Actually, rsb couldnt have been farther off. These guys bring up some good points, but it has nothing to do with what rsb said. Rsb said HABITAT and herd health was controlling the numbers in 2G (and for that matter anywhere else where reduction has occurred). Pgc data shows thats not the case. The lowest deer pop. areas such as 2g had good herd health ratings (reproductive data), in fact one of the highest in the state. Now one could argue the sample sizes arent big enough and inaccurate as I contend, but even if thats the case, there is no evidence to suggest habitat is controlling the herd. Predators, other forms of natural mortality and hunting are another thing...

If a herd gets low enough through too many tags or whatever else there comes a point when predators etc. can keep the herd in check alone with minimal harvest. Few deer to start with = little recruitment. Harvest + coyotes+ whatever else kills more than recruitment and the herd is not gonna grow.

I also agree with you liv, and Germain about tag reduction alone might not immediately restore the herd of the north. But it would help some. Maybe not as fast or extreme as we'd like to see. But there IS a reason why they keep it where its at and not lower it. Thats because they DO NOT want herd growth currently. Pgc believes allocation reduction WOULD increase the herd and would effect the habitat further. I dont know about the habitat, but i know if predators are killing 100 deer in an area, its not gonna help things to shoot 200 there as well, as compared to only shooting 100. 300 dead deer would breed less than 200 dead deer from a same sized herd.

.

One aspect that I can't understand is that the herd is down, but the predators are growing. How can a decimated herd support a growing number of predators? One more point to ponder. There must be a ton of mice out there to supplement the diet of all these predators, because the deer can't be pulling it off if the numbers are as bad as some here claim. I know the recent logging has really helped the bears. I see so much bear sign anymore it is crazy. I never thought I would see bear presence like that.

Another question worthy of pondering. Are the predator numbers any higher now than they were 10 years ago or so where the deer numbers are currently lowest? Its been awhile but I believe Id heard pgc say that we had stabilized coyote number and they were no longer growing in pop. Hunting trapping incidental kills during deer turkey and small game + natural mortality various diseases, especially mange which is very prevalent in Pa keeps the numbers well in check overall. That might not be the case in localized areas of course all the time, as with everything, every square mile of the state isnt equal.

I think predation can effect deer numbers especially where they are rock bottom. I dont think it takes more predators than we had 10 or in some areas even 20 years ago to do it. I think the deer situation is just making everyone take a much closer look.

liv I didn't say reducing the tags wouldn't help.Explain what I said that has no logic.

BT,Doug also says the habitat is keeping the numbers down but I disagree.
In the 80,s that poor habitat pole timber in some cases supported alot more deer then we have today.Now before anybody gets excited I'm not saying that should be the case or those deer were healthy back then.
Beats me what the buggers ate but somehow they survived and continued the higher numbers.Again I do agree we needed some reductions.
Anyway back to my point,while Doug says habitat is keeping the numbers down from what I have witnessed and seen the populations were brought down through HR and now where those numbers dropped very low the coyotes are now keeping them in check.And in certain areas bears.It stands to reason the less deer you have the more impact coyotes will have on the lower numbers.
Before anybody misinterprets my post I am not asking for more deer in a pole timber woods then there should be.That's not my point.

First, I guess part of the difference is interperetation. When I say the habitat may be controlling the numbers more than hunting, I'm including predation. I cant say for certain whether we have more or the same amount of predators. This is one of those rare times where I kind of agree with corn. Are we just more acutely aware of the predators now or are their numbers up? Bears are up considerably IMHO but coyotes?.... I dunno.

You are also correct when you say that pole timber did have more deer in past years but what quality? I remember hunting 2G near East Branch Dam on the game lands and seeing 30-40 deer a day in archery but they were all knee high and many of the spikes werent even the 3" legal length. I dont know what all they ate but there was zero visible vegetation below the browse line.

I think 90% of all our issues could be solved by smaller WMU's each being managed seperately by the habitat and herd. Counties arent the solution either. Counties are man made units that dont consider habiata differences at all. Besides, roads and streams make much better boundaries. The PGC is against smaller WMU's but I suspect funds are the big problem. Managing by smaller WMU's is going to take a lot more work by people that aint gonna come cheap. How can we blame the PGC for avoiding a management plan that will be way more expensive when they have to jump through hoops and beg for an extra 5-10 bucks every ten years or so? And I'm not just talking about the current fee increase controversy. When was the last time a license increase ever happened without a long fight?

"I think 90% of all our issues could be solved by smaller WMU's each being managed seperately by the habitat and herd. Counties arent the solution either. Counties are man made units that dont consider habiata differences at all. Besides, roads and streams make much better boundaries."

I agree completely. Id also offer that all one need do is look a a road map of each wmu, and its easy to see there are nearly endless variations on how things could be divided up. Throw in streams rivers etc. as well, and you have even more options.

"The PGC is against smaller WMU's but I suspect funds are the big problem."

Theyve mentioned "other" reasons. With money, those "other" reasons arent gonna magically go away. Pgc know they will need money sooner or later. They also know that SPeaking of the near future possibility of things hunters would like to see, like smaller wmus would have been to their advantage IF it would even be considered that is. But they say exactly the opposite.

"Managing by smaller WMU's is going to take a lot more work by people that aint gonna come cheap. How can we blame the PGC for avoiding a management plan that will be way more expensive when they have to jump through hoops and beg for an extra 5-10 bucks every ten years or so?"

They arent mismanaging because we wont give them money. We wont give them money because we believe they are mismanaging. BIG difference. There is NO indication pgc is gonna make any change with fee increase. In fact they continue to say the exact opposite. We have been given nor promised any reasonable herd increase via allocation cuts that would make any diff, we've been offered NO smaller wmus, we've been offered NOTHING but their support for birth control testing and speaking far less than "friendly" about us at every opportunity. Including currently being called a "headache" and basically referred to as unreasonable problem "special interest" on their website.

And you want to throw money at them? Not being a wise arse, but they DO have a donation taking link. You want to, use it, go for it. I wouldnt blame you one bit for sticking up for what you believe in, thats an option you have. But there is absolutely no reason why everyone esle should be forced to do so with current ongoing situation and unacceptably low hunter satisfaction. Pgc gets as much funding overall as any state in the nation that im aware of and there is no reason why they should be crying poor mouth and to top it off, managing so horrendously. Btw it would NOT take "tons" more staff to go with smaller wmus. A bit more work overall, but nothing significant. Theyd still have the same job to do, just going about it a bit differently. You are still speaking of the same size land mass etc. Other states do it with less funding than we have. Just a matter of deciding to do it.

You danced around my real point. This is not the first time a license increase was a tough battle.

Yes there are "other" reasons for their resisting smaller WMU's. It would be a huge undertaking. Besides the obvious costs, it would be a law enforcement nightmare. We still have people who can't figure out which WMU they're in now when they're huge and well defined by major roads. Imagine if each big WMU was divided into, say, 5 smaller units. Think the beaaatching would stop? Nope.

As for the PGC endorsing deer contraception, sorry corn but you are 100% all wet on that one. The only mention of it I've seen is in the recent deer chronicle. First, the chronicle reports that EPA (The feds) have approved it. Reporting a fact is not an endorsement. The chronicle questions its' effectiveness, spells out it's limitations and then closes with this statement......

(Emphasis in red by me)

If thats an endorsement, I'd hate to see how they criticize something.

"You danced around my real point. This is not the first time a license increase was a tough battle."

I didnt dance around anything. I dont see where it matters. Its not a very good argue that we should all support a fee increase now that things are worse than theyve ever been hunter satisfaction-wise since often increases hadnt been immediately given in the past!

Those increase ALWAYS came well before it became absolutely critical that they recieve it. They start asking years in advance knowing its the norm to not recieve it instantly. Therefore they start before even needing it, planning for the future.


"Yes there are "other" reasons for their resisting smaller WMU's. It would be a huge undertaking. Besides the obvious costs, it would be a law enforcement nightmare."

I hadnt seen pgc mention that as their reason,and dont really think that would be a real problem. No moreso than currently imho. And the benefits would certainly outweigh any cons imho.

"We still have people who can't figure out which WMU they're in now when they're huge and well defined by major roads. Imagine if each big WMU was divided into, say, 5 smaller units. Think the beaaatching would stop? Nope."

Not simply for that reason, but it would lessen for two reasons. One being the better management that would result and two, many would see it as a great showing on pgcs part to make the move in the first place. I also dont see the confusion as being a good excuse, since it works elsewhere for many years. Also, we had a county system in place where there were often NO physical boudaries, yet that aspect of the system worked for many years.

"As for the PGC endorsing deer contraception, sorry corn but you are 100% all wet on that one. The only mention of it I've seen is in the recent deer chronicle."

Its also mentioned on the Shissler study that MOST states said they would NOT consider drawing up guidelines for usage. PGC HAS and is. The in itself says all there is needed to know.


" First, the chronicle reports that EPA (The feds) have approved it. Reporting a fact is not an endorsement."

They didnt stop at reporting the fact. The rest of the fact is that the epa is now gonna leave the decision on use or nonuse in the hands of each state individually. Even according to that boob shisslers study, much to his dismay, MOST states management personell stated they WOULD NOT consider setting guidelines giving permission for use/testing. Its in the Shissler revisited thread i posted previously... Most states know better than to support that extreme. Knowing how asnine it is and how it would strain management/hunter relations. On the other hand pgc HAS done exactly that. Saying their guidelines would be for usage of RIGOROUS REAL WORLD TESTING.
"If thats an endorsement, I'd hate to see how they criticize something."

Now you simply arent telling the truth btb. Youre not a moron. But you are irrational when it comes to defending pgc. Ive posted it SEVERAL times and SUPPORTING AND GRANTING PERMISSION FOR "RIGOROUS REAL WORLD TESTING" BY THOSE SEEKING TO USE IT is NOT critisizing, its SUPPORTING it. and other "hunter friendly" states HAVE critisized it. Some by not acknowledging requests to address the issue and other addressing the issue in strictly negative fashion saying they will NOT consider granting permits.

I'm thinking yotes increased BT.I know back maybe 10 years ago or so is when we started hearing and seeing them.More scat these a days.But again not scientific and only talking a few areas.
I do feel they have more of an impact on a low deer population.I guess that stands to reason.
Maybe the public lands need to be managed different from private lands since the public lands usually have more pressure.Give each SGL a certain amount of tags that can be used only on that SGL.Use guages such as deer numbers,habitat,hunting pressure,etc.
The problem with private land is some is still overpopulated because of access yet some is overharvested from hunting pressure.The areas overharvested could use some cutbacks also.Maybe instead of smaller WMU's specific tags could be used for specific areas.Just a thought

More specific tags sounds like a great idea. But how would we start? I could see seperating tags for public vs private land but cant help but wonder if it would become an administrative and law enforcement nightmare