Only option for the PGC now
 

Is to make smaller WMUs. No other options than to do that. Hunters would be happier with a better deer management.
Smaller WMUs is the only way to do so. Be specific on where deer can be hunted to extinction. WMUs are way to freaking big. Give me a state that is in to deer mangament that has huge WMUs as PA does?

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

smaller wmu dont help if same amount of tags given out and if there is no money for more wco

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

That will also prove that itis only about the money.They will never do that because loss of money. It will target the deer destruction better. Now it is all about the money and not the management of the deer herd. Why else increase the deer tags and go from county to WMUs? More money.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

I agree. I would like to see smaller WMU's. I question its fesibility but agree 100% that smaller wmu's couldmake for more precise management I do not favor going back to the old county system though. Keep the divisions that utilize rivers and roads to seperate the areas.

How is it to be done though? Most of us agree that smaller WMU's managed right would help with the hotspot/coldspot issues but at what cost? The PGC is having challenges with determining deer numbers now. How much will smaller WMU's add to that job? How much more manpower would be needed to get it up and running and to do the micromanaging.

Not saying it cant be done, only that it;s not as easy as it would first appear.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

According to pgc, the numbers arent important. They address herd health, human conflictand habitat, and if those goals are met, according to them, it doesnt matter what the deer density is if they stick with those guidelines.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

What is wrong with using the county system? Why didn't that work in the past? If it worked in the past, why can't it work again?

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

The main problem with the county system is that county lines are not clearly marked in the woods. I've seen it work both ways both for and against hunter and law enforcement officers. Road and rivers are clear boundaries

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Big deal. It would be way better than the huge WMUs now.
Seriously, Most people in PA know what county they are in.Even in the woods. Give a half mile margin of error for hunters. Counties was way better than the WMUs you have now. Do you think they put up the big WMUs because of hunters confusion of what county they was in? Not a chance.I don't think that was really a problem.The PGC or WCOs don't have to beD I C Ksabout it,Leave some marging of error there for hunters and there will be no problem. The problemwas theywasn't able to sale as many doe allocation tags. Why? Because they would of wiped out the deer in each county and they would of had to stop their massive deer slaughter or they would of been caught intentionally killing off all the deer in each county. With WMUs, They can try to justify huge doe allocation license by useing a single small area in the huge WMUs for all the deer tags given out. This square mile has deer damage so lets sale 50k in doe license to take care of this one square mile of deer damage area.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Sorry EJ but none of that makes any sense.

First, the loudest opponents toHR have been fighting doe tags since the first bonus tag came of the press in the 80's. Going back to a county system will not stop the disputes over doe tag numbers.

Second, county lines do nothing toward solving the problems with the present WMU's. The valid reason for smaller WMU's is to better manage smaller geographic areas according to the habitat and herd.Man madeinvisible boundaries through the woods that are arbitrary to herd and habitat makezero sense.

It's obvious that we have widely varying habitat and herd within the WMU's but man made lines created decades, even centuries ago are not the way to fix that. For starters, the vast public land holdings are most definitely candidates for seperate WMU's

I agree with the principle of smaller WMU's but I also concede that smaller WMU's make the job of deer management far more complex than it already is.At least the move to smaller WMU's should be delayed until it is more clear that the herd has been stabilized and the present WMu management has stabilized to the maximum extent possible.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

I agree that boundaries were a problem but none-the-less, the county system worked. Perhaps when it came to law inforecemt, there was too much uncertainity. Perhaps explorer Jack is correctin thatwe could alleviate some of that by using a good dose of common sense.

The thought that I had, was why not use the county system but redefine the borders of the county to match nearby landmarks as you suggest?

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

That might work. One thing for sure. Any further realignment needs to be well thougtout in advance and it needs to be a one and done approach. Otherwise it would be mass confusion out there as zones change from year to year. I know guys who still cant get the current WMU's right

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Are the WMUs working now as for the areas that the deer over browsed?
I mean are deer going to be there in large numbers where there are no food? Are you going to hunt those areas? NO to both answers. So it wouldn't really help with those deer over browsed area anyway. No deer there is no hunters there. The only thing smaller WMUs will do is lower the doe allocation tags to help lower the deer slaughter. That is why they are needed. Counties worked fine and as I said, Was county boundries that big of a deal with where it ended and began at? Was there a big problem with hunters not knowing where Jefferson county line was and Clearfield was? Come on now BTB, Most people who hunts in PA know where the boundries are. They knew before the WMUs came into play. How long was county tags issued before WMUs? You hunters are not that stupid now are you all?

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

You asked and answered your own question all within your own post.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

DMAP tags don't have rivers and highways for borders. If County lines worked for all these years without GPS units, they certainly would work now.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Is the border between PA and NY clearly marked?

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

I'll say it again for all three of you because you are either to stupid to think for yourselves or in the case of Bluebabble ande Coalcrapper, you simply feel the inherent need to start another unnecessary trivial battle.

The point about man made boundaries is only minor as it relatesto law enforcement and whcih zone your in. The primary point is that county lines are also ineffective in delineating between habitat and topographytypes. The only real reason to consider smaller WMU's would be to better micro-manage the wildlife within it's habitat. County lines were created many years ago and have no relevance in seperating differing habitats. Many roads, would so exactly that. Road placement isvery often a direct result of the topography and would ofetn serve better as the line between differing habitats.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

The PGC isn't really managing the herd based on the habitat anyway , so it doesn't really matter how the state is divided into WMUs.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Just another purely negative post from BB with zero positve ideas or suggestions

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

I suggest you find something else to complain about. May I also suggest that the PGC manage the herd based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat ,rather than on it's ability to regenerate commercially valuable trees.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Regional offices and WCO are by County,if WMU's were so great, they would change that to their own system, unless they have no faith in what they created, Crapperhead.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

You are simply too stupid to realize that influence toward managing the woods for healthy forest regeneration is coming from our hosts who let us hunt. You still have the right to buy your own ground and manage it as your see fit but timber interests, faremers etcown the vast majority of the landwe hunt and only the most arrogant SOB would expect them to want anything different.

Oh and as for the non SGL public ground. The 90% of this state who doesnt hunt has a right to a voice too. We'd certainly all rather see state land for wildlife and hunters as priority one but that's just not the way the world works.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

"I agree with the principle of smaller WMU's but I also concede that smaller WMU's make the job of deer management far more complex than it already is.At least the move to smaller WMU's should be delayed until it is more clear that the herd has been stabilized and the present WMu management has stabilized to the maximum extent possible."

Smaller wmus would be extremely simple. And if other states wildlife management agencies can manage it, the idiots at the gameless commission can too. Fact is, they dont want to because then there'd be no basis and theyd have not excusefor widespread slaughter.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

"You still have the right to buy your own ground and manage it as your see fit but timber interests, faremers etcown the vast majority of the landwe hunt and only the most arrogant SOB would expect them to want anything different. "

Most land isnt farmed. Most landowners did not demand the rediculous extremes of blanket reduction. Only a very few factions did. Audubon/treehuggers and timber/dcnr.;) Society didnt cause the problem, pgc did.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

It's getting so deep now, I'llhave to take off my hipboots and put on my waders Crapperhead.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

And apparently you are to stupid to realize that ever since the Audubon Deer conference ,I have been saying that forest certification ,DCNR , the timber industry and the Audubon were the driving force behind the current push for HR. It was not based on producing a healthier herd or better hunting as we were told. The simple fact is that the vast majority of our forests are not managed for timber production and only a little more than half of DCNR land is managed for timber. Yet were reduced the herd statewide ,including SGL, to make it easier for DCNR to grow more timber on 1.1M acres of some of the poorest land in the state.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

EXACTLY!!

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

First of all the WMU are designed, and laid out, to work for nearly all of the hunted wildlife species not just deer. Therefore, they are set up by habitat types, land ownership (public verse private) soil types, population centers and more are all taken into consideration.

Now with that said smaller management units would make for better management provided there was enough wildlife provided data to make wise scientifically supported management. The professionals simply have to have enough scientifically supported data because everything has to be supported with sound data in today’s world. All one need do is look at the fact of the Game Commission’s deer management program being presently being challenged in court by a group of hunters to see how valid that fact is.

What many people don’t seem to know though is that even before WMUs when there were county allocations many of those counties were all lumped together with exactly the same management plan as it related to targeted deer harvests and populations. Often two or three counties were all lumped together because there wasn’t enough scientifically sound deer or hunter harvest data available to manage at the county level. If I remember correctly, without looking it up, I believe there were really only 30 management units being used even when the allocations were set up by counties. Those counties within the same management unit still had allocations that were basically the same per square mile except when the Board of Commissioners made arbitrary chances to them.

The data that is presently lacking and yet required to manage at a smaller unit level are the reproductive data that comes from highway killed female deer between the first of February and the end of May each year. Some areas just don’t have many deer killed on the highways to obtain that data. The other data that is seriously lacking in some areas is harvest data that hunters should be submitting on their harvest report cards or collected by the deer aging teams visiting processing locations during the season.

Until those problems can be corrected going to smaller deer management units would be nothing more then a shot in the dark unless the management objectives still stayed the same and all that were done was making smaller units to restrict hunter movements to smaller areas while maintaining the same management objectives in those smaller units.

I do believe that in time, provided sufficient scientifically sound deer data can be obtained, there will be deer management sub-units within some of the present wildlife management units.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Why all of a sudden there is talk about other wildlife? I mean deer was the main hunters target in PA and the deer herd was allways looked after by the PGC before the HR came into play. Now all of a sudden it is all about other wildlife talk and less about deer. What or who is the influence of the change here. Nothing about other wildlife then all of a sudden it's about all wildlife.Something fishy going on there in PA. Smells like tree huggers and the ecos infiltrated the PGC. Never has there been as much talk about all wildlife till recent,Why's that?

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

None of that matters because there is no indication that the PGC is managing the herd based on either herd health or forest health!!!!

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

"First of all the WMU are designed, and laid out, to work for nearly all of the hunted wildlife species not just deer. Therefore, they are set up by habitat types, land ownership (public verse private) soil types, population centers and more are all taken into consideration. "

No reason to believe other species wouldnt benefit from smaller management units as well.

"Now with that said smaller management units would make for better management provided there was enough wildlife provided data to make wise scientifically supported management. The professionals simply have to have enough scientifically supported data because everything has to be supported with sound data in today’s world."

They didnt have one shred of scientific datain regards to exactly what needed done etc. before jumping feet first into the whole deer program nonsense in the first place, so dont try and tell us tweaking aint possible now!!!! If the current system exactly as is isnt conducive to smaller wmus....CHANGE THE &*^% system! It works in many other states!!!

We dont need to hear lame excuses. There are none valid. Pgc wants no change. They want widescale blanket reduction and thats b.s.


"I do believe that in time, provided sufficient scientifically sound deer data can be obtained, there will be deer management sub-units within some of the present wildlife management units. "

We dont need a handful of"subunits", (which you are only guessing at anyway and the exact opposite has been stated by ROsenberry who want the large wmus) we need large scale RESTRUCTURE!! SMALLER UNITS. There is no reason not to. It would be an incredible outreach from pgc to the hunters of the state, and better management as well.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

"First of all the WMU are designed, and laid out, to work for nearly all of the hunted wildlife species not just deer. Therefore, they are set up by habitat types, land ownership (public verse private) soil types, population centers and more are all taken into consideration. "

No reason to believe other species wouldnt benefit from smaller management units as well.

"Now with that said smaller management units would make for better management provided there was enough wildlife provided data to make wise scientifically supported management. The professionals simply have to have enough scientifically supported data because everything has to be supported with sound data in today’s world."

They didnt have one shred of scientific datain regards to exactly what needed done etc. before jumping feet first into the whole deer program nonsense in the first place, so dont try and tell us tweaking aint possible now!!!! If the current system exactly as is isnt conducive to smaller wmus....CHANGE THE &*^% system! It works in many other states!!!

We dont need to hear lame excuses. There are none valid. Pgc wants no change. They want widescale blanket reduction and thats b.s.


"I do believe that in time, provided sufficient scientifically sound deer data can be obtained, there will be deer management sub-units within some of the present wildlife management units. "

We dont need a handful of"subunits", (which you are only guessing at anyway and the exact opposite has been stated by ROsenberry who want the large wmus) we need large scale RESTRUCTURE!! SMALLER UNITS. There is no reason not to. It would be an incredible outreach from pgc to the hunters of the state, and better management as well.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Being referred to as WILDLIFE Management Units is NOT something new. They have been referred to as Wildlife Management Units since their inception in 2003.

Even the Hunter/Trapper Digest that everyone gets with their hunting license has clearly told anyone that took the time to look at it that the units are used to manage all game species, except elk, waterfowl and migratory game birds.

If you want to see that in print go to page 42 of this years Digest. After you read that you should turn to page 64 and read through the Hunting Annual to see ,ore about how the WMUs are used for managing some of the game species.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

That is just another of your biased opinion with no supporting facts.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Once again you are flat out wrong. WNU 2G and 2F are rated the same for herd health and forest health yet 2G is managed at 9 DPSM while 2f is managed at 19 DPSM. those are the fcts which are apparently above your level of comprehension.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Again,Show us other states that have huge WMUs as PA does? Look at the size of those monster areas. 2F runs from NY border down to the center of PA. 2G is atleast 1 and 1/3rd larger than 2F and yet less deer PSM there is wanted by the PGC? Why even have any WMUs if they are this large to begin with other than justification for the millions of tags given out for the mighty $.

2F:

From New York/PA state line, US Rt. 219 south to I-80 near

DuBois. I-80 west to US Rt. 322 near Corsica. US Rt. 322

west to PA Rt. 8 at Franklin. PA Rt. 8 north to PA Rt. 27 at Titusville.

PA Rt. 27 north to US Rt. 6 at Pittsfield. US Rt. 6 east to US Rt. 62

near Warren. US Rt. 62 north to New York/PA state line.

2G:

US Rt. 15 south to US Rt. 220 at

Williamsport. US Rt. 220 west to I-80 to US Rt. 219 near

DuBois. US Rt. 219 north to US Rt. 6 at Lantz Corners.










Given the potential to fall far short of issuing enough antlerless licenses to get a desirable harvest, Game Commission staff is now proposing longer antlerless deer seasons. The rationale is: Longer seasons will increase hunter success and reduce the required number of antlerless licenses. To get a feel for how season length affects hunter success, consider this:
[ul][*]
A 3-day season would require 1,121,000 licensesto kill 301,000 antlerless deer.[*]
A 6-day season would require 866,400 licenses to kill the same number of deer.[*]
A 12-day season would require 595,850 licensesto kill the same number of deer.[:'(]
[/ul]
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=159995&pp=12&n=1

From the above,The PGC is trying to wipe out the deer herd completely with their million+ doe allocation tags given out since when for 12 day seasons. They have no clue or are intentionally killing off all the deer. I bet other states woulddrop their jawsin disbelief if they seen how the deer management is being run in PA. I say intentionaly.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

""Why all of a sudden there is talk about other wildlife?''

Someecoweiners got on the boc and hired new"biodiversity extremist" biologists. That was thanksto suggestion by Pa Audubon. Interestingly they also are accepted into pgcs "go to for a yes" sportsmens group, Penn Fed Sportsmen & CONSERVATIONISTS. Also "conservationists"are now onthe governors advisory council for fishing hunting AND CONSERVATIONthat is instrumental in picking our pgc commissioners.

"I mean deer was the main hunters target in PA and the deer herd was allways looked after by the PGC before the HR came into play. Now all of a sudden it is all about other wildlife talk and less about deer."

Now all you hear about is birds thanks toaudubons influence. They also were very instrmental in the deer plan configuring. Its also pretty funny to see the nimrods on hpa practically demanding that we hunters look to squirrel and other small game, that webasically are crazy for wanting to target mostly deer! (LOL)(LOL) You can spot those rediculous extreme ecoweiners a mile away.

"What or who is the influence of the change here. Nothing about other wildlife then all of a sudden it's about all wildlife.Something fishy going on there in PA. Smells like tree huggers and the ecos infiltrated the PGC. "

Believe it. Ive follow these ugly politics for a while now, and the treehuggers have their claws in deep here in Pa. Until several years ago Id never have believed some of the nonsense that goes on in places like Jersey and California would be happening right here in Pa.

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

bluebird, I LIKE WAY YOU ANSWERED,THAT A BOY.;)

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

BOY, YOU GUYS ARE ACTING VERY PROFESSIONAL, I MAY LET KIDS READ THIS STUFF

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

Obviously you didn’t understand much of what you just read concerning the data you just posted.

I’ll try to help those who have the ability to learn have a better understanding though, even if it is too complex for some people to grasp.
Some states do have more and even smaller management units but that really doesn’t mean they have better or even different management objectives or goals then what we have right here in Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania we have twenty-two different management units that range in size from 835.45 square miles to as large as 4114.04 square miles. The size of those units is based on the basic consistency of the habitat, land ownership, soil types, human densities and various other factors being pretty much the same with only minor variances. Since some parts of Pennsylvania has large areas of consistent habitat types that isn’t heavily fragmented with other habitat types we don’t have to have as many small units as states that do have more fragmented habitat types to accomplish the same objectives.

That fragmentation of habitat and population areas is what makes it necessary and desirable for some states to use more and sometimes smaller management units but it still doesn’t mean they have any more management goals or objectives within those units. What really occurs is that all of the like habitat units are managed with the same data and management objectives even though the size of the individual units under that management objective might vary in size. That is pretty much the same thing that Pennsylvania used to do when we had county management unit boundaries. What we all need to understand is that just having a lot of smaller units, that are managed with the same management data and objectives, isn’t going to result in any major changes in the management direction or the management results.

There aren’t millions of tags given out either, that is nothing more then nonsense promoted by people that want misrepresent the truth to promote a misguided agenda.

Throughout the history of deer management in this state the number of antler less license allocated within the state has been increasing because the deer herd has been expanding into all areas of the state and in many of those areas the deer populations had become very high. That means the statewide allocations had to increase to keep up with the ever increasing deer populations within a few areas of the state. In other areas of the state the antler less allocations have not increased and had instead actually been decreasing for some time prior to recent years of fewer deer.

I am going to post the units where the antler less allocations were at their highest over twenty years ago with the allocations per square in the counties that presently make up those units.

Unit……….88-92.………...93-97.……..…..98-02.…………..03-07.………....08
1B………..19.62.………….18.46.………… 19.04.……………14.83.…………14.17
2F………..20.99.………….19.96.………… 20.43.……………14.44.…………11.61
2G………..16.21.………….13.08.………… 12.30.…………….8.65.…………..6.32
3C………..16.56.………….13.19.………… 16.29.……………15.11.…………12.51
4D………..17.02.………….14.13.………… 14.56.……………16.97.…………14.57

As you can see the big woods units were issuing more antler less licenses twenty years ago then they have during any period since. You can also see that the number of antler less license in unit 2G have been in a steady state of decline for over twenty years, yet hunters say there are few deer in that unit. Based on that alone shouldn’t a reasonable person be starting to recognize that fewer license and low antler less harvests hasn’t worked to build higher deer numbers? It should also be pretty obvious that the line about it only being about money must be purely horse-puckey.

I also want to point out that the statewide allocations today are not as high as the allocation of some past periods even though the deer populations had increased in many areas of the state during those earlier time periods.

Years…….Statewide allocation…………hunter success rate/license to harvest one deer
1996.…………831,658.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.21
1997.…………736,190.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.34
1998.…………889,900.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.54
1999.…………882,200.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.79
2000.…………874,900.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..2.90
2001.…………779,500.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..2.76
2002.………..1,028,600.…………………… ……….2.92
2003.………..1,104,000.…………………… ……….3.42
2004.………..1,039,000.…………………… ……….3.65
2005.…………879,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.76
2006.…………859,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..3.80
2007.…………865,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..4.04
2008.…………849,000.……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..N/A

From this data, combined with the above data showing the reduced allocations in the big woods and mountainous units, should be proof for any reasonable person that antler less allocations are neither excessive or about money.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Only option for the PGC now
 

But any reasonable person would also recognize that when harvests exceed recruitment ,it takes fewer antlerless tags and lower harvests to continue to reduce the herd. That is exactly what happened in 2G and it is why 2G has the lowest harvest rates in the state even though it is the one WMU where the PGC has been successful in reducing the herd to less than 10 DPSM. even with the reduced allocations in 2007 the harvest still reduced the herd by 23% in 2g.