bawanajim

Their budget woe's are as big a joke as their latest journey into scientific ways to piss money away. And what you askmight their latest voyage into where & how to pissmore moneyaway now is our in depth study of the all so misunderstood " Woods Rat" thats right the agency that can;t afford to pay attention is now concerned about the habits and life styles of the all so wary "Woods Rat"
Your hunting dollars at work.[:'(]

bronko22000

BTBowhunter - Your saying that the PGC's deer management has more positive aspects than negative. Can you please elaborate? My grandson can't wait to go hunting with me but if things keep going the way they are now, he is going to get discouraged real fast from not seeing any deer.
I've heard that the PGC has stated that they may have errored in their program. IMO they should go back to the one deer and done for a while. Give the hunter the option of harvesting either one buck or one doe. And in areas with a lot of public land with numerous deer, develop a landowner co-op system where the landowner get a monitary refund for each deer taken by legally licensed hunters. You could have a 'landowner coupon' attached to your license and if you harvest an animal on his property, give the coupon to the landowner. Then at the end of the season, he can send them in to the PGC for refund. They do this out west and it seems to be working.

BTBowhunter

Here's a few thoughts on the benefits of the program. Some is fact and some is opinion.The opinion part seems to be shared by the majority of hunters that I know....

1 We no longer mow down every male deer the minute he sprout 3 inches of bone from his head. Will we ever produce the trophies that the midwest does? Not with almost a million hunters. Are the antler restrictions the best way to manage for quality bucks? No, not with the numbers of hunters we have but it is better than what we had. The average age of our harvested bucks is older than it has ever been (at least since records have been kept)

2 Our doe population is down in many areas where it needed to go way down. Is that unpopular in some areas? yes it is. Is it a fact that there are vast areas of this state that have graduated to the pole timber stage and that the pole timber nowconsists of tree species thatare less than ideal for wildlife habitat.Those areas arenot going to support the deer numbers we got used to for a very long time. The doe mortality study in one of those areas showed that only 8-15% of adult doe mortalitycame from hunters so it's not just about doe tags or the concurrent season.
The good news is that there are still many areas with high populations and hunters who are willing to adapt are still doing well.

3 This one is strictly from personal observation and may or may not represent the whole state. IMHO, the gun season has evolved into a less rushed situation. It used to be that your chances went way down after opening day because the deer were bouncing aronud the woods like pinballs and anything legal had a pretty lousy chance of survival. Now, hunters have to look at the head harder and make sure it's either a legal doe or a legal buck. My experience has been that the shooting is way less on opening day but the HUNTING stays good all season for those who get out and match wits with the deer. This has been unpopular with the crowd of "Monday morning stump sitters" but has made it better for the hunter who enjoys more than a one day hunt.

Mohuncher

That's why I started a new post about AR. ( everyone should take the time to read it)I have been doing a lot of research on this management tool.A couple of states that started before Pa. have noticeda decline now in antler growth. But there is also two main factors that play into Pa., hunting pressure, and NOT poor habitat, but poor soil conditions, this is why you have poor habitat, regardless of deer density! Hunters who have been complaining about no deer or small bucks. This is easy math, if the bucks are being taken soon as they have the legal point requirements, well,this is what you are going to get. Small to average size antlers.Also, if the area is being totally pounded in female harvests, this leaves very little to reseed. Low deer numbers. I also have a degree in biology and horticulture, but I will make this simple. I take it, at least a few of you fellow hunters plant a garden? Well, what do you do every year before you plant?, you prep the soil! If you don't, I think you know what is going to happen, anemic looking plants, the fruits small and low in vitamin and nutrition value. Back to the woods! Now, where the deer numbers have been kept low, you should see a forest floor regrowth happening, but! In poor soil conditions, the type of regrowth you get in poor soil conditions is worth crap as for nutrition value for deer. This will lead to low deer numbers even without heavy harvests. Poor food, not as healthy deer, poor reproduction! My point here is, AR and low deer numbers are not going to fix this type of area,it is going to takeburning, liming or clear cutting to help these areas. There is also areas from my experience that has good nutrition value habitat, but the deer density is down from over harvest. These can and should support more deer.Also Quality Deer Management is NOT or should be, a trophy tool. It is keeping numbers in line with the habitat. Summary: some area's are in good shape(deer density's) mostly private property. Some area's low(deer density's) could hold more, most public grounds. Some area's are in need ofupgrading the soil value, before we manage the deer. Last but not least," don't assume", just because a hunter is not seeing deer, he needs to improve his skills. The problem may be one of the other reasons! We need all the hunters we can get, from novice to expert. We also need to retool our deer management program,and it won't be easy.[/align]

Steve863

I think keeping deer numbers in line with habitat has absolutely nothing to do with how many points a buck has when he gets shot by a hunter. That is the big misconception here, but the trophy hunters try to link the two together. A states goal is to try to keep the herds in check with the habitat. The age structure of the males has NO significance in all this. The AR part in all this is ONLY put in place to pacify hunters who want to kill deer with larger antlers than before AR rules. All the other attempts to link AR rules with good management of a states deer herd is a bunch of lies.

DougE

I'll respond by saying that liming is both impracticle and unnessesary.Studies have been done and liming did absolutely nothing for oak regeneration.It did help red maple and bracken ferns but they're both species that we don't want to continue to take over.I'd be curious to see how a broadscale liming operation would take place and who would pay for it.Burning is a gret idea and would help but there's huge liability exposures associated with it,making it impracticle to do in Pa.

Still,it wouldn't hurt to lime burn and fertilize if it were practicle and affordable.However,there's no way to do it to the whole state.It's also not correct to assume that's the problem with our regeneration.I can take anyone and show them dozens and dozens of exclosures that have phenominal regeneration.The rainfall and soil are the same as what's outside the fences.The only differance is,deer have been removed from the equation.Hunters have to face the fact that we had way too many deer for way too long in many areas of Pa and nowwe have to pay the price with less deer.

PABuck_HNTR

Overall I think the plan is working. The AR's are definately working. The number of deer are down overall which is what they wanted.The deer I do see are healthier looking.Not seeing as many road kills,ect.I still feel that proper timber management is lacking though. If we could get more harvesting of mature timber we would get this process worked out a little faster.

DougE

Pabuck hntr,One of the rasons we're in the mess we're in is because the entire nothern section was logged in a short period of time during the early 1900's.We're now faced with an even aged stand of timber and the remedy is to cut 1% a year.If they cut more than that,things will be good for a while and them when it turns into pole timber,we'll be in the same mess again.While keepinga certain percentage of the forests in the seedling sapling stage is important,massive amounts of timbering is a short term solution to a long term problem.

bawanajim,You'll have to elaborate on how the PGC wastes money.they're one of the most heavily autited agencies out there.The did do a study on the wood rat,which they're mandated to manage.The PGCis responsible to mange all wildlife,not just deer.It's also not true that hunter's dollars pay for all of this.Most of these studies are funded by grant's from outside sources.

Mohuncher

Sorry DougE, I never assume! But I did not specify that maybe, that some area's may have poor soil conditions. But I can say it is just one of the factors in my area. And I should specify, these are pockets of poor soil condition in relative comparison to the size of the whole county. But they do exist, I can show you!

BarnesX.308

I saw an entry from 2004 and 2005 in the typical category. How'd that happen?