PA Deer Management
 

Just Curious as to what you folks who are so Anti Dr. Alt feel PA Deer Management decisions were based on prior to Dr. Alt coming on board to work with Bret Wallingford and others? Especially since time after time biologist recommendations were turned aside and disgarded. also, just why should we go back to the way it was. Stop now, saying you don't want to go back to the way it was is not an answer. No Anti-Alt person out thier was ever at such odds with deer management before, save for a shift in doe licenses one way or the other. Have at it.
Yours truely, Juniorpc.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

I do not really consider myself a "for Alt" or "against Alt" type person. I am for some of his proposed changes but I also believe that he is not doing enough with issues like micromanagement and differentiating betwen public versus private land and hunter density when allocating doe licenses. I would not mind going back to the county doe tag system if for no other reason than the units were smaller....even if they were just based on political boundaries. How about we take every WMU and slice it in half...:D

RE: PA Deer Management
 

The management decisions prior to AR were based on the same OWDD tables as Alt used , prior to switching to the new OWDD goals . The diffference is the previous biologists didn't lie about the effects of herd reduction like Alt did. They didn't claim that we could double the number of 8+ PT or that we would have more and bigger buck that we have ever seen before. They didn't send mixed messages by claiming we can carryover more buck in over browsed areas without hurting the habitat even more. They didn't tell hunters to pass on small anterless deer in order to protect BB. They knew that 44% of the anterless harvest is fawns and that telling hunters to pass on BB would decrease the efficiency of the doe tags issued.

The lies and conflicting goals are the reasons why Alt generates the distrust that he does.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

According to dead deer, he makes Alt sound like Bill Clinton. Sorry, just a joke. Anyway, I'm all for reducing the doe population and seeing more 8 pointers out there, plus passing up on the button bucks. I have seen more bucks but there are still many problems that Mr. Alt needs to correct that he and the Game Commission are not addressing. Like not enough food for the current herd size and I too like the county doe permits versus the WMU's. Anyway, let's all talk about the real problems and pass them along to the Game Commission.

T

RE: PA Deer Management
 

I'd love to hear why this is a bad thing! Do tell.

I think you numbers may be wrong....it's more like 22%. I'll double check it though.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

I do not consider myself "for" or "anti" Alt. I do
agree with the AR's and passing up bb if possible.
I think he wants to many doe shot. I don't think he
does a good job separating public land vs. private
land deer numbers. I don not know where he got the
1.6 million deer estimate for Pa. I think he does a
good job on telling hunters the importance of habitat
and food supply deer need to benefit from. Right now
I think overall he is doing an ok job but needs to
back off on reducing doe numbers. Doe need to be managed too but not over
harvested. He did good things
for the bear hunting in Pa and hopefully he does the
same for deer hunting.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

"I'd love to hear why this is a bad thing! Do tell."


If the priority isn't to reduce the herd ,but to have more buck,then passing on fawns makes sense. Alt made the number one prioity balancing the herd with the habitat ,which means reducing the herd to the OWDD goals. Since fawns comprise 44% of the anterless harvest,if all hunters passed on small deer ,the anterless harvest would decrease significantly ,since fawns are much easier to harvest than adult doe.

According to the latest data, Alt's plan has failed to reduce the herd ,even with 1 M anterless tags and the concureent season and a longer early ML season.

Maybe you can explain why previous biologist were able to control the herd with many fewer anterless tags and only a 3 day anterless season.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

PABowhunter, I think eventually there will be smaller units. Just years away though. I beleive he's on the right track there just doesn't have the staffing or money to make them smaller and still oversee them properly.
Deaddear, at every Alt run meeting I was at he talked about making sure the small deer you were shooting was a doe fawn and not a buck fawn. I even think it's talked about in the book you get with your hunting license complete with drawn pictures of a button buck.
Total harvest was devised the same way- true. With two distinctions- no one was up in arms about it and there were plenty of times that the Commissioners ignored the Biolgists management recommendations.
I do think the smaller racks on some older deer in areas like pike county is a suprise, but do you then really want to shoot less deer in areas that have poor habitat. You would want to harvest more. I would think you would still want bucks in older age classes, biologically speaking that's a benifit so why argue the restrictions- even in those areas they will still allow more bucks into the next age class, just fewer than expected. Maybe those areas should be four points to a side and 15 inch spread?!
I also beleive that more needs to be spent on habitat improvement, but WHO pays for that. Try a license increase to fund it and see where that gets you. Also, most places in PA you would need to fence after selectivly cutting it because the deer would not let it grow up into something that would be of benifit. There are simply too many of them an too poor habitat and thier the culprit. Unified Sportsman want to blame it on acid rain. Heck they didn't even care about it until habitat became an issue. Then all of a sudden they need a reason other than too many deer. No ones up in arms about folks not sending in their harvest tags, everyone would be up in arms if license fees increased to pay for the equipement/personell to pay for check stations, and still we groan on about how the PGC doesn't have an accurrate count. You can't have it both ways. Enjoy, Juniorpc.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

You are right Alt ask us to pass on BB ,but he also encouraged hunters to shoot mature doe.

The difference is the herd was either stable or increasing and hunters realized it was necessary to harvest anterless to keep the herd under control. Back then the biologists were not talking about cutting the herd by 50%. Also , they never issued 1M anterless tags.

AR results in less deer being harvested in the poorest habitat. If hunters pass on BB and AR saves 50% of 1.5's and 20+% of 2.5 buck, you are bound to have more overwintering deer than without AR.

In poor habitat AR saves more buck ,not less buck so restrictions should be lower ,not higher.

That simply is not true and is just more of Alt's propaganda . I observed good oak regenration at 40 DPSM . WMU 2 G has been at or below its density goal for five years and it is currently at 12 DPSM and Alt still claims they don't have regeneration in 2 G. So ,should we kill all the deer in 2 G and who do you expect will hunt there at less than 10DPSM?

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Button bucks comprise 22 percent of the antlerless harvest but fawns comprise 44 percent of the antlerless harvest as deaddeer said.This is my take on the whole Alt management scheme.I can live with ar simply because I don'y shoot sub ar bucks.That's a personal decision but in reality ar has the potential of decreasing the size of the bucks overtime.Read the mississippi report if you get a chance.It's very interesting.I can also live with concurrent seasons and a smaller herd.I see the need to balance the herd with the habitat but Alt's goals are presently 50% lower than the maximum carrying capacity needed for regeneration.We've been below 15 dpsm near my house since 1999 and below 21 dpsm for almost ten years.The deer are no heavier and the racks aren't any bigger than they used to be.I killed a 174 lb 8 point that grossed over 140 inches in 1993.Also,as far as the enclosures are concerned,check out the ones around here,They look no different inside than out.Is it possible there is more blame than just the deer?

Throughout Alt's roadshow he claimed our b/d ratio was way out of wack.It's been around 1 / 2.1 for many years.That's perfectly acceptable in a heavily hunted state according to qdm standards.He claimed we had a breeding ecology problem,yet 91 percent of our adult doe were being bred,most during the two week peak of the rut.He claimed we would double the number of 8 point bucks.He said we would have MORE and bigger bucks than ever before.He said we've been killing too many bucks and not enough doe.The previous deer managers were a disgrace according to him.I guess he forget to check the harvest statistics.We've been killing more doe than buck since the late 80's.HE said our buck harvests would return to normal after the first year of AR.That didn't happen and won't ever happen as long as the herd is being reduced to the levels he's shooting for.Most people that left his antler waving presentation thought we just had to kill enough does to make room for the bucks saved by ar.I guess he forgot to mention the true goal was to reduce the herd to below 15 dpsm(it's now posted on the pgc website).How many of you knew that was the goal and support it?

This past year was good in many areas.I hunt in a few places that saw an improvement in buck size and numbers.Not surprisingly,these areas are private and almost triple the deer density goals.A large part of the state saw a big decrease in both antlered and antlerless harvests.Rather than admit there were less deer,he blamed it on the weather and poor mast crop.I don't know about you but I saw many years with fewer days to kill deer that had far worse conditions.It didn't stop me or anyone I hunt with.We all killed our deer.Besides part of the reason Alt implemented the concurrent seasons was to offset poor weather on the first day of doe season.Why didn't he just admit we had less deer then?Simple,it didn't fit his agenda of slowing down the antlerless harvest.Pa is in danger of losing it's forest certification and Alt can't let that happen.Probably the biggest thing that ticks me off is the fact that Alt is claiming the herd has not been reduced.That statement is impossible to be true if we had the 8% decrease in 201 that Alt claimed followed the next year by the biggest kill in history.Honestly,don't you see anything wrong with that?

If you support Alt,please expain how his claims of more and bigger bucks than ever before will come true if we reduce the deer density to less than 15 dpsm.Also,do you support having that small of a herd?If you don't,then you can't support him because that is the ultimate goal he is after.It's quality timber management not quality deer management.Let me list the deer density goals for each unit.These were taken from the pgc website.1a-9dpsm,1b-12dpsm,2a-13dpsm,2c-15dpsm,2d+2e-14dpsm,2f-17dpsm,2g+3a-15dpsm,3b-13dpsm,3c-14dpsm,3d-13dpsm,4a-15dpsm,4b-11dpsm,4c-12dpsm,4d-14dpsm,4e-11dpsm,5a-8dpsm,5b-5dpsm,5c-6dpsm.Currently,2g is the only unit under the goal.I live in that unit and I can tell you for a fact that when the goals are met,none of Alt's predictions will come true.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

1. He has continually over-estimated the size of the deer herd. At 1.6 million deer, that would be over 30 deer per square mile of forested land.
2. The WMU's are too large to properly manage "over-populated" areas; ie. private land holdings.
3. An un-realistic DPM goal. Say goodbye to public land hunting.
4. Did he have any experience managing deer before? Anywhere? Just because your a mechanic doesn't qualify you to work for NASCAR.

The previous admins of the PGC issued too many tags, in some places too, but not to the degree he has. For years, it was nearly impossible to obtain a Schuylkill County doe tag. Now, they can't sell enough of them. You Alt fans are suffering from "10 pt-itis". You think that every 10 pt deer you see in a "hunting" magazine is the norm for that state, and "gee, I want that too". Well guess what, they were here before Alt's programs, you just had to hunt for them, mostly on private or farm land. And they were there regardless of weather/regeneration issues. The only complainers about too many deer had been the forestry and the insurance companies.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Guys this has basicly turned into an anti alt, anti present management thread. With a few comments like The heard was stable back then, etc, etc,..... based on what.... the same estimationing principles Dr. Alt is using and getting hammered for???
"Back then the biologist were not trying.... " Back then the biologists were largely ignored. The bottom line is folks would rather see more deer, shoot a buck every year, even if its a spike or Y buck and don't care what effect that practice has on the herd, on the environment and had little belief that there would ever be consequences down the road. Were seeing that now and can't accept it. Allowed to continue it will only get worse and attacks from folks like foresters, Audobon Society, land owners who can't sustain thier own land because the deer are hammering it. Gosh, I hope public land hunting doesn't dissappear, that's what I hunt!
I think you folks are proving my point..... Up until change was implemented no on really gave a darn or thought about what effect hunting had on deer populations, what effect deer populations had on habitat, and what effect poor habitat had, in turn on deer numbers, deer health, and long term results. Folks only complained a bit when they thought too many deer permits or too few deer permits were issued. Not caring about the politics behind it, the biologists recommendations followed or not, effect on habitat, etc. Juniorpc.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=465&q=151350

Sorry for the confusion. I thought you stated that 44% of the harvest was button bucks....I see my error. But to clear it up the above quote is from a letter from Dr. Rosenberry.

Again, I should have been clearer. You stated that "they(referring to the old management parctices/biologists) didn't tell hunters to pass on small anterless deer in order to protect BB." What I'm asking you to do is tell me why the change is a bad thing. Alt did ask us to identify mature doe and not shoot small deer thus saving more BB's.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

They didn't do a very good job of it. Not much to explain....seeing 60-80 doe and 1 or 2 spikes the first day of rifle season isn't good management. Now in archery season I see half as many deer as I used to 5 years ago.....but close to half are bucks now and frankly the bucks I'm seeing are bigger. I imposed AR on myself starting the year pror to the statewide restrictions becasue I wanted something more than a dink....I kill plenty of doe as well. Every hunter I've talked to about AR has a different approach to their philosophy....some like it, some don't, some like it becasue of the better bucks they're seeing and some hate it becasue there isn't a deer behind every tree anymore.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

The reason it is bad is because the primary goal of Alt's plan is herd reduction, not adding more buck. Passing on small deer removes 44% of the potential anterless targets and that will result in much lower anterless harvests ,since fawns are the easiest deer to harvest.

Here is a personal example of how passing on fawns would effect the harvest Our group of 6 harvested 7 anterless deer and 6 were BB. WE didn't target Bb and we didn't pass on any mature doe and we all had anterless tags left over at the end of late ML season. If we would have passed on small deer we would have harvsted 1 deer instead of 7 in an area where the OWDD tables say the herd has to be reduced from 19 DPSM to 6 DPSM.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

I'm honestly not tryint to spin your words, but you blatently stated that we should kill the easiest targets. I don't agree, but to each his own. Hunting shouldn't be about easy targets. I do agree that the Alt's plan is focused on the reduction of the herd as a whole, but another part of his program is to increase the percentage of bucks in the herd. Before you on about buck:doe ratios, I'm fully aware that our ratios in this state arent' nearly as bad as everyone thinks. I do however think they are worse than 1:2.1. I have read studies that state it's basically impossible to have any worse than 1:4 ratio (I think it as 1:4). If I can dig it up I'll post it.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

That is why Alt's herd reduction plan is failing. He is pointing hunters in two directions at the same time and it doesn't work. He is emphasizing more and bigger buck to promote AR, so more guys hold off on shooting doe in hopes of getting that big buck. Many pass on small deer until late in the season and then find that they can't find a mature doe so the tag goes unfilled and the herd continues to grow.

In 1990 ,with 806 K tags we harvested 245K anterless deer from a smaller herd in 3 days. Compare that with the anterless harvest for 2003 when they announce it and tell me if Alt's plan to reduce the herd is working as good as the previous plan.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

You sound quite positive it's failing. I disagree....in 2002(first year for AR/second year for HR) we killed about 510k deer overall....165k bucks if memory serves. That tells me the herd is being reduced where it needs it....in the doe population. Of course the overall population will drop, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The ANF is severly overbrowsed and heavily hunted yet it still holds plenty of deer. Why is that? Timbering? Poor shooting? Lack of doe harvest? I have an idea that all apply to some degree, but logging in the ANF is what keeps the deer fed, IMO.

I will add that I am objective and will make decisions based on the numbers provided. Those numbers may be in question, but that's all we have to go by. We'll see what the 2003 harvest figures show us....they should be coming out really soon!:D

RE: PA Deer Management
 

I guess you didn't see the annual report that stated the herd was increasing by 1.6% /yr for the past few years even with the high harvests. So it is the PGC that says the plan has failed to reduce the herd and I am just agreeing. That means we added over 16K deer /yr for the last 3 years and that would mean at least an additional 50K OW deer.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this for now. I'll have to go back and re-read the annual report. I don't dispute the 1.6% increase over the last three years. What was the annual increase in the three years prior? I don't know, but if it was greater than 1.6% then that means something's happening. I don't know where to dig up that data....I'll see if I can find it in older annual reports to asses.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

I know this doesn't answer your question , but here is an interesting quote from DR. Rosenberry.
All of that increase occurred from 1998 to 2000,when the PGC claimed the herd increased by 30% due to low anterless harvests in 98 and 1999 when the avg.anterless harvest was 190K.

The harvests between 1989 and 1997 kept the herd stable. Two years of low anterless harvests resulted in a 30% increase and now even with 1 M tags and the concurrent seasons , the herd is still increasing by 1.6% a year . Therefore Alt's plan has failed to reduce the herd or even keep it stable .

You may disagre if you like, but those are the facts.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

i dont have any major problems with the new rules in pa. . . . .i think they are definatly working

RE: PA Deer Management
 

That's nice ,but on what are you basing your opinion? Have the new regulations reduced the herd as designed? Has AR doubled the number of 8 pt. buck as promised? has the B/D ratio improved?

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Thank you for starting this thread, but we will probably never agree on this. The dialog is interesting. BTW, last night I saw 11 deer standing on someone's lawn, in an area that is all posted, and private. My concern throughout this whole dialog is that public land hunting has been hammered with too many doe tags. I have not seen 11 deer together on a sgl or state forest track in years.

I was more than willing to give Dr Alt the benefit of the doubt when he made his proposals. They have just not panned out.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Did I miss something? Did the PGC publish a count on 8 pointers?
The count may or may not have doubled in the short time we've had AR but to my knowledge there hasn't been a count. Anyone who hant seen the dramatic improvement in the quality the average rack hasn't been paying attention.

Funny how the guys who wont give Alts efforts a chance whine about lack of deer and then almost in the same sentence complain that the herd isn't getting reduced under his plan?!?!?!?

MikeE, stick to things you know. You claim the PGC is under pressure from the insurance industry ...NOT!!! There is not one record of any insurance industry requests, pressure , lobbying the PGC etc or even stating that they care about our deer numbers. Not one.

I have been in the insurance industry for 27 years and have never once heard ANY insurance company even mention our deer numbers as a problem. Anything that causes claims that can be calculated statistically (and deer claims can) is beneficial to the insurance industry. If it causes claims, they figure out how much it'll be and charge accordingly. The only thing that worries insurance companies are claims they cant predict or predict the magnitude of. IE: millions for a lady who spills McDonalds hot coffee in her lap. Deer claims are hardly worth a mention in the insurance industry's big scheme.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

BT you are my hero!!:D

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Yes the PGC did publish the number of 8 pts. prior to AR and only 44% of 2.5+ buck had 8+ pts. That means in order for AR to double the number of 8+ pt. buck AR had to save twice as many buck than pre-AR. According to Alt, AR saved 38K 1.5 buck and we normally carry over over 50K , so AR did not double the number of 8+ pt. buck.

In the 4 pt. zones there probabaly was a significant increase in the percentage of larger racks harvested , but the majority of the state is in the 3 pt. zone where the results were minimal. Furthermore, the racks on the 2.5 buck saved by AR aren't any bigger than the racks on 2.5 buck prior to AR, there are just a higher percentage in the harvest ,because small buck aren't AR legal.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Jason,Kip Adams of the QDM association proved that the worst the b/d ratio could ever be is 1/3.

Junior,go look at the deer density goals that I posted and tell me how we will have more and bigger bucks than ever before.You've evaded this question several times now.

Look guys,I support several of the programs Alt has initiated.I just want him to back up the his claims of better hunting when he we reach those goals.We've already met them in one area where I hunt and the hunting is not better.He has continued to lie througout this whole process.I've posted several lies and so far no one has proved them wrong.

Like BTbowhunter,I've also been in the insurance industry for years and I can also prove that the insurance industry is not behibd this.This is all about forest recertification and I can prove that as well.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Doug, thanks! I've been busy scouting new areas for turkey and deer and just haven't had the time to look up any of this stuff. I remembered reading it not all that long ago, but remembering the material is the hard part.:D

I agree! I just wonder if the PGC is going to change the rules again after the forests are recertified. If they did it would be a nail in their coffen as it would show that they are interested more in money(in trees) than they are about protecting the states wildlife. We'll see. How often do they recertify the forests anyway? I don't ever remeber talk of forest certification until now. Of course, I don't remember much talk of deer management until Alt took the wheel either!:D

RE: PA Deer Management
 

You know what I'm tired of, is obviously superior intelligent people like you who fly off the handle with anyone who disagrees with you. DougE has presented some information that nobody has factually disputed yet. And I, and others, are still waiting to find out just who funded our deer management program.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

I didn't fly off the handle. I QUESTIONED something DougE said cause I havent seen these numbers officially. Could someone please let us know where we can find these PGC statistics.

As for your statement about the insurance industry, MikeE, I didnt fly off the handle either, I merely pointed out that you made an completely unfounded bogus statement that is patently untrue. Nothing personal, but you should stick to what you know, what you said just aint so.

BTW I was at a few Alt meetings and while I won't attempt to give exact quotes, what I heard is that it was important to fix the buck/doe ratio and allow more bucks to age past 1 1/2 years so that natural breeding competition returns to the herd. He said we will have more big racks (I don't remeber him promising an exact number) as a by product to sound management. We are getting what I heard him promise!

Anyone out there who can help me find the PGC numbers Doug quoted?

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Here is the link to the 2001 antler buck survey.

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

In 1999 we had 552,200 adult doe and 245,900 adult buck with a B/Dratio of 2:2.2 The adult buck total correlates with the buck harvest in 1999 of 196K.

You can find the results from the old computer model versus the new model if you log on to the ,Management plan 6--.03pdf file ,on th PGC website.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Mike,every figure that I posted cane directly fron the pgc website.I'd post the exact link but I'm computer illiterate.About the only thing I can do is a google search.The density goals are on the website but you have to click on a side bar to find them.I would be more than happy to fax them to anyone.The harvest report claiming there was an 8 percent decrease in 2001,can be found on pgc release 22-02.It was from march 15,2002.*

BTBOWHUNTER is 100% correct about the insurance industry not being involved.Deer collissions are very predictable,allowing the companies to adjust their premiums to still make a profit.The cost simply gets passed back to the consumer.I've been in the insurance industry since I graduated from college in 1991.I hear about lowering exposure on different risks every day.Not once has the subject of deer ever come up.It's all about timber fellas.All my links about forest certification are in my desk at my office.I'll try and post the addresses next week.It's very obvious once you do the research.The audubon was one of the biggest contibuters to the studies being done.The other parties have remained anonymous.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Thanks deaddeer. I think I had your stats and DougE's confused when I asked where could find this stuff. Fact is I've seen it too. I think we all have to agree that results are really still sketchy and based more on a collection of bit and pieces than on good scientific study. Its just too soon to tell.
That being said, I'll enter my personal experience (extensive for one guy but I am just one guy). Spent parts or all of 38 days in the deer woods.
Saw some but not many older bucks. Saw plenty of deer on private ground open only to a few. Saw similar numbers on private ground open to anyone. Also hunted ANF several days. didnt see quite as many deer but saw enough deer and enough sign to believe that there are still way too many deer there. We've let it go too far for too long. Now we're going to have to cut the deer number even further there if we ever want the forest to come back. Yes, the timber industry is applying pressure! What some folks need to understand is that what the timber companies want, a healthy self sustaining constant crop of hardwoods, is what the wildlife there needs too for the long term.

Did the number of "8pts" double? Maybe not. But no one can deny that the average age of our bucks is going up and thats what Dr Alt truly promised from AR.

Smaller management units are the one HUGE disagreement I have with him but just listen to the guys in the sports stores and at the clubs whine about it being too complicated now and you begin to understand why that wont happen for a while.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

No, Alt said AR would double the number of 8+ pt buck and we would have more and bigger buck than we ever seen before in PA. Both statements are untrue if we reduce the herd by 50%

While the average age of our buck may have increased ,the question is , is that increase sgnificant and the answer is no. Alt claims AR saved 38K buck,and if 80% survived there would be 30 K additional 2.5 bucks. Those 30K buck would be spread out over 41 K SM,so there would be less than 1 additional 2.5 buck PSM. That is a totally insignificant and meaningless change that will have no impact on dominant breeding or the breeding ecology.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Then accept my apology.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Doug, Oh, Doug, This thread was not about Alt... It was about management the previous 100 odd years or so, or at the the last 20 to 40 years folks have been hunting. Anyway..... I do believe their are reasons we won't as many larger numbers of larger bucks in the begining years of the managment change that some folks would like or they can twist around. But we certainly do have more bucks in larger age classes. If you've spent any time in the field, or viewed deer from the truck while spotlighting you can see that. It's plainly obvious. Thier are more rack bucks out thier. OOOPS there I go...using heresay to prove my point. Wow, I'd make a good canidate to join the anti alt crowd! Deer numbers do need to come down, habitat does need to improve... which does not happen over night or over year for that matter. Deer will get bigger, healthier, and bucks will have larger antlers and then low and behold the habitat will be able to hold...... a bit more deer.. Imagine hunting being used as a management tool. Not much the antihunters could then argue about at that point, huh. Call me crazy.
The first buck I ever shot was in a group of about 25 to thirty deer, I stopped counting looking for the buck I saw as they came down the hill. I then watched as they all made a turn and filed by me. At least twenty five does and fawns followed by the buck I shot . What a great memory from years gone by....BUT that's not how things should be!! Too many deer, too many does compared to bucks, not enough older age class bucks, all on habitat steadily declining. A lifetime of hunting without discussing, realizing or careing about what we were doing to the habitat, to the deer, to the resource as a whole.... My son begins hunting in 11 years... maybe we can correct our mistakes by then. Juniorpc.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Do you realize that in 2001 ,before AR, 51% of the buck harvested in Pike Co. were 2.5 + buck. Were you bragging about all the older, bigger buck you were seeing in 2001? Or don't you hunt Pike Co.? If not, tell us in what county you are seeing all these older ,big bucks.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

Deaddear, I hunt pike, wayne, monroe, wayne, center, union, and lackawanna. If you don't think thier are more rack bucks out there this past year than the before and previous years your kidding yourself, but no one else. That's just what I and others have seen. Also noticable at the butcher shops. Will also be reflected in the data collected. Pike county has a poor habitat problem. If you don't think go for a walk in the woods thier and see for yourself. Juniorpc.

RE: PA Deer Management
 

There may be more big bucks in some areas and there may be less in others , but AR only saved 38 K buck and that is less than 1 additional buck PSM. If you are good enough to notice that one additional buck ,you must have calibrated eyeballs.

I know of a private hunting club in Monroe Co. that wns 2 FSM and has 40 memebers .They harvested less buck than in 2002 and the racks were no bigger this year.

We will see what happens when they release the harvest data. However , I will guarantee that even though we had 1.6 M PS deer the buck harvest will be much less than the 203 K harvested in 2001.