PA doe tags Going Going..... soon to be gone!!!
07-20-2009, 07:25 AM
#101
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Irwin PA USA
Posts: 1,247
Like all areas if you want to see deer you need to hunt where they are, i have found that most folks hunting by my camp in 2F dont like to travel very far off the beaten path, however it may be also that i see older guys hunting up there. However being a college student i have only been able to make it up for the opener of rifle so havent applied for a doe tag up there. I go up for the experience of being at DEER CAMP with the elders in the family to share the time and hear the stories. Also, idk where exactly you all hunt there but i see deer every year. Granted it may only be 2 or 3 running down the mountain at 100 mph but i still see deer. i actually had a very nice 6 point (3 and 3) without brows about 17 inch wide come right in on me last yr however i forgot that it was only 3 on a side there and let him walk. Later that evening at camp i was kicking myself for not realizing my mistake earlier but oh well thats huntin.
07-20-2009, 09:25 AM
#102
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
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
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
herd is way down in cilnton county.my trail cams showed most at 1 feeder this winter was 6 and avg was 4.our feeder are placed over mile apart in best hunting areas for different feeds as you say.4 feeders we are removing because of no deer all winter.
my biggest complaint and i am not alone on this.now that herd is reduced why do we still issue DMAP TAGS.the areas they are issued like hyner/dry run are not overun with deer.then rt144 halls run is even worst than dry run/hyner.
also i feel that it still should be 1 DEER AND YOUR DONE.too kill 1 doe with regular tag then 2 more with DMAP tags is wrong.many hunters are not even seeing deer and get discourage.then they hear that DCNR boys got 3 ,4 doe each in past.oh, then some will say,SPROUL YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO HUNT,I FILL FREEZER.most of those fibbers dont tell whole truth.TRUTH IS THEY HUNT ON PRIVATELAND,thats a fact.........
out of about 9 crews that drove area i hunt,in each crew there was avg of 9 hunters.out of those 81 hunters i would say that only 20 filled their tags and that may be high number,i raised it higher than i think it is.this covered say about 25 mile area if you made circle.these crews mostly hunt for about 2 weeks,others with dmaps hunt from archery to end of muzzleloader.they have to fill tags,its sickness.
well i went off again but i feel it should be 1 DEER AND YOUR DONE and i feel no way deer will comeback if this is done but might save one for those 61 or so that did not see or get doe.way it is now you would think we are overun with doe.
Last edited by sproulman; 07-20-2009 at 06:15 PM.
07-20-2009, 03:10 PM
#104
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 92
I will be pretty POed if my county is screwing the pouch and nothing gets done till after the second round has been sent in. RSB,Call the clearfield county for me and see what they are doing to that dog. Clearfield county is one of the worst kangaroo laziest corrupted bunch of officials in the state of PA.
07-20-2009, 03:31 PM
#105
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
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??
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??
But here are the links for the 2006 and 2007 annual reports where they show the habitat evaluation data for the previous years and then the chronicles that show the habitat data from 2008 and used for determining the 2009 antler less allocations.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2006_wildlife/21001-05.pdf
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2008_wildlife/21001-07z.pdf
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/20090616_deerchronicle.pdf
Those clearly show that the habitat is unit 2F is improving (24%, 34%, to 39%) and that unit 2G is still basically holding its own (42%, 42% to 38%) though it is true that there probably should be more deer harvested in the unit to reduce the probability of further habitat damage.
But, thanks for posting the data that clearly shows everyone that your argument doesn’t hold water and proving to anyone objective enough to accept scientific facts that the forested areas of the state still need more years of recovery before the deer populations should or perhaps even could be increased. To allow deer populations to increase while the habitat is still poor would be irresponsible and likely lead to even further habitat damage and increased natural deer population decline for the future.
Every piece of evidence available clearly shows that the big woods forested areas of this state have as many deer as their degraded and sometimes poor habitat can support for the long term future.
How you can post those reports and then ignore the facts they show proves just how delusional or misguided and agenda motivated you really are. You seem to be totally and seriously out of touch with the realities of your natural surroundings.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-20-2009, 03:38 PM
#106
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
I know some of them are way behind and they probably wanted to use those couple days when the office was closed to try to get caught up without interruptions.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-20-2009, 04:28 PM
#108
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Those clearly show that the habitat is unit 2F is improving (24%, 34%, to 39%) and that unit 2G is still basically holding its own (42%, 42% to 38%) though it is true that there probably should be more deer harvested in the unit to reduce the probability of further habitat damag