That was a good post and you are absolutely correct about the infighting among hunters being damaging to the future of the sport. It really isn’t something new though.

I have been actively involved in the deer wars for over four decades now and a Conservation Officer dealing with hunter complaints about deer harvests and deer numbers for over three decades so I know first hand about the infighting among hunters, the general lack of knowledge hunters hold on sound deer/habitat management principles and also the distrust some hunters have of the professional guiding that management. It isn’t new and goes all the way back to I believe the thirties when hunters first filed a law suit to stop doe seasons. There were news paper articles al the way across the nation talking about the deer harvest wars occurring in Pennsylvania way back then.

I became acutely aware of the hunter complaints back in the late fifties when I used to go with my father to sit around the old pot belly store in the little general store in our farming community. Most of the old retired farmers, who were also avid hunters, would gather there to complain about the doe season and the doe harvests in the areas north of them where they went to hunt. They didn’t complain about too many deer because deer numbers in their farm areas were still pretty low and not causing them much noticeable damage. Ten years later though many of the sons that took over the farms of those old retired farmers were singing a different story and shooting deer for crop damage while complaining that the hunters and the Game Commission needed to kill more deer. The hunters, the farmers and the Game Commission were all the subject of many complaints and infighting even back then as a result of the differing perspective on how deer there should be and how many should be harvested. There were still hunters trying to stop doe seasons even while their neighbor was killing every deer for crop damage that they caught on their farm. It was actually interesting to see the attitudes and conversations lead to arguments within that same little community over the next decade or two as the deer populations continued to increase in the areas south of the traditional big woods deer country.

For a long time the fighting was mostly between the farmers and the hunters with the Game Commission and politicians kind of caught in the middle. Basically the farmer and hunter complaints kind of canceled each other out over large parts of the state and the professional deer managers could do pretty much the right thing for the deer in those areas. Everyone was still demanding lower doe harvests in the northern tier where farming wasn’t a large factor though and that eventually lead to lower doe harvests, damaged habitat the ultimately fewer deer. The hunters didn’t and still don’t understand how that happened so they naturally blame the Game Commission instead of themselves. That battle still rages on today as the professionals continuous try to prevent that habitat damage from spreading to more and more area of the state.

Over the years more and more hunters have been educated on how the interrelationship between the deer and the habitat affect not only the health of both but also the deer populations. Some hunters are unable or simply refuse to become educated on those relationships and how nature really works and that is what the fighting is about today. I don’t see that as changing anytime in the foreseeable future though I think several other factors have also changed to contribute to that infighting.

One factor being hotly argued about today comes from the fact that in the past the Game Commission was usually forced into reducing the allocations and harvests through public and political demands to get a hunting license increase. The present Commission has seen how failed to make that mistake though and instead seems to be set on doing what is right for the long term future of the resources. That too has become a major argument because hunters aren’t getting the attention to their way as they had grown accustomed.

I believe the internet message boards also make it appear as though there is more opposition to the present management objectives then there was in the past. Actually I think hunters have always been pretty split in their trust of the state’s deer management programs.

One thing that stands out though is that the professional need to do what is right for the future of the resource instead of responding to demands from hunters that fail or refuse to look at all of the evidence proving the habitat can’t continue to give them never ending increases in deer numbers. The professionals have to do what is right for the resource or they simply aren’t being the professionals we expect them to be.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Are you saying that reducing breeding rates, productivity and sustainable harvests are good for the long term future of the resource? How low would you like to see breeding rates drop before you are going to be happy with the results?

"I believe the internet message boards also make it appear as though there is more opposition to the present management objectives then there was in the past"

Your joking right? In the past the head of the pgc deer program didnt need to wear bullet proof vests! (LOLOLOLOL)

Pgc wasnt being sued by sportsments groups.

and not only those things, but at the same time have 1000's contacting legislators having legislators step in and do the only thing they could, prevent license fee increase to stop the fraud and irresponsibility.

Also throw in mandated audit....

If you look into "history" you'll see the well documented "DEER WARS" Did not occur in 1776, but are NOW.

That has been explained to you several times in the past. You are hanging onto statewide data where there was a major shift in the breeding and reproduce data sample sizes between the best and worst areas of the state. That in turn made the statewide data inconclusive at best. But, since deer are managed on a unit bases instead of a statewide bases the statewide decline is immaterial, totally meaningless and not in indication of any declines in the individual management units.

You are just to opinionated and biased in your misguided agenda to accept the real facts. You truly and the other USP followers really are and long have been much of the very problem being discussed in this topic.

R.S. Bodenhorn

"That has been explained to you several times in the past. You are hanging onto statewide data where there was a major shift in the breeding and reproduce data sample sizes between the best and worst areas of the state. "

Sorry, I dont see that on the annual reports. What I do see is several years COMPARED TO EACH OTHER to show the declines. That is the data they use as "the science" behind the plan. If you are saying it is flawed, that may be worse (them basing extreme reduction etc. on the data) than the decline itself.

"That in turn made the statewide data inconclusive at best."

Hmmm. Several years of data....That we have been using to monitor our program "inconclusive" Sorry, but that kind of TOTAL INEPTITUDE is completely unacceptable!!!

The fact is, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the breeding and fawning rates (thats why the herd was so large in the first place!!!) and that is why it didnt improve. And you have ZERO data to show otherwise, only data that may show the situation Actually WORSENED if anything, but definately NO DATA showing improvements as promised.[:'(]

Sportsmen have been VERY patient all these years to see the promised results... Breeding increases and timing improvement [8D], more and bigger bucks.... All a crock of crap!! Time for change. Pgc and their audubon allies who pushed this crap in the first place can kiss off!

No changes= No money. That but in greater detailis in every message I send to our fine legislators. They seem to be listening to the many.

"I believe the internet message boards also make it appear as though there is more opposition to the present management objectives then there was in the past"



Nope not joking at all.

For one thing the past head of the deer management programs never went out to the public to explain the need for new deer management goals and objectives. For most of my career the WCOs didn’t wear vests either but we do now because we have them available. Any officer, ordeer management spokes person,who doesn’t wear one is taking unnecessary chances that they will not encounter some nut case.



I guess you don’t know much about past deer management history. The Court was compelled to provide a ruling that the Game Commission could and should proceed with antler less deer harvests back in the thirties or forties. I will have to dig up the exact year.

This is not the first time a group of misguided sportsmen thought they knew more about deer management then the professionals and took the matter before the court. They didn’t win the last time and they aren’t going to win this time either because the evidence is there to support the scientific deer management program we have in place.



Apparently you have not stayed on top of that history very well either. I have been around this very debate for over thirty years and it has been continuously taken to the Legislators by some hunters. Over twelve years ago I was at a meeting where a high powered legislature flat out made the statement that if the Game Commission didn’t reduce the allocations he would introduce legislation to take their regulator powers away and they would decide how many license to issue.


For decades the only thing that stood between the hunters demanding that the Game Commission provide more deer then the habitat could support was the voice of the farmers cancelling them out with their demands to legislature for fewer deer. The Legislature was smart enough to stay out of deer management between the demands for more from one the demands for fewer from the other because it was a no win situation for them politically. But the Game Commission made what might actually have been a political mistake when they provided the farmers with the green tag and red tag programs that basically allowed them to more affectively use hunters to solve most of their deer damage problems. Once that happened the farmers were satisfied so they no longer went to the Legislature complaining about too many deer. All that left then was the normal and typical demands from the hunters for more deer. Without the farmers complaining of too many deer that opened the political arena wide open for the Legislators to win votes by jumping into the deer management topic without first finding out what the correct management direction should be.

Just because politicians have picked a side that will win them votes it certainly doesn’t mean they are doing the correct honorable thing for the best future of our Commonwealth, our resources or hunting. Far from it.



The Game Commission is all for the audit. There is no reason in the world for the Game Commission to fear an audit of the deer management program.



Actually if you really look into the history you will find that the Deer Wars started back in the late twenties and early thirties. That is almost eighty years ago. This is not something new. Hunters have typically thought they knew more about deer management then the professionals simply because they have always wanted more of them, even when the deer them selves were actively reducing their own numbers because the habitat couldn’t support more deer for more then short term periods of ideal conditions.

Hunters really have failed to become educated on the facts and the “Deer Wars” will continue as long as we still have trained professionals willing to stand up and do the right thing for the future of our resources and our hunters even when they are getting beat up for doing the right thing.

Hunters have been the largest stumbling block toward better deer management and having more deer in much of this state then we presently have for many decades. That need to change so that the real professionals can lead us into a better future then the past has been.

R.S. Bodenhorn

cardeeer, ever wonder why there are not a lot of those TV shows made in Pa.? no place to hunt unless they get onto a hunting club thats posted up tight. ive been hunting for over 40 years and its getting to the point that if i see 3 or 4 deer at one time i concider myself lucky. i think we need to go back to the period before AR and let the deer take care of themselves.

Are you that deficient in your reading comprehension or understanding of the fact that no unit management is based on the statewide data? Therefore the statewide data has absolutely no relevance to deer management in any deer management unit.

I will take this up with you tomorrow and provide proof that it is working. I am done for tonight. It is time for bed.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RSB, you are a funny man. You have claimed in the past that nature is controlling the herd in 2G by increased predation and the very decreased breeding rates and productivity that you are now claiming to be the result of incorrect data. So which is it? And why was the herd in 2G stilll increasing after decades of high DD prior to the onset of HR? Doesn't sound like nature was controlling the herd even at it's highest levels, yet you claim that now with DD below 12 dpsm andOWDD even lower, that nature is controlling the herd, not hunter harvest. You have also stated that you favor continued reduction in your region, despite the PGC's reccomendation of an increase. So which is it? Does a deer cop know more than the biologists now? Does a deer cop know any more than a forester, a medic, a farmer, or a blue collar worker? Is "damage control"/PR now one of the duties of the PGC law enforcement? You claim that the general hunting population is uneducated in deer mgt principles, and you are wrong. A decade or more ago that may have been a true statement, but the current state of mismanagement has served to educate many among our ranks. Once again you are wrong,and once again you have sought to decieve by flipflopping your previous stated positions.

Yes , dont see many in Pa. I have seen a couple shows in the past. One was at a fenced in place up near Scranton. I think it was called whitetail hunting preserve or something like that. A booner buck was like 12,000.