Bowtruck, all I can tell ya is that the smaller your herd gets, the less tags it takes to continue reducing the herd.

Only way you will ever have a higher sustainable harvest and a higher allocation that wouldnt still cause reduction would be for pgc to cut tags now for short-term to allow the herd to grow enough to increase recruitment, so that the harvest no longer overcomes recruitment. When the herd grows enough, you could then have the number of tags you have now, and NOT decrease the herd, but hold it stable.

I agree that the allocations should have been increased in all of the units, like 2A, 2F and 2G, that show poor herd and/or poor forest health. That is what the deer and their food supply are screaming to those willing to hear the message.

The problem is that too many people, sometimes even the professionals, listen to much to the public and political demands instead of to what the deer are saying. It has always been that way and some extent it still is and might always be that way. That is why many areas can’t improve enough to ever have more deer then they have now unless they get a run of good mast crops and mild winters that allow for short term increases.

R.S. Bodenhorn

That means you are admitting the herd is not being managed based on herd health and forest health ,which is what I have been saying from day one. What political pressures are forcing the PGC to manage the herd at much higher levels than in 2G? It sure isn't the pressure from hunters.

What? You can’t be serious.

You haven’t heard hunters complaining they want lower allocations and doe harvests? You haven’t read the posts from you contingent on this message board? You haven’t seen them asking everyone to call their Legislators and demand the allocations and harvests be reduced?

Yes, you have been complaining that the herd isn’t being properly managed. Are you now saying it isn’t being properly managed because we aren’t listening the deer and their habitat and should be harvesting more deer?

If you are I would like to be the first to welcome you to theranks of people that believe in and support scientific resource management. I figure I already know the answer and that this is just another or your twisted misrepresentations.

R.S. Bodenhorn

The goal is to stabilize the herd ,not the antlerless allocations. The PGC is allocating the same number of tags to a herd that is decreasing ,which means the same allocation will result in a continued decrease in the herd.

"That is only wishful thinking and opinion on your part though the scientific facts for unit 2Adon’t support your opinion."

Facts are facts. 2A's habitat is as good as anywhere in the state. A ridiculous changepermitting obtuse levels ofdiversity does not change that fact. Fact is, pgc changed the rules, and now the rules dictate that no wmu will have reason numbers of deer now or in the future because of this change. Science from every otherstate in the nation says theeconutsat pgc are full of ****. Not one state in the nation that im aware of doesnt have higher deer density goals in some region of their state than Pa does.


"To stabilize means to hold in place, keep the same…. Since the allocations for 2A didn’t increase or decrease obviously they stayed the same, as in to STABILIZE. "

Are you that dumb or was that a joke? The DEER HERD GOAL was stabilization, NOT STABILIZING THE ALLOCATION! LOL. The deer herd doesnt decline every year, and then claim herd stabilization all along and again the next year with the same allocation reducing a smaller herd even further! LMAO. Im hoping that was an attempt at humor?....

"The goal is to stabilize the herd ,not the antlerless allocations. The PGC is allocating the same number of tags to a herd that is decreasing ,which means the same allocation will result in a continued decrease in the herd. "

He he he. Not hard to tell who is looking at this intelligently and not trying to push an extremist agenda. I see you posted just before I did bb. I didnt mean to repeat. Good to see other bull**** detectors alive and well.

"I agree that the allocations should have been increased in all of the units, like 2A, 2F and 2G, that show poor herd and/or poor forest health"

Then that wouldnt include 2A. Making a biodiversity oriented nutjob change to the evaluation was meaningless and it didnt degrade the habitatanymore than it was in the last 2 evaluations when it was much higher. Its a ridiculous judgement call that penalizes any wmu for having above rock bottom deer numbers.

That really isn’t the total picture, or even a realistic picture, of how it works.

It is all connected to the fawn recruitment rates for each year. The recruitment rates vary from year to year based on a wide range of influencing factors. Long periods of stable allocations provide the best opportunity for stable fawn recruitment with minimal herd size changes.

R.S. Bodenhorn