bluebird2

Hopefully you and Doug are the only ones that believe the herd in 2G decreased because hunters failed to harvest enough deer.Here is what really happens when harvests exceed recruitment and reduce the OWDD..

Harvest Data For 2G


Year antlered harvest antlerless harvest harvest PSM antlerless allocation

2003 10,110 20,370 7.4 52,000 2.55 tags/deer
2004 6,400 13,100 4.7 52,000 3.95 tags/deer
2005 5,000 6,200 2.7 29,000 4.70 tags/deer
2006 7,200 4,600 2.8 19,000 4.10 tags/deer
2007 5,100 6,600 2.8 25,000
2008 6,800 6,500 3.2 25,000

So when hunters harvested more deer as you suggested they should ,they reduced the harvest rate by by 57% even though there should have been twice as much food available /deer since there was roughly half as many deer in 2008 as there were in 2003.

Now your list of false claims and predictions has increased to 0 for 13. Keep digging.

bluebird2

Well, I think that qualifies as #14 on your long list of failed claims and theories. After the herd crashed in the northern tier in 1978 we harvested around 116 K buck in 1979 . From 1979 to 2000 the buck harvests increased ,with small fluctuations until we harvested 203K in 2000 and 2001, which is a clear indication the populations were increasing not decreasing. Then in just seven years the buck harvest dropped to 109K in 2007 as a result of successive years when the harvests exceeded recruitment.

rritchey sr.

I can only speak for state game lands in my area and they have been grossly overhunted and the deer population is next to nothing. I hunt and scout the game lands for other wildlife and I can say without a doubt that the deer population has been decimated in the three major gamelands in my area. I have hunted for weeks in turkey and bear season and seen only a very few deer (less than 12) and having spoken to other hunters in these game lands they too have reported that they did not see but a few deer if any at all. I now travel an hour to hour and a half from my home to hunt deer on state park ground/sgl. In some areas I understand that the deer population is healthy and in good numbers, but in other wmus they have been managed poorly in my opinion.

ManySpurs

Did he just say that we have a herd that has been in decline for 20 years? Is this the same herd that allowed us to set record buck harvests in 2002? And record doe harvests?

Maybe I outta lay off the Parrot Bay and stay outta the sun for the rest of the day.[]

Cornelius08

"Since deer are managed by unit data instead of statewide data it really doesn’t mater what the statewide data might be."

But when the statewide data declines that means wmus are declining. Also remember this is a STATEWIDE management plan with goals of herd health and habitat...etc. blah blah blah. lol. When that plan is failing pretty much statewide, we do not need to really point to micro-areas to nitpick. lmao. When you go to wide-scale blanket statewide reduction and extremes as we have, yet end up with NET LOSSES in overall herd health repro. measures... and some still cling with a death grip to the desire to continue the failed plan.something is wrong with this picture. lmao.

What it tells us, is what most of us already knew. The eco-nitwits and timber guys couldnt give a rats arse less about herd health, only every single cents worth of timber and extreme ridiculous amounts of biodiversity at any cost.

"The more uneducated hunters and politicians interfere though the longer it will take and the less likely we are to ever having the best deer management possible. "

I agree completely. That is why the few supposed "hunter" organization yes men should leave well enough alone and politicians like that idiot econut Levdansky and equally malcontent Sen. Mcilhinny and others need to quit trying to bend over the sportsmen of Pa by pushing for alternate funding and pushing for anything that would further galvanize the econuts strangle hold on our management agency.

Frank in the Laurels

ONLY one thing wrong with PA's game lands.... the GAME COMMISSION !!!!!

bowtruck

In Bradford co we have three gamelands and a statepark The park i no groups drive the banana's off .
But the gamelands i dont know gonna start taking new dog on the one to walk around and see what i see
Kinda give the pup some pre training. I hope there some game on them.
The one has wild pigs and elk. There is a game farm close to it.

R.S.B.

What you just posted would be about the equivalent of starting to read a book at the middle of the last chapter and then deciding you know how the whole story got to that point of the ending.

I will start the deer harvest history for the counties that make up unit 2G from twenty five years ago and bring it up through to present by using the harvests per square mile of land mass for the counties and then my unit. By doing that all can see how far from reality your comments about what caused the deer numbers to decline in recent years really are.

Year…………….Deer harvests/sq. mile(counties in 2G)…………..2G deer harvests/sq. mile
1984.………………………..7.96
1985.………………………..8.36
1986.………………………..8.65
1987.………………………..9.14
1988.……………………….10.84
1989.……………………….10.23
1990.……………………….10.78
1991.………………………..9.12
1992.………………………..7.91
1993.………………………..8.85
1994.………………………..8.18
1995.………………………..9.14
1996.………………………..6.82
1997.………………………..8.12
1998.………………………..7.27
1999.………………………..7.52
2000.………………………..9.59
2001.………………………..9.03
2002.……………………….10.40
2003.………………………..8.11.………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦................7.41
2004.………………………..6.36.………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦................4.18
2005.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.72
2006.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.87
2007.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 2.84
2008.………………………..N/A………………………………............. 3.84

As anyone can see the deer harvests in unit 2G have not been abnormally high during any recent times, including the years just prior to the major crash in deer populations or deer harvests.

The deer harvests in unit 2G were not only increased but sustainable higher in the late eighties and early nineties but hunters and politicians threw a fit back then, just like they are now, and the allocations and harvests were reduced to answer that public and political demand. I know I was there to see it happening.

Then through the mid to late nineties we had lower deer harvests and an increasing deer population. We got away with that mistake as long as we did only because we were having a run of good mast crop years combined with very mild winters. Those ideal environmental conditions allowed the deer herd to exist in those higher then normal numbers but those increased populations also took more of a toll on their habitat also.

Then in the early 2000s there was a push to harvest more deer to reduce that over population to levels that were more consistent with the long term food supplies. Those increased harvests were not only increased but also sustainable right up until the hard winter of 2002/2003 hit. Notice how the deer harvest started to decline in the fall of 2003 after the first hard winter? Then see how the 2004 harvest declined even more after the second back to back hard winter when the deer had to spend a second year in the same wintering grounds they had so totally depleted of food the previous year? The 2005 harvest then was down even more because the deer that hunters should have been harvesting that year had died in the spring of 2003, 2004 and 2005 following those harsh winters their mothers had gone through when they were trying to nourish the unborn fawns. Hunters can’t harvest deer that died a day or two after being born.

The affects of those hard winters are still being felt since those fawns that didn’t survive those springs are the deer hunters would have been hunting for the past couple years.

The positive side of that is that the habitat has made some rather significant recovery and the stage is now set for the deer numbers to start increasing again. But, that does not mean we should harvest fewer deer to allow the deer herd to increase. The herd will increase with the improved habitat even without hunters harvesting fewer deer. The best thing is for hunters to still harvest as many deer as they legally can.

Now hopefully everyone can see how Bluebird missed the real story when he only provided the last chapter of the story in his post.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

The herd decline comment was in relation to the situation in unit 2G since that is where Bluebird was talking about. The statewide herd did set record harvests in 2002 but that was not the case for unit 2G.

Of the eight counties that make up the majority of un 2G Four of them had their highest hunter reported doe harvests between 1935 and 1939, one between 1940 and 1944, one between 1945 and 1949, one between 1965 and 1969 and one between 1990 and 1994. Collectively the highest reported doe harvest years for the counties that make up unit 2G occurred in the ten year between 1935 and 1945.

Of those same eight counties the highest reported buck harvests occurred between 1930 and 1969. Four of the counties had their highest reported buck harvests between 1965 and 1969, two between 1945 and 1949 and one each between 1930 - 1934 and 1985-1989.

Therefore, the opinion that the highest harvests occurred in recent years is incorrect. History clearly shows that unit 2G has had declining deer populations for a long, long time and that it hasn’t been hunters harvesting too many deer that has been causing the decline. It is hunters harvesting too few deer to protect that deer food that has caused the deer population decline.


R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

Thanks a lot for pointing out that the habitat in 2g , which the PGC claims has been over browsed since 1930, supported an average harvest of over 7 DPSM from 1984 to 2003, suddenly can't support harvest of over 2.72 DPSM in 2005. The carrying capacity of the habitat didn't decrease by over 50% in just 2 years ,so it is obvious that the herd and the harvests were reduced by harvests that exceeded recruitment.