Jim, imho thats not the answer. Every time someone buys up a piece of ground and posts it up its one less place everyone has to hunt, and the situation is even worse for everyone else. I do agree though, it seems that is getting to be about the only option for decent hunting in the future of Pa.

RSB: "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. "

NOt gonna happen. Under current guidelines more deer will NEVER be a possibility. They simply do not allow for it. Also while you say "some areas" need fewer deer, and on a wmu-wide basis, I disagree completely, thats not whats happening anyway... MOST are being further reduced according to the annual report despite claims of stabilization. and the doom and gloom predicted by well known nutjob pgc extremist employees of the past never came to pass even with at times some rediculous deer densities, and theyve been predicting such for nearly a century!

"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."

Well I guess that just toobad because WE want reasonable herdand habitat goals that don't include word for word guidelines that econutcases at audubon and others have set forth. Then have it shoved into our faces as being "absolutely necessary" when its clear it is not, atleast notfor any realistic rational goals. There also is no reason to believe the entire state needs to be as low as it is and lower when most other states are NOT, yet they too have "biologists" on their management agencies!!

"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."

There is no conspiracy to hurt the deer. The deer are just a side effect victim of the plan for extremist biodiverse agenda.Pgc is also "IN BED" with enemy of the hunters. That enemy being audubon and other orgs. The fact you wont admit that they are is why you can make that statement. Many of us know better. They are nofriend the deer hunter. Their goals are 100% counter andas extreme as they come. Anyone needing to know why pgc is so extreme with this plan only need see the audubon site. And they have alot of input into this plan. Along with dcnr.

" just who’s opinion should they use, yours, mine, the anti-hunter or just who’s? "

The majority of those who wish to voice and opinion... The same ones that have thus far gone completely ignored. Its called compromise. The econuts and others effected by deer got SIGNIFICANT herd cuts ALREADY. Time to meet other "opinions" halfway.

That simply is not true. During the summer when gardens and farm crops are growing, there is an unlimited food supply in the woods and fringe areas and deer simply chose to feed on farm crops and gardens because those are a preferred food source just like they prefer red maple over beech. Therefore improved forest health would have no effect on crop damage or browsing on shrubs in the winter.

That is simply your flawed theory of how things should work . But the deer in the real world in 5C, 5D, 2B ,5B,2A and others along with Gettysburg and Valley Forge have proved that you are wrong. When Valley Forge can support over 200 D ,for an extended period when it is surrounded by developments , proves beyond a doubt that the previous goals of 6 DPSM in 5C were not based on science or the carrying capacity of the habitat and managing our herd based on the regeneration of commercially timber, while ignoring all the other habitat that allows much higher deer densities is not managing the herd based on good science and the best wild life management principles.

I never said post it, I said buy it, control it, keep some one from developing it.

I think we have far to many people that love to hunt yet fail to pony up when it comes to making the sacrifices it takes to have great hunting.
As far as the habitat goes when I planted my orchard I had to fence the young apple trees, was it because there were to many deer or just that the deer we had will walk past every thing in the woods to eat fresh apple seedlings.
Put chocolate chip cookies in one pile and a salad in anotherthen ask a kid what he wants to eat.

I agree Jim. An apple sapling may as well have a target painted on it if not caged. If you dont have to cage an apple sapling you would have VERY low dd!! Ive made that mistake and seen others do the same. LOL

Ive cut fresh apple wood with chainsaw, and old half dead tree from the neighbors yard...and put it insidetruck bed, thenpulled it in garagefor a couple of days before hauling away...Stuff smells good! Made inside of garage smell lIke wine or somethin'.

I agree that the health of a forest can help support deer numbers to a certain extent. However here in Me. we have different things to concider. In my area there is not alot of farmlands so the forest has to be number one. The problem we have seen is overharvesting that distroys the wintering grounds of deer. Wintering grounds are very much needed up here. In my area the deer numbers run from 3 to 6 deer per square mile on average. In the winter it can change to around zero to more than you can imagine. Deer will travel alot of miles to yarding areas. This past year a deer yard around 3 miles from here was holding in an estimated number of around 200 hundred deer in it. Some of this factor contributed to wood harvesting during the winter months. Skidder trails made it easier for deer to get around as well as tree tops being brought down to allow better brousing. The fact is though is that deer numbers will change if the deer have a need to travel to a yarding area during the winter. Some of these deer will travel 50 miles or more to find a yarding area. So winter numbers really mean exactly what when dealing with an active forest? Normally with out old growth trees to keep the deer away from those winter storms be it ice or snow is what is important also. Without them your deer numbers will drop. Young growth that produce saplings help but you need both of them for deer to make it up here as a rule..

It isn't scientific deer management when the only evaluation of the carrying capacity of the habitat is based on the regeneration of trees in the existing canopy while ignoring the huge contribution non-forested habitat contributes to the carrying capacity in many WMUs. Furthermore, herd health is not a measure of habitat health since even the WMUs with the poorest forest health are at their goal for herd health.

And the herd health being on target is a far cry from the picture that Alt and his cronies tried to paint at the onset of this fiasco. That being hundreds of starving does running ragged around the woods, hoping to find a stick to chew on, while being tended to by a solitary pencil- horned spike. The PGC's own data shows that there was NEVER a problem with breeding rates, recruitment or B/D ratios, even at highest DD on record. So they can take their idiotic deer plan, with their econut agenda, hardwood timber market, and all the other lies they have sold us, and take a flying leap with their license increase.

I wonder if the rediculous notions Alt spoke of arent still the real goals. Remeber, theyve said many times we shouldnt be able to see more than 50 yards in MATURE TIMBER in their version of a healthy forest! Anyone getting close to that? (LOL)

Ive hunted several states and have NEVER seen that the case anywhere. Seeing as its not happening in the Northwoods with 10 dpsm, and its not happening in the best areas of the state despite half the deer... Id say its absolutely ridiculous to even entertain the thought without a hearty chuckle and eye-roll.

NOONE is interested in very unnatural levels of extreme biodiversity, except 100% extremists.

Gee, I wonder who is it that is leading Pgcaround by the nose.

Audubon Pennsylvania made several recommendations to the Committee --

-- The first priority should be the restoration and maintenance of fully
functional forest ecosystems, containing a full component of native
biological diversity at all levels. It is the best way to serve the
long-term interests of the people and wildlife of Pennsylvania.

-- Policy-makers and land managers should focus on the indicators of
forest health -- rather than the number of deer people are seeing -- to
assess whether our forests are recovering.

-- Until data shows Pennsylvania's forests are recovering, it would be
imprudent and irresponsible to further limit hunter effectiveness
through restrictions on hunting such as shorter seasons and smaller
antlerless allocations.

-- Support House Bill 550, sponsored by Rep. Hershey (R-Chester) and Rep.
Tom Caltagirone (D-Berks), allowing the owners of farms, forestland and
landscape nurseries to better protect agricultural commodities from the
damage caused by deer and other wildlife and would make it easier for
landowners, local governments and communities to obtain deer removal
permits. Sen. McIlhinney (R-Bucks) is considering introduction of a
similar bill in the Senate.

-- The General Assembly, Governor's Office and the Game Commission should
identify a funding base that is more stable and equitable than funding
derived almost exclusively from sources such as license dollars and
timber sales on game lands in order to facilitate the shift from
single-species management to ecosystem management.

For more information, visit Audubon Pennsylvania's website at:
http://pa.audubon.org/deer_report.html

SOURCE Audubon Pennsylvania and

I think what Audubon is saying only scares those that have the least amount of knowledge about how nature actually works.

I am very much a hunter, always have been and always will be. During the deer, turkey and pheasant hunting seasons I spend about every free hour I can find hunting, yet I pretty much agree with a good bit of what Audubon had to say in that report.

If we had done those things forty, thirty or even just twenty years ago I am sure we would have a lot more deer in a lot more areas of this state then what we have now. And, if we don’t continue to do some of those things now and long into the future we are surely going to have even fewer deer in more areas of this state then we have now.

There is very little of that report that is scary to anyone that really understands how the most basic alws of nature really work.

R.S. Bodenhorn