Potterco

I've been preaching all along not to kill so many doe..heck even killing 1 doe out of a depressed local herd is too many...no problem with shooting doe where they're defenitely are too many like in parts of suburbia though, but what I see happening is hunters whom come to the area I live in..maybe to a buddies camp or to kin folk...and getting doe tags back in August for that visit...then they kill the first doe they see and drive back to the flatlands with "their deer"...they got theirs so there must not be a problem. In 3A they give out nearly 30,000 doe tags to hunters just like that in the smallest WMU in the state!
MEATMONGERS that's who is pulling the trigger not the PGC!!!!!!!!!

JW

Ask why someone issues all those kill tags?

Well it boils down to dollars needed to run the programs - not only from the sale of kill tags but also from the Pittman Robertson Act as any state that can prove the number of permits sold gets a kick back from the money collected from the PRA. any license, kill tag, application or wildlife stamp sold to you.

So you can whine all you want. Until someone can show your state how to find funding to replace sold kill tags - your problem will stay as is.

JW

moosemike

Can't be about money here. We've lost 300,000 hunters since the PGC started their aggressive deer management. It's about an agenda here.

bluebird2

The money from the gas royalties and rentals will more than make up for any lost revenue due to reduced antlerless allocations.

Cornelius08

Actually thats not quite the case or full story there JW.

There has been a request for a fee increase for the hunting license for several years now. It has hinged upon one thing...

Killing less deer. Legislators are preventing the fee increase on behalf of the complaining hunters of the state. This is well known and Pgc has been informed of this over and over at meetings with the legislators. If they were to make responsible changes, there'd would be no need for more antlerless tags.. The excess of which is only giving them maybe an additional mil or two anyway...

They would be recieving MUCH more by getting the fee increase than theyd lose by going to a reasonable allocation.

There have been no promises of change nor any responsible changes made, so giving them a fee increase at this time wouldnt solve our problems. It would simply compound them ten fold. It will set back the hope for any change by at least another decade and during that time the roots grow deeper and spread wider.

Cornelius08

Its not. Its about an agenda. Pgc & dcnr have made the decision to concentrate on extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity and of course looking out, for their timber interests. As for the biodiversity...PGc Dcnr & environmentalist groups have formed the "biodiversity partnership" and the plan is in motion. They dont care who likes it or who doesnt. Same with the attempts of dcnr to use the deer herd to compensate for poor timbering practices both past and present...

These things have a common goal... Less deer.

Cornelius08

If they keep the tags the same and seasons....It WONT be back. And pgc doesnt want it "back" anyway.

Deer herds dont "cycle" period, though they have "fluctuated". Not the same. The only reason herd sizes have fluctuted at all is due to overhunting, underhunting or total habitat change. Truly cyclic species like snowshoe hare & ruffed grouse dont have to have those factors to have wide swings in population. On the other hand, if the overall habitat on a wide scale doesnt change in a unit and the goal is to keep a herd stable with the right allocation it wouldnt be a problem.

The only "cycling" involved with our deer herd in the last several years was due to 800K to over a million doe tags + dmap + crop damage kills...Plus a bazillion other ways, seasons and days added to kill more deer, which pgc likes to call "added opportunities". Couple that with over 900,000 hunters and it gets even more ludicrous to blame "cycling".

Ummm, yeah, Id say its VERY important to responsible management.

Pro-Line

Cornelius...The word cycle, as I used it means the same as the word fluctuate, as you used it. The numbers go up and the numbers go down.

As far as the reason for cycling not mattering...I meant that even though it is man-made...the numbers are still going up and down. Even if it were CWD killing the deer, the numbers would still be "fluctuating."

I didn't mean to start an argument here...just been reading the PA posts for nearly 15 years and things are never good...the deer herd is always too big or too small. I'll stick to OH and WV.

wvhuntin4me

it has always been that way for as long as i known as well . I think it is the way the people are . guess thats why i had to move. They complain ,but yet they are the first one to buy an extra doe tag. as well as try to fill it. There is some kind of internal competion among Pa hunters. were they feel they have to be more successful then the other. i know this to be true cause i put up with it most my life, up till 5 years ago when i had enough.... i have watched hunter fist fight over a stand and a property to hunt. O ther hunters make fun of you and call stupid for passing up a young buck. I am sure others will say i am just spouting off, but if this wasnt true to an extent . why are there problems with there deer heards. Cause most pa hunters follow the pgc. like whipped dogs. If the pgc told hunters the moon was made out of blue cheese i think most would believe them. there agenda has always been to kill off deer in most area and restrict a few to the mountain areas......

Cornelius08

Hmmm. Hardly say thats relavent when a couple of our recent harvests were at FIFTY (not 15) year lows.

And i dont blame you one bit.