hunting and say that PGC could learn from Ohio.
I also think too many hunters make comparisons to our numbers but fail to put in the amount of public land factor. I don’t have those figures handy but I believe, from previous research, that hunter density is very comparable in Ohio to what we experience in PA.
I hunted Ohio for years and I experienced as much “sea of orange” there on public land as I ever did in PA.
You make a good point about Georgia and it is somewhat similar in Ohio. The public land is at a premium and often very crowded. Two years ago two of my friends came out to hunt in Ohio with my son and me. They went into Salt Fork public area and even after paying their motel for a week in advance and investing all that money, they left after only two days because of hunter competition. I felt really bad for them because I’m the one who talked them into coming out there.
I can tell you for a fact that the SGL’S near me are virtually empty of hunters when the private land around me is hunted very hard and continuously by locals. That’s why they have that land – to hunt it!