On another board, it where several folks have checked PALS all week, it seems like a pattern may be emerging where some CT's are inputting promptly while others arent. Since they are sitting on apps with a first second and third choice and they will eventually get paid for doing the app, (whether its a first choice or not) some may be taking a "no big hurry" attitude.

Thats fine as long as there are still tags but after the NR opens up and the second round starts, it may be very critical where you send em.

Kinda looks like it's REALLY time to get it out of the CT's hands

Funny as last year things was done by hand and the numbers got put up faster than computer this year. Could there be a glitch in the PGC system that is only counting one tag for every 3 sent in? It's a computer and there are errors and glitches in them along with reprogramming them. I think to help keep honest they should list all the names of people who drew tags on their website. It would be easy to do with computer transfer data.Keep them honest, cause we know they are hurting for money.Nothing about the PGC employees,but I don't trust the higher ranks if you know what I mean .

Why would they send them to counties instead of WMUs this year?

There are several differences between this year and past years that account for the antler less licenses appearing to not be moving as fast.

First and probably foremost is the method in which the applications are counted and the license considered as having been sold has changed this year. In past years the license was considered sold as soon as the applications were counted by the PGC and forwarded to the County Treasurers. Once the Treasurer’s received the applications they knew they had the license on hand to issue one to every application so there was no real rush though they had to open the envelopes, physically issue a license, place it the envelope and seal the envelope before getting it ready to mail. Any applications that were incorrect were simply a voided license. This year it is different in that all of the mail has gone to the County Treasurers and no one knows how many applications are still sitting in mail trays in the various County Treasurer’s Offices waiting to be processed or counted as a sold license.

Simply put, this year they aren’t counted as sold until they are processed by a County Treasurer while in past years they were counted as sold before the County Treasurer’s ever saw them.
Another factor that probably comes into the equation is that I am sure some hunters haven’t even figured out yet that they should have sent their applications in this early. They will probably figure that out in another few weeks when the normal time to apply from previous years rolls around.

Then there is the factor that in the past there was no good way to prevent people on revocation from buying a license or to prevent people from illegally sending to multiple counties for antler less license on each round, especially the first round of unsold. Many people were doing both of those things and getting away with it for a long time. Each year we caught a few doing that but we always knew we were hardly even scratching the surface of the volume of violators getting illegal licenses. This new license system simply will not allow that to happen unless they take other illegal steps to do it and it is going to be much easier to both catch them at it and prove they did it with illegal intent. Those factors are likely to reduce regular license sales this year but also make more antler less license available for legal hunters and for a longer time period.

I think everyone is going to find out that antler less license sales and issuance are very much on schedule for the year. In fact, I think everyone will likely get their license earlier this year then ever in the past.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Since BTB couldn't answer the question and you claim to know all there is to know about deer management, would you please explain how the PGC knows how many antlerless deer need to be harvested in 2G ,or any other WMU, when they claim they don't know how many deer we have and there are no DD goals? Thanks.

That has been answered for you before.

By listening the deer and their food supply all you need to know is if you need to harvest more, if the habitat will sustain the present number or if it could support more deer.

Therefore there is no reason to express deer populations in numbers of deer, all you need to know is what percentage more you need to harvest or what percentage more they can increase before they adversely affect their food supply. Both of those harvest changes can be affected by adjusting the past antler less allocations to obtain that desired harvest objective even if you don’t have a population number.

Perhaps Charlie B. will explain it to you once that and how meaningless the nonsense data you provide him really is. I guess in the final decision we will just have to wait until the court makes it’s ruling to find out if estimated deer population numbers are as important as you want people to believe they are.

In any event I have no intentions of playing your silly game until the court makes a ruling. You have already proven that you aren’t an honorable person and certainly can’t be trusted not to misrepresent the data I post to the USP leaders who then misrepresent it even further to the court.

R.S. Bodenhorn

That is just plain nonsense and shows you don;t know anymore than BTB. The deer showed beyond a doubt that the habitat could support 1.6M PS deer , but the PGC reduced the herd to less than 1M PS deer and as a result herd health decreased instead of increasing

just like BTB you don't have a clue how the PGC determines the number of antlerless deer that need to be harvested in each WMU and neither does the PGC.

Forest health in 2g and 2F is still rated as poor ,so why didn't the PGC increase the allocations in both WMUs?

Yep back when that estimate was provided the habitat was supporting more deer, but only because we had been experiencing a run of good mast crop years being combined with mild winters. That allowed the deer herds to increase beyond what the habitat could sustain long term.

That was evidenced by the fact that the deer herd crashed two years after the increased harvests instead of with the beginning of the increased harvests.

As for units 2F and 2G apparently there is no need to increase the antler less allocations or harvests to get habitat improvement since the deer herd crashed from natural causes following those harsh winters.

From 2007 to 2008 the percent of plots in unit 2F with adequate regeneration increased by over 41% (24% in 2007 to 34% in 2008) and stayed stable at 42% of the plots with adequate regeneration in unit 2G. Therefore, there is not reason to believe the habitat will not continue to recover without increasing the allocations. It is also obvious, from last year’s harvests, that the hunters in those two units can harvest more deer as the deer population increases even while maintaining the current antler less allocations so there is currently no need to increase the allocations to keep up with the herd growth and continue improving the habitat at the same time.

R.S. Bodenhorn

What proof is there of the herd crash? Did the herd crash last year because less does was taken then the previous years? Each year the herd continues to decrease from the deer harvest reports. It would of been way worse last year if we didn't have the bad weather on the first couple days of the year before. Very confus here.

Here is the link to the 2009 Deer Chronicle which proves you are just making things up as you go along..
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...rchronicle.pdf


You have just proved to everyone that you have no clue how to analyze data. If regeneration increased from 24% to 34% in 2F, that is a 10% increase in regeneration , not 41% as you claimed. But the data really shows that regeneration increased from 34% in 2007 to 39% in 2008 which is a 5% increase, not 41%.

But in 2G regeneration decrease from 42% in 2007 to 38% in 2008. So why didn't the PGC increase the allocation in both 2F and 2 G in order to improve forest regeneration to the goal of 70% regeneration? Furthermore,the doe in 2F only produced 1.39 embryos/doe while in 2G it was 1.68,so why didn't the PGC increased the allocation in 2F , if reducing the herd improves productivity and herd health?

BTW, you still didn't answer the question about how the PGC determines the number of doe that need to be harvested when they claim they don't have any DD goals and don't know how many deer we have in each WMU??

Yes, but the PGC does admit that they have population estimates, BTB. They just choose not to release them for fear of either that the public just won't believe their estimates...or they would be outraged with the admission of the extent of HR. I find both scenarios believable. If they have the population estimates, than why can they say that they have to base allocations on trends alone?