bawanajim

Are you saying todays deer numbers are high? If so what would a low number be? Or say just a sustainable over winter number?

I know nothing is a given but are you suggesting single digit deer numbers are all this state will support for a wintering over herd?

R.S.B.

I know a lot of hunters don’t support the present scientific approach to deer management. But, posted land only helps to compound the best deer management for the areas and creates even more areas of both over harvest and under harvest.

I wish I could get some of you folks to come to one of our deer management/habitat tours that we do here in Elk County. I think it would help them both see and understand even their own hunting areas with a little different eye. We really don’t brainwash anyone but we do show them a lot of things to think about.

Our spring tour is on Sunday May 31st this year. I’ll try to get around to starting a thread with the information in the near future.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bawanajim

How about one in this area? Got any thing planned?

I fully understand the big woods problem , but to say we have a habitat problem in 1 B is just plain ridicules.

But I will try to make the closest tour available, thanks again.

Cornelius08

"Even though they do have some areas with high deer densities they also have areas with much lower densities, just like we have here in this state. "

OF course they do!! BUt not the entire state or even close like Pa!

But, as for the geography, I am pretty sure they are still on the same planet; at least the last time I visited their state I only needed a car to get there. Hopefully I don’t have to buy a space ship to get there the next time.

After some of your posts Im beginning to wonder what exactly is parked in that garage! just funnin'...LOL I betspace ship might help in catching those atv'ers!

"Even in the best of soils and habitat if the deer numbers aren’t controlled they can and will damage their habitat to the point their numbers decline. "

Agreed rsb. Butwhat entails"controlled" is a very debatable topic. Its very debatable even amongst the "experts". All do not seek the same regeneration or herd goals and their states somehow continue to have trees and biodiversity that isnt limited to deer!, and I tend to agree with every other state in the nation over Pa's system!

"But, the bottom line is if you want the highest long term sustainable deer numbers it is important to keep the deer herd within the limits that prevent any serious or long term habitat damage. If you want the best possible long term future you might have to accept slightly fewer deer in the future. If you keep high deer numbers now you will surely have fewer deer in the future."

And we agree on those basics, and for that matter, always have. I have yet to see anything to support the contention that our numbers are now too high. But there is quite a bit of evidence that suggests we are in "overkill" mode.

Cornelius08

I agree Jim. I too understand the "big woods" problems with regeneration. I also know like you claim with 1B, my wmu 2A is not even close to 2G situation.... There is no such thing as "failed" cuts here,and the regeneration is as good as anywhere in the state that ive been, not to mention as good as any other state with similar forest composition. This also aint the mountains and aint mature blocks of forest.

Browsing has declined greatly and to expect none at all, even with good regeneration occurring is 100% unreasonable.

The only way deer eat NO browse is if there are NO deer.

R.S.B.

No, I certainly don’t think our deer numbers are high in most areas of the state. I too see far fewer deer then I used to see. Nor do I think we need to take the numbers lower then they are in most areas of the state, though there are a few areas that I do believe need to have fewer deer now or they are going to have a lot fewer in the future then they have now.

I support the present scientific approach to managing deer based on the information the deer and the habitat provide. In some areas that will mean fewer deer but I think those areas in need of even just slightly fewer deer are very few. In most areas if they allowed this management program to work it would mean more deer for the future then we have now, instead of fewer.

I want the professionals to use that scientific information to make the best informed decisions in the total deer management program instead of having public and political demands forcing even more areas into the poor management, destroyed habitat and crashed deer numbers some areas have today.

The professional deer managers can get it right if people just allow them to do it. There is no conspiracy to harm the deer herd or hurt the future of hunting. Nor, is anyone in bed with an enemy of the hunters. The professionals only want to do what is best for the future to benefit our resources and our hunters. But, they presently can’t do what is best for anyone because to many people are convinced they, and all government, is somehow out to shaft them. That simply is not the case, at least with the Game Commission.

It seems many people want deer management by opinion instead of using scientifically supported data from the deer and the habitat. I simply can’t support that idea, I have seen it too many times in the past. It hasn’t worked in the past and it will not work in the future either. Besides, just who’s opinion should they use, yours, mine, the anti-hunter or just who’s? I would much prefer the voice of the deer, through the scientific data they provide. Somehow I think they are the ones most likely to get it right.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

I don’t know if there are any plans for anything up your way or not. I wish they had them in all areas of the state but they don’t.

The one we do here in Elk County might be the closest one to your area but that really isn’t that far away. We do have one of the best for showing the affects that deer have on their own food supplies though. Besides, we are also noted for having the best food spread after the tour.

Everyone gets to interact and ask any questions they want. We aren’t afraid of questions and do the best we can at providing answers.

Think about coming to the tour. It is very rare that anyone leaves without having a better knowledge of both deer and deer habitat. That probably helps make them more successful as hunters in the future too.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bawanajim

I just wish more hunters would step up to the plate and buy a piece of ground, instead of a four wheeler or new truck. Ten acres .twenty acres, you don't need to own a mountain top to have better deer hunting. I work year around 3-5 days per week cutting maple down, trimming apple trees or just bush hogging. It takes work but the rewards are fantastic.

If you hunt a friends land, load the chain saw up and go cut fire wood, it will pay off in the long run.

There are untold acres of useless scrub maple, if you don't believe me take a drive up interstate 79.

R.S.B. I hope you are right, and have a great Easter, Jim

bawanajim

If you can post a street address I can type it in my G.P.S. and not get lost.
Thanks again, Jim

R.S.B.

Put in Portland Mills and then go back one mile toward Ridgway to Toby Creek. There are two briidges, one over Toby Creek and another over the railroad. Right beside the bridge over the railroad is Game Commission Road. If you back game Commission Road about a half mile you come to the Game lands Building .That is where we start from.

Game Commission Road is about nine miles out of Ridgway on Route 949.
I’ll post better directions but that will allow you to check distances and routes to get there.

R.S. Bodenhorn