Increasing tag allocations in these areas are not going to help with out land access either. Guess what? Unless someone has access to these lands and can take the appropriate amount of deer each year there is no answer.

Agreed. But that wasnt my main point. The point was that we have areas within the same WMU that have huge differences in deer population and DMAP is not completely addressing the problem. I realize no plan will eliminate all the hotspot/coldspot problems and I accept the fact that some hunters will need to change hunting locations, however unpopular that may be. My point is that we shouldnt see the very large difference within the same WMU's that the PGC claims were chosen for their similarity in habiatat.

I dont advocate the old county system either, but, IMHO we didnt do the wildlife any service by shifting to the huge WMU's we now have. I would suggest units defined by roads and streams,as the current WMU's are, but also determined by the habitat and population.

How would we start? Well, first we need to have a more credible reporting system. We already are required to list the township of our kill. With more consistent reporting and utilizing information already required, we could start to define areas that are inconsistent with the current WMU goals and work to adjust them.

It wouldnt be easy but it ought to produce more consistent results...JMHO!!!

Better reporting system is on the way.

Another draw back to smaller WMU's, it limits where you can hunt. With the WMU's you have a large area you can hunt in. If they are made smaller than County areas people will complain it is too limiting. I live in an area where the boarders of three counties meet. With WMU's now it has been reduced to two areas I need to contend with which isn't bad for me.

HOORAH!!!


Thats a good point, and a tough one. Kinda part of what I meant when I said it wouldn't be easy! The best solutions may not be socially acceptable.

bawanajin, I don't know how I missed your post before, you hit the nail on the head.

That is precisely why smaller WMU's are needed. Northampton Co. is included in WMU 5 C. The herd in that county had been reduced by 56%. At the same time the other counties like Berks ad Lehigh haven't experienced anywhere close to the same HR , so the allocations for 5 C remained the same for 2005. With a goal of only 6 DPSM, the allocations will remain high in 5 C indefinitely and our hunting in Northampton Co. will suffer because hunters in the other counties don't have adequate access to control the herd.

Hey T.{your not a rapper are you?}

As for the land with no access.I read an article on this and it's a problem throughout the US.In the midwest they started a program that gives landowners incentives to keep land open to hunting.I think one method is through tax cuts.It was getting bad out there and people were starting to quit hunting because they were running out of places to hunt pheasants.There are ways to work on this problem.
Later T.

BT,I agree we need changes with our system.I think the WMU's need changed.But maybe different types of land should be managed seperately.For instance,a 1,000 acre lease should be able to get more tags for that land if willing.Right now they are limited.
Then we have private land open to hunting.The gamelands should be managed for wildlife so these would be a different method of handing out tags.Maybe even charge alittle extra for gameland tags as a habitat stamp or fee.{I'm sure everybody will love that one}
Ah yes,and then there's the beloved tree hugger run DCNR with Eddie himself standing by.Well they want all the deer dead so let them have the tags to do it.Problem is will they find enough crazy people to hunt these barren lands?

Did anyone see what the final results were? I must have missed them.

I don't believe it is 100% compiled yet.