stop complainin...start hunting
 

i wish hunters would stop complaining about lack of deer. hunters are becoming very lazy anymore if they dont see anything by 10:00 am they are out of the woods. where i hunt in 4e on public gamelands i have been very successful in the past ten years or more because i stay out rain or shine all day and i go more than 50 yards from the road. its simple solution stop being so lazy and actually HUNT..

Last year we had around 926,000 hunters who harvested 355,000 deer so over 591,000 hunters didn't harvest a deer. So, would you please tell me how many more deer those 591K hunters could harvest without reducing future harvests even more? What would happen if half of those 591K hunters ,hunted harder and harvested an additional 300K deer?

hey! its super hunter! sur glad yur hear. I sure culd use yur help. got skunked last season. :( had the pirfec spot to. drove halfway cross rt 80, saw a deer crossin sign and put up my stand. bout 50yrds away laid 2 dead doe that were hit by car so I no theres deer in the area right? sur was hard hangin my climber on that crossin sign, it bein so small and all. the DOT suld yous 2posts insted of one, everytime a trucker went by the breez wuld hit that sign and shake the dickins outta me. I parked on other side of 80, and before I crossed the road I wiped my boots on a dead coon that was lyin there so the deer culdnt smell my tracks. mussint of worked cuz I dint see a thing. ima be glad iffin i cin get sum tips from guy like you. thnaks

I stand hunt until 11:00, still hunt from 11-12, eat, then still hunt from 1:00 to 2:30-3:00 depending on what I see and the conditions and then pop a squat wherever I am until dark. It has worked well for me.

I notice the most movement at my PA hunting spot from 10:30-11:30 so I usually don't leave my stand until 12:30 or 1:00 when I hunt PA.

pahunter is a prime example of someone who settles for mediocrity for what ever it is in his life. He's fine with just having the average 40 hour a week job, the average house, goes on the average vacation every year to Ocean City MD. etc., etc., etc., and could care less about trying to make things he cares about and his life better.
pahunter, please tell me why the hunters of PA. (the hunters with the richest hunting tradition in North America) should just settle for sub par hunting with out any scientific reason and have zero say about the future of hunting in PA. Mean while hunters in bordering states have better hunting and alot more say.
If you just want be a mediocre sheep that is fine but dont put others down for caring about the future of our sport and tradition!! Pike

Some so called hunters just can't accept the fact that the era of easy killing is over. I for one never considered a deer as an entitlement therefore I don't get to bent out of shape if I don't fill my tags every year. I am by no means a great hunter, but when I go in the woods,with a little effort I end up running in to some deer.

While I side with you o this issue bluebird. I have to ask.
How many of those licenses were sold to people who had no intention of hunting?
How many were sold to couples, where only one of them hunts?
Is that all individuals or hunters who buy multiple tags?

Yep like the thread starter said stop complaining.
O'bama and the liberal left are jamming leftist policies down our throats but don't complain just be happy right?
Whatever you do don't complain.

Just when was the era of easy killing? Was there ever a time when 50% of the hunters harvested a buck in PA? Would you care to tell us what percentage of PA hunters harvested deer in 2001 when we had 1.6M PS deer?

this really bugs me when you say if everyone does it like you they will see deer. well not everyone is like you and not evry piece of property has the deer populations as others. and just how succesful have you been? i have had a succesful eight years since i started hunt but i've shot 5 doe no buck and have seen no more than 6 deer in one day of hunting. i hunt in the big woods of pa in 3b most of the time on any day i will cover between 5 and 10 miles in the woods walking. in the past few years the sign i have seen really dropped off since i started hunting. this year i bowhunted evry chance i got averaged maybe 3-4 hours every day of archery and the first week of rifle every day around 6 hours a day. in that time i seen maybe between 5-10 deer. you might think this will work for everyone but it won't because in some areas the deer are just alittle more concentrated in them areas. try hunting on state forest where there is maybe 12-15 deer per square mile and hundreds of thousans of square miles in wood area compared to a couple hundred thoosand acres on game lands.

I would say probably about the same amount were sold to people that had no intention of hunting and couples etc. prior to herd reduction as after herd reduction so I dont understand your point?? Pike

Typical troll tactic, to make an asinine, ignorant comment, then run and hide when the angry mob descends. Prolly some punk a$$ kid who has always hunted Daddy's money stand on his private lease. Or he had a little luck the last two years he was old enough to hunt..bagged a spike and a forkie 'cause he's still a jr. license....Hey, those are some pretty baseless accusations to make about the fella, being as I don't know him from Adam....So I retract those statements...and propose that it's best to do some homework, before I start stereotyping and profiling individuals and groups of people. Eh, Jr.?

Definitly made me laugh lol !!!!!!!!!!

Good point Steel!

Taint fair for either side to generalize but unfortunately it is human nature

I firmly believe that there are some out there that were spoiled by deer numbers that were far too high and some of these guys never really had to hunt. Those guys are easy to find after 9 AM on opening day of gun season. They're sitting in the car, the bar or the camp and yes, they are pretty loud when they complain about no deer.

That being said, I also believe that stereotype only belongs to a very few here. The type above does make up the majority of complainers I've seen in person in traditional deer country. Again, there's only a very few like that here.

It's also a fact that the guys still having good success aren't all sitting on a food plot on some paid private land honey hole although that'd probably be the most noticable group among the successful that frustrated folks would notice and remember when out and about during the seasons especially at the restaurants, bars and sporting stores.

So lets take the extremes on both ends out of the arguement.

Obviously there are folks going out and finding plenty of deer in darn good numbers in places we all could go to. Doug does well, Livbucks does well on public ground in 2F and so does our gang. Many more here have posted similar results. I'd bet though, that every one of those here who is having success where hunting is open to all have had to make changes. Sometimes it means hunting harder, maybe it means hunting smarter, maybe it means changing locations, maybe it means new strategies. All of those are likely to involve stepping outside of a comfort zone.
Some would say, "why should I have to?" To that I would say, it depends on how important seeing more deer is to you personally. My first boss had a very appropriate saying that I think applies here. The key to success is usually a matter of doing what unsuccessful people cant or wont do. That doesnt necessarily mean the successful people were eager to do those extra things themselves.

Topics like this always fascinate me. Overall numbers of deer, quality of the herd, and statewide and local conditions are all pretty dynamic through time. For example, in Illinois I have spoken with younger deer hunters who have no clue that there were virtually no deer in Illinois until restocking in the 1950s and that hunting them was very challenging until the 1980s. Of course, now deer numbers are at an alltime high to the point of becoming nuisance level in some areas, and it is not much of a challenge to get a doe or even a decent to outstanding buck. So, what constitutes good deer hunting conditions can vary widely. This can even vary across regions in a state, where for example, there were traditional hotspots that are no longer nearly as productive as well as new hotspots in areas where folks traditionally had low success. For younger folks and/or those who are more than a bit spoiled by 20 years of huge deer numbers, any reduction or drop off is going to be pretty disturbing. But for the people who came up 30 or 40 years ago, things would have to be very, very bad before we see deer hunting as ruined. Times change and so do wildlife populations and particular circumstances (that involve hunters and non-hunters alike) for encouraging their increase or reduction. Sometimes you can do something about it, and other times it is best to just adjust to new realities and enjoy your time in the woods instead of getting bitter.

Always good to hear from your voice of reason JP.

If you take out the extremes you are left with the average middle aged hunter who hunts for recreation and doesn't want to turn it into another job. They hunt their favorite area which always had reasonable numbers of deer until the latest round of extreme HR. Those areas have the carrying capacity to support many more deer and the only reason there are less deer there is because the PGC issued enough tags to result in an over kill which is exactly what Alt wanted.

Furthermore , we could not all go to the areas with good numbers of deer and harvest the number of deer Doug harvests. If we did the herd in those areas would be decimated and the result would be much lower harvests in the future. You think you are providing a simple solution to the problems created by HR but in reality you not providing a rational solution since there is none for the average hunter.

That sounds like a fine solution for dcnr & enviromentalists. They are the ones who'd like to see even fewer deer.

Take the deer herd lower by decimating the few remained areas of good numbers, then they could claim those areas too, had decreased not because of us, but were a victim of the habitat. lol.

Well spoken. I guess it's easy to assume that folks who complain about low deer numbers, are trying to kill more deer than are being killed currently. Hair-brained and false assumption. I for one, hope that next year brings a continued decline in harvest, and that a few more guys give up early, and don't see the need to fill all their bonus or DMAP tags. If we all took off two weeks for gun season, hunted our butts off with big gangs of guys, and located and hunted the pockets of remaining deer, we'd have just made a bad situation even worse. And the following year would be the worst yet. In fact..I'm comitted to reducing the harvest in my areas by deciding beforehand that the doe get a free pass for next year in 4D and even 5B. I'll buy the tags...and by so doing, save a couple deer. A shortsighted hunter would hunt harder to fill all his tags next year. A far-sighted hunter will excercise restraint when necessary, knowing that it will improve his hunting in the future. No different than passing on a small buck. I'm disappointed in the deer management, and the deer numbers overall......not the reflective harvest. Personally glad that this years' was down again.

Alot of it also has to do with what one's perception of good hunting really is.I've lived and hunted through times when we didn't see tons of deer and I've hunted through many years in certain areas where killing a deer was easy and practically expected every time I went.I used to go back and Hunt Wyoming county every year a time or two each season.I never did any preseason scouting,just pretty much hunted the same areas the way I always had in the past.Never one time throughout the nineties did I ever make the trip back home and not come back without a deer.It was easy.When I FIRST MOVED TO cLEARFIELD COUNTY IN 1991,I got permission to hunt a farm down the road.The farmer told me if you just find a spot and sit anywhere the first day of doe season,you'll get one.He wasn't kidding either.It was that easy.I hunt strictly weekends,other than one or two afternoons a season and the firsy day of deer season.I haven't taken more than one vacation day to hunt deer in about 15 years.I don't see dozens of deer each day.Some days I don't see any but most days,during rifle season,I get at least an opportunity,if I decide to take it.I know there's deer wherever I'm hunting,otherwise I wouldn't hunt there.There was a time when it was cool to see der all day long in good numbers but that isn't important to me.I actually like the added challenge of hunting big woods deer that are not great in numbers.It's more satisfying to kill one now,but that's just my perspective.I can still go back home and have an easy hunt on private land in Wyoming county but it's actually anti-climatic so I rarely ever do.When I decide to,it's just to get an opportunity to spend some time with old friends and family.Today,I'd classify the hunting on public land in 2G is slightly better(number of deer seen)than it was when I started hunting in Wyoming county on private land in 1980.

I think the hunting is as good today as it every was as far as I'm concerned.There are less deer,no doubt about it.There's also no doubt about the average size of the bucks being better.I have thousands and thousands of acres of public land just a few minutes from my house.There is pressure in areas but it's easy to avoid and that includes turkey season as well.The opportunities today are incredible.I kill alot of deer every year but I rarely kill multiple deer on the same day.I killed my first deer of the year just after first light on the first day of archery season this year and killed my last as I was walking out of the woods on the last evening of flintlock season.Three months worth of deer hunting was unheard of in 1980.I live and hunt where supposedly the worst hunting is to be found in the state.Once again,to many it may be lousy but I love every minute of it.I simply can't see how it can be classified as poor.In the last three years,strictly rifle hunting on public land in 2G,I could have pulled the trigger at least once,every day I hunted.This past season,I didn't see one racked buck during rifle season.The year before,I could have killed a legal buck every time I went.

Jeff,in the past,I've seen you post that if someone is seeing more than a few deer a day,that's too many.How many deer a day do you think a guy should see?

Not sure where I fit in this discussion. I havent' missed a hunt in ... as long as I can remember (aside from EXTREME weather). From opening day to they tell me I can no longer be in the woods with a weapon I'm in the woods. A good chunk of it on all day sits. I bust my rump in the off season both scouting and aquiring new land.

That being said, the deer numbers here in NY are WAY down. Not from lack of adapting or effort on my part. Simply put, they aren't around like they used to be. I believe it has to do with the herd slaughtering tags the NYS DEC started handing out like popcorn a few years ago. So be it IMO. I like it hard.

We have become an instant gratification society and I think it carries over to hunting. Not singling out anyone here or really trying to stereotype. I just think there are a lot of hunters that want to go out on opening day and expect it to be handed to them. Whack their deer or two on opening weekend and call it a season. Just not the case anymore. I think it gets more aggrevating for a lot of people just because the way it is today with time constraints, priorities, money, etc.... Almost like they are pressured to get it done quicker and with less deer that will walk in front of them, it aint going to happen.

I'm in a different situation that allows me to spend the time that I need to be successfull (or to not be successfull). Either way, personally thats how I like it. May sound crazy, but I want it to be hard. I want it to be VERY hard. I want to have to work harder than the next guy to get it done. More rewarding for me. Seriously what fun would it be to hop in a stand on opening day and whack a 125" buck? Then what?

Anyway... just my .02.

I agree NY. That could be said of hunters or anyone anywhere in the country in regards to many things....And that only goes so far...

But when the situation is as extreme as it is and has been in Pa, its time to look past the excuse making and point the finger where it belongs. Straight at those who get 75-80 million a year to manage our game.

More cash than any other management agency Im aware of....With the absolute worst deer management Im aware of. Yes, we are talking extremes.

I agree with everything you stated.Again,it's all about perspective.I hunted all day on the last day of flintlock season.I started off trying to sit all morning but I couldn't sit more than 2 hours without turning numb.The snow was about 16 inches deep so walking was tough as well.I hunted the entire day without leaving the woods once.I also didn't see a single solitary deer.I saw tracks here and there and mnay of them were fresh.A the end of the day,I hiked back to a spot that I'd been meaning to hunt for the past few years.There were alot of tracks SO i SAT THERE FOR ALMOST TWO HOURS WITHOUT SEEING ANYTHING.About 5 minutes before shooting hours were over,I got up to call it a season.I hadn't made it 50 yards when two deer came running past me.I bleated at them to stop and made a nice 50 yard offhand shot with a flintlock.That was probably the best and most satisfying hunt I had all year despite only seeing 2 deer all day long.I didn't get that deer back to my truck until about 7:30 pm but it was worth it.

Dunno about instant gratification, but I don't know of any situations where the majority of deer hunters in any given situation didn't get upset when management strategies were introduced that resulted in decreased liklihood of bagging a deer, in particular nice bucks. Hunters in general are not too patient with short-term pain for long-term gain. That is especially true for deer hunters, many of whom never quite grasp the concept that modern deer management has many other responsibilities and goals beyond maintaining deer populations at levels that will make all of them happy.

When the goals of management become catering to audubon & like types seeking unnatural and excessive biodiversity and basically laying waste to our deer herd, which includes gross overharvest and other obtuse things like introduction of birth control....all for more "trillium" and "hobblebush"...and hunter dissent is higher than anywhere else in the nation... Its time to re-examine our management agency priorities.

Id hardly refer to it as "modern management". Especially considering it not going on anywhere other than here. Its extreme. And the appropriate term would be mismanagement.

Well, that's one perspective. But then again there are other folks who might view it as mismanagement if everything gets centered around seeking universal satisfaction ratings from a particulalry vocal group of disgruntled deer hunters whose vision for public lands differ from many.....:s4:

Bottom line is if it aint broke don't fix it.Well the system is broke and it needs fixin so people are going to complain.Changes are needed and if nobody does anything and just sits around playing with their jack in the box nothing is gonna change.It's unAmerican not to take action when things aren't right.

I agree BTB. We have had to adjust more to decreased hunting pressure than lower deer numbers. The deer must be hunted, as they are not being pushed because there are very few hunters in the woods. If we want a deer in 2F, we must go find them, because they simply lay all day from no hunting pressure. I know that some people base their entire strategy on pushed deer. Pushed by someone else, that is.

So please tell us how many more hunters in 2G could be successful,year after year, if they adopted your perspective ,hunted the way you do and killed 2 or 3 doe /hunter?

Which is exactly why responsible management requires balance. Balance that we are not getting currently.

I think theres a lot of evidence to support your idea of the effect of less hunting pressure in the gun season Greg.

We just spent the weekend traveling all over and around the ANF hunting fox, coyote and in between we harassed some crows. We covered a lot of miles in Forest, Elk and a bit of north Clarion County and every place we stepped off the road was loaded with deer or sign and plenty of it. Good habitat and bad all had good to excellent sign or deer.

Rifle season up that way isnt what it used to be if you talk about deer sightings but there's also been a consistent pattern in the off season as well as archery and early muzzy of us seeing deer in pretty good numbers. When we get out there and hunt the deer on their terms, we see plenty. When it comes around to gun season, it seems theres enough human activity to let the deer know somethings up but not enough for the deer pinball we used to see. The deer hole up tighter than ticks till the orange horde dwindles and then the hunting gets good again.

Sure theres less deer but that aint the whole story. At least not in and around the southwestern ANF.

The fact remains that the hunters in both 2F and 2G are harvesting all the deer that are available to be harvested on a sustainable basis. hunting harder, moving more and wearing rose colored glasses won't increase the sustainable harvest.

Sorry Corn, but we're a whole lot closer to "balance" now than we have been in a lot of years. You may not like the idea of less deer but frankly, science disagrees with you. It's not just Audubon as you'd like everyone to believe. Wildlife managers all over agree that we were way out of balance when deer numbers were higher. You are, quite frankly, being just as extreme as Shissler but on the opposite end of things. Neither does us, the deer herd, or the habiatat much good

And the fact remains that harvesting a deer is not a God given right. Accepting that fact is the first step. The second step is taking the time to improve ones chances within the situation as it is. Not all hunters can or will make the necessary adaptations. Only you can decide if you can or will adapt. It's not the PGC's job to farm deer for a maximim harvest. It's their job to manage them within the available habitat.

Once again you are wrong . Science does not disagree with Cornelius , since there is no data that shows that shows the deer are in better balance with the habitat.

That also is simply not true. For many years when we had much higher deer numbers that we have today, the PGC professionals stated that the herd in the majority of the state was in balance with the forested habitat.

With that statement you just admitted the PGC is mismanaging our herd since the deer have proven the habitat could support 1.6M deer at the MSY carrying capacity. If our herd was being managed based on science rather than personal preference of preferred stakeholders,we would still have 1.6 M PS deer.

Regenerating red oak for DCNR is also not a God given right.

No need to be "sorry". Thats your opinion and youre entitled to it. Mine opinion is that is completely false. We've gone to extremes. Thats based on what is consider normal pretty much across the board "elsewhere".


Actually it is. And there isnt one states biologists that have seen the incredible nature of our program and chosen to "mimic" it. And thats a fact.

Where?? Thats a pretty broad statement. Blanket, just like the failed deer plan. I on the other hand have stated many many times SOME reduction was needed in SOME areas. But it went to far in most. Which is more reasonable? My position, or pgc/audubons kill'em all for the sake of trillium & hobblebush everywhere in the state?

Not true. You may not like my vocal expression of the problems as i see them, but there is mothing at all extreme about my positions. There are far more "extreme" views than mine in regards to deer management. And they too are entitled to opinion. Some hate ar. Some want as many deer as we had or in some cases more, some dont care at all about habitat effected etc. etc. and sure i could add more..... I share none of those views, though they arent all necessarily "wrong" either.

As for my position, I think some areas needed some reduction others needed none. All got some, and most got too much. I also dont support extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity that dont exist anywhere other than behind a fence as "goals" either.

But its pretty clear you are on the extreme end of things where your views are concerned. And on the SAME side of things as shissler, not opposite. Ive seen very little that the two of you have disagreed upon. Heck you even pointed to his study supporting pgc management and acted as if it were gospel. What does that say about how far off center your views are??

Supporting link: http://huntingnet.com/forum/northeas...ow-supper.html

Its all about balance & middle of the road. And thats where Im at.

It's not disputable that at the 1.6 million level, the deer numbers took a toll on the habitat and other wildlife. Just as a farmer only interested in farming cattle exclusively could raise several hundred head on a suare mile, so could the land be managed exclusively for whitetail deer. We werent managing exclusively for deer but the deer numbers we had were not allowing anything resembling a balance. The overwhelming majority of deer ma
management professionals agree and they have no reason to be biased versus a handful of armchair biologists whose bias arises from the simple fact that they want to see more deer.

Wrong again. It is highly disputable that 1.6M deer took a toll on the habitat and other wildlife. As the deer herd increased so did the turkey and bear populations. There is no evidence that deer had a more negative effect on other wildlife then the fact that the majority of our forests were in the pole or saw timber stage.