When populations exceed the carrying capacity breeding rates and recruitment decrease and natural mortality equals recruitment. That didn't happen in PA and didn't even come close to happening. So maybe it is you that needs to read a few more studies.
That makes absolutely no sense. There was enough browse to support twice as many deer and now you are saying half that number are eating as much as twice the number. Like RSB ,when backed into a corner you just make things up.

They did a lousy job in PA since we had a healthy herd when this debacle started.

good story.

when we had lots of doe, i agree,they should be reduced.

but now, in WMU2G is way too much doe killing..

the pgc did stop the doe killing here in WMU2G for first 5 days, finally they did something but it should be for 2 weeks and then old way, 3 days of doe.

also stop the early oct in-line /rifle for doe only.

when you hunt as hard as me and only see 11 deer for the 4 weeks of archery , something is wrong and that was for about a 25 mile area i hunted too.

If I am reading this right, the discussion is whether habitat is a limiting factor in thePA herd vs. harvest. While this is a very convoluted subject,a whitetailed deer herd has the capability in good circumstances, food, cover etc.to double in size every 2 years. In a normal situation a doe will produce 2 fawns, one buck and one doe. So that would be the natural buck/doe ratio if nature had her way. However in an effort to please sportsmen, a buck only harvest was instituted in most states to increase the crop. PAG was courageous to start the programs theydid, as they have the deer herd in mind, as opposed to setting game laws with the hunter (AKA cash cow/revenue generator)as the primary cause for concern. One thing many hunters seem to forget is that we are stewards of the land and its inhabitants and we have to do what is right for them, not us, to maintain the natural resource. Sometimes, this includes making unpopular decisions to do the right thing. Doe harvests is one that springs to mind, as is antler restrictions that Mr. Alt instituted in his wisdom, to help bring the deer herd back to a better healthier ratio. This was never about trophy hunting, but buck doe ratio. Do you ever wonder why you walk through the woods and see very little scraping and rubbing activity? There is no need for it in many areas of the country as the bucks have too many does to breed now. They don't need to advertise. That is a sure sign of a skewed buck doe ratio. How many of us in the northeast seen 2 bucks fighting? Now ask someone from texas or Kansas and they will say its commonplace. When the ratio is correct, there is more activity and more competition. I wish my state would fix the buck do e ratio. They do allow generous amounts of doe harvest, but its not enough. Our head biologist in my opinion is scared to make such a decision because he saw first hand what the PA hunters did to Gary Alt. I think the fact that 90 percent of our forest land is privately owned plays a part also. Still, what's best for the wildlife?

Browse can be devastated very quickly. Coupled with a large canopy, an average acre of woods can produce about 200 pounds (dry weight) of food annually. When you take in to consideration that a single deer needs 6 to 10 pounds (dryweight) food per day, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how much damage 1 hungry deer can do to an acre of woodland. Conversely, 1 acre of food plot can produce a ton of food annually. Let's not forget the maturation of the forests and the ever encroaching developer sucking up more habitat daily.

Acorns aren't browse per se. Browse is described as any woody or herbacious plants or forbes (weeds) Acornsare a seasonal intermittent mast crop. Red oaks are a 2 year tree. They will set flower in year one, and produce acorns in year 2. White oaks are a 1 year tree. (If at any time we have a late frost the crop can be lost) They set flower and produce seed in the same growing season. However they only produce a good crop every 3 to 5 years, so they are iffy at best and can't be considered a mainstay, unless you are fortunate to have pockets of oaks on alternating schedules. We need always keep in mind that deer are very territorial and will not tolerate deer from outside their range to come in and start eating their acorns when times are bad in their own neighboorhood. This year there are no acorns to be found here, and the herd seems to be down. I have not seen a squirrel this year either, another dependent of the acorn crop.

Habitat is indeed a limiting factor in deer herd size. If you look at the understory in your wood lot you will see the browse line, where the deer have eaten as high as they can reach, standing on their hind legs. Again, keeping in mind that we are stewards and managers for the sake of the flora and fauna, we need to remember there are other animals out there. In the Northeast there are 27 species of shrub nesting birds that are threatened or on the decline, just due to the fact that the whitetail deer has devastated the understory. That first 6 feet that we call a browse line is home to many birds, and insects that normally nest in and feed upon them. So again there are many consequences to a carrying capacity issue.

Another issue many states have is legislators. These politicians in many cases are calling the shots when it comes to wildlife and game laws. (Vermont's Deerherd winterkill nightmare of the late 60's early 70's for example)This is ridiculous. Setting game laws and carrying capacities are to be left to the scientists and biologists that we employ to do this. Would you want your car mechanic making your medical decisions? They are experts and again while they have to make some unpopular decisons, seasons, quotas, antler restrictions etc., they are doing it for the animals, not man, who in some instances just thinks they should be able to take what they want and screw everyoneelse. That mentality is akin to someone saying, well the deer population is low, I better go out and kill one before they are all gone. That was done 80 years or so ago and it took us many years to fix it. If you are a true conservationist you will look in to how these decisions are made and if your legislators are involved. Support the decisions your biologists make and call your legislator when these changes are being made and let them know how you feel. Then tell them to start legislation letting the biologists make the game laws, not a bunch of bleeding heart liberal bunny huggers. They won't do it willingly as they hate to let any bit of power go from their hands.

ALso, While these discussions are very interesting and educational, I think we need to remember we are all on the same side and should treat each other with respect and courtesy.

Get out and hunt.

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.

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

Thanks Remard, maybe you've read the study by a neighboring state about browse availability and deer populations. Less deer doesn't necessarily mean more browse. There is a study that proves deer in lower population densities actually eat more browse. The deer show an increase in weight within a few years. With the better nutrition buck racks grow slightly larger. Conversely, as population increases each deer gets less quality browse, and the weight begins to fall, racks get smaller. Again there are other studies out there other than PGC. Yeah, maybe they did allow too much of a harvest for a couple of years. The benefit may still be down the road 5 years.

So you got this data directly from the deer, not PGC studies??? Do you talk to them often??? Where's their blog???

Damn, you mean I wasted all this time hunting, observing, and studying deer in Ohio, New York, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Oregon when all I had to do was ask them what they needed!!!!

Do you believe the PGC made up all the data they have reported or do you believe they got that data from the deer?

Apparently you did waste a lot of your time since it is obvious you don't know how to apply the theories to real world deer management.

I think your world is different from most people's here Dr. Doolittle.

You can think whatever you choose but don't try to apply theories you don't fully understand, to the situation in PA. Until you actually understand how the PGC is managing our herd , you are in no position to tell anyone that the PGC is doing a good job or doing the right thing.

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