Our forestry wants the deer dead and they aren't concerned with the way it's done.The antis have been pushing for contraception and experiments are being done to make it more afforable.Even though the goal of 15 DPSM has been reached and then some,they still want more deer killed.
The number of hunters has dropped drastically on these lands and it will continue to do so.The game commission is saying we aren't killing enough deer with the number of hunters we had two years ago and today.So what will they do when our numbers are cut in half?
It might take another 10 years but other alternatives to hunting will be used on state forest lands.If not contraception then maybe predators.

BT,DCNR is still saying there's too many deer in these areas.So they're going to have to get it done in other ways besides hunting.They just aren't going to get the people in there to see maybe one deer in a day's hunt.That's just not alot of fun.And 99% of the people who hunt in 2G on forest lands travel from the southern part of the state to their cabins.Under these conditions more and more hunters are saying it's not feesable to travel that far.Some are staying around home and others are talking about quitting.

Unfortunately you could be more right than most if us would like to admit.
Todays science fiction is tomorrows reality and deer cotraception , though not realsitic today, could become a reality.

While hunters pay for the PGC's operations we need to recognize that we are not the only ones who have a stake in deer management. Right now the nonhunting public has a generally favorable view of our sport partly because they believe that without us the deer population would explode.

If other control methods become more feasible and affordable we become less important to the majority. The best thing we can do is to be open minded about balancing game and its habitat so the we are always regarded as necessary.

That doesnt mean that we lay down and give up completely. It does mean that we need to be part of the solution and that includes helping some hunters accept the fact that their version of the "good old days" are gone. We should, however, pick our fights better and I think 2G would be a good place to start.

Just my $.02

If there are that few of deer, aren't they BEING controlled?
And when the numbers come back, the hunters will too. By then a hunter might be permitted to take 10 a day, if hunter numbers do indeed fall through the floor as prognosticated.

livbucks,Like you said,numbers would have to come back up to get hunters back.The problem is,the DCNR won't let that happen.
They recognize tourism,skiing,hiking,camping,etc as recreation but no longer see deer hunting as recreation.They want them gone,period!They all proved this by originally claiming 15 dpsm would be acceptable but still wanting more killed when they claim the present dpsm is 12.
BT,in all honesty the non hunters I have ever met enjoy going to the mountains and seeing deer,they don't want them wiped out either.They accept or support hunting because they were either raised on it or see that it's a responsible recreation.I can't recall talking to any non hunter who said they support us because we're killing the deer.
Farmers and foresters yes but alot of them hunt also.

I hunt a lot in suburbia so I get more of that perspective, but I also gotta include most farmers in that group who still wants more of em killed. Frinstance, the farmer next to my camp who borders ANF land on the other side just opened his place to the public after posting for 30+ years. He always posted so his family had a reasonable chance to hunt and then opened it up late in the season once they got their deer. Now he just needs lots of deer killed so all are welcome again. On the other hand, I know ANF property wher the deer herd is down a good bit but it really needed knocked down.

Our only hope to eliminated these hot/cold spots is smaller WMU's I really dont think going back to counties is best. I think using roads and rivers for dividing lines is a good idea but the units need to be divided to better address the deer population.

As for 2G, you guys oughta be screaming and the rest of us ought to be helping you because if they've hit goal the kill should be leveled off.Period. If the new density shows what you suspect, then the kill must be reduced till numbers recover.

You are correct that the hikers, skiers, campers, etc want to see deer too. When I talk about the nonhunting public I'm talking more about the urban population who represents the big voting blocks and only see deer when they hit (or just miss) em on the road or when they're eating their shrubs and gardens

You're right BT the urban population has another perspective on deer hunting then the people I've mentioned.
The problems aren't really just a 2G issue.It's just about all the state forests and most SGL'S.I don't think the hunters will get anywhere with the DCNR,especially with the appointments Rendell made.You saw the comments and threats about the wolves and cougars right?We know the guy was talkin out his buttocks but it goes to show you what their take is on the deer.
The SGL'S on the other hand should be managed for wildlife and hunting.Therefore the deer populations should be higher then what they are.The DCNR is a lost cause BT.

You're probably right and we should fight a merger to the bitter end. I'm not so bent against a combined fish and game commission. That'd be OK but DCNR does seem to have a different agenda.

You're right when you say 2G isn't the lone issue, but it should be the focus when pointing out that HR needs to be done with care.

We don't need condoms in 2G we have Coyotes, they are starting to outnumber Deer and they like eating Deer and young Turkeys. Does anyone know how they got across the Mississippi ?
Don't blaim Dr.Alt he was just the excape goat for the DCNR.

Germain - I'm sorry - but you are WAY OFF. There is simply no way that in most of PA, that the state will ever consider the options you mention.

There are nearly 1,000,000 hunters in PA that PAY to hunt deer - and most would PAY MORE to take another 1 or two.

Hunting brings revenue to the state - alot of it.

Deer contraceptives could only cost money.

Finally - While I don't think its true that PA officials would like to see almost no deer - EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE - the state would still have to answer to the Federal Government for policies like Deer Contraception.