Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Just curious if pennsylvania hunters thought that managment of PA's deer herd, as it was going before Dr. Alt stepped in and started making changes, had to change. Did you condsider it to be good managment? Really not interested in how you think it should be changing because; one I can't do anything about it, two, armchair quarterbacking just ain't the same as actually doing it (much too insulated and aseptic to have any validity) and three, we sure have beaten that topic to heck.
I tried a similar post before and it turned into a for/against Alt, PGC, PGC numbers etc. That's not what I'm asking so please don't answer that question. Thanks, Juniorpc.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

No there was no need to change the management plan in the state and here is a quote from the PGC website that suppports my position.


Furthermore ,there was no need for AR since in 2002 we harvested 52.6K 2.5+ buck and none of them were saved by AR. Also, 91 % of our adult doe were bred and the productivity of our herd was 50% of the preseason herd ,which means the herd was very healthy.

Here is what Dr. Rosenberry,PGC, had to say about our previous buck harvests.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

[:'(][:'(][:'(]tired subject[:-]

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Knuckles, the following sentences paragraphs follow your "no winter loss sentence" It too is from the PGC website. Not the next word you chose to cut things short at is HOWEVER. DD methinks you be decietful. The passage follows:

However, it is apparent that deer in many areas are limiting vegetative growth, causing nuisance and damage problems, and impacting the health and vitality of wildlife dependent on early successional forests. We will continue to carefully monitor and evaluate vegetation and deer health to determine whether deer are having an adverse impact on the landscape and the habitat.

What does the Game Commission mean when it says “deer are impacting the habitat” and why is that important to me?

Deer are dependent on plants, and to understand deer impacts on their habitat, you must look at not only what is available today, but what also will be available tomorrow, next year and for decades to come. For example, the food in your house – in the cupboard, refrigerator and freezer – is a lot more than you and your family need for one day. If you prepared all the food in your house on one day, you could feed a lot more than just your family for a very short time. After that, you would need to go to the grocery store to buy more food. For deer living on millions of acres of land, the food supply must last them not just a few days or weeks, but year after year. History and science have proven that it takes several years of low deer population levels to replenish a forest that is overbrowsed. To put it simply, several decades ago, we allowed the deer herd to stay very high in northcentral Pennsylvania, and now, many of those northern forests have poor habitat conditions. They lack the plant diversity, quality and quantity that provide seasonal foods for deer throughout the year. Restoring the habitat is the only way to spur a comeback, and that can be accomplished only through keeping deer at levels many hunters find undesirable.
enjoy your friend Juniorpc

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

In the 1950's Roger Latham said if we didn't kill more deer they would destroy the forests and there would be mass stravation. In the 1970's they said that if the herd ever reached 1 M PS deer the herd would be riddled by disease and there would be mass starvation. in 2003 we now have 1.6 M PS deer and the PGC says the habitat can supoort 1.6 M deer, but they may impact early successional forest stages. Deer have always impacted early successional forest stages because that stage provides the most food.

The most heavily forested area of the state 2 G ,is now 3 DPSM below its OWDD goal. WMU 2F is 10 DPSM below its max.carrying capacity. The most severe over population in the state is not in the big woods counties ,but in the southern teir counties that have much higher carryng capacity than the counties in 2G and 2 F. The over poulation problem is grossly exaggerated because the PGC assigns no habitat value to farmland, reclaimed strip mines , abandoned farms or fringe areas.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

As with all things, mine is only an opinion. For my own reasons, I beleieve that the deer management strategy in Pennsylvania had to change. Our buck to doe ratio is way out of wack. When you consider that whitetail deer are born on approximately a 50/50 birth rate of males/females, why do we have so many doe? Simply, because we place so much emphasis on the taking of bucks. The average age of bicks taken for years now has only been between one-two years. These are not mature deer. At least with the antler restrictions some of the deer may live to reach several years of age. I've been hunting deer for 36 years and have only a few times taken a deer that was older than 3 years. Why, because many people have had the "if it's brown, it's down" philosophy. I personally would like to see more mature (older) bucks, even if it means that I go several years without actually harvesting one. Dr. Alt, while many may disagree with his vews, has proven that he is a top rate whildlife manager. If a person was of a mind to and did some research on his work with the black bear in Pennsylvania it can be seen that he does his homework. No this doesn't make him an expert on deer, but if he can figure out how to make a black bear prosper, he can do so with the deer.
Good hunting to all who come here!

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Sorry about the spelling in the last post, but I'm new to this and it will take me awhile to learn how to use this.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

The first thing you need to learn is our B/D ratio is not out of whack. That was the first big lie Alt told when he started selling his plan.
The B/D ratio has been around 1: 2.1 for the past 5 years and that is an acceptable B/D ratio. What is misleading is many mistake the antereled /anterless ratio as the B/D ratio.

For example,if at 1:2 B/D ratio, that buck breeds 2 adult doe that have twins that survive and you see those deer togeter in the fall. The B/D ratio is 1:2, but the anterled /anterless is 1:7. If someone shoots the buck in archery and that group of 6 anterless joins another similar family group the ratio becomes 1:13.

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

Keep spewing it out. Get it all out of your system now. Just gloss over how you take your facts outta context, leave out what doesn't fit your thinking and present it as the truth. Seems your guilty of what your accusing Dr. Alt of. Juniorpc

RE: Did PA's deer managment need to change?
 

juniorpc,

Everytime I hunted deer in PA pre Gary Alt there was always an abundance of deer ...long strings of does and the small spikes and once in a great while a four pointer. Certainly not the kind of quality that would make me get out of bed at 4am. I can't believe that someone here posted that it was more like a 1:2 ratio. That is crazy but I only hunted 4 areas In Pa when I did so maybe it really is that way everywhere else. I think that any management strategy that allows spikes to be killed and yet heavily protects does is not a sound one. My best friend lives in State College and is an avid deer hunter he claims that there are more big bucks available as well as spikes and has taken doe the last 2 years no bucks. He has however harvested 3 bucks this year 1 with his F150 and 2 with his Ford Tempo(totalled) he has also seen quite a few dead deer in the woods as a result of the winter. Everywhere else in the country where Antler Restrictions are used the herd has improved whether a western ,midwestern or eastern state. The only problem any good management plan will come up against is controlling buck/doe ratio in heavily populated areas. Better that Alt has a progressive plan then to continue using outdated management techniques.