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.

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

If you think a 1:2 B/D ratio is crazy, maybe you can explain how in 2001 ,with an over wintering herd of 1 M , we havested 203K buck and carried over an additional 80 K for a preseason total of 283K buck. That means there were less than 717 K preseason adult doe so the max. B/D ratio would have been 1:2.5.

We have not heavily protected doe in PA and the fact that we are maintaining a 1:2 B/D ratio means we are harvesting buck and doe in the proper proportion. We have one of the most productive herds in the nation and there is nothing wrong with our breeding rates or recruitment.

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

Let me say that I did not follow our deer management program as intensely prior to Dr. Alt so I cannot really comment on whether or not I thought it needed to change. I will say that I do like having the opportunity to harvest more than one deer...and more than one doe if the opportunity presents itself.

I was not very fond of the "one deer of either sex and your done" regulation that was going for awhile. Nor was I happy when we went from having bonus tags to not having bonus tags. Now, how either of that affected the deer herd is beyond me so I cannot comment further.

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

I have been following this thread for awhile and read your posts and I am pretty sure you are thoroughly convinced that Alt is doing a horrible job. If you and others that share your view like shooting tiny spikes every year and having one day ayear to kill a doe then maybe you should be rewarded and have the regs turned back to the way you like them. I would rather spend a week in the woods and see one big mature buck 3 1/2 years or older then see 300 does parading past my stand. My first deer was a spike in PA and proud of it but if that were the biggest deer I could harvest I would give up hunting.

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

In 2001 ,before any bucks were saved by AR we shot 52.6K 2.5 + buck. Although they didn't release a breakdown of this years harvest,since we only harvested 142K buck , I can guarantee you we didn't harvest 52.6K 2.5 + buck. Therefore ,AR reduced the number of 2.5+ buck harvested rather than increasing that number.

Before 1989 we were allowed only one deer /yr. because that is the largest harvest the herd could sustain . The OW herd was the same in 1987 as it was in 1997 so the harvests during that period matched the number of fawns recruited. The number of 3.5 bucks will not increase significantly since we are harvesting more of our buck as BB and we are harvesting 66% of our 2.5 buck according to the antlered buck study.

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

The question is what percentage of bucks being harvested are now in the 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 year old age class. Not how many-what percentage, and what will that percentage be as the dynamics of the herds population continues to be studied, and management practices change accordingly. I do encourage everyone to do more than just read DD's snippets from the PGC website- visit the site yourself and do a bit of exploring. There is a wealth of information on their about the deer program for those who would like to know what studies are being done, what the early results are and so forth. I think you will all be suprised at how much information available there. Juniorpc.

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

The percentage may be important to you ,but the absolute number of 2.5+ buck is what is important to the hunter. In 2002 before any buck were saved by AR, 32 % of the 165K buck that were harvested were 2.5+. If 32% of the buck harvested in 2003 were 2.5+ we would have harvested 45K 2.5 + buck ,compared to 52.6 K in 2002. In order to match the 2002 harvest the percentage of 2.5+ buck would have to increase to 37%, ,but that would mean we harvested less than 90K 1.5 buck and that would be more bad news.

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

Gotta give you credit DD. You are the Energizer Bunny! You just keep going and going with endless numbers and statistics mostly taken out of context but occasionally from thin air.

Just for a moment guys,

Who else here thinks we have a 1:2 BD ratio anywhere in this state?

How many here, other than DD, really believe that we can't expect to slowly increase the average age of the breeding bucks over time with AR. (what Alt said was truly the goal. He cited opportunities to shoot bigger racks as a welcome by-product)

So, we can be a little patient while a professional irons out the bugs in a program that started out with generally good goals and admittedly less than perfect solutions. Or we can listen to the "Spin Doctors" and go back to the way it was.

Remember guys, we're only two seasons into AR and one of those was a very unusual weather

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

Since you don't believe the B/D ratio is 1:2.1 ,here is a little challenge for you. See if you can find a link to any article , PGC news release or PGN article that says the B/D ratio is greater than 1:2.1. If you can't do that ,then explain how we harvested 203K buck in 2001 and carried over 80K, if the B/D ratio was greater than 1:2.5 If you can't do that then explain how we can have a B/D ratio of greater tan 1: 2.1 if 91% of our adult doe are bred and prouce 1.8 fawns /doe.

After five years of AR in Mich. they harvested one more 4.5+ buck than they did in the first year . The harvest of 2.5 buck was 5 fewer than the first year of AR. That is why AR is going to be repealed in Mich.

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

For the fourth year in a row, I've went to a Charlie Alsheimer presentation on QDM. I am impressed with some of his deer research. Some key ingredients for QDM are to balance the doe herd, pass up younger bucks (similiar to what PA is doing). More importantly, creating food plots to improve the nutritional balancing of the herd and providing sanctuaries (where no one hunts or even enters) for deer. Other than scaring hunters away, is the PGC creating sanctuaries and food plots on all of the SGLs? My opinion is if you don't go 100%, you're wasting your time. I am also the same person who said previously, and I will say it again, "I WOULD RATHER SHOOT A BUCK, ANY BUCK, THAN A DOE." If all I could shoot was a doe, I would quit deer hunting and do more bird hunting and winter fishing. I'm not against shooting does, it just isn't for me. Last year, in PA, I shot a large doe. As I was field dressing her, her two fawns came within 10 yards of me. I scared them off. In about 10 minutes, they came back. Later that day, I saw one of them walking the track of the doe that I shot, the fawn was bleating. I've been hunting deer for several years, this will be the last doe that I shoot that has fawns with it. I'm leaving that chore to bigger "Men" than me. I will continue hunting PA, and hope to shoot a big monster buck because of AR. Just keep in mind, how many adult bucks did you kill before ARs? In 5 more years, ask yourself this same question. ARs are the rules, I passed up 3 bucks last year, I was careful not to shoot an illegal buck eventhough I know for a fact I could've gotten away with it. Above all, I will play by the rules of the land. Out.

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

And he keeps going[:'(] and going[:'(] and going[:'(]!!!!![:'(]

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

I don't know where all you guys are hunting that say you see these huge strings of does with the occasional spike thrown in.I've killed 20 bucks in the past 22 years and only two where spikes.Every deer that I kill is always layered with fat.Rarely do I see a mature doe without twins.I can't remember one year when I wasn't hunting after at least one buck that was at least 120 inches.

Take dd's challenge and find one piece of evidence that says the adult b/d ratio is any worse than 1/2.1..You can't because there is no evidence.Even Alt supporter and qdm master Kip Adams, proved that even if every antlered deer was killed each year,the worse the b/d ratio could get is 1/3.

Regardless of these fact,I'm still glad ar was implemented for purely selfish reasons.I don't shoot sub ar bucks so I'm glad others are forced to pass as well.Furthermore,I detest guys shooting at running deer and snap shooting as soon as they see horns.I believe ar forced many to slow down.Other than that,it's impossible for any of Alt's claims to come true if his deer density goals are met.He's set goals that are at least 50% less than what the habitat can support.Like dd stated,no value is placed on farm or edge habitat.Pretty ridiculous to leave that out considering deer are creatures of the edge.I guess Alt was too busy following Byron Shissler and Cindy Dunn around to hear that as they searched for trillium.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the herd hasn't been reduced when Alt claimed we had an 8% reduction in 2001 followed by two of the biggest antlerless harvests in history.Will someone please explain this too me.Alt won't answer it.

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

i truely think so.......took me 4 years to see a buck......and its not bad hunting.....there were days wed see 20 deer a morning and not one carried antlers.....we see tons of deer each season......just never anything with a rack....this year i changed my hunting methods and seen more bucks.....but still lots of does...im doing my job....i took 2 does this year.....and im happy.....next year i want to take a doe in oct with the flinter.....then buck hunt till late flinter season......cant wait.......first year where i have to count to....what....i guess its 4 here......i hope i can count that high............

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

I consider myself a fairly intelligent and educated person but to be honest, deaddeer's number just seem a bit confusing to me.

For example, if antler restrictions reduced the number of 1.5 year old bucks harvested because they had sub-legal racks then would that not mean that the majority of bucks taken since antler restrictions were instituted were over 1.5 years of age? If that is the case then didn't the 2.5 year old buck harvest go up, and not down, after antler restrictions were instituted?

Second, deaddeer, where did you come from? I say that sincerely as I do not remember you posting much prior to the past few months. Did you stumble onto this site from somewhere else or were you what we call a "lurker" who just decided to air his views? Again, I am genuinely curious.

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

That is a very common misconception of those that support AR. In 2002 we carried over 80K buck. Due to normal adult mortality we lost 18% leaving 66K 2.5+ PS ( preseason buck) . At least 20 % of of the 66K won't be AR legal so that leaves 53K PS 2.5+ buck to be harvested in 2003. Now loooking at the 1.5's, we had around 180K PS 1.5 buck and if we harvested 50%, the 1.5 harvest would be 90K. Add the 1.5 harvest of 90K to the 2.5+ harvest of 53K and you get a harvest of 143 K which is real close to the actual 2003 harvest.

A friend of mine told me about the site a few months ago ,so I decided to check it out. No ,I have not been lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce.

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

I think the problem that I am having is that I am assuming (yeah, I know what it spells) that a significant majority of the 1.5 year old bucks will not be AR legal while a significant majority of the 2.5 year old bucks would be legal.

So, if we don't harvest some of the 1.5 year old bucks the first year that antler restrictions are instituted then would there not be more 2.5 year old bucks or older to harvest the following season?

The reason I asked about your appearance on the forums is that we always seem to have a bunch of Alt supporters who visit this forum and yet only one "anti-Alt" (for lack of a better term) person at a time. It was just curiousity as I always am seeking to find patterns that are not always there.:)

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

Oh no, there's at least two.[:'(]

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

You assumption would almost be valid if we had a 4 pt. rule statewide. But the problem with that is we wuld save around 80 +% of the 1.5's ,but we would also save 56% of the 2.5's,so harvests would crash and we would have to cut the doe herd even more.


Another fact that many AR supporters overlook is that just prior to the implementation of AR we were carrying over 80 K buck and those buck were randomly selected so more big older buck survived prior to AR, since many hunters harvested spikes and Y's. With Ar we shifted the pressure to the larger ,older buck ,so fewer will survive and the majority that do survive will be buck that weren't AR legal as 2.5 buck.

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

In my opinion, the biggest advantage of ARs is what was mentioned in an earlier post. I never thought of this, but he is correct. ARs slowed hunters down. No more pop shots at running deer and probably a lot less wounding deer. If anything come good from ARs, I believe it will be this. Since ARs are a good thing now, I am proposing we do the same with turkeys. Let's call it BRs (beard restrictions). No more shooting of turkeys w/o at least a 6 inch beard and cull down the hen population.

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

So you are saying we should not shoot at moving deer? Then just how do you expect us to reduce the herd ? Can you guarantee that over 550K deer will stand still long enough for hunters to harvest them? It hasn't happened in the last 3 years ,so why will it happen in the future?

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

DD,this is a whole other arguement, but no we shouldn't be shooting at running deer.

I'm actually not anti pgc.I support most of their programs and give them alot of credit.I do think Alt's motives are somewhere else other than with the sportsman however.If Alt is so great,and his mangement plan is so sound,please just explain 3 things to me.First,for about the tenth time,how has the herd not been reduced when we had 2 record antlerless harvests following an 8 percent reduction in 2001?Second,how can we have more and bigger bucks once the herd gets reduced to below his goal 15 dpsm?Why isn't the habitat recovering in Cameron county even though that county has been below it's deer density goal for ten years?These are all legitimate questions that Alt has not answered.

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

I am really interested to hear why all of PA's surrounding states have superior deer herds and better hunter opportunity. Obviously it must be Alts fault that the deer herd is in such disarray. After all 80 years of incompetent game management couldn't have caused the problem in the first place .You know this anti Alt thing is really out of hand and I am really tired of the whining. I really hope they roll back the old game commission so you people that are dissatisfied with Alt can get to shoot your annual spike buck and occasional doe on doe day.

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

If we shouldn't be shooting at running deer with a rifle,should we be shooting at walking deer? Should archers be prohibited from taking a shot at over 30 yds .which would be the max. effective range for the average archer? What do you think our current OWDD would be if every hunter passed on all shots at deer that are moving?

You won't get an answer to your other questions ,because there are no rational answers. The PGC just keeps moving the goalposts and changing the regulations so no one can keep up with all the changes.

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

The rational answer is don't shoot at a deer you can't identify, period.

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

Every deer I shot at in 48 years of hunting was identified as a legal deer whether it was it was bedded ,standing, walking or running. I never mistook a deer for a bear,turkey ,grouse or another hunter. AR makes it more difficult to identify a legal deer,but once you identify it as a legal deer,there is nothing unethical in taking a moving shot if you feel you are capable of making a clean kill. If you doubt your abilities than pass.

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

DD your a peach. It ain't that hard to follow the regulations. They must also change based on the data collected. If they didn't change you'd moan and groan about that. Mistake kills were less than expected initially and have reduced even further. ARs make us more responsible hunters. But why point out something positive about ARs?! Your ship is sinking. Juniorpc.

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

Can you back that statement up with a link. Recent articles on the antler buck study showed illegal kills accounted for 9% of the buck being tracked. In 2002 the PGC said mistake kills accounted for only .001% of the harvest.

Before Alt implemented concurrent seasons ,hunters had to check every deer to make sure it had at least 3 " spikes if they were buck hunting, and they had to be sure it didn't have 3" spikes if they were doe hunting. AR did not make us more responsible, it simply made it more difficult to harvest a buck. Those that respect the law do so now just as they did before, the slobs still shoot first and check it when it is on the ground.

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

false, PGC has stated just what I said. Folks running the Sat tracking program have also reiterated the same. Other states that have implemented AR's in the past also found the same results. It does make folks more responsible. Yes, it does make it more difficult, but worth it. It does make you more responsible, and certainly more mindful of your role as a sportsman in making hunting the managment tool it can be to ward off detractors of hunting from all sides. Juniorpc.

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

Now that is pretty funny and a prime example of the AR spin machine. One of the main thing anti -hunters point to is those hunters that hunt for big racked bucks to hang on their wall. AR makes controling the herd more difficult as proven by the increase in our herd to 1.6M. We are even protecting buck in SRA counties so they can be killed by cars.

The hunters that are showing that hunting can be used as a management tool are the 323 K hunters that took anterless deer. The ones that were forced to pass on spikes and Y's did nothing to improve the herd.

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

Well DD, we found at least one point we can agree on. You are absolutely correct that we need to kill does to be an effective manangement tool. You are also somewhat correct in saying that the the most vocal of anti-hunting hates trophy hunting. Usually they try to imply that trophy hunters take the head and waste the rest, another myth. I think most here will agree that the nuetral, non hunting public would be more offended by the massive harvesting of immature deer than the taking of mature adults. Yes, doe seasons take a bit of toll on the young does and button bucks but not nearly as much as you have implied. As a matter pf fact, the PGC fawn mortality study results put hunting way down the list of causes of fawn deaths. of 218 fawns in the study only 7 were killed by hunters.

Passing those spikes and y bucks is allowing SOME of our young deer to age to 2 1/2. Some of those will now be educated enough to live to 3 1/2, 4 1/2 and older. Gary Alts stated goal was to balance the buck/doe ratio
(and if you really believe our B/D ratio is 1:2 then maybe you should hire Santa Claus to manage our deer) and to manage for an older breeding class of adult males. AR, coupled with higher doe kills, will do that. It's not going to be perfect but the average age of our bucks will increase over time. Gary Alt was very clear when he repeatedly said that bigger racks would be a BY-PRODUCT of a sound scientific management program.

You and your "it aint broke! don't fix it!" buddies are the anti hunting crowds best ally. Here on one hand we have an experienced, well educated, wildlife management professional attempting to manage the herd for all interests, other wildlife, the forest, hunters, and non hunters and then we have the short sighted hunter that gripes because he might not get a shot because he now has to take a bit more care to see if thats a legal buck before he shoots. Worse yet, he might not have that set of spikes or y's to saw off and admire for a day or two before the dogs drag em off!

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

The non-hunting public that want the herd controled doesn't care whether we harvest mature deer or fawns since they will never know the age composition of the harvest. they don't care if we harvest cub bears and they don't care if we harvest fawns,unless 60 MInutes does a report.

The ten year avg. BB harvest prior to 2000 was 44K. In 2002 we harvested 77K,which is the main reason our 2003 buck harvest was only 142K.

You can't provide one bit of data to support your claim that the B/D ratio wasn't 1:2.1 but I can provide the statas from Bret Wallingford for 2001 when we had 244K adult buck and 533 K adult doe ,for a B/D ratio of 1: 2.18. remember ,we harvested 203K buck in 2001 and we only had 1 M OWD. So what do you have to refute that.

What has Alt done to solve the problem of too many der in the last 4 years. Absolutely nothing. Instaed the herd increased and the problem is worse than when Alt took over. your hero is a dud and AR is another dud. No other deer biologists has been able to reduce the buck harvest by 61K while increasing the OW herd by 100k ,in the history of deer management.