2A was listed on a shaded deer density chart on 05/06 report as between 21-30. Average is 25 dpsm. Then the herd declined according to the 2007/08 annual report by another 9%. And that doesnt even account for the guaranteed decline that has yet to be assessed this past year thanks to 55k doe tags working on a much lower herd, which was also hit by ehd previously and we had superb weather which would equal an even more thourough harvest.

I dont care if you think the numbers should be 50 dpsm or 10, irresponsible is irresponsible on the part of our management. The best part of the state has to have lower dd goals than some areas of Maine or areas within any other stateand you expect us to think thats a GOOD thing for Christ sake? HA HA I think not.

This was supposed to be about herd health and habitat, not what Gino the audubon memberconsiders easy enough hunting or enough deer slaughter to cater to biodiversity nuts.

If you think I should turn a blind eye to the fact this wmu was once the best area in the state to hunt and now is being decimated, and noone should uttera word about it until its below the levels of the ridiculous north densities before its "permissible" you sir, can kiss my azz.

"That works out to 42 deer per forested(winter food) per square mile. "

Actually it doesnt, and how about we keep within the realm of reality shall we ecoextremist?. You are cutting out most of what makes the unit such good habitat. When you use that evaluation it takes ZERO account of edge habitat, grown up fields, pasture, and just about everything else that makes farm country and reverting farm country so good in the first place. We arent talking tons of urban sprawl, you are cutting out ahuge portion of this wmu where deerfeed and hunters hunt. But I guess that creative anglecomes in handy when there is nothing else to support your position though doesnt it?

That also isnt very meaningful if you would quit intentionally ignoring the fact that the goal IS and HAS BEEN FOR YEARS S-T-A-B-I-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N.

And its not only a huge 2A problem that the goal isnt being adhered to, its the majority of the states wmus that had goals of stabilization yet have had furtherreduction since that claim. That can be seen on the deer density change chart on the 2007/08 annual report.

More decisions from a bunch of sidewalk sissies that dont even hunt,except a few of them that hunt on private managed land a couple hours a year.I couldnt support these idiots for skunk urine collectors. While the state officials stuff their pockets full of money,lie to the public,many applaud the herd distruction for the sake of a selfish hope to bag a 200 score midwest trophy. NOT! I just wonder how many of the Pa hunters ever hunted anywhere else and seen whats going on ?? The further reduction of does in 5C is ridiculous. The only place the deer herd is to high is valley forge park. And their going to sharpshoot them this winter at a cost of a million dollars and bury the meat The last time I seen1 deer in my 5c township was last november at a non hunters feeder. How can any one support these power monger bafoons.Highway kills in 5c have dropped drastically the past 5 years. I couldnt find one crossing the road if I wanted to hit it.All theses winers wimpering there aint no food for more deer. Well supply it or stop complaing. And for the winers they yell there aint no deer, Dont shoot any for a couple of years. Post your land and protect the deer for several years. We all should demand the firing of the commissioners and demand the right of all licensed hunters to vote for individuals. Rendell knows nothing about hunting,heck he is pushing for a gun ban. He dont care about deer except for the ones that pull Santa clauses sleigh bring him all his government kickback cash. Why dont we just wave the white flag and hand everything over to the United Nations and the globalist they cant do any worse. After all the pa commission already has taken some of the globalist wackos opinions on the global animal enviromental control methods.

>Actually it doesnt, and how about we keep within the realm of reality shall we ecoextremist?.

Ah Cornholio

a couple off weeks ago you blasted PA by comparing it to WI who manages at 30 DPSM.

That number is per square mile of habitat. Guess what they count as habitat? Forested areas. They do add 100 yards around blocks of forest and add that as well. Good for them. They have WMU's that they consider only having 1/3 of it deer habitat giving these WMU's an overall density goal of 10 per square mile.


I am an ecoextremist for only counting forested areas as winter deer habitat
but the WI DNR is right on for doing the same?

WV Gino

It's "tag stabilization mode"- read: "continued HR" by anyone with half a brain. And RSB, you can take your statement about fawn recruitment avaerages and throw it out the window because hunter harvest and high predation have continued to reduce the herd inmany WMU's claiming stabilization. Only way to stabilize or increase the herdis to reduce allocations, control the predators, or both. Much easier to lower the allocations. We havemuch less control over fawn recruitment, and herd health hasdeclined despite reducing the herd.

Apparently you've never left the confines of urban southern pa.i'd like to know how you would go about feeding the insane deer densities in some of these remote and vast areas of the state.That's simply impossible.It couldn't be done logistically and who would fund it?

You constantly brag about managing an overwinter deer density at close to 400 dpsm.How poor and unskilled does a hunter have to be to require those assinine deer densities?

Are you really saying that 40 deer per forested square mile is not huntable numbers?

"a couple off weeks ago you blasted PA by comparing it to WI who manages at 30 DPSM. "

Actually no i did not. I said nothing about WI managing at 30 DPSM. I said they have densities MUCH HIGHER than Pas. And their deer densities go MUCH higher than 30 dpsm. While I provided the map showing deer per square mile of "total deer habitat", and the totals ran as high as 100dpsm and more....I could just as easily point to the DEER PER SQUARE MILE OF TOTAL AREA map and show that half of the entire states wmus are from 24-33 and 24-56 dpsm!!!

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/winter_pop_per_total.htm

"Iam an ecoextremist for only counting forested areas as winter deer habitat "

I didnt say that was why. You are an extremist due to your beliefs and extreme philosphies of deer management.

but the WI DNR is right on for doing the same?"

I Dontsee Wi Dnr doing anything "the same". The deer densities are in some cases twice as high.

"Are you really saying that 40 deer per forested square mile is not huntable numbers?"

First, what on earth would lead you to believe that no matter what dd can or should be had in an area, that hunters should be happy as long as there are "huntable numbers"?? Where the hell did that logic come from?? We could cut the herd in half again and say "huntable numbers" but Id say anyone who is a hunter and would support such a thing for no reason has his head firmly planted up his own arse. Second, I didnt say anything about that because it has nothing to do with what was said. Isaid in the future because the declining trend continues and no signs of tags ever going to be cut since the goal is stabilization, we arent stabilizing and they arentalready being cut...That trend doesnt bode well at all. Especially given the knowledge of what hashappened everywhere else in the state, and knowing what that the econuts openly support going to the ridiculous goals mentioned by nuts in the 70's that would take this wmu to TWELVE Deer per square mile! LOL

And also, for the best area of the state, YES those numbers yoiu speak ofare PATHETICbut I'llput it in proper perspective for you25 owdpsm and heading LOWER is PATHETIC for this area. Im not interested in your little wordgame, you may word25 dpsm as 1000 deer per semi-wooded hectare if you wish for shock value, butfact of the matter is, farm country and reverting farm, broken woodlots etc do not benefit at all in fact are penalized by the forested sm designation. And thats probably why in most normal statesthis type habitat is given a far higher PER SQUARE MILE deer density than other habitat types.

Also, again, you fail to address the fact pgc isnt adhering to the goal of stabilization the last 4 years, but having significant reduction every year but one (with a whopping 1% increase that year. Mustve been some hellacious weather that year or a miracle)LOL

WTF is the sense ofhaving a goal and telling us what that goal is, if it isnt even coming close to beingadhered to?? We arelied to CONSTANTLY, the deer herd compared to just about everywhere else is a joke. Andif there is any justice at all in the keystone state,Pgc will soon be nuetered.

"More decisions from a bunch of sidewalk sissies that dont even hunt,except a few of them that hunt on private managed land a couple hours a year"

IF that. But you hit the nail on the head. The extremists who covet trillim, hobblebush and wildflower over a billion dollar business and a hunting lifestyle are WAAAAY coo-coo! Riding in their lil' hybrid vehicle, dressed in tweed, know zero about the real natural world other than deer eat wildflowers. Then think they can totally shove us out the door, because they now know more than anyone in the country, because they spent a few years in school smoking pot and reading books about trees. Really quite sickening to the stomach that an agency started by HUNTERS, and paid for by HUNTERS for a century hasallowed these types within their ranks andsold us down the river..