Oldtimr

Salty, for decades PA was not killing enough deer and there was widespread areas across the state with terrible browse lines, particularly in the big woods counties. Every time the biologists asked for more doe licenses to be issued the hunters would go nuts and whine and cry and go to the legislature who would threaten the PGC with certain actions if they issued more doe licenses and the board of commissioners would not have the guts to do the right thing and allow more doe to be taken. Finally, there came a board who had toe courage to do what should have been done decades ago and issued a lot more doe licenses to cut back the herd. In fact a person could now get 3 doe licenses where in the ast you could only get one. After a few years the herd started to be reduced enough to allow the habitat to recover in some areas. Hunters who grew up being able to go into the woods and sit on a stump and kill a deer with no problem, suddenly had to start actually hunting deer and again the cry went up, we are destroying the deer herd, they are almost extinct and a lot of other knee jerk nonsense. The problem is, a couple of generations of hunters thought having too many deer was the way it was supposed to be and didn't like it when hunting became hunting instead of just killing. The fight goes on today. Some areas had the licenses reduced a little because the habitat was showing good signs of recovery and some had the number of license reduced because of social preasure. The bottom line is, they just didn't and don't or refuse to understand that if we go back to the very restrictive numbers on doe licenses, all the habitat recovery will be undone in a very short period of time because the population of deer will skyrocket again and we will be back to square one. Had the boards of commissioners decades ago done their job and listened to the wildlife managers instead of pandering to hunters and legislators the drastic action in reduction, would not hae been necessary. It was so bad, that the biologist who was asked to take on the deer management position by the board of commissioners with the promise that they would support him no matter how bad things got, was recieving death threats and wore bady armor when he taveled around the state. When the board broke their promise to him and started to cave in to the presure from hunters and the legislators pandering to them, the biologist resigned and retired. Deer management has always been a contentious issue in PA.

olsaltydog

Each state has the same issues and the citizens often times do not come to the table fully informed or even partially informed. We deal with this and are currently fighting this with fishery management here in NC.

The one truth whether it is fishery or wildlife management is and always has been, manage for the resource first and all other things (hunter, fisherman, guides, etc) will fall into place. People will not like it, but at least your kids and grandchildren will not hear about species like the passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, and may one day be able to eat another canvasback fed on wild celery from the Chesapeake Bay.

Oldtimr

That is the way to go, the right thing to do, we just need people in charge who are willing to weather the storm long enough for it to pass.

Topgun 3006

The problem with what you guys are stating is pretty much the case in about every state and that is, rather than listen to the paid biologists who are using approved science techniques to try to do their job, ugly old politics enters the equation and people like Alt have to literally run for their lives. Sad, very very sad!

hatchet jack

It has nothing to do with who get's first crack or who's complaining. No way the PGC would hold a 2 week Buck gun season the time of year Archery season is. That would be fatal to the Deer Herd of PA. Besides the Special Reg areas how much has the general Archery season change since 1993? It went to 6 weeks and the Late winter Archery/Flintlock. What is it now? Compared to most other states not the long at all. Which I like, it seems to be working if you ask me. The PGC needs to stay the course for the Herd, Antler size and the health of our Forrest's

Hatchet Jack

Oldtimr

I know there will never be an early two week buck season barring a huge drop in hunting numbers. But then, who thought we would ever have a two week doe season and longer in the special regs areas. That was to make a point. No matter who goes first, those who don't will not like it. Granted, anyone can get an archery license and hunt in both seasons but we both know not everyone wants to hunt in archery season or put n the time to be good with a bow. One thing most people forget, is the states with few exceptions have a lot less hunters than PA does, even with the loss of hunter numbers over the years, so they can afford to have longer seasons. Some states with long seasons and large bag limits on deer still don't take as. You are correct, the PGC needs to stay the course on their management program, tweaking here and there when they must or can. However, the larger antler size is a side effect of getting a better balance of buck to doe and allowing our buck to grow a few more years, not the intent of the management program. Actually I am happy to talk to somone from PA who likes the management program for a change instead of a chronic, "there are not enough deer, or the deer are extinct complainer. Good luck in the upcoming season.

super_hunt54

Whoever thinks that putting the gun hunters out instead of the Archers in early season has absolutely NO clue about deer hunting. ESPECIALLY in Pa. If you have never hunted in Pa on opening day of gun season then you don't know what WWIII sounds like. Cuzz that what it sounds like around 7am to around 10am on opening day rifle! You think the deer are spooky after early archery? Deer after the first couple of hours opening day of rifle look like crack addicts on a 2 week bender!

Correct me if I am wrong here Oldtimr but I believe Pa is still the leader in Archery license sales in the country correct? And with Pa now allowing the use of crossbows without a disability permit in regular archery has only INCREASED those sales. Hell my tags were routinely filled in Archery season and I was picky about which Does and Bucks to take. I only took the scrub bucks that I knew would never be anything but a scrawny 6 point doing nothing but taking up resources and usually older Does past their prime. For gun season I would go down to Bucks and Chester counties and fill a few tags on Does to max out the Whitetail chest freezer. I know the deer numbers in the Poc area were pretty much decimated but you've informed me that they are bouncing back around that area. I know there for a while in a lot of areas up there you wouldn't see a deer for miles. Not even a track. And that was in a few areas that I always saw a good number of deer.

Something else Oldtimr, it wasn't "just" the PGC that had something to do with getting the deer herd under control. The major car insurance companies were lobbying HARD to them threatening to raise premiums to a skyrocketing rate because of so many deer/car collisions. So as usual, it had little to do with a healthy deer herd and more to do with money, the all powerful dollar said do something and it got done!

Oldtimr

No, you are absolutly misinformed! The insurance companies never, and I said never, had a blessed thing to do with the deer management program. They never lobbied the Commission to increase the number of deer killed and I mean never. I was in attendance at commission meeting from 1988 until 2007 and never once did any representive of any vehicle insurance company ask the commission to increase the deer harvest. That is just another myth bantied about by people who don't know what they are talking about. Just think about it. Why would the vehicle insurance companies worry about deer vehicle collisions? If it starts to cost them money, they simpley raise the rates in PA, they don't threaten anyone, they just do it. Presure by insurance companies is nothing but a load of nonsense. Before you deny what I have said is true, post evidence that it ever happened. Times, dates, copies of letters to the commission, minutes of a commission meeting showing a representative from an insurance company testifying at a commission asking for a higher deer harvest. It never happened. For the record, I never said the commission would ever open rifle season prior to archery season, I made a point to say if that ever happened, the archers would be complaining instead of the gun hunters. Up until your last post I thought perhaps you knew what was going on, it appears I was mistaken about that.

super_hunt54

While I don't have paperwork, what I DO have is a wife that worked in the Insurance industry for 30+ years and 12 of those years was in Pa. SHE is the one that told me the insurance companies were putting pressure on those that had influence on the commission. The reason was because they WERE losing money in Pa and had been for several years. The Insurance companies were trying to get the costs down plain and simple. They put it quite simply to the ones that had the influence either do something about it or they were going to have to skyrocket the premiums. That's not a rumor, myth, or anything else of the sort, it's plain and simple fact that is WELL known. You obviously have a bug up your butt with ANYONE that has anything to say about the PGC but you have some serious blinders on when it comes to simple and WELL KNOWN facts. I didn't say that it was the ONLY reason they did it, just that it was a contributing factor in the decision. Now according to the wife, who just looked this stuff up for me by the way, deer/car collisions are some 35% lower than they were 12 years ago and the general car insurance premium's have risen within the normal rate per annual cost graduation as most other states. (her words not mine I THINK that means they haven't went nuts). And are you really naive enough to think that there would be ANY minutes from the commission meetings that would show an outside source pressuring the committee? Especially where money more than likely changed hands? Come on Oldtimr, you've been on this Earth long enough to know better than that! You can't sit there and HONESTLY say that the deer/car collisions had absolutely NOTHING to do with them acting! Take your blinders off, get Dr. Alt off that pedestal and see the PGC for what it is, was, and always has been, a group of people plain and simple. With people come greed, mistakes, theft, and the rare PROPER things done. I DO know whats going on in the hunting world, have for many years. I don't listen to rumors most times, I go with what I see for myself and SOMETIMES take FEW people at their word.

As far as the gun/archery part, I never stated that YOU were the one saying it would be better for Gun first. It was back on the first page someone was stating it would be better.

Oldtimr

You are correct, it was hatchet jack who said that, however it doesn't matter,because what I said was still to make the point. As far as what your wife told you, it is not true it is a myth that has been around for a long time started by people who did not want the deer herd reduced and were looking for someone to blame for applying preasure for reduction. If there is one thing I am not, it is naive and I don't wear blinders! What I said it absolutly true. Your wife is wrong about lobbying or presure by insurance companies. If you want to believe it, I don't care, just don't try to put it out as the truth. By the way, commission meetings have always been recorded, either by a stenographer or now by electronic means, it is required. To insinuate that certain things may be deleted from the minutes or not entered at all is ridiculous and a desperate attempt to bolster nonsensical allegations. Outside entities have always lobbied the commission to either do or not do things, a common thing to happen, and at open public meetings. For the record, I didn't say deer car collissions had nothing to do with reducing the deer herd, obviously it did because the numbers of them clearly showed there were far too many deer in the state, what I said was insurance companies had nothing to do with deer management decisions. Did you really expect the number of deer vehicle collisions to go up after over a decade of serious deer reduction efforts? That doesn't prove insurance companies were lobbying the PGC for deer reduction. The wildlife managers were well aware of that, hence the reason they worked since the 70s to make it happen but were unsuccessful due to hunters lobbying the Board of Commissioners and the legislature not to reduce the herd. The numbers going down only show the reduction program is working When you have been involved in wildlife management in PA for over 3 decades and have attended as many commission meeting as I have and know the players on both sides of the table as I do, perhaps you will have the knowledge to attempt to tell me what is going on in PA from where you live in Illinois, until then, figures on deer/vehicle collissions from your wife is not a reliable source of evidence of anything to prove your incorrect claim, they are meaninless numbers when used to make a claim that insurance companies had anything to do with PA deer management. To insinuate that I put Gary Ault on a pedistal is ludicris, while he did a good job, I didn't like him personally, that and the nonsense that I am naive and don't see what is happening around me is also ridiculous and pretty bold since you do not know me. Generally that kind of thing is used by those who have no facts and is called a red herring, used to take peoples attention away from the facts and is weak! If those you take at their word told you what you wrote above, you need better sources. What you are claiming is not true, I could say more but I will leave it at that.