Some of your predictions did come to pass but certainly not all of them and the ones that did come true were only because the back to back harsh winters caused the deer herd to crash in several areas of the state.

You got the first sentence correct but then you ended up blowing it from that point on. Though it is uncertain just how much more the deer mortality was then recruitment in some of the poor habitat areas of the state it was very obvious that the recruitment was not keeping up with the mortality. Hunters in unit 2G have harvested and average of only four deer per square mile for the past five years.

The unit that includes the city streets of Pittsburgh has averaged over fourteen deer harvested per square mile during the past five years. How can the recruitment keep up there at those harvests while in unit 2G the harvests have never been higher then eight total deer per square mile for more then a few years out the past twenty? Why is they can sustain deer harvests on our city street that two to five times as high as out remote forested areas consistently year after year for over fifteen years if it isn’t habitat related?

Your arguments that high harvests reduced the big woods deer populations don’t make sense because that contention simply isn’t supported by the facts and you claiming other wise isn’t going to change those facts

The only place Doctor Alt failed was by not starting this deer management program ten years earlier. If he had we would have a lot more deer today in these habitat damaged areas that presently have few deer. Hopefully the professionals can keep the present deer management program in tact and on track into the future so we don’t end up with even more areas of damaged habitat and naturally declining deer populations.

ORIGINAL: RSB

Some of your predictions did come to pass but certainly not all of them and the ones that did come true were only because the back to back harsh winters caused the deer herd to crash in several areas of the state.

Your predictions came true because of unforeseen natural events instead of because you were correct about what would occur when you made the predictions.

I certainly don’t know where you got the idea that Doctor Alt was telling people what they wanted to hear. He flat out told them there would be fewer deer. That was the largest part of his message. Even knowing that the majority of the hunters that attended the seminars agreed with moving in that direction because they knew it was the correct thing to do for the best possible future. Believe me it can get a lot worse and it still might if people like you get their way.

You got the first sentence correct but then you ended up blowing it from that point on. Though it is uncertain just how much more the deer mortality was then recruitment in some of the poor habitat areas of the state it was very obvious that the recruitment was not keeping up with the mortality. Hunters in unit 2G have harvested and average of only four deer per square mile for the past five years.

The unit that includes the city streets of Pittsburgh has averaged over fourteen deer harvested per square mile during the past five years. How can the recruitment keep up there at those harvests while in unit 2G the harvests have never been higher then eight total deer per square mile for more then a few years out the past twenty? Why is they can sustain deer harvests on our city street that two to five times as high as out remote forested areas consistently year after year for over fifteen years if it isn’t habitat related?

Your arguments that high harvests reduced the big woods deer populations don’t make sense because that contention simply isn’t supported by the facts and you claiming other wise isn’t going to change those facts.

It is all about having over protected the deer and under protected the deer food supply for way to long in the places that have few deer today.

The only place Doctor Alt failed was by not starting this deer management program ten years earlier. If he had we would have a lot more deer today in these habitat damaged areas that presently have few deer. Hopefully the professionals can keep the present deer management program in tact and on track into the future so we don’t end up with even more areas of damaged habitat and naturally declining deer populations.

R.S. Bodenhorn

CR: Deer numbers have come down in areas as a result of antlerless allocations. Many folks blame the 12-day concurrent season for that. This study will give us data on the effect of changing season lengths on antlerless harvest.

ORIGINAL: sproulman

problem is now, the FAWNS are being killed in great numbers by COYOTES.

i only saw 2 fawns here in western clinton county this year

ORIGINAL: mlo31351270

Remnard, outstanding post!!

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Our B/D ratio was 1:2.1 or better before Alt was appointed. Now,according to Dr. Rosenberry says our B/D ratio is a little better than 1:2. Alt lied about our B/D ratio being skewed and used it to get hunters to shoot more doe.
Habitat can in fact be a limiting factor in herd size, but it was not the limiting factor in PS or we wouldn't have had to kill all those doe to reduce the herd. If habitat was the limiting factor breeding rates and recruitment would have increased as the herd was reduced, but breeing rates and productivity decreased.

You are dealing with theories and I am dealing with the facts provided by the deer in PA.

Not so. The damage done by the herd actually limited the herds recoupment due to the devestation of the understory. Look up the kaibob plateau to fully understand what a deer herd can do to decimate a habitat.

As far as dealing with theories, I would beg to differ. I have been studying whitetail ecology and habitat enhancement since long before you knew what it was. I have been studying this stuff for close to thirty years now.

ORIGINAL: Remnard

If that is indeed the case I would think the buck doe ratio is worse than you think. When the buck doe ratio is skewed, there are typically not enough bucks to breed all the does. When this occurs the does will come back in to estrus 28 days later and do that for several months until they are bred. This phenomenon causes the fawn births to be staggered. What happens is the coyotes have a constant supply of fawns for several months. In properly balanced ratios the fawns are dropped almost all at once. This keeps many fawns from being predated upon because they get their legs rather quickly and can typically avoid predation after a few weeks. There's only so many coyotes out there, and they won't kill deer for fun, so they only take what they need by and large. Anothe good indicator is still seeing fawns in october or november with spots. This indicates a late birth also. Fawns need a body weight of 60 pounds going in to winter or they risk survival over that first winter.

Another revelation was how many were taken by black bears. In PA I would think that would be the case also seeing how there's a black bear behind every tree!!.