How Bad Off is Pennsylvania?

[Altjaeger]

A portion of the Pennsylvania hunters here and an apparent minority of all Pennsylvania have made loud noises about the destruction of the states deer herd. How badly has it hurt hunter's of that state?

Pennsylvania's hunter success rate on bucks:
1980s-16%
1990s-18%
2008- 17%

Aside from this aweful decimation field reports say that weights and average age of bucks killed have increased.

Now to compare their comparative overall hunter success to neighboring states in 2006:

PA-45%
MD-36%
NY-24%
OH- 32%

Now as to why I am concerned about the situation in Pennsylvania from far off Texas. I started reading of the overpopulation in Pennsylvania 20 years ago and the situation was widely broadcast making any claims that the situation did not exist ludicrous. All this was known for years from hunting reports to auto accident reports.

I have at least three problems with the USP and its sympathizers. One is that across the nation hunters worked for years to get hunting management from the hands of legislators to professionals because the damages done under the old system. The USP looks to me like a group spoiled to unnatural conditions willing to overthrow all those gains to keep a system that was detrimental to humans and other species in that states habitat. Further they are willing to attempt to bankrupt and destroy their game commission to get their wishes.

Second is the situation is being watched and reported nationally and their behavior makes hunters look bad and selfish in the eyes of the non-hunter (not anti-hunter) seeingly willing to upset the balance of nature for the sake of killing a few more deer.

Last I believe we as hunters have a responsibility to mangae resources in a fair and balanced way that benefits all in a region from non-hunters, hunters, motorist, foresters, other game and non game species, homeowners etc. If there is an overpopulation then hunters are failing their duty. It seems to me that this minority largely wants to got back to the good old days of gross overpopulation.

For these reasons I say that Pennsylvania is more than a state or regional problem but of all American hunters.

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Sounds spot on to me.

Alan

[ncboman]

I doan post a lot to this topic because my personal experience in Pa is primarily observations of all the carnage along the interstate when I pass thru.

I DO read a good bit about it though and consider the USP a giant boil to whitetail hunting perceptions.

I sincerely dislike the way some Pa hunters have made wise natural resource use into a political contest.

I guess I agree with Alt on this one. :)

[Sabre]

I think hunters in other states view the complainers in PA as a bunch of selfish cry babies because those hunters in other states are all used to hunting under conditions of gross overpopulation themselves and have NO FRIGGIN IDEA OR INTENTION OF EVER HUNTING ANYPLACE with a deer density of 8-12 psm {I believe that was PGC's density goal for some areas}. Also, the PA game commision is bound to have the same problems NY has in that they're simply NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY bring the herd into line with their habitat because private landowners aren't going to allow it to happen. They're going to need to learn to manage state land {and maybe private land that allows high hunter accessability}completely seperately because what happens now is that many private landowners severely restrict hunter access and deer harvest on their property and a hugely unbalanced percentage of doe tags end up being filled on state game lands. That's why you're always going to see some hunters with access to prime, private land that are perfectly happy {like Renegade perhaps ?} with the situation while others who are restricted to state game lands are pissed off. I've seen the FLIR studies that show good numbers of deer still exist in some areas of PA's state forest but am also aware that many of those deer are way back in away from road access. I've also seen some on here say that PA's hunter's need to quit being so lazy and "git back in there after 'em" and I think the guys saying that HAVE NO FRIGGIN IDEA OR INTENTION of ever dragging a deer up and over 2 or 3 big, steep mountains to get it back to their truck. I know what that's like. I did it more than once when I was in my 20's but have NO DESIRE to do it again in my 50's.

[Renegade]

Altjaeger you are right on the money. As a Texan you understand it better than some in PA do. I'm bettin' that because you have no emotional factor to get over.

Sabre- I hunt exclusively public land, with the exception of 2 years ago I was invited to hunt 2 days with dmap tags during the early ML season. I see deer or sign of deer every where I go. The thing is I don't keep going to the same spot year after year. I hunt multiple spots in a 3 county area. Deer follow the food and food sources change with forest progression. You need to follow the food to find the deer. We started to see a decline in the herd in the mid 90's whereas the 80's was loaded. However a lot of folks were spoiled by the large herd during the late 90's and into 2000.

Are you aware that density goals are after the season numbers? They can be double or more prior to the first season. And overpopulation isn't just a problem in Pa. Other states have reduction plans going on as well. The problem with PA is we had that large herd for far too long before it was brought under control and it did a lot of damage to the food sources. Now we are paying for the sins of the past.

Oh, and 75% of PA's forests have a road within a half mile.

[Sabre]

Sabre- I hunt exclusively public land, with the exception of 2 years ago I was invited to hunt 2 days with dmap tags during the early ML season. I see deer or sign of deer every where I go. The thing is I don't keep going to the same spot year after year. I hunt multiple spots in a 3 county area.
Well goody for you. I suppose you're unaware that many hunters haven't the time or money to travel all over to find good hunting these days? I have some very good private land {1000 acre family farm} in an area with deer density of 60 psm just an hour and a half's drive away but now do all my hunting in the 15 psm state forest {and these are pre season numbers} right out my back door because I just don't have the money to waste on gas. So far I've been successful at filling my tags here behind the house every year but it takes a helluva lot more time and effort than it used to on my uncles farm. Not all state land is equal here in NY and I'm fortunate there are as many deer as there are here in this state forest. I've been to state land in other area's of NY where you could cover miles in week old snow and not cut a single set of tracks. Obviously you are traveling to some good PA state land hunting but don't expect me to believe it's like that everywhere you go in PA's state forest's cuz I ain't buyin' it.

[Altjaeger]

Sabre, I just checked and the last figures for the county I hunt was 21 deer PSM in 2002 and the trend was downward. The doe harvest has increased since then so I think its fair to say that the number is likely less now. Further that is all lands and I hunt the national forest which is the only public land in the county drawing hunters from both Houston and Dallas. For those reasons I think it is fair to say I likely do hunt land that has 10-12 deer psm and I am restricted to spikes or bucks with spreads of more than 13 inches, no does. So no I am not spoiled to overpopulation and hunting is work.

That said our first duty as hunters is to the land and wildlife, even before the kill. We should be managers and protectors of all the resources under a multiple use concept. Hunting, all species, agriculture, the whole kit and caboodle.

Yes Pennsylvania has talked about 10-12 deer per square mile for period. That is because the overpopulation and damage has been so severe that carrying an unusually small herd is what will be necessary to allow native vegetation to recover before herds can be increased somewhat again. Not a whole lot diffeent than taking a badly overgrazed pasture and and removing the cattle or carrying only a very small herd until grasses recover sufficiently to increase the herd to a sustainable level. Remember the Pennsylvania hunter still has it about twice as good as the New York hunter in terms of success. In my eyes they have it pretty good.

[Sabre]

Alt, So you and I are used to hunting under similar conditions as far as deer numbers but I think you'd find we're not the norm on these boards. I did a bit of research and found that most southern and midwestern states are severely overpopulated, with deer numbers in the range of 30 to as high 250 psm quite common all over the eastern half of the US. If you started cutting those numbers to 10-15 psm across the map I think you'd hear hunters screaming all the way from Florida up through the Carolina's and all the way to the great lakes.

[southtexas]

"If you started cutting those numbers to 10-15 psm across the map I think you'd hear hunters screaming all the way from Florida up through the Carolina's and all the way to the great lakes"

Not sure I would agree with that, Sabre. About 15 years ago the population was about 60 deer PSM where we hunt (based on surveys). We saw lots of deer but they were not in good shape physically. Based on a game biologist's recommendations, we have lowered the population to about 25 deer PSM. We now see much fewer deer but the ones we see are heavier, healthier and older. In addition, there are more quail, coyotes, coons, bobcats, and other critters. Have even seen a few horny toads recently. We like it better this way.

[Sabre]

"If you started cutting those numbers to 10-15 psm across the map I think you'd hear hunters screaming all the way from Florida up through the Carolina's and all the way to the great lakes"

Not sure I would agree with that, Sabre. About 15 years ago the population was about 60 deer PSM where we hunt (based on surveys). We saw lots of deer but they were not in good shape physically. Based on a game biologist's recommendations, we have lowered the population to about 25 deer PSM. We now see much fewer deer but the ones we see are heavier, healthier and older. In addition, there are more quail, coyotes, coons, bobcats, and other critters. Have even seen a few horny toads recently. We like it better this way.

Big difference between 10 and 25 psm. Twenty five is good huntin' but 10 is getting pretty tough in heavily forested terrain! Like I said the pop runs around 45-60 psm {according to DEC survey} in the area of my uncles farm and those deer up there are big and healthy. Year and a half old bucks run 110-120 lbs. dressed, two and a halfs run 140-150 and 3.5's go 170-190.

[Altjaeger]

Big difference between 10 and 25 psm. Twenty five is good huntin' but 10 is getting pretty tough in heavily forested terrain! Like I said the pop runs around 45-60 psm {according to DEC survey} in the area of my uncles farm and those deer up there are big and healthy. Year and a half old bucks run 110-120 lbs. dressed, two and a halfs run 140-150 and 3.5's go 170-190.

Weights alone do not decide whether a herd is in balance. It is but one indicator. Worse is that it maybe the last indicator that appears after the damage is already done. By the time they begin losing weight the vegetation has already been overbrowsed and is likely to take longer to recover. Very possible they have already created browse lines, effected smaller bird and mammal populations, are ripe to host a deer epidemic, parasites and populous enough to make lymes disease and other tick fevers a threat to residents.

Better indicators or things that most us hunters are not really able to totally evaluate. How much natural food is available in browse? All that is green is not edible. Is the small game and birds on sound footing. While there is some latitude to deciding compariative populations of species there should be no doubt that all should be unthreatened and viable. Those are some of the best reasons biologists should be managing our programs and not politicians.

[Altjaeger]

Alt, So you and I are used to hunting under similar conditions as far as deer numbers but I think you'd find we're not the norm on these boards. I did a bit of research and found that most southern and midwestern states are severely overpopulated, with deer numbers in the range of 30 to as high 250 psm quite common all over the eastern half of the US. If you started cutting those numbers to 10-15 psm across the map I think you'd hear hunters screaming all the way from Florida up through the Carolina's and all the way to the great lakes.

But I drive 3 1/2 hours (183 miles of to lane highway) for that hunting.:)

[Sabre]

Weights alone do not decide whether a herd is in balance. It is but one indicator. Worse is that it maybe the last indicator that appears after the damage is already done. By the time they begin losing weight the vegetation has already been overbrowsed and is likely to take longer to recover. Very possible they have already created browse lines, effected smaller bird and mammal populations, are ripe to host a deer epidemic, parasites and populous enough to make lymes disease and other tick fevers a threat to residents.

Better indicators or things that most us hunters are not really able to totally evaluate. How much natural food is available in browse? All that is green is not edible. Is the small game and birds on sound footing. While there is some latitude to deciding compariative populations of species there should be no doubt that all should be unthreatened and viable. Those are some of the best reasons biologists should be managing our programs and not politicians.

Nothing there I disagree with at all. It definitely is overpopulated in the area of my uncles farm. The primary reason is as I stated above, it's all private land in that area and the vast majority of the local landowners severely restrict hunter access and hence limit deer harvest on their property. The state will NEVER be able to bring numbers into line with the habitat in such area's no matter how many doe tags they issue.

[Sabre]

But I drive 3 1/2 hours (183 miles of to lane highway) for that hunting.:)
No way I could afford to do that these days. My truck only gets 15 mpg so with todays gas prices {2.69 in town right now} the 180 mile round trip for a day of hunting on my uncles farm runs into some serious cash pretty fast.:eek:

[Pa greed commission]

Alt says:

A portion of the Pennsylvania hunters here and an apparent minority of all Pennsylvania have made loud noises about the destruction of the states deer herd. How badly has it hurt hunter's of that state?"

The huge majority of Pa hunter are quite pizzed. Didnt expect you to understand from a 3/4 ofa a country away.

"Pennsylvania's hunter success rate on bucks:
1980s-16%
1990s-18%
2008- 17%"

Not accurate depiction. It was around 10% in 2007. And one reason why it hasnt declined further is because HUNTER NUMBERS have declined. Thanks to the program a over double the national average. The national average decline was 4% according to USFW from 2001-2006 survey. It was 10% here according the Pa game commission license sales page.

"Aside from this aweful decimation field reports say that weights and average age of bucks killed have increased."

Actually it hasnt that a basic generalization. There has been no statewide official study of buck body weights. What there HAS been is study of reproductive/health of doe. According to annual reports the health is no better after nearly a decade. Proves nothing was wrong with it in the first place.

"Now to compare their comparative overall hunter success to neighboring states in 2006:

PA-45%
MD-36%
NY-24%
OH- 32%"

Actually thats a completely ridiculous comparison. Pa ESTIMATES its deer harvest. Those others are ACTUAL HARVESTS REPORTED. Pa's is FAR lower when comparing apples to apples. I'll show you in a minute.

"Now as to why I am concerned about the situation in Pennsylvania from far off Texas. I started reading of the overpopulation in Pennsylvania 20 years ago and the situation was widely broadcast making any claims that the situation did not exist ludicrous. All this was known for years from hunting reports to auto accident reports. "

Noone here denies some reduction was needed in some areas. What we got was excessive, unwarranted and ridiculous due to ecoextremist influence.

"I have at least three problems with the USP and its sympathizers. One is that across the nation hunters worked for years to get hunting management from the hands of legislators to professionals because the damages done under the old system. The USP looks to me like a group spoiled to unnatural conditions willing to overthrow all those gains to keep a system that was detrimental to humans and other species in that states habitat. Further they are willing to attempt to bankrupt and destroy their game commission to get their wishes."

The game commission is "destroying" itself.

[Sabre]

"Now to compare their comparative overall hunter success to neighboring states in 2006:

PA-45%
MD-36%
NY-24%
OH- 32%"

Actually thats a completely ridiculous comparison. Pa ESTIMATES its deer harvest. Those others are ACTUAL HARVESTS REPORTED. Pa's is FAR lower when comparing apples to apples. I'll show you in a minute

Don't know about MD or OH but NY's figures are definitely just estimates too.

[Pa greed commission]

Sabre, wasnt familiar with Ny off hand, but Ohio doesnt estimate. Not positive but I dont believe Md does, but wont swear to it.

Here is the ACTUAL number of deer reported in Pa last year according to the gameless commission:
" Harvest estimates for 2008-09 seasons are based on 127,351 usable harvest report cards (44,995 antlered; 82,356 antlerless) returned by hunters to the Commission and 26,057 deer (8,791 antlered; 17,266 antlerless) examined by Game Commission personnel in the field and at processors."

Now, compare that 44,995 antlered and see what percentage you get with 900,000 hunters and compare to the other states as you did in a previous post! lmao. Then again using the total harvest and compare as you did in the other. Only fair since the other states you mentioned like Ohio does NOT "estimate" by adding a percentage for guessed noncompliance with reporting. Pa game commission thinks most of us are crooks. They estimate our harvest giving us a rate of around 40% compliance last few years. Meaning they believe 60+% of us do not report. So 60% or so of the harvest is not documented. Its guessed at and a percentage applied that was gained by wcos checking random very small sampling of deer.

[Pa greed commission]

Alt, you are also WAAAY off on the jumping to conclusion of our forests being devastated by too many deer. Thats Audubon nutcases mantra. Even early in our "deer plan" our earliest forest health assessment for each wmu on the PGC annual report shows that of 21 units, only SEVEN were rated as poor. And that due to forestry practices and far too much older age class timber, along with the documented effects of acid rain which was really bad here due to all the industry to our west.

Yet we got wholesale statewide slaughter....which is continuing for no reason other than a few nuts from environmentalist extremist orgs are dictating it so.

BTW, renegades links are designed to show you our situation in his eyes? His eyes might want some eyedrops, as we havent had 1.5 million deer since our all time high herd size back at the beginning of our sham program BEFORE reduction had occurred. But, Perhaps he wanted others to believe that was CURRENTLY the situation. lmao.

[Altjaeger]

The numbers are valid.:)

All states estimate, even those with reporting and checking requirements. They estimate the number of non-compliant hunters and end up with an estimate.

An old and well hashed topic around here. My readings of PA hunting boards and the articles of Pennsylvania publications the numbers of "pizzed" PA hunters are truly a vocal minority as opposed to the great majority you wish to project.

The studies showing the inncrease in body size, antler mass and age of bucks was well documented in lost the archives of of this forum and I am not going back to research it. It was all there and the only thing fraudulent is you. :)

[Pa greed commission]

"The numbers are valid."

Valid for their intended purpose. Which is to see harvest "trends". And utilize that information in management decisions. However it is NOT valid or even close to use in a manner such as you did, by comparing success rate to a state like Ohio who does NOT estimate. According to the "reported" harvests, ohio has a MUCH higher buck/deer success percentage.

"All states estimate, even those with reporting and checking requirements. They estimate the number of non-compliant hunters and end up with an estimate."

Actually NO they do not. Ohio adds in NO PERCENTAGE. They report the actual reported figures. Do they add in any percentage when considering management issues? Not unless its a secret. They do not advertise them. When you used the numbers to get the Ohio success percentage, that most certainly was using the official ACTUAL reported number of deer.

"An old and well hashed topic around here. My readings of PA hunting boards and the articles of Pennsylvania publications the numbers of "pizzed" PA hunters are truly a vocal minority as opposed to the great majority you wish to project."

HUGE majority. I live here. Dont tell NUTTIN' but this mess son. I live it.You cant find 20 people in this half of the county that support this nonsense.

"The studies showing the inncrease in body size, antler mass and age of bucks was well documented in lost the archives of of this forum and I am not going back to research it."

I am very much aware of the research and like i said , there is NO IN DEPTH STATEWIDE STUDY on buck weight. Did weights increase in the few worst areas that actually needed some reduction and got a ton of it? Absolutely! That doesnt say one thing about the other 99% of the state!! duh!

" It was all there and the only thing fraudulent is you. "

And you are nothing but a loud mouth wannabe who is completely clueless about what goes on in Pa and probably in your own state as well. Mighty strange you "passion" and intense interest in valiantly defending the failed plan here, across the country. Its clear you have a vested interest of some bizarre sort, but having dealt with liars and frauds for years, your liable to be either an audubon extremist or not from tx. but part of the pgc damage control team. They have sunk to far lower levels than lying about being from texas on message board. lol.

Oh yeah, i almost forgot....... LOL.

[Altjaeger]

And you are nothing but a loud mouth wannabe who is completely clueless about what goes on in Pa and probably in your own state as well. Mighty strange you "passion" and intense interest in valiantly defending the failed plan here, across the country. Its clear you have a vested interest of some bizarre sort, but having dealt with liars and frauds for years, your liable to be either an audubon extremist or not from tx. but part of the pgc damage control team. They have sunk to far lower levels than lying about being from texas on message board. lol.[/B]

Oh yeah, i almost forgot....... LOL.

:D:D:D I'll let the other members of this board decide who they see as the reliable voice here.

[Pa greed commission]

Facts are facts. It doesnt make one bit of difference to me what your opinion is if it counters those facts.

While you may have supportive friends (or not, dont know or care)who might overlook your clear frustration that lead you to resort to insults when i was presenting you with facts and links, anyone unbiased can see it for what it is. A blowhard who doesnt know much taking out his agression.

Maybe you should ask for an administrator position here. To relieve that agression, You can ban anyone making you look foolish with facts about pa deer management, just like Renegade does on his site?

[Pa greed commission]

"Weights alone do not decide whether a herd is in balance. It is but one indicator."

Thats exactly right. Pa uses reproductive data. We were told the breeding timing would decrease and now they say they have found it was never an issue to begin with, since that the vast majority of deer where and still are being bred within the ideal narrow timeframe window.

They use percentage of adult does bred as one indicator. That percentage has steadily DECLINED since the program began. There was nothing wrong with it to begin with with at least 93% of adult does being bred in 2000, NOW what is it? It dropped to 91-92% range, then again down to 89% and last assessment at 88% in 2007.

The number of fawns produces was supposed to increase. It didnt. It steadily DECREASED. It was fine previously and not rated as poor other than i believe if i remember correctly in 2 wmus. But no... the statewide measure DECREASED? why? most likely due to lower doe age structure thanks to all the hr. Something the idiots hadnt anticipated apparently.

These are the genius minds behind our deer plan at work.... Or more like it.. at work attempting to scam the hunters of our state and throw us under the bus for their enviro-nutjob agenda.


But what do i know?? I dont have Altjaegers vast knowledge (LOL), or Renegades credibility. lol.

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

That's right, you're not from Texas
That's right, you're not from Texas
That's right, you're not from Texas
But Texas loves you Any-way!

OMG! Atjaeger is not from Texas!? He's an internet mole from Pennsylvania with 518 posts on the new boards set up for a preemptive strike on PGC!

I don't know who PGC, Renegade, Chappy, and the rest of the PA folks are who showed up here recently, but good or bad, nuts or just halfnuts, you guys have got some genuinely unresolved issues. Some of you(read one of you) has a bone-if-ide screw loose.

As much good as the internet does it certainly is a wide open forum for anonymous ranting. This crap was mildly entertaining for the first day but it's only annoying now. Too bad it seems to be the only game in town as far as HA is concerned right now. Think I'll go see if I can work up some discussion elsewhere. Y'all stay here and bicker, please.

Alan

[Pa greed commission]

"OMG! Atjaeger is not from Texas!? He's an internet mole from Pennsylvania with 518 posts on the new boards set up for a preemptive strike on PGC!"

Didnt say that. I said it wouldnt surprise me. Pgc has an extensive extended family of friend and family members of pgc, audubon, dcnr and other who have their own little internet damage control network. Fits in nicely with their alway ongoing pr campaign to fool the people of Pa. Also making impressions on legislators is VERY important. Several visit some of the Pa websites regularly. Not saying Altj is part of it. Just explaining things. But what I am saying is its clear for some reason he likes to lie alot and is abnormally passionate about defending the failed program. Only ones Ive ever seen do that, are those of the above description.

"I don't know who PGC, Renegade, Chappy, and the rest of the PA folks are who showed up here recently, but good or bad, nuts or just halfnuts, you guys have got some genuinely unresolved issues. Some of you(read one of you) has a bone-if-ide screw loose."

I agree. One of us does. No argument there.

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

You've got 33 posts.


Every one of them is in this board on three or four threads and almost all of them are a line by line rebuttal of someone else's post.


From your first post The first line of which was a personal attack, any credibility your posts or information might have had became so clouded in all the BS that it would take a day to decipher it all.


Now I took the liberty of dividing my post up into individual sentences so you can address each of them more expeditiously if indeed you are inclined to do so.


If you are not so inclined then all the better, you'll have to get in line if you want to hurt my feelings by ignoring me.


My opinion, based on the facts as represented by your own posts, is that you have an axe to grind with someone, but it ain't one of us.


So, for my part, if you don't like something I've posted or the way I feel or what I believe, even though I AM in Texas, you can go pound dirt for all I care.


I'm through feeding an anonymous troll.


So there!


This should keep you busy for a few minutes.


Alan

[Pa greed commission]

"From your first post The first line of which was a personal attack, any credibility your posts or information might have had became so clouded in all the BS that it would take a day to decipher it all. "

You cant read? You cant tell a fact when you see it? You cant punch on links? Seems you are easily "clouded".

"My opinion, based on the facts as represented by your own posts, is that you have an axe to grind with someone, but it ain't one of us. "

No "axe to grind" Ive treated renegade exactly as hes treated me here. I reply to each statement made. If that statement was respectful, the same is given in return, which is how i prefer it. If its clearly not, then sorry, but im not gonna kiss a wannabe bullies arse. Im more than willing to forgive and forget Renegades issues and always have been. But the fact of the matter is, he will never change. SO it is HE who dictates where the conversation goes...or you....or whoever else is debating at the time. You reap what you sow. Not sure which part of that you dont understand. Should be easy for someone with such a "dee" Thomas Jefferson quote for his sig. line. lol

So, for my part, if you don't like something I've posted or the way I feel or what I believe, even though I AM in Texas, you can go pound dirt for all I care.

I frankly dont care what you post. It is kind of interesting though, that someone who is passionate about their way of life in Pa...of hunting lifestyle and all that entails (thats my excuse, whats yours?) and how it effects people here can garner so much whining and rudeness from another hunter in another state across the country who has NO stake in it, yet must just like to argue to hear themselves argue. I wasnt rude to you. You chose to jump in the fray swinging. So if you got knocked out in the process, so sorry bout your luck. .

"I'm through feeding an anonymous troll."

Yeah. We'll see how much will power you have as far as that goes. I think most would love it if you'd shut the hell up and piling on useless whining posts about "the bad guy" on top of this discussion. Probably be typing up an insult before im even done typing this. lmao.

"This should keep you busy for a few minutes."

Yeah. It took all of about 10 seconds of my consideration, and about 30 seconds typing time. Now if its all the same to you, this topic is about deer management. I dont see where it says jump in line here to do nothing but whine about the other posters for 75 posts.

__________________

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

[QUOTE=Pa greed commission;8292]"From your first post The first line of which was a personal attack, any credibility your posts or information might have had became so clouded in all the BS that it would take a day to decipher it all. "

You cant read? You cant tell a fact when you see it? You cant punch on links? Seems you are easily "clouded".

"Ahhh, Renegade. I see you trying to bully people here just like on your lil' pabucks site. lmao.

Funny the misinformation you choose to spread, yet dont do so anywhere that open discussion is possible, since that only leaves you looking very silly."

Black and white to me pard. Can't handle the truth?

Alan

[Altjaeger]

Pgc has an extensive extended family of friend and family members of pgc, audubon, dcnr and other who have their own little internet damage control network. Fits in nicely with their alway ongoing pr campaign to fool the people of Pa. Also making impressions on legislators is VERY important. Several visit some of the Pa websites regularly. [/B]

Do the voices speak to you too?

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Yeah folks, we got us a runner!!

Alan

[Pa greed commission]

"Black and white to me pard. Can't handle the truth? "

Handle it? Im the only one who has told it.

"Yeah folks, we got us a runner!!"

Sorry to hear that. I guess you'll just have to buy a new pair of pantyhose. Unless you were speaking of your mouth?? Btw, though you were done whiney? thats what you said on the other thread. Oh let me guess. That was the OTHER thread. lmao. Even though its still discussion with me, and still on the same topic basically. Like I said son. No backbone. lol

Alt says: "Do the voices speak to you too? "

Yes. They say tell Jaeger to pull his head out of his buttocks. That which is pretty much common knowledge to most HERE is apparently foreign and unknown to YOU so dont know why you'd even comment when you dont have a clue one way or the other, other than maybe you wanna be a internet blowhard and whine like a spoiled 15 year old kid that just had his lunch money taken because you dont get any attention at home?.

[Pa greed commission]

Here is some info on a bunch of nuts who wish to introduce cougars back into the wild in the east. lmao. They share the views of idiots like audubon and others that wish to kill the deer to make the forests their own little private wildflower picking/bird watching terrarium.

"The Eastern Cougar Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, science-based, volunteer-run conservation organization dedicated to recovery of cougars (mountain lions) in wild areas of their former range in eastern and central North America.

The return of the mountain lion, whether as individuals or in sanctioned restoration programs, will be one of the grandest opportunities---and greatest challenges---most wildlife professionals in the Great Plains, Midwest, and the East will ever face.
Jay Tischendorf 2007 "

Yet god forbid anyone try and point out that these nuts exist, because then usp or whoever else it is gets called names and attempts made to discredit. Why? Because they are the #1 enemy of those groups, and they seek to discredit usp and anyone else standing in their way. Just see Pa audubon web pages. They absolutely hate usp and the hunters of Pa for not bending over willingly. lmao. These idiots can even be found posting on HUNTING message boards....one ive been a member of for 9 years or so, the highly political huntingpa.com website for one , which is unofficially run by pgc and dcnr. OF course, to any that just like to argue for the sake of arguing without knowing anything....That too will probably just be called another conspiracy theory. lol.

But to some brainiacs who dont know any better...usp is the bad guys. lol.

[Pa greed commission]

The link: http://www.easterncougar.org/

Nuff said.

[Altjaeger]

These idiots can even be found posting on HUNTING message boards....one ive been a member of for 9 years or so, the highly political huntingpa.com website for one , which is unofficially run by pgc and dcnr. OF course, to any that just like to argue for the sake of arguing without knowing anything....That too will probably just be called another conspiracy theory. lol.
.

Yup, very likely!
:D

[Altjaeger]

Alt says: "Do the voices speak to you too? "

Yes. They say tell Jaeger to pull his head out of his buttocks. That which is pretty much common knowledge to most HERE is apparently foreign and unknown to YOU so dont know why you'd even comment when you dont have a clue one way or the other...



I think your common knowledge is common knowledge to you only. More the problem for you is that too many do have knowledge that makes your progrom of misinformation difficult.
:D

[Laturkeyhtr]

After some further review, it appears to me that some of the recent posters and some of the ones that have posted here for awhile have some previous conflicts and have chose this forum to continue to attack/aggravate each other. No need for the attacks, and it is okay that we agree to disagree.

As for a few of the newest posters, I will offer my welcome and hope you enjoy our discussions here. It is also hoped that we can all learn from a meaningful interaction. However, I find it odd, that when the discussion turns to the PGC, that there will be new posters arrive to seemingly support a particular opinion, then disappear. I remember Gustaf Schimmel that used to show up in support of Badger and there was another, neither of which ever showed up except to support Badger's poiint of view. Which is fine! But it does leave me wondering . . . . . BTW, with all the recent discussion where is Badger?

[Altjaeger]

But it does leave me wondering . . . . . BTW, with all the recent discussion where is Badger?

He has been in here to read I know, but so far has not commented. Perhaps after being so upset being called "twit" he could not stand to be allied with the new posters.

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

thats what you said on the other thread. Oh let me guess. That was the OTHER thread. lmao. Even though its still discussion with me, and still on the same topic basically.


No, it was this thread. Are you getting confused?

Whoever Renegade is, he sure had this fellow pegged.

LATH, out of respect for our relationship, common background and the fact that you do a fine job of moderating this board, I will stop this foolishness. I am really not into anonymity and rudeness.

Alan

[Pa greed commission]

"Yup, very likely!"

Facts are facts. They dont need your approval to be so.

[Pa greed commission]

"No, it was this thread. Are you getting confused? "

Apparently. When you make 100 complete nonsense posts that all sound the same on 2 or 3 threads, i dont really care where its located, but nice of you to admit you lied. lol

"LATH, out of respect for our relationship, common background and the fact that you do a fine job of moderating this board, I will stop this foolishness. I am really not into anonymity and rudeness."

Naaa. Not you. Lmao. You also were not gonna continue yesterday either. Yet here we are a day later. Very truthful fellow.:cool:

[Renegade]

Well I see he's been making an impression.

Originally Posted by Pa greed commission
Pgc has an extensive extended family of friend and family members of pgc, audubon, dcnr and other who have their own little internet damage control network.
Add that to the list of predictions that came true!


To depict an accurate success rate you would take the amount of hunting license sales divided by the antlerless harvest. That would give you a conservative number since not every license sale is used to hunt buck, but the majority is.
.year……..sales….…harvest….success rate
1986 …. 1,164,596 … 150,359 = 12.91%
1987 …. 1,168,914 … 157,547 = 13.47%
1988 …. 1,160,886 … 163,106 = 14.05%

1998 …. 1,071,205 … 181,449 = 16.94%
1999 …..1,033,315 … 194,368 = 18.81%

2005 …... 964,158 … 120,500 = 12.50%
2006 …... 945,892 … 135,290 = 14.30%
2007 …... 924,448 … 109,200 = 11.81%
2008 …... 926,892 … 122,410 = 13.21%
(I’m lacking some license sales numbers or I would’ve added more. Stay tuned)
Now obviously when you reduce the herd there will be less deer, a no brainer, but as you can see the rate hasn’t changed by much and certainly not drastically as some try to get you to believe. I would also note that the method the PGC uses to translate our very poor reporting rate (was 58.6% for bucks in 1982 to 37% in 2006) has been peer reviewed in the Journal of Wildlife Management and given a seal of approval as a sound scientific method. http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/reporting_rate_variability.pdf They sample between 29,000 and 52,000 deer a year via field checks and processor checks.
And here’s sales: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=511&q=159015
And harvest’s: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=493&q=159232

What’s interesting though is the buck harvest itself. Since the PGC raised the antler restriction from one that allowed anything with bone over 3” to be shot, to one that allowed these yearlings to grow another year into 2.5 year olds, we’ve seen the harvest of 2.5+ deer increase greatly. Here are some stats on the actual buck harvest.

..........Males in Harvest..............
YEAR ... 1.5 yearlings ............adults 2.5+
1995- . 150,503 - 82.6% .... 31,732 - 17.4%
1996- . 128,549 - 83.8% .... 24,883 - 16.2%
1997- . 143,841 - 81.4% .... 32,835 - 18.6%
1998- . 146,211 - 80.6% .... 35,235 - 19.4%
1999- . 155,426 - 80.0% .... 38,941 - 20.0%
2000- . 165,960 - 81.7% .... 37,261 - 18.4%
2001- . 159,392 - 78.4% .... 43,855 - 21.6%
2002- . 112,809 - 68.2% .... 52,607 - 31.8%
2003- ... 80,276 - 56.4% .... 61,994 - 43.6%
2004- ... 62,010 - 49.8% .... 62,399 - 50.2%
I don’t have the raw data for 05 or newer so I don’t want to take general numbers from a news release and mix it with actual numbers(apples w/ oranges) but it has leveled off right around 50%. The new AR started in 2002.
So while we lowered the herd size, we’re taking more older class buck even with that reduction. It’s clearly working and is pretty well liked by most of PA’s hunters and most polls reflect that as well, as unscientific as they are. According to the president of the states taxidermy assoc., they like it as well.

Now here is some data put together by a friend of mine who has access to all the PGC data.
“People have been comparing the deer harvests from the various states and using that to try to prove how much better the hunting is in other states. I decided to put the deer harvests and hunter numbers onto equal footing by presenting the data in harvests and resident hunting license sold per square mile of land mass for each of the states.

Comparison of deer harvests and resident hunting license sold per square mile of land mass.”
Ranked in descending based on the 2006 deer harvest data:

State……...…….….2002….2003……..2004…….2005……2006……li c/sq.mi
Maryland……………….9.4………8.7……….9.4………9.5………9.2………13.6
Pennsylvania………..11.5……..10.4……...9.1……7.9………8.1…. …20.8
Michigan……………….8.3………8.7……….7.9………7.3………7.9………12.7
New Jersey…………..8.5………9.4……….7.9………8.0………7.6……….9.7
Delaware……………….5.3………6.0……….7.5………7.0………7.4……….9.7
Wisconsin……….…...6.8………8.6……….7.5………6.5………6.7……….1 1.9
Ohio………………..……5.0………4.8……….5.3………5.1………5.8……….11. 4
W. Virginia…………10.6……...8.6……….7.4………5.6………5.7………..8. 1
Virginia………………...5.4………6.0……….5.6………5.4………5.6……….. 8.9
Missouri………………..4.1………4.2……….4.6………4.2………4.7………..7 .8
New York………………6.5………5.4………4.4………3.8………4.0………..10.4
Illinois…………….…….2.9………3.0……….3.4………3.6………3.5……….. .4.6
Indiana…………………2.9………3.0……….3.4………3.5……….3.5………..6. 6
Minnesota…………...2.8………3.6……….3.3………3.2……….3.4……….. 6.4
Kentucky………………2.9……….2.9……….3.1………2.8……….3.1………..6 .1
Texas…………………..1.7……….1.7……….1.7………1.8……….1.7………..3 .7
Mass…………………...1.6……….1.5……….1.6………1.5……….1.6………..7 .2
Vermont……………….1.8……….1.6……….1.3………0.9……….1.4………..6 .1
N. Hampshire……….1.2……….1.1……….1.1………1.2……….1.3………..5. 7
Maine………………….1.2……….1.0……….1.0………0.9……….1.0………..4. 7
Kansas…………………0.9………..0.9………0.9………0.9……….0.9………..2. 2

It still looks to me though Pennsylvania has some of the best deer hunting in this country.

Here is just some of the research done by the PGC for anyone’s interest:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/browse.asp?a=465&bc=0&c=70128

Now with hesitation I share this information. I believe this is the topic that I had debunked “greed” on that caused his meltdown. I’ve decided that instead of playing his childish games and continue to drag this site into the gutter, I’ll just post all the research and supporting evidence to my comments and let them stand for all to make up their own minds. Most here are very capable of forming their own conclusion and that’s good enough. As FOX says "I'll report, you decide". Too many in PA take the easy way out and rely on heresay or their own limited (sometimes very) knowledge of the intricacies and details. You see, the research around the country, from the professionals in the fields of forest and wildlife management doesn’t worry me because it supports my claims. However, there is very little evidence from anywhere to support an opposing view. Hence the reason to base theories on opinion rather than fact.
First the article for some years (04&05) in between that shows a nationwide comparison and average, then the data for the report that was mentioned earlier (with the data it was based on), because if memory serves me right and it is the same guy, he’ll try to tie those two sources plus the PGC website sales all together (apples, oranges, and banana’s) and claim a conclusion as fact.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=2749871
Hunting license sales generate record funding for conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Feb. 1, 2007
NEWTOWN, Conn. — A new report shows 25 states performed better than the national rate in sales of hunting licenses, tags and stamps in 2005.
Altogether, national sales, the main funding mechanism for state conservation agencies, set a new record, topping $723 million. The 2005 figures, just released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, show total sales rose 2.8 percent from the previous year, while the number of customers slipped 1.4 percent, from 14.7 million to 14.5 million.
The total number of U.S. hunters, including both licensed and non-licensed, is estimated much higher than the 14.5 million acknowledged in the federal report.
The National Sporting Goods Association calculates 20.6 million active hunters. The Outdoor Industry Association's latest estimate surpasses 26 million. And in a new survey commissioned by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and conducted by independent firm Responsive Management, 19 percent of Americans, more than 50 million people, said they've hunted in the past two years.
Depending on local laws, non-licensed hunters may include:
• Young hunters who aren't yet required to buy a license.
• Hunters at wingshooting and other game preserves.
• Landowners hunting on their own property.
• . Lessees hunting on land where they reside.
• Active duty military on leave.
• Citizens who hunt only on free hunting days.
• Senior citizens no longer required to buy a license.
"Every hunter is an important asset to the firearm and hunting industry, but the number of license buyers is also significant because that's who contributes the most to habitat restoration, wildlife management and other conservation programs," said Doug Painter, president of NSSF. "Special excise taxes on guns and ammunition rose to more than $224 million for conservation in 2005, but license sales more than tripled that amount,"
In 2005, 14,575,484 hunters purchased 35,609,605 different licenses, tags and stamps at an average cost of $20.32 each. Total sales reached $723,712,681.
Sales totals have risen steadily in recent years, while licensed hunter numbers have risen in just two of the past seven years.
Painter said fluctuations are tied to fee increases, game populations, weather and many other factors.
However, since peaking in the mid-1980s, hunting participation has been trending downward, challenged mostly by loss of land access and recreational time.
NSSF administers or supports a variety of programs to help offset these challenges. For example, its Hunting Heritage Partnership has allocated $1.7 million in grants to 33 states for projects such as signage and maps of public hunting lands, hunter recruitment campaigns and more.
Families Afield works to safely reduce legal barriers into hunting such as age restrictions and coursework mandates. The portal web site HuntandShoot.org is designed to connect hunters nationwide with critical where-to and how-to information.
The new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data on hunting license buyers are comparatively good news for 25 states that performed better than the national rate.
Highlights include Tennessee, which added over 45,000 new hunters for a gain of 6.2 percent. Arizona, South Dakota and South Carolina also enjoyed large increases in numbers of licensed hunters.
At the other end of the spectrum are New York, Michigan, Texas, Indiana and West Virginia. Together these five states documented 168,331 fewer license buyers, a number representing 83 percent of the total decline nationally. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Hunting License Report
State 2004 Paid License Holders 2005 Paid License Holders Variance
AZ 182,044 196,706 8.1%
TN 730,495 775,511 6.2%
DE 18,480 19,472 5.4%
SD 232,053 243,123 4.8%
SC 210,136 220,126 4.8%
NE 165,952 170,785 2.9%
NV 58,722 60,385 2.8%
WA 193,046 197,135 2.1%
NM 103,968 105,966 1.9%
AK 98,084 99,954 1.9%
IL 330,360 336,203 1.8%
WY 136,839 139,064 1.6%
ID 250,648 254,678 1.6%
MD 120,914 122,371 1.2%
ND 147,240 148,919 1.1%
LA 277,108 280,167 1.1%
MS 234,797 236,067 0.5%
GA* 314,569 314,569 0.0%
MN 571,581 571,547 0.0%
OK 341,260 341,213 0.0%
VA 317,484 317,239 -0.1%
MT 232,869 231,936 -0.4%
AR 378,162 375,737 -0.6%
PA 1,018,664 1,006,293 -1.2%
WI 722,803 713,610 -1.3%
National Average Variance -1.4%
OR 283,327 279,140 -1.5%
KS 202,274 198,368 -1.9%
KY 350,544 343,456 -2.0%
CO 318,971 312,151 -2.1%
IA 286,607 280,398 -2.2%
CA 305,962 299,303 -2.2%
OH 442,214 431,815 -2.4%
NC 438,172 427,608 -2.4%
MO 492,500 479,959 -2.5%
NH 62,587 60,737 -3.0%
UT 153,501 148,849 -3.0%
AL 267,354 259,241 -3.0%
ME 205,600 199,102 -3.2%
TX 1,073,847 1,039,709 -3.2%
CT 54,130 52,207 -3.6%
RI 9,302 8,940 -3.9%
NJ 86,588 82,566 -4.6%
MI 832,835 789,244 -5.2%
HI 8,211 7,775 -5.3%
VT 86,512 81,265 -6.1%
WV 254,222 238,355 -6.2%
IN 303,217 282,261 -6.9%
FL 175,067 161,273 -7.9%
NY 627,749 573,970 -8.6%
MA 69,500 59,016 -15.1%
Total 14,779,071 14,575,484 -1.4%
A paid license holder is one individual, regardless of the number of
licenses purchased.
*NOTE: Georgia did not report 2005 figures.

Now here is the 2006 survey mentioned: http://library.fws.gov/pubs/nat_survey2006_final.pdf
And the Individual states data for it: http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html
choose PA 2006(specifically page 15 of the report shows the 2001-2006 comparison)
And here’s an article from 2000 (before the new deer program) that shows a larger decrease(nationally) than in 2005 as above. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_2_45/ai_60071318/
And another article showing(nationally) a larger drop than 2005 as well…. In 1997! See the middle article: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/polycomm/pressrel/sajna/sajna1007.htm

I think this is enough data to digest for now. Some people get tired of all my links and numbers that I post. But if you are really interested in deciphering all the information and misinformation out there, that’s what you have to research. For some historic articles on PA’s past history of wildlife management, check out this site for reading.
http://www.fortgrundsow.com/PGN.html

[venado]

Thanks, I didn't notice a single foul word or irrational blame comment in that post. Thanks too for the links, it is rare here to get such links since for many emotion rules their life. It will take me a while to go through that in detail...!:cool:

[Renegade]

A couple a quick things:
Mandatory Checkstations:
-New York – NO, phone reporting
-Ohio – Yes, changing to phones but see attached letter from them
-Maryland – NO more, changed to phone or online

A question and response letter to Ohio DNR biologist:
Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI writes:

I believe that your method of mandatory deer check-in is the most accurate method of tabulating a season's deer hunting kill and believe that it would behoove Michigan's DNR to implement a similar program.

Why do you use mandatory deer check-in rather than Michigan's method which deals heavily in statistical demographics/information? Is there any data/study showing that madatory deer check-in is a more accurate way of determining a season's take of whitetails? Sincerely, Milton F. Whitmore Arcadia, MI


Hi Milton,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your thoughts on mandatory registration (MR). As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey. Technically, I guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure nonreporting rates. In the 10 years that I’ve been here, I’ve been engaged in numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration. I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.

On the surface, MR seems like the “cats meow.” You kill a deer, you bring it to the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were taken, but you’re now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size of the upcoming fall population. In a perfect world, that might be the case. The reality is, we know (PA and MO come to mind immediately) that not everyone checks their deer. How many? Who knows for sure? In some years it may be as low as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do. If you didn’t check your deer and you were asked after the season via a phone call, if you checked your deer, what’s you’re answer going to be? My point is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at best. Moreover, if you don’t know what noncompliance is, you don’t know what the true harvest is either. So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that – an estimate. In large part it is because of tradition. It also is a very good PR tool. It gives us an opportunity to interact with our hunters. I like working check stations, as do many of my colleagues. The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall. On-site registration will be a thing of the past. Last year was the last time they collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now rely on processors for that data. Mandatory registration has its advantages. However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of the alternatives is not one. While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan’s current system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than mandatory registration. Brent Rudolf, a good friend and someone whom I respect a great deal summed it up best with the following comments:

“Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance. When hunters are required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phonecall, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations). Although we know that it is harder to garner a survey response from individuals that did not hunt or harvest any deer, we do capture information from these individuals and are able to generate confidence intervals. I believe PA has tried to estimate non-compliance by examining how many deer checked at processors do not show up later in the reported harvest, but I don't remember what they've found from this. I don't believe WI tries to determine non-compliance at all, which means the number of deer registered is simply a minimum number of deer killed. This unknown element would especially be of concern when trying to summarize figures for individual units. Thus, I would disagree with your generalized statement that "registration enables us to manage deer on a finer scale... with greater precision". Keith, precision in the harvest estimate is not known in either of our states, as it would require knowing the true harvest. Although providing confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with the relatively wide range at the level of a DMU, they do provide a measurable means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest. Other general benefits of our system are that we generate measures of participation and effort.”

Mandatory registration may help some to restore hunter confidence in the DNR estimates. However, I don’t believe it will improve the estimates themselves.

I hope I have shed some “unbiased” light on the subject of mandatory registration. Please don’t hesitate to drop me a note if you have additional questions or need clarification on something. Again, thank you for writing.

Very best,

Mike
Michael J. Tonkovich, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
ODNR, Division of Wildlife
9650 SR 356
New Marshfield, OH 45766

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

He probably just made all that stuff up to satisfy the worldwide conspiracy led by Altjaeger to hoodwink Pennsylvanians.

Thanks Renegade for the post. Gonna take a while to go through it what with all those blue letter thingys in the way!

Alan

[sharpshooter94]

I hunt in PA and I can say that there is a very low population of bucks on our land. We've just started to see spikes in the past couple years but our neighbors claim to have seen two 10 pointers in our field last week. There seem to be no shortage of does though. I can ride the ATV up the mountain and see at least 10 does in the morning or evening. Heck I can even get within about 20 yards of them if I want to.

[venado]

Hello Sharpshooter94, welcome to the site. Since we discuss Pennsylvania a lot on here because of their very active management, we are glad to have someone else from PA here. There are several now, Badger, DAFC, and Renegade that immediately come to mind. Before we changed sites we had several more but I don't recall them coming here lately.

How big is the place you hunt and what sort of property surrounds you? What is it that you would like to kill? Those are always questions that bear on what you see and what if anything you can do about it.

[Renegade]

Venado & Alan - Your welcome. Links are always helpful backup. Lots more where those came from.

Sharpshooter- Are these spike sightings something new in your area? The reason I ask is because they used to be pretty common around here in years past. I still see them on occasion but I'm seeing many larger buck in the past 5 years. Used to be you'd take a ride, day or night, and you'd see lots of deer but almost all antlerless. But now you see fewer deer but chances are good that of those deer a couple will be bucks. In years gone by spikes used to make up a fair portion of the harvest. I think the average was a 5 pt. or so.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Hey Sharpshooter, I too would like to welcome you and your input to the QDM forum. I hope you find it both informative and enjoyable.

Not being a biologist, I can't explain why you are just now seeing spikes if they haven't been present in the past. You neighbors seeing the 10 pts could be the result of the age structure adjusting some to the antler restrictions.

But I can you one thing, put some pressure on those does and they will become harder to see as well. :D

Rengade, the above post was a real piece of work, my hats off for all you pulled together. I can't help but notice though that those opposed to the current situation have not made a comment.

[venado]

Come on now Renegade, you can't expect us to have faith in this guy:



Michael J. Tonkovich, Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
ODNR, Division of Wildlife
9650 SR 356
New Marshfield, OH 45766


Why he couldn't possibly know as much as someone that has a hard time killing a deer in PA and complains all of the time to the Legislature for help. What are his creds..:rolleyes:

BTW, like most states that still use check stations and are leaving them for more modern and less costly methods, their check procedures started when deer were few and hunter success low. As is the case in most of the white-tailed deer's range their numbers are high today and there is no fear that a season's kill will decimate (a favorite USP word) the herd. In the case for Ohio their hunter success rate was 8% when check stations were initiated and it is now in the 40% range.

[Renegade]

I know, I know. I could have just penned that response myself and added his title. I hope I spelled it right??

People think checkstations are the end all method, and like he said, in a perfect world where everyone complied they would be. But that's a pipe dream. I think PA should implement some voluntary checkstations like they used to or like some QDMA branches do. When manned by trained personnel they could provide additional biological data that would only help in their sampling. They could do one in each unit (there's 22) and vary it's location every year within the unit. And examine both male and female.

Laturkeyhtr - Thank you and yes I noticed that... but am not surprised. That's usually how they work.

[Pa greed commission]

First off, I dont see anything that pertains to the Ohio statement????

I believe it compared check station to no check station? WTF does that have to do with anything? I didnt say one was better than another. I pointed out YOU were compareing one states harvest percentage from a state WITH to a state WITHOUT. and THAT is not accurate. lmao. Nice attempt at cover-up by not addressing the actual issue. Your trademark move.

Now I'll straighten out the rest, so as you dont fool anyone who may not know any better.

"Add that to the list of predictions that came true!"

Wow. That was predictable. You can probably predict we are gonna disagree on the next post too! :eek:


"To depict an accurate success rate you would take the amount of hunting license sales divided by the antlerless harvest. That would give you a conservative number since not every license sale is used to hunt buck, but the majority is."

??????What on earth are you talking about? lmao. Those who want to hunt antlerless buy an ANTLERLESS LICENSE or more than one in many cases.


".year……..sales….…harvest….success rate
1986 …. 1,164,596 … 150,359 = 12.91%
1987 …. 1,168,914 … 157,547 = 13.47%
1988 …. 1,160,886 … 163,106 = 14.05%

1998 …. 1,071,205 … 181,449 = 16.94%
1999 …..1,033,315 … 194,368 = 18.81%

2005 …... 964,158 … 120,500 = 12.50%
2006 …... 945,892 … 135,290 = 14.30%
2007 …... 924,448 … 109,200 = 11.81%
2008 …... 926,892 … 122,410 = 13.21%"

What do we see here?? We see that prior to the deer plan, we had to go back 20 years to find similar rates. We also see a differnt harvest rate for 2008 than you originally stated. lmao. We also see that you CONVENIENTLY left out the by far very highest harvest years before the deer plan...Those of 2000 to 2003. 2 years of which, we harvested OVER 200,000 bucks...

ALSO this all doesnt take into account that so many fewer hunters SHOULD have a much higher success rate than if we had more!

"(I’m lacking some license sales numbers or I would’ve added more. Stay tuned)"

"That I would also note that the method the PGC uses to translate our very poor reporting rate (was 58.6% for bucks in 1982 to 37% in 2006) has been peer reviewed in the Journal of Wildlife Management and given a seal of approval as a sound scientific method."

I have no complaint with the reporting system. OR those that differ from our own. The problem I pointed out was with your inappropriate comparison of apples and watermelons. You simply cant compare a states success rate that counts only deer actually turned in to one that also adds a percentage to account for those not, because if a state such as for example Ohio, had attempted to account for noncompliance, their harvest estimate would have been much higher than if they had not.

Nice try at arguing things that had nothing at all to do with anything I said.


"..........Males in Harvest..............
YEAR ... 1.5 yearlings ............adults 2.5+
1995- . 150,503 - 82.6% .... 31,732 - 17.4%
1996- . 128,549 - 83.8% .... 24,883 - 16.2%
1997- . 143,841 - 81.4% .... 32,835 - 18.6%
1998- . 146,211 - 80.6% .... 35,235 - 19.4%
1999- . 155,426 - 80.0% .... 38,941 - 20.0%
2000- . 165,960 - 81.7% .... 37,261 - 18.4%
2001- . 159,392 - 78.4% .... 43,855 - 21.6%
2002- . 112,809 - 68.2% .... 52,607 - 31.8%
2003- ... 80,276 - 56.4% .... 61,994 - 43.6%
2004- ... 62,010 - 49.8% .... 62,399 - 50.2%
I don’t have the raw data for 05 or newer..."

" the first year of ar, no bucks had been saved previously by the restriction and in the years you site, HERD REDUCTION Had not been completed yet. (in fact we are still reducing), anyway, the number of deer AND big buck along with it had fallen since 2004...along with the support of many who started out supporting the plan in the first place...

Of course the MUCH LOWER buck harvests of the last few years dont suit your argument very well, so you stuck with only 2 years that fall within the range of years effected, the two years of highest deer numbers since the plan began. lmao."

[Pa greed commission]

Comparing apples to apples, how does pa's harvest compare to Ohio??

in 2007 the total deer harvested and reported in Pa was 124,529.
in Ohio the total deer harvested and reported was DOUBLE that at 237,316..and that is with hundreds of thousands less hunters in Ohio. nuff said.:cool:

"Harvest estimates for 2007-08 seasons are based on 124,569 usable harvest report cards (40,482 antlered; 84,087 antlerless) returned by hunters to the Commission and 25,400 deer (7,338 antlered; 18,062 antlerless) examined by Game Commission personnel in the field and at processors."http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=173862&A=11

"COLUMBUS, OH - Ohio deer hunters took a record 237,316 deer during the 2006-07 hunting season "

Ohio link http://http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/18451/default.aspx

[Pa greed commission]

And the TOTAL buck harvest pic that Renegade tried to hide:

1999--------194,000
2000--------202,736 (wow left that out didnt you chief! lol)
2001--------202,946 (hmmm, dont recall that from your post either! ;) )
2002--------165,172 (didnt compare THIS one either to the current lows)---also first year of ar.
2003--------141,550
2004--------124,410(Wow! Alts program is working!)
2005--------120,500
2006--------135,290(incredible weather and super mast prior year)
2007--------109,200(a many decades low buck harvest)
2008--------122,410(excellent weather, should have been much higher if claims were true and low harvest was due in 2007 to supposed weather being a factor. 2009 will be lower yet due to continued herd reduction, + No carry over deer saved due to weather as was the claim the previous year. )

Keep in mind these are very "optimistic" estimated harvests, or around 60% higher numbers than the actual number of harvested deer actually reported.

[Renegade]

Comparing apples to apples, how does pa's harvest compare to Ohio??

in 2007 the total deer harvested and reported in Pa was 124,529.
in Ohio the total deer harvested and reported was DOUBLE that at 237,316..and that is with hundreds of thousands less hunters in Ohio. nuff said.:cool:

"Harvest estimates for 2007-08 seasons are based on 124,569 usable harvest report cards (40,482 antlered; 84,087 antlerless) returned by hunters to the Commission and 25,400 deer (7,338 antlered; 18,062 antlerless) examined by Game Commission personnel in the field and at processors."http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=173862&A=11

"COLUMBUS, OH - Ohio deer hunters took a record 237,316 deer during the 2006-07 hunting season "

Ohio link http://http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/18451/default.aspx

You might want to refigure your numbers AND your claim. That's quite the stretch, comparing report cards of one state to the harvest total of another. Especially since you admitted your aware of our reporting system and hence it's flaw.
2007 PA.Total Deer Harvest = 323,070
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/pdf/harvest_map/wmu_harvest_map_2007-08.pdf
2007 OH. Total Deer Harvest = 232,854
"A total of 232,854 deer was harvested this year, a 2% decrease from last season"

"The goal of Ohio’s deer management program is to provide a deer population that maximizes recreational opportunity including viewing, photographing, and hunting deer while minimizing conflicts with agriculture, motor travel, and other areas of human endeavor. This has been the goal of our deer program for over 40 years. Farmer attitude surveys are used to establish and update population goals for most counties. We believe these goals represent a reasonable compromise between interests with opposing opinions on appropriate deer population levels.
Furthermore, although these goals are based on social values, the resulting populations have never exceeded the biological carrying capacity of the habitat. Deer herd condition data collected annually and through periodic studies confirm this. Our deer management goal ensures that Ohio’s deer herd is maintained at a level that is acceptable to most, and biologically sound. Maintaining the deer population at or near goal is accomplished
through harvest management.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/9/pdf/pub304_08.pdf
Hmmmm, if it didn't say Ohio you'd think they were speaking of PA.;)

And I wasn't trying to hide any buck harvest totals, but those alone were irrelevant without the sales figures to go with them since that was the issue and the point of the comparison. And as I noted. But speaking of trying to hide things, I was comparing a sample of three decades, yet you conveniently only showed the harvests from the point in time when PA had it's largest herd. It's a no brainer to figure the buck harvest is larger with the most deer and no restrictions then it is with a smaller herd and a higher restriction. And you glossed right over the fact that we now harvest more older buck with a smaller herd than we did with an overpopulated herd.

Oh and btw, that "antlerless" should have said "antlered". Sorry to add to your confusion.

[Pa greed commission]

"You might want to refigure your numbers AND your claim. That's quite the stretch, comparing report cards of one state to the harvest total of another."

No. You need to quit lying and twisting the facts. I said that THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HARVEST REPORTED FOR EACH STATE. That is the ONLY definate number we have from both states since Ohio doesnt "estimate with percentages added". THerefore they are comparable. Only other similar way possible to compare would be if Ohio also added a percentage for unknown harvest not reported. They dont.

"Especially since you admitted your aware of our reporting system and hence it's flaw."

I didnt admit anything. I know no system is "perfect". That wasnt even the discussion the discussion was your inappropriate comparison, and now, your attempt to cover it up with ton upon ton of text which has nothing to do at all with the conversation or point you are attempting to refute.

"And I wasn't trying to hide any buck harvest totals,"

Sure you were. And we both knew why. Now everyone can see why. Just look at the totals you left out. lol. That speaks for itself.

"I was comparing a sample of three decades,"

While leaving out the best years! lol

" yet you conveniently only showed the harvests from the point in time when PA had it's largest herd. "

Not only is it RECENT history, But there is no better way to show how fast and how far we have fallen. Gotta remember the plan started several years ago. Not 30 years ago. I think most hunters are a bit more concerned about current continued reduction than they were with what the herd level was in 1952. That says NOTHING about what the carry capacity was or how many deer we should or could have.

"Oh and btw, that "antlerless" should have said "antlered". Sorry to add to your confusion. "

Thats your sole intent it seems. To CREATE confusion so the facts remain fuzzy. Thats a hard undertaking when everything is so obvious.

[Pa greed commission]

Thanks for the quote from Ohio: "Furthermore, although these goals are based on social values, the resulting populations have never exceeded the biological carrying capacity of the habitat."

Never exceeded. Yet that includes some recent past years in Ohio where the southeast region has deer densities MUCH higher than the best wmus of Pa currently.

"Hmmmm, if it didn't say Ohio you'd think they were speaking of PA."

Not hardly. Those "basics" are sound management principals of ANY states management programs. Anyone having a problem with those rock bottom basics would have to be a complete moron. You know as well as I that the particulars are where the dissention occurs. It also occurs when we go ABOVE AND BEYOND those basics, go into extremes like statewide blanket unwarranted excessive reduction of very extreme nature and start catering to special interest groups like audubon and others.

[Pa greed commission]

"It's a no brainer to figure the buck harvest is larger with the most deer and no restrictions then it is with a smaller herd and a higher restriction."

The restriction should not have significant effect on harvest after the first few years of implementation if all else is equal, once the age classes build. Remember, the first year or two the first age classes of bucks are being saved. Thereafter, the only subtraction after that from the harvest compared to prior to antler restrictions would be natural mortality and any buck that would never reach legal status. Those should be minimal losses. Of course we know all else isnt equal and the main reason that is the case is reduction. Reduction to the herd and loss to recruitment accounts for the rest of the harvest loss.

"And you glossed right over the fact that we now harvest more older buck with a smaller herd than we did with an overpopulated herd."

I didnt gloss it over. Its only true to a point. There are most certainly more percentagewise, but is there CURRENTLY more numberswise? I dont think so. It was true earlier in the program before all of the reduction. But that reduction, especially in the "best" trophy producing areas of the state is ongoing and the decline will continue. You also have to take into account that the most trophy buck by far are taken in the sras including a ton in 2B. An urban "special regulations area" due to access issues. Perhaps justifiably, the reduction will be continuing there at all costs due to human conflict issues and with it even more "big bucks" which are currently keeping the numbers higher than they would be otherwise....not that they are high anyway though mind you. There are also many other wmus that are NOT sras that according to Pgc annual reports densities continue to decline despite claims of stabilization.

Btw, I support ar completely. I dont even shoot bucks that are borderline legal, while not a hard-core trophy hunter by iowa or ohio standards, my standards are higher than the 4 point per side "1 rule alone. The excessive and continued hr is GREATLY muffling the effect of ar.

WE have always been poor on quality generally speaking. We still are. We just now have FAR less doe, FAR less small buck and possibly only slightly fewer bigbuck...Perhaps even similar in number.... but continuing slow decline of all of the above.

[Sabre]

Older, bigger bucks eat considerably more than younger, smaller bucks. Any given piece of ground is only capable of producing so much food for deer. In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In other words, if you want a higher percentage of older age class bucks on your property, you will have to settle for fewer deer overall.

[Altjaeger]

Older, bigger bucks eat considerably more than younger, smaller bucks. Any given piece of ground is only capable of producing so much food for deer. In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In other words, if you want a higher percentage of older age class bucks on your property, you will have to settle for fewer deer overall.

Badger, I can't say if you are right or wrong, but are you sure? I am 5'10" and flucate in the vicinity of 185give or take about 5 lbs. My 15 year old stepson is 5'7", 115 lbs and eats half again as much as I do!:D

[Sabre]

Badger, I can't say if you are right or wrong, but are you sure? I am 5'10" and flucate in the vicinity of 185give or take about 5 lbs. My 15 year old stepson is 5'7", 115 lbs and eats half again as much as I do!:D

Who you callin' Badger ? R-U having a senior moment ?:D

[Pa greed commission]

"Older, bigger bucks eat considerably more than younger, smaller bucks. Any given piece of ground is only capable of producing so much food for deer. In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too. In other words, if you want a higher percentage of older age class bucks on your property, you will have to settle for fewer deer overall."

That statement definately makes sense. But it doesnt really apply if you are well under carry capacity as many areas of the state are and have been long before reduction ever occurred.

It also doesnt explain continued reduction that had occurred and continues to for the last 4 or more years when the goal is supposedly and has been stabilization.

We also arent comparing big bucks to a 80lb fawn when speaking of bucks saved with ar. For the most part all it is doing is allowing the majority of those that are not legal at 1.5 to get another year on them before most of them are harvested. Talking what? maybe 20- 30 lb larger deer.

[Altjaeger]

Who you callin' Badger ? R-U having a senior moment ?:D

:rolleyes:It would kinda seem so. Sorry about that Sabre.

Actually as I typed that I was thinking normally when someone posts something anti-PGC Badger (Moderator for the Surplus Arms Forum) is quick to jump in to support them. Although I have seen him in here reading the posts I notice he has stayed out. I guess Greedy is too crazy and ludicrous even for Badger. :D

[Pa greed commission]

Yeah. Thats it.

Or more like he sees a few argumentative rude uneducated on the issues- clowns are being schooled and doesnt want to interrupt the lesson.

Ive watched debates like this where one produces all the common sense and factual data and a couple others produce the insults. It gets entertaining trying to decipher exactly which of the opponents has the lowest IQ.

[Altjaeger]

Yeah. Thats it.

Or more like he sees a few argumentative rude uneducated on the issues- clowns are being schooled and doesnt want to interrupt the lesson.

Ive watched debates like this where one produces all the common sense and factual data and a couple others produce the insults. It gets entertaining trying to decipher exactly which of the opponents has the lowest IQ.

Yup, a legend in your own mind.:)

[Pa greed commission]

Good genetics and a willingness to learn.

And if i ever need to know about something you may know a bit about....like Tx deer management that entails shooting bucks behind high fences on senderos covered in corn kernels from a heated little shack... I'll be sure to ask. lol.

[Renegade]

in 2007 the total deer harvested and reported in Pa was 124,529.


I said that THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HARVEST REPORTED FOR EACH STATE.
Hmmm, they appear to be two different statements to me. Anyone else see two different claims?
So what your trying to say is that harvests only count if it was reported, soooo... if you didn't report your harvest, that deer isn't really harvested! Heck no wonder we have so many deer!

The restriction should not have significant effect on harvest after the first few years of implementation if all else is equal, once the age classes build. Remember, the first year or two the first age classes of bucks are being saved.
Yea, except for that one little thing called HERD REDUCTION!
re⋅duc⋅tion [ri-duhk-shuhn]
–noun
1. the act of reducing or the state of being reduced.
2. the amount by which something is reduced or diminished.

"Thereafter, the only subtraction after that from the harvest compared to prior to antler restrictions would be natural mortality and any buck that would never reach legal status. Those should be minimal losses. Of course we know all else isnt equal and the main reason that is the case is reduction. Reduction to the herd and loss to recruitment accounts for the rest of the harvest loss."
Bravo! Now why couldn't you figure that out before your last sentence above.

I'm tiring of this Danny boy. You put a whole lot of words that jump back and forth on issues to muddy the water, but you don't say much or you state the obvious like you had some major revelation. Your like a democrat in washington who claims others are doing exactly what their doing. No one's buying it. So why don't you try presenting some facts, figures, links, quotes from experts (which your idol slinsky is far from) or something solid that isn't merely your perception that you try to pass off as fact. If your claims are so rooted in truth, then present some of those roots. I'm not about to reply to everyone of your erroneous claims. Put your money where your mouth is. You keep claiming I'm lying but have so far failed to prove that with anything but insinuations and allegations. You badmouth anyone who opposes your view like a grade school kid with the old "I am rubber, you are glue" line. And drop the "holier than thou" routine cause I think you've pretty much buried that possibility in concrete.

[Laturkeyhtr]

....like Tx deer management that entails shooting bucks behind high fences on senderos covered in corn kernels from a heated little shack...

For someone touting to know deer management, you sure don't understand Tx deer management. I find it odd that northeners always criticize they that hunt Tx and have a sad misconception of what takes place in the real world. Like shooting over corn. What is the difference than you northerners shooting deer over cornfields? Please explain!

[sharpshooter94]

I haven't posted for a while but the area that I hunt on is around 375 acres in Clinton county. Right below our house there is a field right after several apple trees that the deer come to. From the porch to the apple tree is probably 35-40 yards. I really don't know how big the field is but my guess would be 100 yards by 500 yards. Kettle Creek is right beyond the field. Behind the house you go up about 75 yards up the mountain to another field that goes about 300 yards up the mountain. Beyond that the logging road takes you up to the top and you we almost always see deer on the way up. Not that you get a good broadside shot in all that brush.;) Along the way up the mountain there are several good spots for stand overlooking spots where deer bed down. I've seen spike buck in there at noon. There just seems to be a very overabundance of does. For every 15 does I see I might see one buck but its a slim chance. To shoot buck here they need to have 3 points on both antlers(only one side for kids) or a three inch spike.

[Renegade]

"For every 15 does I see I might see one buck but its a slim chance."
Sounds like it was here for a lot of years, and from what I've been told and read, a good portion of the state was similar as well. Sounds like you have too many does in your area and need them thinned out. Ever since the herd has been thinned around here I've been seeing a decent ratio of buck and doe. Many more rubs too.

My family has had a camp since 1968 on 3.5 acres and I pretty much grew up out there in the summers of my youth. I don't hunt nearby except for a few times in archery season. It's not conducive to rifle hunt due to other camps and safety zones. Now we'd always see deer around and they were almost always doe and when I'd see a buck it was usually a spike or 4 point, something small. Never recall seeing any decent sized racks. For the past 5 years I've been seeing buck almost every time and some nice 10 pointers have been hanging around. I see just as many buck as I do doe now, maybe even more. Just last Thursday the boy and I ran over that way scouting and stopped in to put out a camera by my feeder. I had stopped on the hill below camp to look at a tree I had planted earlier this year and the boy said look up there. Up at my feeder was 2 buck and a doe. The one was a very nice symmetrical 8 point which wandered away from us, and the other a 4 pt. who amazingly worked his way towards us, about 100 yards to within 10 yards of the running truck we were sitting in. The doe came within 18-20 yards.

[venado]

sharpshooter94, there is a lot of public access land in that NW corner. Is that 375 ac, in private hands or is it open access? That certainly could have a real bearing on what you see, but if that 375 ac. is in private hands there is no doubt that someone could improve hunting there. LATH had contact with a guy that over a period of a few years was able to really produce and take some good bucks in that general area of PA. You might discuss that with LATH (the QDM forum leader) and see exactly where that guy was. He was written up in the QDM magazine and his results were impressive.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Sharpshooter, Venado is referring to Jim Jenzano and his is from Gap, PA. He did some habitat improvements and had started selectively harvesting bucks and hammering the does. I can't find his pix, but maybe I have it on a hosting site.

[venado]

LATH, that is the guy I recalled but didn't he LIVE in Gap, PA however his farm was in the northcentral south of Wellsboro and that was where he hunted??

[sharpshooter94]

our camp is family owned

[Renegade]

"(I’m lacking some license sales numbers or I would’ve added more. Stay tuned)"
Just to follow up on an earlier comment. I've since been able to find some older license sales figures to complete a comparison. I used the years following the new AR, then a same number of years in the 90's (the highest harvest years too) and then for the 80's I could only use the last 4 years since the harvests prior to 86 weren't calculated. Again, the license sales includes all sales whether they hunted deer or not. So here it is.

.year……..sales…. antlered harvest….antlered success rate

1986 …. 1,164,596 … 150,359 = 12.91%
1987 …. 1,168,914 … 157,547 = 13.47% Avg. 13.78%
1988 …. 1,160,886 … 163,106 = 14.05%
1989 …. 1,156,891 … 169,795 = 14.68%

1994 …. 1,116,832 … 157,030 = 14.06%
1995 …. 1,087,804 … 182,235 = 16.75%
1996 …. 1,088,733 … 153,432 = 14.09%
1997 …. 1,063,366 … 176,677 = 16.61% Avg. 16.21%
1998 …. 1,071,205 … 181,449 = 16.94%
1999 …..1,033,315 … 194,368 = 18.81%

2003 …. 1,018,248 ... 142,270 = 13.97%
2004 …. 1,013,866 ... 124,410 = 12.27%
2005 …... 964,158 … 120,500 = 12.50%
2006 …... 945,892 … 135,290 = 14.30% Avg. 13.01%
2007 …... 924,448 … 109,200 = 11.81%
2008 …... 926,892 … 122,410 = 13.21%