RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

DougE,So basically what your saying because of the neglect of the state to be pro-active in harvesting timber for the past 50 years we are now handcuffed as to a solution to the problem and the hunters and deer are the ones to suffer ?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Nope,what I'm saying is that the entire nothern part of Pa was clearcut during the last part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century.That left most of the state with a very even aged stand of timber.Should they just wait 80-100 years and then clearcut everything again sowe'll have excellent deer numbers for about 15 years and then a huge crash because the state tuned into pole timber?That problem is being addressed by cutting out timber on a 100 year rotation schedule.The problem won't be fixed over night.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Seriously,how much would you like them to cut per year?Should they flood the market with 10% of the timber?If they did that,the entire state would be cut over the next ten years and within 20 years,the entire state would be mostly pole timber with acarrying capacity of about 5 dpsm.Does that sound like a good plan?I guess it does if you want instant gratification and care little about the future.Guys with that mindset are truly the selfish ones.Wouldn't you agree?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

If DCNR is timbering 1% of their acreage where timbering is permitted , they are really only timbering 0.5% of their land because almost 50% is off limits to cutting. Furthermore, because of this, the majority of DCNR land will either be even age or old growth saw timber.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Verty true and there's not a dam thing the PGC can do about that issue.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

But the PGC reduced the statewide herd so that DCNR could regenerate commercially valuable timber that would be certified for export.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

My question is when was this 100 year plan implemented and why ? It sure wasn't implemented 100 years ago with the intent on managing the deer habitat since 100 years ago there were basically no deer in Pa.So if the plan has been implemented recently,why did they wait so long to do it and how do we know the plan will work ?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

They didn't implement it 100 years ago because they weren't concerned about it.It was all done out of greed and it wasn't the state that did it.It was done by private timber communities and that's still being done today.You should see the science and work that goes into doing a timber sale on state land.Compare that to the greedy way timber is high graded with no concern about the future on private land.I live in a private community that encompasses about 9500 acres.3500 acres is undeveloped and loaded with beautiful oak and cherry.Unfortuanely,the timber rights were sold back in the early 80's and they were sold without any type of timber management plan.This company owns the rights to every tree 14 inches at the STUMP.They've been in there for the past two years taking all the good mast producing trees and they'll continue until 2011 when weget the timber rights back.I want to cry every time I look at the way they ruined that property.Greed is a big reason our forests are in the shape they are buit it isn't DCNR's fault or the PGC's.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

As long as the PGC is managing the herd based on the current criteria for determining forest health, it really doesn't matter how much they cut because the PGC still won't allow the herd to increase. Where the herd has been reduced the most the forest is still rated poor and there is no indication they intent to allow the herd to increase any time soon.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

That's my problem/question with the whole deal ! I grew up hunting in the Tionesta area in 1966-67 and the place was never shy on deer.I stopped hunting there in 1986-87 when the deer became so scarce it was almost a wasteof time.I know a lot of that area is Allegheny National Forestand don't know who,how,or why is in charge of that area and getting it timbered,but it seems to me that things were let get out of hand way too long as far as letting the timber get way too big to support deer and now we're suffering the consequences.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

The Alleghany national forest is a whole other issue.Why did the deer deer disapear back in the 80's?It wasn't because of antlerless allocations.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

"Where the herd has been reduced the most the forest is still rated poor and there is no indication they intent to allow the herd to increase any time soon."

Even in areas where the forest ISNT rated poor the herdis not and will not be permitted to increase. Also, evenin areas of "claimed" stabilization, more tags are being issued and the harvestgoals have been HIGHER then they were when PGC recorded reduction had taken place! As occurred in this wmu, You simply dont reduce a herd by approx 7% with 45,000 tags and a harvest of 16,500-- Then the following years claim the goal is stabilization, yet have a harvest goal of 18,000 and issue 55000 to 60,000 tags every singleyear since!!

Its kill the deer and when it becomes unacceptable and unsupportable to the masses...and when their own data and guidelines no longer show need for reduction and it cant even be STRETCHED.... Then they just lie about the intentions and kill kill kill some more.[:'(];)

LIES LIESand more LIES.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Actually it was a combination of the severe ice storm in the late 70's ,which killed thousands of deer, plus the antlerless allocations which limited the ability of the herd to increase.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Go look back at the history of the harvests for that area over that time period and then make that same determination.Also,document thatthe ice storms killed that many deer in that specific area.I wasn't aware off the ice storms deevistating the herds near Tionesta.They put a pretty good beating on the deer in and around Sinnemahoning but the doe tags didn't keep the dd down in that area throughoutthat time period.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Feel free to post the harvest data from that area for all to see. Then post the doe tag allocations and the PGC goals for that area. Did you forget that the PGC began managing the herd based on the carrying capacity of forested habitat in 1980?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Ok,here it goes.Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Tionesta is in Forest county.Here's random sample of antlered and antlerless harvest for Forest county starting in 1975,prior to any ice storm

A AL
1975 1388 1244
1976 1669 1191
1977 16581773
19811397 2793
1984 1322 1305
1987 25103342(CALCULATED HARVEST)
1991 2589 4555
1994 2415 3823
1999 2764 2724

I don't see any evidence that supports you case that ice strorms or doe allocations devistated the deerherd in this areaduring that time period.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

I didn't say the herd was devastated. Here is what I said.

The data shows the buck harvest decreased by 23 % from 1976 to 1981 and that decrease was directly related to the ice storm.

After that the antlerless harvests kept the herd at those reduced levels and prevented the herd from increasing to the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

You don't think killing another 1200 or so does in 2007 had any effect?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

You didn't provide any data for 2007 ,so I have no idea what you are talking about.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Sorry,I meant 1977.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

They didn't kill another 1200 doe in 1977 so I still don't know what you are talking about.
If you are claiming that the 1977 doe harvest was responsible for the decrease in the herd ,you are wrong since the buck to doe harvest ratio was too low to result in HR.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Doug You are correct.

Tionesta is where half my ancestry and my camp is and I've been hunting the ANF around there since 1969. I can remember no particularly significant winter kill from ice storms in that area in all that time although I do remember hearing reports of severe kills quite a while back to the east of Forest County in some of the counties that make up 2G.

Over the years we have had to adjust our hunting areas as food supplies changed with the changing forests. For example, the 85 tornadoes created a haven for nice deer for several years providing both food from regenerating forests and dense cover. Those areas are now mostly pole timber with few deer. In areas where the gypsy moth wreaked havoc and some salvage or preventive timbering took place we experienced temporarily better deer hunting. In among the ANF land is also some private timber holdings and at least one of the larger timber companies is doing a superb job of managing their forests and the deer hunting therehas been very good.

Has any particualr woodlot in the Tionesta area been great for the last 40 years?A few, perhaps but mostly, it has been a changing game for the entire timeI've been hunting there. Some of my old favorite honey holes are now deer deserts but new "secret spots" have evolved and developed.

Very few of us as hunters have the luxury of calling the shots on how the timber gets managed. Being adaptable is the only way to have continued success when hunting the big woods areas that are either publicly held or privately held but open to public hunting.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

BTBOWHUNTER,see you made it back from Illinois,how was the huntin ?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Hi Rodger,

The hunting was great! I did not harvest one but I had 10 quality shot opportunities at 115-130 class deer that I chose to leave walk.I let them all walk because I also had a 4x5 that would have flirted with 170 in the area. I saw him several times from stand but 29 yards in the heavy brush was as close as I got. We had 7-8 different bucks on the property that would easily go over 150+ Thats ifI only count the ones sighted by hunters who's field judging can be counted on. One of our guys killed the buck below. He grossed 171"

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

BT,that same tornado ravaged several thousand acres not far from my home.You are 100% correct.Thattornado turned that whole areas into one giant clearcut and the herd exploded.Today,that all pole timber with a very low carrying capacity and a very low deer density.Prood positive of why you can't timber too much at one time.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Excellent post by the way.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

The proof positive of your post is that the deer did not prevent the area from regenerating ,even though it had been over browsed for over 50 years. And the area didn't regenerate because the deer couldn't get to the new growth , because if that were true the habitat would have controlled the herd as RSB claimed and the herd would not have" exploded".

So, what you have shown is that harvesting larger areas would allow adequate regeneration and much higher deer densities.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

The tornadoes were a random natural disaster event wiping out nearly everything in their path. The two that came near my place were an average of a mile wide and stretch almost completely across Forest County and on into Elk County. It is ridiculously naive and irresponsible to expect that any landowner would harvest timber in a similar size area in any given year.

You need to be reminded that most landowners don't own their land just to produce enough deer to keep the likes of you and your USP buddies happy. Of course, you and yoour USP buddies are welcome to go buy upsome property and cut as many trees as you see fit and create your own little deer factory.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

No one claimed that anyone should harvest timber in a similar size area. The point i was making is that larger size cuts would allow adequate regeneration at higher deer densities. The Grouse Study showed that forests could be managed to allow regeneration at higher deer densities if managed properly.

While that may or may not be true, there is still no reason why the herd should be managed to attain a density that allows DCNR to sell their certified timber at higher prices for export when DCNR only manages around 1M, acres for timber production.