Because there's simply no way to tell what an actual dd is.On top of that,the dd changes every month of the year as the food sources change.

I was heavily involved with PSU trying to determine a dd for TL.It's flat out impossible.We tried physically counting the deer by doing massive deer drives in the spring with around 100 people.we came up 18 dpsm which isn't even close.We've been doing annual pellet count surveys on the same 8 mile transects for several years.Once again,the habitat changes and deer spend more time in different areas during different times of the year.I have no faith in pellet counts.They may show trends but there's too mnay variables to skew the results.For example,I've had flocks of turkeys work through the areas I surveyed just prior to the survey and that messed everything up.Also,mid winter thaws will break down the pllets as well.The only thing I have faith in is the browse impact surveys we do.They simply don't lie.If you're not getting any preferred regen and the deer are hammering the non-preferred indicator species,you have too many deer,regardless of what that number is.

You can go out during the winter and look for tracks but that doesn't tell the whole story either.Deer decrease the size of the habitat they use during the winter.Where you find them this time of year,isn't where you'll necessarily find them during the fall.

We can hit both of them.I'll bet you'll be shocked at both the amount of deer and habitat work on these game lands.I don't know what to expect as far as grouse number go.I haven't been on either one of them since pre-season of spring gobbler season on than taril riding my horses a couple times.There's always grouse though.

That was then. This is now. We've seen the negative impact that longer doe seasons have had on our deer herd. Lesson learned.

My idea is presented with the notion that the PGC would be working with us to fix the current problem. Afterall, the thread title is "How do we get the changes needed in Pa?". In order to get these changes, whether it be through pressure put on the PGC through our lwamakers, or a willingness from the PGC to work with hunters, there has to be a plan. Issuing 100K doe tags wouldn't be an option if the PGC would work towards fixing the problem, so it's a moot point. Remember, my plan allowed doe tag allocations to remain the same.:s4:

Watch and see what happens regarding this law in the next 3-6 months.:poke:

....Groan...Why does my head suddenly hurt?

:biggrin:

..........:s7:

I didn't get to read the other posts but I figured I'd add my two cents.

The main problem in PA is deer herds need to be managed on a much smaller scale. In my area in SE PA there are well over 100 deer per square mile. Conversely, there are areas in the mountains with low deer densities, although I am not nearly as familiar with them. The key is raising the biological carrying capacity of public land. Whether it's food plots, TSI, or soft mast trees we need to improve the habitat so that it can support more deer WITHOUT incurring devastating over browsing. Local branches of QDMA do adopt-a-food plot programs, I reccomend getting involved with a local branch (pm me for info). Hopefully an increased bear harvest will result in higher fawn recruitment. I believe the effect of bears and coyotes is understated.

Bottom line is it's a sticky situation. We need to maintain moderately low deer densities for 1-2 decades to reverse the damage done to our forests in the 20th century. It's not enough to shoot a lot of doe and then allow the herd to return to its high levels 5 years later. If we do, we'll be even further behind than we were prior to 2000.

I can't say that I have the answers. The main thing I feel strongly about is managing deer on a smaller scale....but I have no idea how to implement it.

That is a very common misconception of the facts. Maintaining low DD for 1-2 decades will not improve the carrying capacity of our forests. The fact is that with a 1% harvest rate the percentage of pole timber will increase while the percentage of saw timber will decrease and as a result the carrying capacity of forest habitat will decrease instead of increasing,

Many areas were reduced far below the levels necessary. Many areas didnt need to be reduced but were anyway, and im not talking on the micro level, im many wmus, and pretty much wmu wide where far lower than necessary densities are the norm and good numbers are found only in pockets and are the exception. If landowners want those "pockets" lowered, they have many tools available to make it happen.

Allocations in many if not most wmus need dropped significantly, in many instances the harvests of last 4 or5 years have caused continual decline in many wmus herd,according to annual report data. and thats not in line with supposed goal of stabilization.

I also see no big problems with going to smaller wmus. All that has to be done is for pgc to make the commitment to do it. But they are not willing, because its not conducive to keeping across the board low deer densities.

If its true that your area has as many deer as you say, then it should be dmapped or whatever else. And if its not being reduced with the bazillion tags as is and cannot be reduced due to extreme access issues etc, Its no excuse to hold the rest of the state at ridiculous unwarranted numbers imho.