That DeadDeer is one smart cookie! He is the one who taught us all about the fact that since the herd is smaller now it will take less antlerless permits to reduce the OW herd.

AND

He made the point so succinctly that even if you make wmu's smaller, it won't make a shred of difference, IF they are still ebing managed for an average goal of 12dpsm.

reducing the herd by 50% is what you should be keeping your eye on, How much pie the PGC plans on serving, not how many slices of the pie they will slice for you. !!!!!

I specifically asked about less, = , or more doe tags for pa at the Jan 23, 24, 25 meeting .......because that is the major issue with hunters who are seeing fewer deer.

Smaller WMU's is a nice to have, so that if the PGC ever does begin to manage the herd scientifically they would have more control over where those tags are used, but remember deaddeer is the man because he is the one keeping his eye on the ball....

In the reduced herd it will take less tags this year to reduce the OW herd. There better be some talk in Harrisburg with the team about that.

So you think the WMU's are OK the way they are DD?

Deaddeer & Chickory Both are Da MEN! you two should form up at the meetings and sahare your speaking time or sign up one after the other.

What Pa NEEDS are more guys like you two! you aren't on an adgenda to give your own kids a chance to kill a buck before others or to allow bucks to grow big so you can sell some hunts and rip off out of staters.
you two are in it for the sportsmen/women of the state and I applaud you BOTH! God Bless Chickory and Deaddeer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You make my point DD, I know that 12 DPSM is 12 DPSM or less deer = lees deer and less than we want. However it sounds like there are areas that have already been reduced below the goal of 12 DPSM. Would not smaller WMU's make it easier to get the tag alotments right or lowered in these areas??

The area that is at 12 DPSM is 2 G , which has the highest percentage of forested habitat of any WMU and therefore the least variation in carrying capacities. therefore smaller WMu's would have little effect on the OWDD goals .

The areas where significant changes in carrying capacity occur are WMU with farmland mixed with large blocks of forested land. But, since the PGC assigns no habitat value to farmland making the WMU's smaller would not increase the OWDD goals and the anterless allocations would remain the same,even though the true carrying capacity was much higher than the PGC goal.

Also, remember that PA has 45K SM of land ,so even if we had 100 WMU's they would still be 45 SM in each WMU. The PGC would assign a OWDD goal for those 45 SM,based solely on the average forested habitat in those 45 SM. Therefore areas like 5C and 5B would still have OWDD goals of 5 or 6 DPSM while a WMU with 45 SM of forest would still have a goal of 15 DPSM like 2G ,even though there was no farmland ,the soils were less fertile ,the winters are more severe and the growing season is at least 1 month shorter than in 5C or 5B...

I got two replies that were very positive from Pa state legislators on the subject of improving DD goals for pa. based on more than just forest.

I pointed out to those that I emailed that the new deer biologist they (PGC) hired, Jeannine Tardif wrote her thesis on "The title of her thesis was Use of agricultural lands by white-tailed deer: use areas and habitat selection." ......and yet here in pa where she works the PGC does not consider farmland as habitat for deer.

I pointed out the irregularities presented by the WMUs which have 14dpsm in 4d and those in the south with 6dpsm and the differences. (And most of that is from reading deadeers posts and information).

It took a few exchanges of emails but today I have gotten favorable responses to my mails from two state Reps who are both on the Fisheries and Game Committee.

This is not a new issue, and they said this has been discussed amongst wildlife managers for 20 or more years, but in light of the recent power grab by Audubon and DCNR on herd reductions they are going to discuss amongst the F&G committee what can be done to revamp those goals, or study better methods. They both acknowledge that only the PGC can set those goals, and the legislature has no say in changing it. But they do think that they are being misled by the PGC in the testimony that deer managers and leaders of the PGC are giving to their committee on the hill. And with letters pouring in from sportsmen, they are now much more concerned about the methods, practices, and reports coming out of the PGC, and are now better prepared to challenge the biologists assertions. (which is part of thier role as representing sportsmens issues on the F&G committee) . And that means they could also challenge any future license increase...
and talk to the governors office regarding the needs of hunters in Pa's 'legislative agenda'.


Much attention has been brought to the issues hunters are facing, by writing to legislators, as well as commissioners. No longer can the commissioners say to the members of the legislature that "hunters are quiet" and "we aren't hearing anything", the word is getting out that hunters feel they were misled, and the PGC promised much more than they could deliver.


Of all the emails and letters I have gotten over the last couple months, the one thing that legislators are either impressed with or surprised by is the volume of mail. I have received several responses from legislators (some are just cut and paste standard replies, but some are quite informative and personalized. One North Central legislator replied 4 times with very informative and candid opinons).

I have never received a reply from any PA Game Commissioner.


I am going to the PGC meeting Sun & Mon, I hope to give an update on the sunday testimony of hunters, and the Monday testimony of Sen Boscola and the other speakers on the Mon. agenda.


If you have not written to the PGC or to legislators, you should there is still time. This Jan meeting's results will only be preliminary..... The final results and vote will be in April. So there is a lot of time to make sure your opinons are heard.

Good job Chickory, there A rally in the parking lot at noon before the meeting hope to see over 1,000 hunters see you at the meeting Jan23

Nice thought, but I would be surprised if there are 100...

lets hope I am surprised.

Look for me there, I'll be the guy driving a pick-up with a camo hat!

A ok I will look for you, I just hope Audubon,Greenpiece and p.e.t.a don't out numbers us this year.

I recently read that the PGC will open it's doors at 11:00 AM as they anticipate a large crowd.
I spoke with Greg Isabella (S.E. Commissioner) today and he intends to seek a 5% reduction in Antlerless allocations in the S.E. Division. I do not know how he arrived at that figure.

Also, Cal DuBrock, Director of Wildlife Management for the agency gave a seminar at the Fort Washington Sportsmen's Show titled "Urban/Suburban Deer Management." He was looking for input from hunters. He stated that all biologists will be Deer Biologists.
Over four years into the deer management program and the PGC has finally discovered that they need a Urban/Suburban Deer Management Plan. Funny how Dr. Alt overlooked that aspect.