RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

We harvested 52.6K 2.5+ buck in 2002 so at least 65K buck had to be carried over from 2001. If you add the 65K buck carried over to the 1.5 buck harvested of 159K you get a PS 1.5 buck population of 224K 1.5 buck. if we had the same number of PS 1.5 buck in 2002 as in 2001 then the 2002 harvest did in fact protect 50% of the 1.5 buck.



Any objective person would also note how RSB tries to use data from 2G with the lowest harvest rates in the state as representative of the entire state. The simple fact is that the NC counties of 2G constitute a small percentage of the buck killed statewide and the conditions that effect the buck harvest in 2G are not representative of the rest of the state.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

What kind of misrepresentation scam are you trying to pull with that post?

No where in my recent post, that you are responding to, did I say anything about hard winters in Greene County. I know Greene County isn’t normally affected by winter snows. Since the set of data was statewide and the other data for Elk County I don’t know how you could have equated the data to having anything of any significance to do with anything in Greene County.

But, since you frequently bring up Greene County I looked up the data for Greene County and unit 2A, where Greene County is located, and I simply don’t see one thing about the harvests in Greene County or unit 2A that indicate any major reduction in the deer population.

Over the past five years unit 2A has had the second highest antler less deer harvests per square mile in the entire state and the highest buck harvests per square mile in the state. That certainly doesn’t support all of or any of the yammering around being done about poor hunting or low deer numbers in Greene County.

All that is occurring in Greene County, and unit 2A, is good deer management that is working to maintain a deer harvest that safeguards the deer food supply in the unit so you can always have good deer numbers. It is presently working too. But, if the deer management were left topeople like you the habitat and deer numbers there would soon be nearly as bad as it is in parts of the northern tier.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You use far to many if’s in your thinking and your speculations of what might have been. The way you use the word “if� is pretty much as Roger Whittaker used the word “if’ in one of his songs.

In the song he says “IF� is for children building day dreams. That is about as far as “IF� will take a person in the world of calculating deer populations too.

There is nothing in the harvest data from 2002 that comes even marginally close to suggesting half of the existing 1 ½ year old bucks had been protected, unless you are goofy enough to believe that for some strange reason the number of 1 ½ year old bucks would suddenly increased by an astronomically large number for just that one year. Take a look at the 1 ½ year old bucks harvests from the 1998 to 2001 when we weren’t protecting any 1 ½ year old bucks with anything more then a three inch spike and we were harvesting between 80 and 90% of them each year. Then explain why they would have been so low as compared to the harvest of 2002 if we had indeed come close to harvesting 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks in the population that year. Why would the number of 1 ½ year old bucks have jumped to such a high number being available for just that one year?

The fact is the number of 1 ½ year old bucks didn’t make any large increase for just that one year and therefore your mathematical wizardry is just another bunch of horse pucky make believe.

Furthermore, there is not one thing in my post that said anything about unit 2G. You make far to many assumptions while you obviously don’t know much about the geography of Elk County as it related to the WMU lines. If you paid a bit of attention to the WMU lines you might eventually figure out that you really don’t know what you are talking about concerning where the data I used from Elk County came from.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

You have a PM Mr RSB.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

here in clinton/potter/cameron countys which i hunt for 47 years.

reason for huge decline in deer numbers is too all doe tags issued in last 10 years or so.
then in came all the coyotes, they are killing off the fawns week they are born.less deer/less fawns/even less more do to coyotes.

i seen it, have seen it,have 20 witnessess to it in bass tournament.:(

then penn statesays bears are doing it also.

then throw in hunters now that dont care if they shoot a fawn,i saw 2 fawns in back of DCNR EMPLOYEES PERSONELTRUCK LAST YEAR, he was happy as h about it.he filled his tags.[:@]

you know what somehunters call a fawn now,FURBALL.

my dad would break gun over your head if he saw you with FAWN.he had GRIT .;)

lack of deer is NOT do to habitat, i agree with RSB,cant believe i said that ,that HABITAT is bad in wmu2g but reason for CRASH in the deer is not habitat, its ALL DOE/DMAP TAGS THAT WERE ISSUED FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS.

sproul has spoken!;)

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Holy Moses! Jimminy Christmas!
Tag has been filled. This was only the 4th buck I have seen all season after sooo many hours of seeing very little this fella came in following a doe. She came to my food plot and ate while he stood downwind of her grunting every 30 secs or so. He was 65 yds out feeding when I grunted at him, he raised his head, looked around and went back to feeding. I grunted again and he came to a scrape 35 yds from me and freshened it up and thrashed the branches above it. I grunted a third time and he came to 15 yds pissed off stomping and growling (never heard that before). The G5 striker passed through both lungs, he managed to go approx 120 yds and dropped. The doe had no clue what happened and continued to feed for another 25 minutes before moving on and allowing me to climb down. He scored 112 5/8", tooth wear indicates 2 1/2 yr old. He weighed 225 pounds live weight.Didn't scoreashigh as my 8 point last year but I didn't have 205 hours to put into shooting a buck this year.Nowgoing to Ohio on Wednesday for a week and a half, hopefully I will have another picture to post.

http://uploadpicz.com/zman/UUXQ29W.jpg

11 scoreable points, 18 1/4" inside spread, total 112 5/8"

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Just a quick question RSB,do you work for either the PGC OR DNCR ?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

"But, since you frequently bring up Greene County I looked up the data for Greene County and unit 2A, where Greene County is located, and I simply don’t see one thing about the harvests in Greene County or unit 2A that indicate any major reduction in the deer population."

Then you better look again. The data shows it clearly. Also, anyone living here can tell you, and I mean ANYONE that the highest years by far were the 90's. When you could drive down the road in a several mile area and see a hundred deer on a regular basis. Now you can drive the entire length of the county and see 10 or 12. Did we have too many deer then? Probably. The numbers were a bit extreme. Now? Ha ha ha. Hardly, but by stating this obvious fact, I still never inferred "there are no deer".;)

"Over the past five years unit 2A has had the second highest antler less deer harvests per square mile in the entire state and the highest buck harvests per square mile in the state."

1.Thats because we we still reducing the herd.
2. Those antlerless harvests of the reduction years werewhat has led us to a smaller herd.

AlsoYou like toadd in those years like 5 years ago 4, etc. when the herd was larger, and the harvests werent sustainable long term either. That skews the data to use that "convenient bundled together" collection of yearsand you know it. When you take that into account along with usbeing the best type habitat in the state, and the fact Most of the state has been reduced to extreme unnecessary levels, your statement of where the wmu places harvestwisedoesnt amount to much in the way of what is or isnt appropriate for the area. One would onlyEXPECT one of the best areas of the state would be within top 5 in harvests![8D] If not, then we'd have a SERIOUS problem all the way around.

"That certainly doesn’t support all of or any of the yammering around being done about poor hunting or low deer numbers in Greene County."

Numbers are decent. Could be higher, especially when using pgc guidlines on acceptable herd density (of course we all know they only apply when the equal LESS deer, not more).

Wehad someareas wiped out by ehd, which havent come back even close to previously yet, no do I expect they will for at least another year or two, as long as doe tags dont increase.

Aside from that, no reason in the worldforcontinued reduction and rediculousallocation when herd is claimed to be in the stabilization mode... Yet, once again, the harvest goals and the allocation is ABOVE what they were when theherd was being reduced.

Those are my problems with this management plan in this area. Please note: No yammering involved,no comment of "poor" hunting, or anything else. Simply the direction we are clearly taking stinks, we are being lied to, and we are already below what COULD and Should be had. Thats all. Nothing more nothing less.

"But, if the deer management were left topeople like you the habitat and deer numbers there would soon be nearly as bad as it is in parts of the northern tier."

Would never happen. Absoluteimpossibility as long as herd numbers did not exceed previoushigh levels. To insure this, reasonable reductions of 10-15%and stabilization at that point would have provided theperfectbalance. Would have been within cc, and would provide the most responsible level, including a better sustained buckharvest.

With our habitat type and conditions compared to the northern tier, we would have far far too many deer by anyones standards and past human conflict acceptability before ever coming close to destroying the habitat.

This is far from simply a 2A problem. In fact there are far worse off places in the state if speaking of huntable deer numbers and not just how fewer deer we have than the habitat can responsibly hold.

This is a statewide problem. Unnecessary blanket reduction. We all know why, and it has little to do with "herd health" or the sport of hunting. And EVERYTHING to do with catering to ecoweineys and interests like timber etc.

All one need do is google terms like "Pa deer management audubon" and see howinstrumental audubon has been in this whole sham....Then see how extremely exact the deer plan mirrors their suggestions.;)

Who has input into the use of gamelands usage? Audubon.
Who paid for the initial, start of it all, deer study?Audubon.
Who has made gamelands and sf designated as not one, not 2, not 12, but 83 special bird areas, which entail management strategies that might not be conducive to game management, even though hunters bought the game lands? Audubon
Who has had the inside track and been part of every decision making process in regards to our deer plan? Audubon.
Who is Roxy Palone and a couple other commissioners favorite conservation organization... Audubon.
Who wants even lower deer numbers than most timbermen and farmers? Audubon.
Who is pgcs favorite "hunters" organization to ask when they want the answer they want to hear so they can have a showing of manufactured support among hunters even though many arent even hunters? PFSC. Which now added the ending ...AND CONSERVATIONISTS. Whichis basicallynonhunting extreme conservationists.. Which includes audubon.

Im just wondering if once Pallone and schliedens terms expire very soon, if we will get lucky and get "pro-hunting" representation. I doubt that it would be permitted, considering who has majority control of the governors advisory council these days, as well as a few of the Senators who are like minded. Would be nice to have at least some say for a change, like being heard when demandingresponsible deer management, which IS possible while still considering the well being and future of oursport and management toolwhich ishunting itself.;) In a state with so deeply engrained a passion for huntingcompared to the rest of the nation, to have our numbers dropping at over twice the national average because of an ecoextreme agenda is completely unacceptable.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Fellas, yes he does. He is a Pa game commission employee. WCO. How could you tell? LOL:D

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

NUFF SAID ! I figures as much.I can't believe they got him to believe that baloney to the point where he recites it online.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

If nothing else, you hafta give him credit for hisunquestionable unwavering loyalty....Even if it is misplaced and undeserved by his employer.:D

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Since you don't like the fact that I used the word "if" here is what Bret wallingford had to say about the number of buck carried over to 2001.
Since the 2001 harvest was less than the 2000 harvest,which kept the herd stable , there is no reason to believe the 2001 harvest reduced the number of 1.5 buck in 2002. Therefore , the 2002 harvest of 112,384 buck should have carried over 112,384 buck to become 2.5+ buck. But the 2003 2.5+ buck harvest was only 62,030 So the question becomes what happen to all the additional buck that were carried over? Were they lost to non-hunting mortality and poaching? Was a significant percentage of 2.5 buck non-AR legal?

Why didn't the buck harvest return to normal in 2003 as Alt and you predicted? Why has the 1.5 and 2.5+ buck harvest continued to decline since Ars were implemented?

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

Schuylkill County WCO Kevin Clouser is investigating a case in which three deer were shot with a small-caliber rifle and dumped at Kellner's Dam in Tamaqua. Clouser said he also has received reports of illegal deer shooting behind Tamaqua High School, at State Game Lands 222 in Walker Township and around Tuscarora State Park.

''I think there's quite a bit of shooting going on,'' Clouser said.

So do I. Much more than most people suspect.

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

in around schools or parks, they are using CROSSBOWS.

i think i heard at 1 park in centre or sulliavan county, they found over 21 arrows in grass after cutting it.

the only way this is going to stop is if the WCO is put on SALARY with no hours and days off.

this way he can be out there 10pm to 4 am and catch these poachers.

where i work, they put us all on SALARY.

they make us come out at night and on weekends, no overtime.

once they know the WCO is out at night reguarly and weekends, it will get reduced a lot.

right now, no one even sees a WCO here in clinton county,daylight or nightime.

so, poaching continues.

poachers hit hyner,pa this year and got some real wall hangers.

i believe that its same ones that cut heads off 5 bucks in rt144 near beech creek/swamp branch road,cant prove it but just what you hear going around.[:@]

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

They can’t put the WCOs on salary because the Federal Government ruled, in the Garcia Decision back in 1985, that all state and local governments have to pay time and a half for any work over 40 hours. There is no way the Game Commission could afford to pay that much overtime so they had to cut the hours that WCOs worked to only 40 hours with some very limited over time hours on top of that.

You are correct though that the poachers know we aren’t out there. I see them all the time driving past and checking to see if my state vehicle is here or not.

The real big change in enforcement has come from the decline in the deputy program over the past years though. Back when we had a larger more active deputy force they were the ones that caught most of the poachers. Even though most people don’t know it the deputies always were the real meat of the Game Commission’s law enforcement program. They were out there catching the poachers after the WCO spent all day taking care of the normal day to day business of the district, such as the wildlife complaints, school programs, hearings and normal after the fact investigations.

The deputies then were out there at night doing preventive law enforcement and catching the real poachers. But, over the years a lot of knot heads and politician launched attacks on the deputies and the entire deputy program. That resulted in many deputies quitting, more training for deputies and in general it got to the point where it is very hard to find deputies that are willing to go through all of the required hoops they have to go through just to do a thankless nearly volunteer job as a deputy today.

I have said all along that with the decline of the deputy program there would also be a decline in the protection of our resources. But, that is what many of the hunters and politicians of this state demanded, so now they will just have to live with the results of their demands.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
 

reason i stated as you said is because OVERTIME is not going to happened.

i HATED being put on salary.
now they called me all time,2am get to work,5 am get to work.
having picnic on sat, get to work.

sick, get to work,on and on.

when we had OVERTIME,they never called us.

its like local police, we could not afford one,so residents voted,NO POLICE.
now, we are getting bro into ,so, now same people want something done for free.

so, state police met with us, yes, 5 people showed up at meeting.[:@]

no one wants involved but complain .:eek:

i assume same with PGC .

just like today, i saw one of OUTLAWS,window down on his truck with his wife on passenger side heading into woods for a GOOD ROAD HUNT.

he was arrested 2 times for shooting the ROBO DEER in 1 day:)second time he shot deer he said,WHERE DID I HIT IT THIS TIME.[:@]

there he goes ,nothing bothers him.they got to get that MEAT.

they know no one is out there,most dont care anyhow because at least HALF are shooting out windows TOO.

i see it everytime i go out, vehicle after vehicle with windows down road hunting.

many, many with KIDS in front seat with rifles ready.

if doe sticks her head out, she is history.grouse/turkeys too.

i can see hunting getting a lot worst, in fact, this is worst year, so far in 47 years hunting in clinton/potter county,that i ever had.[:@]

i am out there 3 to 4 days a week in SPROUL.

Ok; here you go people; come & voice your opinion! Board of Game Commissioners to meet on Jan. 24-26, 2010

The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners will hold its first meeting of 2010 on Jan. 24, 25 and 26, in the agency’s Harrisburg headquarters, 2001 Elmerton Ave., just off the Progress Avenue exit of Interstate 81. A copy of the agenda for the meeting will be posted on the agency's website prior to the meeting.

On Sunday, Jan. 24, beginning at 1 p.m., the Board will hear public recommendations for 2001-11 hunting and trapping seasons and bag limits. Doors will open at noon. Individuals interested in offering public testimony - limited to five minutes -- may begin to register at noon on a first-come, first-to-speak basis.

On Monday, Jan. 25, the Board will gather any additional public comments and hear Game Commission staff reports beginning at 8:30 a.m. Doors open at 7:45 a.m. Registration for those interested in offering public testimony - limited to five minutes - also will begin at that time.

On Tuesday, Jan. 26, beginning at 8:30 a.m., the Game Commission will take up its prepared agenda to, among other things, give preliminary approval to hunting and trapping seasons and bag limits for 2010-11. Doors open at 7:45 a.m. Antlerless deer license allocations for the 2010-11 seasons will be presented for the Board to consider at its meeting in April. Harvest results from the 2009-10 deer seasons will be announced in mid-March.

Also, on Jan. 26, the Board will set its other meeting dates for 2010. _________________________
Every day is better than the last!!!

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote

Not to say I don't think some care, but I would be truly shocked any meaningful changes were even considered.

Just like last nights vote for health care by Ben Knight was bought and paid for, any change in how PA's game is mismanaged will come with a high price tag .

I for one am getting tired of the excuses that they have to manage for "all" of the states wildlife, it seems the hunt able species get the "whats left" of the budgeted monies.

I'll bet you if some one was poaching woods rats , blue birds or red tailed hawks they would quickly find the monies to arrest and prosecute these poachers.

I really have lost any faith that we as hunters are more than an meal ticket to the higher ups at the PGC.

That is something on which most of us can agree.

Most definately. And without a voice it will not change.

Absolutely. Agree with last 3 posts.

I see I've missed alot during my several day hiatus. I should've bought a MAC.:throw: Maybe I will.:s5:

Truthfully, it would take me a he11uva lot longer to prove my points using facts than the 5 minutes would allow. I've spent the summer and fall emailing our BOCs about several concerns and the truth is that they are truly clueless and can and will blow smoke up your arse. Several of them aren't there to represent us, they are there for the prestige. But hey....anything is better than Kathy Davis I reckon.

My time is better spent communicating with our legislators.

The biggest decline in the protection of our resources was when they implemented the current DMP. Poachers could not even come close to causing the devastation to our deer herd that the PGC has caused. At this point I don't know why any hunter would choose to become a deputy to protect a resource the PGC choose to destroy.

A few pages back (47 or so!)...the discussion was gain about harvest reporting and how to get more accurate results/ higher hunter participation. I've thrown a few out there of my own just for kicks...now I've got a new one. The implementation of the PALS system and the online reporting this year will make this one a piece of cake. Here we go.....

Each hunter, regardless of success, is required to submit a report at the end of the season. It could be done online, over the phone like states such as MD....or write it out and snail mail it, from a form in the hunting digest. What tags they filled and accompanying required harvest data, as well as some questions on days hunted, wildlife observed,...maybe a few opinion surveys. Purchasers of the second spring turkey tag are already similarly required to report, kill or not. Until the PGC receives your report, and enters it into the system, you have a hold placed on your licensing, preventing you from purchasing the next year's license. Participation would be mandatory, or no license for you next year. There would be a few kinks to work out, but that's the general idea.

Alright...lynch me! I for one would love to see an accurate harvest report, and verified through independent audit. No crazy logarithms (sp?).....no guesswork other than the honesty of the hunters who reported, which of course would be hard to ever enforce without mandatory check stations...(which seems to be about as desirable as the plague, among hunters, and the PGC.) I think the harsh reality of the low harvest..esp. the buck harvest would hit the hunting community like a ton of bricks.

Check stations may be a pain in the butt, but I think it's the most accurate way to get REAL deer numbers. It's mandatory in VT. I think you guys in PA have to have as close to real numbers as possible before the pgc can even think of good way to manage the herd. IT only takes afew minutes to check them in anyway.

Then again you guys kill more deer then the two states I hunt in have in the herds combined. So check stations probably not going to happen in PA

Right you are Steel! Assuming there havent been any problems with reporting through PALS, and I've seen no such reports, mandatory reporting at seasons end is sensible and might even save money over those postage paid cards. Reply mail postage is expensive.

But...all those guys that never report because of a deep rooted fear of govt knowing too much about them, etc....would be fightin mad, because if they fail to report, their license cannot be renewed until the report is made. I've heard some pretty wild excuses as to why guys don't report, but never found any that hold water. The most common "unreporters" I know, are the outlaws that are hiding something. I for one, would welcome the opportunity of showing the PGC just how low I fear the actual buck harvest is, but the only way to prove it would be 100% compliance, taking their equations and guesstimates out of it. I want the cold, hard numbers. Anyone who fails to report and thinks that they are somehow screwing the PGC is wrong. They are screwing the rest of us that would like to know what the actual harvest is....but sadly, probably never will.

I'm guessing that we probably lost some of those guys already when we had to start giving our SS#.

As for any holdouts who may be left, I say tough! They can report or be denied a license next year. Hunting is a privelege not a right. It's already mandatory with DMAP. I see no reason why it shouldn't or couldn't be put into place very soon.

I agree for the most part with mandatory reporting. Only hitch i see is willingness to enforce penalty for noncompliance. I could foresee alot of guys not complying for various reasons. Many not even knowing of the change at first. Especially among those not complying now. I can see alot of headaches for hunter and pgc alike with "my report got lost in the mail, or your computer must be screwed up...or... whatever. There have been glitches in pgcs system this year, and its possible not all claims would be bogus. Could you imagine your composure if after filling out a report, you were told at the check out counter next year that you were not on record as having filed a report! I also question whether pgc would be willing to take the risk of losing the cash enforcing such a rule MIGHT cause. Aside from those issues, I support your idea. Would take some careful planning etc. though to anticipate any potential bugs in the system.

Definately should strive for maximum accuracy. Although it alone will not change hunter satisfaction or increase herd levels. Pgc said numbers doent matter. IF the trillium & hobblebush arent growing in sufficient numbers as judged by the biodiversity analysis teams then the herd will not be permitted to grow, and that stuff just is not gonna grow in maximum abundance they are seeking with reasonable deer numbers in the forest! Therefore it doesnt matter if our actual harvest is exactly as they say it is, or if its 100,000 less, the allocation would not be decreaed, but very possibly increased.

"Hunting is a privelege not a right."

It doesnt matter much if it were a right, because even in states where it is a right, with noncompliance of the laws, those "rights" can still be taken away.

You'll never get 100% compliance and you'll never get an actual number of dead deer.DMAP'S have required reporting whether successful or not.It was printed right on the tag that there would be a penalty and the loss of the ability to get another dmap in the futire is no reprt was given.Still,compliance was below 70% even though nasty letters were sent out to those that didn't report,threatening a fine and ability to buy future dmaps.In the end,there was nothing that could be done because all people have to do is claim they mailed them in and they got lost in the mail.Hopefully POS will illeviate some of these issues but not everyone owns a computer.Still,there's no way to determine how many guys kill and don't tag deer and there's no way to know how many are shot and not recovered.It always has been and always will be an estimate.

We have a controlled hunt where I live.At the end of the season,we mail or e-mail everyone a questionaire that is mandatory to send back if you want to hunt again.Compliance with that is less than 80%.A high percentage of hunters don't give a rat's behind about the data.It's easier to just be a part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.

You'd think that with the new fangled computer licensing system in place now, it wouldn't be that difficult for license buyers to have to do a mandatory report of deer harvested, during the previous year, before the purchase of a hunting license.

Similar to when buying a the migratory bird stamp. It seemed easy enough for the PGC or whomever, to do a survey like that for waterfowl, why not deer?


Even though results would be a year late, comparisons could be made to the report cards by mail and computer reported kills.

I'd be interested in the results.


These days with all the high tech stuff it seems simple enough.


I always hear the excuse of how much it would cost. Really?

Couldn't issueing agents have a poll type page of their computer to ask buyers of their kills and log it on?

Look how simple it is to conduct a poll on this board.

I believe the excuse about cost is just an excuse to not do it that way.

Having every license buyer reporting what they killed the previous year, would leave less room for the PGC to make up their own numbers usin their excuse of hunters not reporting kills.

Seems worth the expense for the PGC to keep tabs on who got an elk tag, who got a bobcat tag ( so the don't reapply), who sent for which county for a doe license.

If I sent an application to five counties or sent five applications to the same couty for the first drawing, can't they see that I did that? Seems they find it easy enough to track those things and don't have a problem with expense.

The too expensive excuse is a cop out!

That would be fine if everyone owned a computer but they don't.

Everyone has access to snail mail. Everyone has access to a telephone.

Why not have reminders sent out or telephoned for those that failed to report. Maybe around February or March.

Well I can certainly say that I know of one "for sure" instance where the PGC shared harvest report info on a certain messegeboard participant with another messegeboard participant and that info turned up on a messegeboard. I also know of another "upstanding" messegeboard participant that asked a WCO to check up on some of my harvest reports a little while back. As far as I'm concerned, these incidents destroy any amount of trust that the PGC expects from those that do report their harvests. It's nobodies business but mine and the PGCs what I harvest and report.

As for the reporting rate, if the rate really is only 40%, something must be done. Although it shouldn't have to be, I'd like to see an incentive for hunters to turn in their reports. A drawing for a free Pa elk tag drawn from harvest report cards at the spring BOC meeting comes to mind, with the winning hunter having to produce a deer jawbone from his report that has been preserved in the freezer since deer season. It's laughable, and could be open to fraud, but doable.

It doesnt have to be complicated. I'll use another states successful system as an example. A deer must be called in to a computerized reporting service by 10 PM the date of harvest ( a deer hit but recovered later is considered harvested the day it's recovered) . Upon reporting, the hunter recieves a confirmation code that he must write on the tag. A deer posessed beyond that deadline is no longer legal.

It could be added for those who didnt harvest, An unsuccessful hunter simply has to report at seasons end and also gets a confirmation number.


To institute in PA as painlessly as possible, For the first few years, a hunter who is not on record with his report would then simply be required to complete it at point of sale without penalty when he applies for his license the next license year. Yes the information will be late but just like the dismal reporting rate we have now, that can be statistically accounted for.

After a few "learning curve" years, a hunter who is not on record with his report is charged an extra fee for next years license. If he has his confirmation number, he has proof that he reported and has no problem. Those that forget will learn to remember once they get hit in the wallet.

I see no reason why such a system couldnt be instituted and running smoothly in a few short years.

I'm talking about when you purchase your hunting license.




The issuing agents have the computer. No need for everyone to own a computer.

Make it mandatory that you provide the issuing agent with info on what and where you bagged your deer the previous year.

If you don't provide the info, you don't get a license.

Seems pretty straight forward and easy to get a more accurate kill tally.

While I agree that it would be nice to have more accurate harvest data, I doubt it would made any difference in the way the PGC manages the herd. They claim they don't manage the deer based on deer density so they don't really care how many are killed or how many survive. Now that herd health is at target they are only managing the herd based on forest health and deer /human conflict.