ilbback, just like in many other area's of the state, York co's herd has been severly reduced over the last 3 years because of the herd reduction, and our habitat was in great shape before HR. started. Ohio had the same bad weather and the same poor mast crop for their 7 day shotgun season as we had in PA. but recorded the 2nd highest deer harvest ever for their shotgun season. Up until a few months ago the PGC. reported a reduction in the herd of 13% over the last 2 years so I dont understand why anyone wouldnt expect a lower harvest of atleast 13% this year, especially with the bad winter we had last year. The fact that we have reduced our herd and at the same time improving our buck to doe ratio ( which means a Higher % of our current herd is bucks and a smaller % is made of doe's which is a good thing) The harvest will be even lower next year because Less Deer = Less Deer. Pike

I never said it was a state-wide problem. If you go to the density map link I posted earlier, you'll see that. I live, and hunt, in one of the lowest density areas, on public land. Yet the PGC continues to hand out doe tags as if "there is a deer behind every tree". Those of us who hunt this area know better.
PS. If you've got a hot area, well, good hunting for you.

I hunt suburban Pittsburgh, northern Westmoreland County, andaround my camp on the corner of the ANF. Three different areas and based on my hunting experience, I say they all still have too many deer. In Suburban Pgh, the landowners that let me hunt still have shrub/garden damage even after 10 years of a bow hunting program and over 65 deer killed in an area roughly 1/4 mile square. In Northern Westmoreland County where I live, I saw 12 live deer and 2 fresh road kills on my 8 mile drive to work yesterday.

As for my favorite haunts in the ANF.... absolutely YES there are WAY fewer deer than years ago but there is also a very clear browse line, and no seedlings that deer like to eat survive. In much of our big woods, we are already paying the price for the PGC's past mismanangement. It will have to get worse before it gets better. As many of you mentioned, the talk of more doe permits I've heard has emphasized expansion of DMAP and getting the extra antlerless tags to hunters who produce. I believe that most guys here are much more involved in their sport than the average Pa hunter. Those of us that still like to hunt public land sometimes need to find private land alternatives if we want to hunt where there's still lots of deer. I still love to get up to the big woods but it just aint what it used to be and if we ever want it to get better, we have to make some sacrifices NOW. That includes puting in some time up there to continue killing more does so the forest has a chance to start recovering. It didnt get this way overnight and it aint gonna get fixed any quicker.

Oh I almost forgot, we hunted deep in the ANF the first day of rifle season and didnt see a lot of deer. At the end of the first day of rifle season, the farmer who owns property adjacent to mine knocked on my camp door and told me that I and all my friends were welcome to hunt anywhere on his place and kill anything we could kill. (This farm right next to my camp in the ANF that has been posted for 20+ years and reserved for his family only to hunt during that time is now being overrun with deer.) The ANF boundary is less than a mile away. Hunters barely down the road p!ss and moan about no deer and he's seeing 60+ in his fields at night.

I think many of the above posts are proving my point exactly. Where a large amount of hunters are the deer aren't. BT's post above is a perfect example. Plenty of deer on private land, that was previously inaccessible to most folks, but very few on public land. Gary needs to further address this issue by setting up a more effective hunter/landowner program. Without it many of the current programs are like....**ssing in the wind...in my opinion.

ilbback,

The area I was referring to is significantly south of that. I am guessing you got off the Turnpike at the Route 22/78 exit in the Lehigh Valley. The area I am talking about is from that exit north to the Lehigh Tunnel (goes through the Blue Mountain). North of the mountain is somewhat of a different story because of a difference in geography/habitat.

I totally realize that other areas of the state...special reg areas for one....have an overabundance of deer. One thing this can be attributed to is the population density of that area and the ratio of public versus private land open for hunting. If you live in a semi-rural area with a low hunter/local population and a high or moderate amount of public land available then I would expect there to be a fair amount of deer available. If you live in an area with high hunter/population density and relatively small amounts of public land/private land open for hunting then I expect the public land to be "shot out" and the private land to hold most of the deer. That is just common sense and is basically what I am seeing myself and hearing on the various forums.

I also totally believe that the increased doe tag allocations in conjunction with a two week buck/doe season is almost entirely responsible for the decreased amount of deer on the public land areas that I frequent. I would have sincerely loved to have anyone here with me on either of those two opening Mondays of rifle or any of the Saturdays as I cannot fathom how they would fail to see the dozens of deer that were harvested.

Now, obviously, if there were that many deer at that point then an increased harvest was needed to some extent....

But it isn't now that the herd numbers for that specific area have been decreased significantly. That is the problem I have with such large WMUs. Though I agree the county system was severly flawed at least the area being covered was much smaller.

I gave Gary's plan a chance and still like the idea of antler restrictions and a doe harvest to correctly balance the population but more attention needs to be paid to micromanagement within the WMUs.

BT i agree with what you said and its due to the fact the farmer is where the food is which means you will have alot of deer. As I ahave been saying big mature hardwoods is NOT prime deer habitat especially after years of overbrowsing. Timber it off in sections and watch the deer come back within 2 years.

PA yes the area below the tunnel I would say would be PRIME deer habitat. (mostly farm country). Mike is talling about the areas primarily east of the turnpike and north of the tunnel.

Illbback we agree on some things but I wish it was as easy as just timbering it off to bring the deer back. If we timber and DONT keep the deer numbers in line with the habitat for awhile, all that will grow is the less desirable trees because the deer will polish off the young oaks, and other hardwoods. That isnt good for any of the game we all love to hunt.

Now, if we timbered and planted strategic food plots along with a more reasonable kill we might find a happy medium. Problem is, the landowners (Forest service, timber Companies and yes even the PGC) derive income from timber sales. Planting food plots costs money with no return for them (except the PGC) Maybe leased land and paying to hunt is in our future no matter what we do.

BT. I think the vast majority of hunters in PA. agree 100% with your post, but I think most of those same hunters disagree with Alt, PGC. & foresters about the # of deer the habitat can support and still be healthy. For instance Alt says we need to manage our state wide OW. herd at 21 Deer Per FORESTED square mile of deer habitat, while MI manages their herd at 29 deer per square mile of deer habitat. And when you look at counties like York which is only 27% forested and has a goal of 18 deer per FORESTED square mile you see how ludicris Alt's plan really is. Here is a link. Pike,MI Deer Density

Good point JPike! I never could understand why farm habitat "doesn't count"
I hunt and do a little outfitting in West central Illinois and there would be almost zero deer if they followed that line of thinking out there!

Where did you find the information on Alts deer density goals by county and have they updated it for the current DMU's?

BTB - Not sure if this helps or if this is exactly what you are looking for. But it's a link to PGC that has some info on county's and deer densities. I don't know that I have seen anything that mentions WMU and DD. There are some graphs on page 12 and 13, see if this helps.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p.../21001-01z.pdf