Every single WMU that has been reduced was a sellout last year. If you make the reasonable assumption that demand would be the same again this year, then the doe license reductions will be a direct contributor to an even bigger deficit.

t thanks for letting me know about that ,from now on i'll take his article with a grain of salt!

DCNR’s goal for deer management finally came “out of the closet” at this PGC meeting. DCNR’s plan is to achieve 5 deer per square forested mile (dpsfm) across their holdings for a generation or the next 25 years. (For most of us that’s the rest of our lives.) Their 2.1 million acres of State Forest Land translates into 3281 square miles or 16,406 total deer. The PGC didn’t admit that their goals are the same, but they didn’t need to. In these past few years the PGC has literally caved to DCNR’s wishes across the board. It is painful to say, but the PGC’s proud tradition of independence is completely gone. The PGC currently functions as a DCNR lapdog.
Looking at the statewide picture, if we say 60% of PA’s 45,000 square miles is forested for 27,000 square miles times 5 dpsfm, we get a statewide herd of 135,000 animals if private landowners buy into the program. Needless to say a bad winter and predators can clean up the remnants of a herd that small.
The justification for hunting is based on the principle of “compensatory losses”. Hunters are permitted to cull the surplus each season to “compensate” for potential winter losses. Under our current management plan there will be no surpluses. Without surpluses there is no justification for hunting.
It is interesting to note that our new PGC Deer Project Leader, Dr. Chris Rosenberry has admitted a number of times in a number of indirect ways that we may not have ever had 1.6 million deer. Apparently, the PGC’s strategy has been to say they have discovered a “problem” with the Dr. Alt deer model. We have not seen an updated number in the last five years. No one of authority has yet to ask if we didn’t have 1.6 million deer, why do we continue to kill deer with a vengeance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From what I have seen in the woods the last two years the above is true.

C'mon Losthorn, you know better than that! DCNR may well have a goal of 5 dpfsm but the PGC just cut antlerless tags by 44% and 39% in the WMU's that have been hardest hit and they are still way above 5 dpfsm.
Yes the PGC is getting pressure from DCNR but the scenario you just painted is just way far out there!

Dont become a dd or a Slinsky! You're smarter than that!

He just cut/paste part of slinsky's article. That's a big no no in his world. He has threatened to sue other message boards for posting his articles. Copyright is the arguement.

Can you provide any data to support your opinion. The last time the PGC released any OWDD data was 2003 when there were 12 DPSM in 2 G. In 2003 hunters harvested 7.4 DPSM, whicj exceeded net rcruitment by 2.6 DPSM so the OWDD in 2G was reduced to around 9.4 DPSM The 2004 harvest also exceeded recruitment in 2 G ,so the OWDD in now probably less than 9 DPSM. and even though te anterless tags were were reduced ,there will still be enough tags to reduce the herd even more since it will onlly take an anterless harvest of 2 DPSM to reduce the herd even more.

You've provided all the data I need right here. 9 is dpsm is way more than 5. It's pretty simple math.

Can you substantiate your opinion that the 2004 harvest exceeded recruitment and can you substantiate your opinion that the owdd was further reduced and that a harvest of only 2 DPSM will further reduce the herd.

Cold, hard, independent, documented, facts from somewhere other than your calculator please.

everybody is talking square miles. are you guys really sure you know how big a square mile is and how hard it would be to cover it all in a day. to find 10 or 15 deer in a square mile can be quite a task. and if they are grouped up good luck.

Is it called "hunting" or "shooting"?

Table 3 of the 2003 Annual Report shows that there were 12 DPSM in 2 G in Jan.2003 and the PS DD was 16 DPSM so a harvest of 4 DPSM would have kept the herd stable. But in 2003 they harvested 7.6 DPSM so the harvest reduced the herd by 3.6 DPSM. The 2004 harvest rate was 4.2 DPSM so if it only took a harvest of 4 DPSM to keep the herd stable , so it is obvious that with fewer OWD in 2004 the harvest of 4.2 DPSM further reduced the OWDD.