What is obvious to any one that has the capacity of logical thought process and willing to look at all of the facts is that the deer herd in unit 2G is low even though the hunters have harvested fewer and fewer and fewer deer in that unit for about the past fifteen years. You are right that the over winter deer density numbers have declined, even the Village Idiot can figure that out. But the Village Idiot should also be able to figure out that when hunters are harvesting fewer and fewer and the numbers continue to decline it is time to suspect something other then hunting is causing the reduction.

The solution to the problem most certainly would not to harvest fewer deer in an area where the deer herd is already naturally reducing its own numbers. If the deer herd is reducing its own numbers of it nature is reducing the herd through natural causes it obviously because the area can’t support more deer under the present natural conditions.

You can believe anything you want and you can yammer around all you want. The USP can file law suits till Hell freezes and we could stop harvesting does or any deer in that unit but guess what. The facts are still the facts and there simply will not be more deer in that unit for more then the short term period of ideal conditions unless we have these lower deer number long enough for the habitat to improve to allow more deer. Nature simply will not support more deer then the food supply can support for more then short term periods. That isn’t the Game Commission’s rule that simply the LAWS of NATURE.

If you can’t accept and live with the Laws of Nature then there really isn’t much anyone can say to help you. But, one day you too will fall into the laws of nature, as will we all, then I suspect you will know how things in nature can’t be stopped from taking their course regardless of our wishes.
In the mean time though you go ahead and keep telling people your nonsense and I will continue to preach the realities of nature because I believe people with real wisdom will figure out who is providing the real facts consistent with what nature allows.

Now perhaps since you figure you are smarter then nature you can explain, why hunters harvest fewer and fewer and yet the deer number keep declining in unit 2G if it isn’t from habitat related influences on the recruitment rate. Then explain why hunters can harvest three and four times as many does in the unit that makes up and surrounds the city of Pittsburgh for over fifteen years and the deer populations there can continue to increase if that isn’t a result of habitat that can sustain more deer. Isn’t that something when they can sustain harvests of over ten deer per square mile around the city streets of Pittsburgh for fifteen year or more while the big woods areas of this state can’t sustain harvests even half that high over the same time period? Explain that if you really want to prove your point.

And once again, yes it is because of having more deer in one area verses the other area. We know that, so what we want YOU to do is explainwhy.

Explain why hunters can harvest two to four times as many does in the metropolitan units of 2A, 2B and 2D then they can in the big woods forested areas year after year for more then a decade if it isn’t habitat related and it isn't habitat that influences and controls the fawn birth and survival rates?

R.S.Bodenhorn

Quote:

The solution to the problem most certainly would not to harvest fewer deer in an area where the deer herd is already naturally reducing its own numbers. If the deer herd is reducing its own numbers of it nature is reducing the herd through natural causes it obviously because the area can’t support more deer under the present natural conditions.

Now hold on. The PGC listed 2G as fair herd health in the '07 wildlife report, based on 1.58 embryos per adult doe age 2/3 years. Why would they list herd health as fair if nature is trying to reduce the herd? Also, we as humans are predators. If nature through predation is controlling the herd and continuing to reduce it, then you are saying, we also should reduce it further? what are average DD up there now, 8,9 dpsm? And still declining naturally, as you stated? And you are saying that we should continue to prey on them? And herd health was listed as fair? Are you serious? Please tell me you are joking here. Not to mention I thought the PGC had moved to herd increase mode in 2G as of last year. Are you going against you own biologists and reccomending further reduction? Are you disagreeing with the plan? Unbelievable!

But even most Village idiots would realize that when high antlerless harvests reduce the over wintering deer density,fewer fawns will be born and even though hunters harvest fewer doe , that harvest may be enough to reduce the herd OWDD even more.
As yet you have failed to provide any evidence or data that shows the deer herd is already reducing its own numbers. Nature only reduces deer numbers when non-hunting mortality exceeds recruitment and that is not happening in 2G or any other WMU.
The habitat in 2B can definitely support more deer than the habitat in 2G. But the PGC experts disagreed and claimed 2B could only support 10 DPSM while 2G could support 15 DPSM. Hunters can harvest 3 or 4 times the amount of doe as in 2G because there are 3-4 times as many OW doe,producing 3-4 times as many fawns. Furthermore, even with high antlerless allocations and high antlerless harvests the harvests in 2B did not exceed recruitment the the herd and the harvests continued to increase.
Maybe I have identified why you can't understand what is happening. You appear to be concentrating on fawn survival rather than on the effects of the harvests. Nature controls the number of fawns/doe that survive ,but the pGC controls the number of adult doe that survive hunting season and produce fawns the following year. Therefore , it is the PGC and hunters harvests that are reducing the herd in 2G ,rather than nature as you claim.

"What is obvious to any one that has the capacity of logical thought process and willing to look at all of the facts is that the deer herd in unit 2G is low even though the hunters have harvested fewer and fewer and fewer deer in that unit for about the past fifteen years."

It takes a smaller and smaller harvest to keep a herd stable or to reduce it as the size of the herd declines. Even the most illogical should be able to realize it take a much smaller harvest to reduce a herd of say for example10,000 than it would 30,000!!

"That was an excuse for the extreme reduction.If the deer herd is reducing its own numbers of it nature is reducing the herd through natural causes it obviously because the area can’t support more deer under the present natural conditions. "

Why shouldwe believe that when the herd health rating for the wmu is not poor, and the rest of the state also was reduced further than needed by far, and that wasnt the couldnt be the excuse and in some instances none at all exists. Makes it kind of hard to blindly accept unproven theories thrown about casually by eco-extreme minded individuals.


"Now perhaps since you figure you are smarter then nature"

What exactly designates nature as "intelligent" or not?Sounds like a radical "eco-extremist" viewpoint imho. Not sure if you have any "ties" to any of the more obtuse thinking eco-groups like Audubon etc., and wouldnt expect you to admit it if you did, but,many of your statements and extremist views point towards that possible deduction.

"Then explain why hunters can harvest three and four times as many does in the unit that makes up and surrounds the city of Pittsburgh for over fifteen years and the deer populations there can continue to increase if that isn’t a result of habitat that can sustain more deer."

The herd therehasnt continued to increase. And there are and have been 3-4 times as many deer there which means 3 to 4 times as much recruitment, which means ittakes that much more harvest to stabilize or reduce the herd.

The reason of course is that the numbers of tags in the past havent been as efficient in the urban areas do to all the access issues that allow the off limits lands to be "deer factories" whereas the areas of the huge public land tracts of the north, never had that luxury.


"Explain why hunters can harvest two to four times as many does in the metropolitan units of 2A, 2B and 2D then they can in the big woods forested areas year after year for more then a decade if it isn’t habitat related and it isn't habitat that influences and controls the fawn birth and survival rates? "

2A ISNT a "METROPOLITAN UNIT" by any stretch of the imagination! Its rural, and not one large city, or even city suburbsin it. (LOL)[8D] Its farm country and reverting farm country. Its about as far from urban as you can get in Western Pa! (LOL) Just shows your knowledge leveloutside of your little area. Also 2Ahas hadcomparatively short period of very high harvests. Its not a sra and the result arent like them either. The harvests have also led to an over 50% ow herd decline. Far more than needed and absolutely rediculous. The harvests of the reduction years are absolutely unsustainable. An all time high allocation last yearonly led toa several years low harvest shows beyond doubt. And the allocation and harvest goal of 18,000 which was supposed to hold the herd "stable" the lastfew years straight, yet only 16500 reduced the herd previously, shows the complete and total deceit on Pgcs part. I guess when we get reduced abit further and not only most here, as currently, but when noone finds the continued reductions acceptable, I guess habitat will also be our limiting factor as the excuse! (LOL)

Even though we are some of the best habitat type in the state, and never rated as poor herd or habitat health even though we had over twice as many ow deer, and human conflict rated as "low"by pgc themselves.

Its a sham rsb. Plain and simple.Loyalty is an admirable trait in an employee, but blind loyalty isnt gonna do anyone any good with our sport or deer herd.[:'(]

You might also be a bit more careful where, or at what exactly you point the finger towards when attempting to make a point. Such lack of forethought only serves to make one look extremely foolish, and all the "twisting" in the world aint gonna help with that one.(LOL).

I'm waiting for a lengthy speech here that will conveniently dodge these questions.

What you and some of the others are totally missing in hanging your hat on the herd health being fair or even good is that herd health evaluation is based entirely on the number of embryos that were counted in dead does.
First of all those dead does came from the highways which are typically surrounded by the best habitat in the unit. Therefore, is not only very likely but almost a certainty that the areas that are away from the highways don’t have herd health as high as the sampled does indicate.

The second point is that the number of embryos the does are carrying does not equal fawn recruitment. Fawn recruitment is the number born that are still alive at the end of the summer when hunting season arrives. You can have great reproduction and absolutely horrible recruitment simply from having poor forest health, which incidentally is what the 2G forest health is.

It doesn’t matter how many fawns the does were carrying if the vast majority of them die a day or two after they are born. Fawn die after being born because they weren’t up to survival weight when they were born, or when mom didn’t have enough milk to nourish them or if they didn’t have suitable escape cover to hide from predators and one of them ate them.

Dead fawns don’t result in increasing deer numbers no matter how you wish they did. Herd health is not based on fawn recruitment. It probably should be, but there presently is no way of accurately measuring the recruitment from year to year, so they have to use what is available. Fawn recruitment is the important factor and herd health is not based on recruitment and only looks at the number of embryos. That is why you can have data that indicates excellent herd health and still have almost no surviving fawns for the year.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Your argument concerning having more deer in the units where they harvest more deer is exactly the point.

Where hunters have been harvesting the most deer they are protecting the food supply so the area can continue to have more deer and still allow hunters to continue harvesting more deer. The areas where hunters have harvested fewer deer can no longer support more deer because they don’t have enough food for more deer. It is that simple.

Since you want to talk about 2A in comparison to 2G here are a few facts for all to look at.

You claim that 2A is not a metropolitan unit but I say horse puckey. From my perspective as compared to unit 2G it is a very metropolitan unit even though there are some small remote spots surrounded by all the people, their houses and infrastructure. And, buy the way I am pretty familiar with unit 2A. I have worked in Washington and Greene Counties and I have hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties. I have been in all of the counties that make up unit 2A and have seen how metropolitian it is as compared to unit 2G.

Toexposethose factors Ilooked up the counties for each unitalong withthe populatoin for each area. I then calcualted the number of people per square mile for each of those counties. Here is the average number of people per square mile of land mass compared between units 2A and 2G.

Unit 2A……………………………..Unit 2G
505.0 people/sq. mile………….54.7 people/sq. mile

You also claimed that unit 2A hasn’t been harvesting many does for very long. Once again I am here to point out that you are bull of it and will post the historic antler less deer harvest results for the counties that make up both units 2A and 2G. The harvest data is based on the harvests per square mile within the counties that make up the two units and then calculated to harvests per square mile of land mass so they can be fairly compared. These are just the antler less deer harvests per square mile.

Unit…………………….88-92.…………..93-97.…………98-02.…………..03-07
2A………………………5.09.……………6 .62.…………..8.03.…………….9.49
2G………………………5.48.……………4 .36.…………..4.66.…………….2.35

Now go ahead and explain to everyone how it is that the deer herd can’t increase in 2G because we have been harvesting too many does. Then go ahead and tell us again how they have reduced the deer population by 50% in 2a yet the hunters are still harvesting so many more deer.

The facts simply don’t bear out your opinions. But like a lot of others I guess you think opinions should carry more weight then facts?

R.S.Bodenhorn

As yet you have failed to provide any evidence or data that shows the deer herd is already reducing its own numbers. Nature only reduces deer numbers when non-hunting mortality exceeds recruitment and that is not happening in 2G or any other WMU.


Really! Over the past five years the 2G hunters have only harvested an average of 4.00 deer (both bucks and does) per square mile.

If you ask the hunters of unit 2G the vast majority of them will tell you that the deer has been reduced more the four deer per square in that unit. So, if you are saying that the recruitment hasn’t been less than the non hunting mortality are you then calling all of those 2G hunters and your USP buddies liars when they claim the deer numbers have dropped to almost nothing in 2G?

Quote:

The habitat in 2B can definitely support more deer than the habitat in 2G. But the PGC experts disagreed and claimed 2B could only support 10 DPSM while 2G could support 15 DPSM.

Those were at the time the over winter deer density goals based on the amount of forested habitats within the units. That did not mean that was all of the deer the entire unit could support when all other habitats, or more specifically gardens, farm crop fields and back yard landscaping, were included.

Quote:

Hunters can harvest 3 or 4 times the amount of doe as in 2G because there are 3-4 times as many OW doe,producing 3-4 times as many fawns. Furthermore, even with high antlerless allocations and high antlerless harvests the harvests in 2B did not exceed recruitment the the herd and the harvests continued to increase.

That is exactly the point. Where hunters harvest more deer they protect the habitat so it can continue to have more deer and higher deer harvests year after year and decade after decade. Meanwhile the units that harvest low numbers of deer protect the deer instead of the deer food and habitat. Eventually the habitat diminished will not support many deer or sustain even moderate deer harvests. In fact some of the worst units will not even sustain the low harvests following adverse environmental conditions. That is what nature just proved to anyone observant enough to figure out what actually is happening.

Quote:

Maybe I have identified why you can't understand what is happening. You appear to be concentrating on fawn survival rather than on the effects of the harvests. Nature controls the number of fawns/doe that survive ,but the pGC controls the number of adult doe that survive hunting season and produce fawns the following year. Therefore , it is the PGC and hunters harvests that are reducing the herd in 2G ,rather than nature as you claim.

I didn’t think even you could be that goofy. Fawns recruitment is the entire deer population future. Without surviving fawn we are out of the deer business and hunters will be able to harvest no deer. PERIOD

R.S. Bodenhorn

If non-hunting mortality equaled recruitment for 5 years ,then the harvest of 4 DPSM over 5 years would have reduced the OWDD by 20 DPSM.

Try again!!!