Bad winters in the northern tier mountains ???? What state are you talking about,Colorado or Montana ??? There hasn't been a bad winter in Pa in 20 years at least.Come'on,you gotta do better than that.Just out of curiosity.how old are you ?

"Most people including me would like to have a bigger deer herd, at least when I am hunting for them.
But, people simply have to accept the fact that deer are a living organism and as such have to fit into the first and most basic laws of nature.

The first and most basic law of nature is that, “No living organism can exist in populations higher then it’s food supply for more then short term periods of ideal conditions.” That is nature’s rule not the Game Commission’s, deer manager’s or forester manager’s rule. Nature simply will not allow more deer then the habitat can support, for the long term. Since deer eat their habitat it is simply impossible to keep more deer for long term periods."

Thats quite obvious, but none of that means diddlywhen we are WELL within those limits across much of the state, and THAT is what is being argued.

"I don’t believe we are losing all that many hunters. We lost some cheaters and some that were only interested in the easy killing, but not hunters. "

I think that FAR too harsh and unfair a judgement. Not as "diehard", I might agree with that. But far cry from the nonsense you attempt to label them with. Id say "cheaters" wouldnt stop shooting deer just because they didnt buy a license. Or perhaps they're MORE likely to buy one, as it helps them appear "legit".... At any rate, it is interesting how fast you are to condemn our fellow hunters, yet have nothing but glowing things to say and take offense every time "ecoextremeists" are appropriately addressed as just that. Perhaps you can show me a link to one of your posts on any message board where you've stuck up for (instead of belittled) the hunters of our state as passionately as you have the enviromentalist faction?

"If you think the hunter numbers dropped in recent years just wait until next year and point of sale doesn’t allow the people that have been getting multiple license, for the extra antler less applications, get shut down to only one license. We might find out that we are closer to the number of licenses being sold in other states that already have point of sale where hunters can’t cheat so easily."

I dont attribute that to hunter numbers dropping. I know why they are dropping. A failed deer plan and a noncaring agency that tells us to forget about the deer and go hunt squirrels.

I will be interested in seeing this years license sales after last years horrendous buck harvest.

"You’re full of bologna;"

You're probably right. Ive been eating a couple sticks of deer bologna steadyfor 3 or 4 days now.

"the extremists are in your camp not the Game Commission. The Game Commission is mandated though to manage all wildlife and for all citizens of the Commonwealth,"

Yep. And Id say we hunters with MANY nonhunting friends acquaintances and family members also fit that description, not to mention all the others within the majority who ARE NOT squalling for less deer. Add em up.

Also, Ive never said otherwise about pgcs responsibilities. Im not saying they arent responsible for many species and many stakeholders. Im saying considering all that, currently, hunters are being shafted and pgc has some newfound best buds in the new age eco-extreme field. Im not saying anything about hunters are all that matter. Thats simply a cop-out you guys like to use to avoidaddressing the real issue. Btw,Pgcs boceco-extreme views are well known, as is their tight kinship with audubon, audubon paying for deer study, their help in structuring the deer management plan, the consideration now given them in say over OUR game lands usageetc. A BAD JOKE I TELL YA!![:@]

"The people that have driven the financial situation into the ground are also the ones in your camp in cooperation with the State Legislature who have failed to fulfill their obligation of keeping a state agency financially solvent. "

They are fulfilling their duty to the people of this state. They are also acting as "check and balance" system. The job they were appointed to do btw. To insinuate they should bepaid regardless of wether they are doing their job or not is utterly rediculous. While it might be fun to fantasize about it, in real lifewe simply cant shun responsibility and expect to be rewarded for it. Pgc is finding this out the hard way.

"Hey, that is a quote I use all the time.

If does fit and is exactly why I have spent over thirty years protecting our resources. It is also the reason I come to places like this and butt heads with nitwits so others with enough functional brain cells can learn to allow professional resource management."

Im sure wecan allappreciate your service in law enforcement. Unfortunately, that doesnt help your case in this debate, as it has nothing to do with it. As forthe other issue of being here butting heads, Its your time and you may spend it as you like, but you arent fooling a soul. It generally takes someone MORE educated on the topic and unbiased to change my mind on an issue such as this. I also dont blindly take someones word forthings. I look in depth and evaluate the facts. The facts showa MISERABLY failed deer program is being clung to by a very non-hunter friendly management agency to appeaseother interests. Among them, extreme,obtuse ones. This "agenda" is far and beyond "responsible"management basics of keeping herd in line with habitat and human conflict issues.

As far as those with functional braincells, you havent a chance at swaying them.Most that fit that description dont subscribe to lip service but want proof. We've provided much to show why change is needed. Pgc has shown NOTHING that supports "staying the course". The plan is a proven failure using THEIR OWN preset guidelines. Funny how these guidelines only matter when they equal less deer. Otherwise they become nonexistent.[8D]

But hey....as Doug keeps alluding to.....at least the DCNR doesn't have to spend $3 million to fence in new cuts. What a concept eh?

BTW. I agree with you 100 percent. Enough is enough.

What do you live in a hole in the ground all winter and only come out in the spring or what?

We have years with mild winter that have no adverse affects on the deer and then years with hard winters that have seriously hard affects on the deer. That is exactly the reason the deer herds in areas that are on the fringe of the winter severity conditions have deer populations that fluctuate as they do in the northern tier of this state.

More southern areas have stable deer populations that are only affected and controlled by the food supply and hunter harvests. Areas in the more northern zones have few deer even though they also have very low deer harvests because the winters limit the number of deer that can survive year round there.

Pennsylvania is one of the states on fringe of where we can have high deer numbers as long as the good environmental conditions last but then when we have a year or two with the harsh environmental conditions the deer numbers crash for a few years. That is something that people will just have to accept because that is the way it is.


You might not think the winters in Pennsylvania are a factor, but the deer sure to prove that the winters are a factor.

Here are a few pictures of some Elk County winter conditions and how deer deal with it.

Nearly a hundred deer were locked into about four hundred yards of wintering grounds habitat trying to live on hemlock and rhododendron during the 2003/2004 winter.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s141/RBODENHORN/Deer-winter2004.jpg

The affects on rhododendron toward the end of the winter.



Hemlock in a wintering grounds that was heavily browsed by deer during the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 winters. The picture was taken in the winter of 2006 after two full years of time to recover with mild winters.

The hemlocks in that wintering ground still haven’t fully recovered to the point they could support many deer through a harsh winter should another winter come along that forced all of the area deer to winter there again this winter.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s141/RBODENHORN/IMG_0282.jpg

Do you still think we don’t have winter influences on the number of deer that can live in many parts of this state? Come on up to this part of the state during or after a harsh winter and I’ll take you out and show you lots of evidence that proves winters are a serious factor, including winter killed deer.

Your question concerning my age has little to due with this discussion, but I will tell you that I could retire any time I wanted and likely have kids older then many of you debating this topic.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Ok, you have expressed a lot of opinions about your displeasure.

Do you have anything that helps support your opinions that it th ecurrent deer management is wrong other then the fact that you don't like nor understand the reasons or need for the current deer management program?

The professionals have provided a lot of facts, that the deer provided, that do support the current direction. What have you provided that proves them wrong other than you and many other hunters would like to see more deer? You are entitled to your opinions but that certainly doesn’t make your opinions correct.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Statewide breeding rates and productivity have decreased instead of increasing as predicted. The breeding window has not changed and we still have late born fawns. The number of 8 pt. buck has not doubled, buck harvests did not return to normal and we do not have more and bigger buck than ever before. Therefore the plan failed to produce the predicted and your claims have been proven to be wrong.

Well I'm 52. And I did a good bit of snowmobiling in the McKean/Potter/Tioga county areas during the winters of 2003 and 2004. And sure as heck, Mr Bodenhorn is right about the prolonged snow and the profound effects it had on the deer. I have a bunch of pictures of deer that were yarded up during that period of time. They really had it rough right up until March. Don't know if they starved, but they surely had it rough enough to absorb or abort fetuses, which had to have hurt recruitment badly.

Unfortunately,these conditions weren't reflected in PGC Anterless allocations during theimmediate followingseasons and the herd was brought tolevels that were well below goal in many areas.And that would be my beef right there. They waited to long to cut allocations.

Why would they wantto cut allocations and just add more deer to already overbrowsed habitat?

How about making an effort to reverse thehabitat situation other than killing deer?????