PA Deer Audit Completed

[venado]

The deer audit called for and paid for by the PA Legislative Budget and Finanace Committee following the complaints of whining deer hunters has been released. The audit was assigned to the Wildlife Management Institute who have prepared the report. It appears based on the highlights posted below that the PGC has been vindicated in their program and the recommendations posed by WMI can probably be implemented if additional funding is provided to the agency. It also appears that the whining hunters will still be whining.:afraid:

470

[Renegade]

Amen Ven. It would seem to be a vindication of the plan. It has some suggestions for improvement, which we all knew it would, but it pretty much takes the wind out of the sails for the naysayers. Although we do expect there will be those who twist it into negativity somehow. I've already seen a post by a guy on the resident "bash the PGC and those who agree" website laying out his plan to dwell on the dmap issue and ignore all the other stuff.

Here is the executive summary of the report below, and a link to the entire report in pdf format: http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/ Look under "what's new"

The Deer Management Program of the Pennsylvania Game Commission
A Comprehensive Review and Evaluation

The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) was asked by the Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to conduct an evaluation and study of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s (PGC) current deer management program and practices. Between May and December, 2009, WMI analyzed the scientific basis of deer management in the Commonwealth, including the scientific foundation of deer management goals, deer population and habitat measurements and citizen input procedures. The analysis was designed to judge the adequacy of the methods employed by the PGC to provide the agency and the public with an independent evaluation of how the deer management goals were chosen and measured, and how they affected deer management.

WMI employed various methodologies to evaluate deer management. We requested and reviewed more than 90 documents provided by the PGC, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Penn State University, the U. S. Forest Service and references from the scientific literature to define the logic framework behind deer management. WMI conducted interviews of natural resource management specialists both within and outside of the PGC. The WMI review team consulted and surveyed other state fish and wildlife agencies to determine how the PGC deer management program compared with other state deer management systems. Finally, WMI conducted statistical analyses of PGC data to test assumptions, make predictions, and evaluate decision making. The report is, by necessity, a highly technical document. WMI elevated the complexity of its analysis because deer management, as practiced by the PGC, is a complex undertaking that merges the fields of biology, statistics, ecology, and sociology.

WMI documented that in the history of deer management in Pennsylvania, the PGC has been frequently criticized for attempting to balance the size of the herd with forages available in deer habitat. It was learned that the PGC has taken that approach because of a constitutional mandate: “Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

The current deer management goals reflect measures of forest health, deer health and citizen desires. The management action used by the PGC to achieve desired deer goals is primarily the number of antlerless permits allocated in various hunting seasons. The PGC has invited the public to participate in deer management decision making, but WMI believes that the current goals have long been recognized and applied by agency staff. WMI’s finding is that the deer management goals chosen by the PGC are reflective of the mandate. WMI did not find that any economic interest or stakeholder group receives preferential treatment.

Since approximately 2000, the PGC has increased the harvest of antlerless deer. While there have been other deer management goals initiated during the time period (e.g.: antler restrictions, urban deer management, diversification of weapons and seasons), the underlying goal of reducing deer density has been the primary management policy. Beginning in 2005, permit allocations were reduced as the PGC moved to stabilize deer populations at lower population levels.

Tools used by the PGC to conduct management include estimation of harvest, sex ratio, and age distribution, and research to document mortality and movement patterns of deer. All of the tools are integrated into a management model – the Pennsylvania Sex-Age-Kill (PA SAK) model – that generates numerical estimates of population parameters. Based on estimates derived from PGC sponsored research of the PA SAK model, statewide deer populations have declined approximately 25 percent between 2002 and 2007, from 1,280,000 - 1,520,000 in 2002 to 850,000 - 1,280,000 in 2007. Changes in deer population size have differed by Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) but have been
consistent with goals established by the PGC.

WMI tested the PA SAK model to determine limits of sensitivity, test assumptions, and measure outcomes. In general, WMI documented that the PGC has developed a credible population model that factors in necessary adjustments to reflect antler restrictions. WMI also documented that the PGC strives to improve continually the accuracy and precision of model inputs by conducting field research. All parties interested in deer management in Pennsylvania can be confident in the ability of the PGC to track deer population trends at statewide and WMU scales through use of the PA SAK as long as PGC data collection thresholds for data input are met or exceeded and model assumptions are not violated.

WMI documented that the utility of the PA SAK is significantly reliant on accurate annual deer harvest estimation. The recent trend of declining harvest reporting rates should be a concern to the PGC as low reporting rates increase the variability of harvest estimation. The strong correlation between annual deer harvest estimation and the PGC game take survey, however, as independent measures of deer harvest, provides a measure of confidence in the current results from the PGC methodology. WMI recommends that the PGC develop and prioritize policies and procedures to increase harvest reporting.

The PGC employs deer management practices in a system of 22 WMUs. WMU size and configuration
were developed to provide homogenous landscape management units and statistically valid sample
sizes of deer population parameters. The design of the current WMUs reflects a necessary compromise between the need for adequate sampling size of deer age, sex and reproductive data, hunter preferences and harvest, deer population information and deer habitat distributions. The DMAP, Red Tag and Urban Deer Management programs appear to provide substantial management flexibility within the current WMUs and provide a viable alternative to designating smaller management units. WMI notes, however, that the harvest from these programs needs to be incorporated fully into the PA SAK and permit allocation procedures.

The PGC uses a scientifically valid method to calculate deer population size for each WMU. Model
inputs provide additional estimates of age structure and sex ratio. WMI believes that the PGC should
publish its estimates of population size and age and sex structure, accompanied by associated levels of variance, and an explanation of their appropriate use.

WMI documented insufficient evidence that the PGC practice of using the number of embryos per adult
doe is a reliable index of herd health. For a variety of reasons, including insufficient sampling and concerns about the sensitivity of the index, WMI recommends that the PGC seek an alternative to embryos per adult doe as an index of herd health or consider deleting the herd health goal and putting additional resources into evaluation of forest (or habitat) health. Fawn reproductive rate may be a viable replacement if sampling deficiencies are corrected. Another variable that may be useful is fawn-to-adult doe ratios derived from harvest statistics.

WMI received extensive testimony and reviewed an extensive body of scientific literature regarding the health and vitality of Pennsylvania forestlands. WMI evaluated the myriad influences that impact forest health. While Pennsylvania forests are challenged by a number of environmental and social factors, the clear majority of evidence provided to WMI indicated that abundance of deer was a major cause of forest regeneration failure. WMI expects that, as deer management goals are met, the percentage of Pennsylvania forests with adequate regeneration will improve. While WMI agrees that quantifying the extent and success of forest regeneration is a practical and ecologically sound indicator of forest habitat health, WMI documented significant concerns that insufficient sampling currently jeopardizes the value of the measure. Several remedial actions are recommended. Because this is a prime decision making variable in the PGC deer management system, especially if the recommendation regarding herd health indices is instituted, WMI encourages improved collection of these data.

The PGC has instituted a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) process to allow stakeholders to participate in deer management. Some form of CAC, perhaps at the statewide level, should be continued by the PGC. The CAC process, while grounded in social science, may not be an efficient or fully objective method to assess all citizens’ desires in each of the 22 WMUs. Cost-effective data relative to public desires, with less bias and variation, may be readily available through a statistically valid public information and survey method designed at the scale of the WMU.

Comparison of the deer management programs and processes in eight states, including Pennsylvania,
indicated that while there are a few differences in procedures and techniques among the states, all eight states addressed management of white-tailed deer in a very similar manner. WMI found nothing in this comparison that would be considered problematic in the PGC’s general approach to deer management by professional wildlife biologists. The PGC appears to be at the forefront of developing techniques to assess impacts of deer on forest habitat quality.

The PGC continues to be subjected to considerable criticism from some hunters about deer management programs. Although most states have had a period of time when deer management goals, practices or decisions were controversial, Pennsylvania is unique in that the period of controversy seems to have never waned. The strained nature of the relationship between the PGC and some hunters is problematic, and in the long-term, damaging to society’s perception of how hunters and the PGC must work together to conserve and maintain deer and other wildlife resources consistent with the aforementioned constitutional mandate.

Finally, the scientific foundation of the PGC deer management system is sound, but there are important components identified that need modification or additional evaluation and assessment. Striving for continual improvement appears to be the approach identified by the PGC, and WMI supports the apparent recognition that an open, adaptive, transparent and inclusive process will increase the effectiveness of PGC management plans. Because some portions of the public continue to vocalize discontent with PGC goals, the trends towards conflict resolution, increased communication, and increased opportunities for collaboration are necessary and recommended.

[Renegade]

Well this audit has seemed to spur a major motion picture with some very big names. Here's a clip I came across.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzJYIMzMDao
:rofl:

[venado]

Renegade, I thought I was going to be fast on the draw when I got online to post that great video and lo and behold you were 20 minutes faster....!!!

One does not have to know much about PA or the history of game management there to appreciate this video, but for those of us that have followed this saga for years it is absolutely mind blowing. The author didn't miss a lick in whacking all of the guilty and gullible whiners. I particularly enjoyed the swipes at the USP and Slinsky and the people that were taken in by their ignorance. Mullets will be mullets and BJBS will be BJBS and in that video the twain have been joined..!

I anxiously await the predictable response from Badger. I'm confident that his post will contain the facts that WMI somehow missed.:rofl:

[Altjaeger]

I saw no surprises in the study and the clip was amusing.:biggrin:

[GF.]

I saw no surprises in the study and the clip was amusing.:biggrin:

"Amusing"?

Damn, bro - it was waaaaay funnier than that, and I haven't even been watching that closely :rofl:

I just love it when science wins:aetsch:

[Badger]

Renegade,

Is this an Official PGC Video?

Badger





RenegadeQUOTE=Renegade;21938]Well this audit has seemed to spur a major motion picture with some very big names. Here's a clip I came across.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzJYIMzMDao
:rofl:[/QUOTE]

[Altjaeger]

Renegade,

Is this an Official PGC Video?

Badger

I think you know better than that.:smile:

[venado]

I don't think we have ever discussed in this forum the videos reference to "grey" deer and "brown" deer, but for those unfamiliar with those terms they are the two species of deer that some claimed live in PA. I don't recall the precise source of that "fact" but it certainly came to be associated with the USP and their loyal followers. I haven't finished the complete WMI report yet but so far I haven't found a refutation that those two species are false so perhaps the "believers" will take that absence to indicate that they were correct all along. That should provide a few more laughs.:cool1:

[Renegade]

Come'on Badger, do you really think they have the time to make parody video's? No it's not any official video. Some hunter with obvious talent did that.

Venado, I believe the multi colored deer revelation came from Slinsky during one of his conspiracy seminars on his fear tour. The usp types used to call Gary Alt the proverbial snake oil salesman, but Slinsky is truly a hydraulic oil salesman!
You make a joke about them being correct but there are 3 guys going around on websites (one of them being the kid that came on here to stir trouble awhile back) spinning this as a bad thing for the PGC and that the usp was right all along. But we figured that would happen didn't we. Most of the discussion though has been about ways to achieve the recommendations.

[venado]

There is a wealth of information in the details of the report. One of the things that would be of interest to most PA hunters would be that PA ranked second in deer kills per man days. This indicates that the real hunters in PA are quite successful when compared to the 12 other eastern states. It appears to support my personal opinion that the whiners are better at whining than hunting, and confirms a long held belief of mine that most of the whiner complaints are based on the extreme overabundance of deer that many of them enjoyed for a number of years prior to the serious effort by Dr. Alt and his following managers to reduce the PA deer herd to more appropriately fit their environment.

A negative aspect of the report is that WMI did not comment on the mountain lions and coyotes that the USP claim that were imported by the PGC. By omission, I suppose the USP will believe that their charges have been confirmed.:biggrin:

[venado]

Here is a link to PA writer Ben Moyer's comments on the audit report. Even Badger will find something in it that he agrees with..!:biggrin:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10052/1037189-358.stm

[GF.]

Venado -

Sorry I don't have time to peruse all o' those details... Is there a chance you could pull the table with the kills/man-day of effort? I'd love to see how it looks there vs. places I've unted befoer...

Cracks me up to see the complaints of 'no deer left', though... "Hell, we used to see 20-30-40 deer per day, and now we only see 10, and only half of 'em 8-points! Whaaaaaa!":motz:

[Renegade]

The charts are on page 52 of the report but I couldn't get them copied to display right, maybe Venado will have success. Here's some of the text.

Comparisons of Pennsylvania to Other State Deer Management Programs
To compare deer hunting and harvest in Pennsylvania to similar states, WMI obtained data from the 2007-08 hunting season from 14 states. Data were provided by members of the Northeast Deer Technical Committee of the Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Although Pennsylvania ranked high in virtually every category (Tables 14 and 15, page 52) (first in hunterdays of archery effort, hunter-days of total hunting, number of hunters, archery kill, and gun kill; second in hunter-days of gun-hunting and muzzleloader kill; and, third in hunter-days of muzzleloader hunting), this is not surprising because Pennsylvania ranks third in size (117,363 square kilometers, behind Ontario and New York) and second in human population (12,432,792, behind New York) of the 14 states and provinces in the comparisons. Because of the wide range of geographic size and human population of the jurisdictions in Tables 14 and 15, page 52, the most
instructive comparisons are the numbers of hunters per square mile, in which Pennsylvania ranks fourth of the 14, second in kill per unit effort, and third in kill per square mile.

[venado]

Here is the chart and the verbiage that concluded the section



Comparisons with Other State
Deer Management Programs
11. The scientific foundation of the PGC
deer management system is sound, but there
are important components identified that
need modification or additional evaluation
and assessment. Striving for continual
improvement appears to be the approach
identified by the PGC, and WMI supports the
apparent recognition that an open, adaptive,
transparent and inclusive process will increase
the effectiveness of PGC management plans.
Because some publics continue to vocalize
discontent with PGC goals, the trend towards
conflict resolution, increased communication
and enhanced opportunities for collaboration
is necessary and recommended.

Based on comparisons of hunter effort and harvest
among 14 northeastern states and provinces, it
appears that deer hunters in Pennsylvania have
relatively good hunting opportunity, with the state
ranking fourth in hunter density and harvest success,
and ranking second in kill per unit effort and third in
kill per square mile (2007).

Comparison of the deer management programs and
processes in eight states, including Pennsylvania,
indicated that, while there were a few differences
in procedures and techniques among the states, all
eight addressed management of white-tailed deer
in a very similar manner. WMI found nothing in this
comparison that would be considered problematic in
the PGC’s general approach to deer management by
professional wildlife biologists. The PGC appears to
be at the forefront of developing techniques to assess
impacts of deer on forest habitat quality.

The PGC however, continues to be subjected to
considerable criticism from hunters about deer
management programs. Most states have had a
period of time when deer management goals,
practices or decisions were controversial, but
Pennsylvania is unique in that the period of
controversy seems to have never waned. The
strained nature of the relationship between the
PGC and some hunters is problematic and, in the
long-term, damaging to society’s perception of how
hunters and the PGC must work together to conserve
and maintain the deer resource for the benefit of all
the people

472

[Laturkeyhtr]

The strained nature of the relationship between the PGC and some hunters is problematic and, in the long-term, damaging to society’s perception of how hunters and the PGC must work together to conserve and maintain the deer resource for the benefit of all
the people

One could wish that their state or other states would follow the lead of PA and move their deer management effort forward. And the PA hunters that do the griping should hold their heads high and be very proud that their wildlife organization is working toward setting the standard that other wildlife agencies with eventually follow. Just mho.

My hats off the the PGC and look forward to where they get their deer management to.

[Renegade]

Unfortunately we have 2 things working against us. A lot of selfish hunters with tunnel vision, and a lot of hunters who don't take the time to stay, or to even get, informed about the issues. And there are those who then exploit those facts to support their agenda.

[Badger]

Venado,

DID the audit disclose how many deer ARE in Pennsylvania? Second, IF the PGC ESTIMATES are so good, why doesn't the Census Bureau use them and save $400 Million for the 2010 Census?

As for the "Success Numbers", where is the HARD data? Without PA deer check stations, the PGC deer kill numbers are as reliable as Bernie Madoff's Investment numbers! LOL! Pick a number, any number and then go with it. Such BJBS even a Texan will love. LOL! If you ever hunt in PA, you would understand the real situation. Dream on. LOL.

What FLIR data did WMI use to verify PGC ESTIMATES? Where was any independent verification of PGC numbers? That was a $90,000 audit alright!

Badger

[Altjaeger]

You are just spewing more rubbish Badger. Even if they ran check stations as you ask they would be no more accurate. If they produced numbers you did not like you would proclaim that they were poorly administered to produce poor results.

Your post remind me of the small child going from Dad, to Mom, to Grandpa and then Grandma trying to get permission for that piece of candy hoping eventually he will find someone who will give him what he wants. The non-sensical comment about the census simply shows the immaturity of your argument.

As far as your continual comments about Texas hunters not understanding unless they live there you remind me of the child who grows up in an university library to end up growing up as ignorant as a pig in mud. I do not have to climb Mt Everest or dive to the depths of the Mariannas Trench to educate myself to a working knowledge of them.

[Renegade]

"DID the audit disclose how many deer ARE in Pennsylvania? Second, IF the PGC ESTIMATES are so good, why doesn't the Census Bureau use them and save $400 Million for the 2010 Census?"
Yes Badger, actually it did. Not that you'd believe it because it doesn't match your perception. They gave a high and a low number and the number falls somewhere between. Will you at least acknowledge that an exact number is nothing more than a mystical wish that isn't possible. No state in the nation has an exact number, let alone a state with a herd the size of PA's.

Keep in mind these are called "ESTIMATES" for a reason. The census bureau comment is unrelated. That figure is way more important for beginners, but it's also given to a species whom can count, write, and mail responses back. Something the deer have refused to do.

"As for the "Success Numbers", where is the HARD data? Without PA deer check stations, the PGC deer kill numbers are as reliable as Bernie Madoff's Investment numbers!"
It's at the PGC where it should be. They check between 29,000 and 52,000 deer each year. That's a pretty good sampling. could it be better, sure. What did the independent audit say?
*Deer Population Models
3. The PGC has developed a credible population model that factors in necessary adjustments to reflect antler restrictions. WMI also documented that the PGC strives continually to improve the precision of model inputs by conducting field research. All parties interested in deer management in Pennsylvania can be confident in the ability of the PGC to track deer population trends at the statewide and WMU scale through use of the PA SAK as long as PGC collection thresholds for data input are met or exceeded.

Note that last part that I underlined. That part of management is up to the hunters to fulfill. Checkstations have proven to be no more accurate than what we have and is why the states that have them are dropping them because it's not cost effective and the outcome isn't much better. Hunters still break the law and don't report. 100% compliance (or even 90%) is a fantasy, with 800k+ deer hunters.

"What FLIR data did WMI use to verify PGC ESTIMATES? Where was any independent verification of PGC numbers? "
Obviously you don't understand what FLIR is. Those flyovers were done, what 4 years ago and were only done on a portion of the state. FLIR only shows you what is there during that particular fly over point in time. Do you think there is some big satellite scanning all of PA at one time? And why would you want to compare apples to spark plugs? You guys are grasping at anything to discredit this audit aren't you? Independent verification?? So now you want independent verification of an out of state independent audits numbers. What's next another independent firm to verify the second independent firm that's verifying the initial independent firm whose verifying the PGC's program. When does it end?

[venado]

Thank you Altjaeger and Renegade, your posts eliminated any need for me to reply to Badger's drivel.

I've been down at the ranch for a while counting each and every deer and was amazed that I had missed one in our 2400 acres the first time through. On that basis Texas probabaly has 4.2 million deer rather than the "official" 3.6 million. Just think there may be 600,000 more deer than we thought and we'll need to import more USP type hunters to take care of the surplus. Uh-oh, I forgot, the USP types are the ones in PA that can NOT kill a deer at home so I guess they would be having trouble even in Texas.:bawling:

[Badger]

Renegade,

The PGC has "ESTIMATES" of deer per square mile in the various WMUs. Obviously WMI should have selected a WMU and used FLIR to VERIFY PGC estimates. If you recall, the past FLIR data by PGC and various Sportsmens Clubs disclosed WIDE differences in deer numbers. WMI provided a "Desk Audit" and had nothing to do with deer numbers. Audits should provide independent verification of data which WMI failed to do.

A FLIR fly over of any WMU would have provided data on deer to compare with PGC estimates. It was not done. If you like the results, then so be it. Be well.

Badger

[Badger]

Venado,

How supercillious you are! JUST HOW MUCH PUBLIC hunting land do you TEXANS have? HOW can you comment on PA where we have over 4 MILLION acres that is unthinkable to Texans, eh,wot?

Back to the subject: When were you LAST in PA? How little do you know about PA deer? What year was the last year you hunted PA deer? Yes, I know you read PGC press releases, BUT WHAT do you KNOW about Pennsylvania?

I regret I asked you anything since you are long ago and far away. LOL! Be well.

Back to the WMI Audit: WHAT was audited? WHAT FLIR Data substantiated PGC ESTIMNATES that predicates the HUGE Antlerless License Deer SLAUGHTER? What did WMI Independently Verify? Since you are not in PA, it is a small matter, BUT what did the audit disclose about the PA deer population and the annual PGC deer decimation? Yes, I know, what you do NOT know about PA would filll volumes. Check with USP IF you want a PROPER Critique of the sham WMI "PA Deer Audit."

I do not speak for the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, but if you want to get your head out of a DARK SPACE, visit the USP Website. Even you may find out you need "NEW THINK!" Whatever. In 10 words, or LESS, please provide us all with your PENNSYLVANIA CREDENTIALS! Just What IS your PA Credability? LOL!

I will give you a PA break: Let me know when you are in a Tioga County (PA) deer camp in 2010 and I will pay you a visit. I am in Richmond Township so send me a PM and I will vector you in to my location. IF you are not hunting the FABULOUS PGC deer season of 2010, please tell me why? Some locals with boots on this ground know why the deer season here SUCKS. We understand some out-of-staters are not well informed. So, contact me in late November 2010 and come to my farm and show me "I do not know where to look for deer." I will defer to your superior deer seeking judgement. Come to my farm if you have the stones! Run your mouth or run your feet, I will document both here in December 2010! Deal? Y'all Come, IF you dare!

Badger

[Renegade]

Badger – FLIR only reveals what is there at that particular time, on that particular day. Besides not detecting all the deer with 100% accuracy (I believe they say it’s around 85%), there is no way to cover an entire unit in one night. Then theres the fact that the PGC doesn’t yet have the “estimate” for last fall, only a “projection” calculated last spring. They have to reconstruct the herd using the harvest to get the “estimate” for the prior fall.
FLIR is used in the winter time, after season, because of leaves being off and the colder temps. That time of the year is also the time when the herd is at it’s smallest and they are herded up usually near thermal cover. Therefore they are not distributed evenly or even as they would be in the fall. This is why the DCNR flyovers showed places without deer and places with concentrations of deer. So those “variances went both directions. FLIR is not the “be all, end all”, certainly not on any large scale.

” WMI provided a "Desk Audit" and had nothing to do with deer numbers. Audits should provide independent verification of data which WMI failed to do.”
The audit was of the methods used in the program. It was not to count deer. WMI made that very clear before they started.
The audit IS the independent verification of the data. Your comment makes no sense.

You’ve got to be kidding about the usp. They have done nothing but pass mis-information based on flimsy to non existing evidence. Their lawsuit, that they are so hell bent on trying for the third time, has not been able to provide any expert witnesses to testify on their behalf. They are using a hydraulic oil salesman and a financial advisor, neither of which has any background what so ever in wildlife management or forestry. Have you read any of their depositions? These guys don’t know whether they’re coming or going. Slinsky didn’t even know what wmu he hunted in.

As for Venado’s knowledge of PA and it’s deer management issues. Seems to me he is very well informed and on top of things. You don’t need to live here to follow along and be well informed. Just what would his living here or hunting here gain him? Sure, if he hunt’s with you and doesn’t see any deer in your little area of Tioga he’s gonna have a different opinion then if he’d be hunting with someone else in Pa where they do see deer. To many people think what they see in their spot is indicative of the entire state, in places where they’ve never set foot on, and that’s just so. To think so is just plain ignorant and illustrates tunnel vision. I have 2 friends who have camps and relatives in Tioga county and they hunt there as well. These guys see lots of deer. Now what makes your opinion more accurate than theirs? The fact remains, and even your precious slim jinsky admitted this, that there are hot spots and cold spots all over. Deer are not distributed evenly and never have been.

[Renegade]

And another thing about the uspee. It was their request in the first place to have an independent review done, by an out of state outfit. The PGC didn't have a problem with that but could not initiate one due to wanting to eliminate any perception of bias or nepotism, if one was to be done. Statewide sportsmens groups also got together and acknowledged their support for one so that this issue could be laid to rest, one way or the other. The legislature finally got sick of the bickering and provided the funds and authority to get one done. The announcement went out and the bids came in. Only three bids were offered but one was an instate firm so they were eliminated. That left 2 and only one of those had the ability to fulfill the detailed request made and that was WMI. The usp at that point praised WMI and said it was happy with the choice, they are a very reputable outfit. Now that the cards have been dealt and they received a bad hand / egg on their face, they have flip flopped and are now trying to discredit the audit and WMI. Seems to me like sour grapes!

[Badger]

Renegade,

Can you NOT do Math? In your 2/17/2010 post on page one of this thread, you listed the WMI deer audit SAK model of a PA 25% deer reduction of 1,280,000-1,500,000 deer in 2002 to a "MODEL" of 850,000-1,280,000 Pennsylvania deer in 2007. Do you know PA is about 44,000 square miles in area, has about 12 MILLION people and NOW do the math! A deer herd of 850,000 would be 19.31 deer for EVERY square mile of PA! A deer herd of 1,280,000 deer would be 29.09 deer for EVERY square mile of PA! Of course, that includes the BIG cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other cities around the state, and all the housing, malls, etc.

When you can comprehend we do not have 20 or 29 deer PER EVERY SQUARE MILE on Pennsylvania, you will BEGIN to come to your understanding. ALSO, I bet FLIR DATA would not support the "SAK Model." Since PA is about 55% forested, we then SHOULD have 40 or 60 deer per square mile since none can exist on the highways, in cities, etc. Unfortunately, the ESCALATED PGC MODEL deer number of 29.09 deer per square mile of PA is WHY they sell 880,000 antlerless tags per year! We DO NOT have 29 deer psm!

The 2000 DCNR Land Cover map says PA is 45,333 square miles with 11,319,000 people. It also says the state is 56% forested. You do the math and see if the 800,000-1,280,000 deer FIT in this state per PGC "Models." If not, then you may understand why the PGC numbers are far too large for the deer herd and are merely self-serving. If you do not believe we have 45 or 60 deer per square mile of deer-livable space, then you may understand USP is on the right track about deer numbers in PA.

For what it is worth, today the dog and I walked a 4 mile loop in the snowy woods and saw THREE deer tracks. That is not 29 or 60 deer per square mile. Perhaps WMI folks should have walked the snowy woods and compared to tracks observed to FLIR data. A audit is INDEPENDENT Verification, or SHOULD be. Perhaps the "generally accepted audit data model" has changed. Be well.

Badger

[Badger]

Altjaeger,

If you are not too busy doing other stuff, tell us WHY the PGC Management Model of PA deer does NOT fit the Sex-Age-Kill Program PGC relies upon to set PA antlerless deer license numbers? Even the DULLEST Texan can see we do NOT have 60 deer per forested square mile in Pennsylvania in 2010! Of course, if you LIVED in PA, you would know that. WMI audited NOTHING and NO Pennsylvanian accepts their BJBS Audit. Put in some FLIR inquiries about several WMUs and give us 20 or 29 or 60 deer PER Square Mile! LOL! FLIR NEVER met PGC "Estimates" for deer so DCNR stopped Fliring!

Pennsylvania is 45,333 square miles with about 12 million people, who live in houses, and shop at malls. Where are ALL the PGC "ESTIMATED" deer living? Did you and Venago take them ALL to Texas? We have 6 inches of snow on the ground and even you could determine NO deer tracks in the snow. I suspect you Texans will "Know where to look" and if not, the PGC will fill you guys in! LOL!

You make fun of proper Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania inquiry about deer numbers. Get a $5 calculator and divide the PGC deer "Estimated numbers" by 45, 333 square miles and see even PGC is out of touch with reality. Again, I welcome you to come to my farm and show me ALL the deer PGC "Estimates." I assume you can count. If so, there are 60 per forested square mile, PGC says so. Duh! You can use a calculator, right? When have you PROVED the USP Wrong? Not you alone, but any non-resident? Duh!

I do NOT speak for USP, but can see they have valid points about PGC ESCALATED Estimated deer numbers not rebutted by non-residents. WHEN any non-resident PROVES the PGC ESTIMATED Deer Per Square Mile numbers to me, I will buy them dinner at the Penn Wells Hotel in Wellsboro, PA and cover their bar tab that evening.

Badger

[Badger]

Venado,

Pennsylvania is 45,333 square miles in area. Get your calculator and PROVE to us all how many deer we have per the WMI Audit. Should I be worried I will be overrun by deer on my farm since PGC says so and WMI approves?

I am glad the Deer Audit is complete; now I can walk in my woods, cut firewood and not be overrun by ALL the Deer PGC says we have. Now, let us see; is that 20, 39 or 60 Per Forested square mile? How many deer per forested square mile does PGC say we have and confirmed by the "thorough" WMI Audit? We got snow in the woods, so them tracks are there, right? LOL! Why don't you come to my farm and show me ALL the DEER TRACKS! LOL.

When did you first pretend to KNOW about Pennsylvania? The snow is still in the West Woods and you can PRETEND there are deer tracks there. Call it WISH fulfillment. Come on and "Make a Wish."

Badger

[Renegade]

Badger - It takes more than math, you also need logic and the ability to look at the details and think objectively. No I don’t believe the 25% reduction is an accurate figure. But it’s not meant to be. It’s an average of the span of possibility, the mean. A herd of 1,520,000 taken down to 850,000 is a 45% reduction or a herd of 1,520,000 taken down to 1,280,000 is only a 16% reduction. So the reduction is somewhere within that range based on the data. I believe it’s much closer to the 45% reduction. But given that, there are 44,820 land miles in PA., 46,058 sq.miles total(netstat.com). The amount of people is irrelevant. So 850,000/44,820= 18.96 dpsm. This is a PRE-SEASON figure. Not an overwinter, after season figure that you keep trying to relate it too. This is also for the entire state which includes private land too. Heck they estimate Valley Forge National Park and Letterkenny Army Depot to have well over 100 dpsm and Gettysburg with just under 100 dpsm and that’s all on just 42 square miles.

So do I think their estimate is high, yes, but certainly not unbelievable if you can grasp that the deer are not distributed evenly. The unit I hunt in (4D) went from 27.6 down to 15.4 dpsm, a 44.2% reduction, which to me is highly believable. You are trying to relate overall statewide figures to your own perception of a small area. You have to look at the details.

” Since PA is about 55% forested, we then SHOULD have 40 or 60 deer per square mile since none can exist on the highways, in cities, etc.”
It’s actually 59% according to the USFS, but should we just write off all the field and cropland which make up 21% of the land. Most would think that deer can live there too. And let’s not forget that 79% of PA’s forests are privately owned. They can and do hold a lot of deer. That’s land that you have no perception of it’s densities.

” For what it is worth, today the dog and I walked a 4 mile loop in the snowy woods and saw THREE deer tracks. That is not 29 or 60 deer per square mile. Perhaps WMI” folks should have walked the snowy woods and compared to tracks observed to FLIR data.”
See there’s the problem that is keeping your mind closed. You guys want to apply your own personal perception to the entire state. A 4 mile linear line! Do you realize what a minute portion of the state that is? That’s smaller than a flea on the surface area of a humped back whale! And your comparing a preseason figure to the after season time period. And again, did I mention that FLIR data is several years old? It has zero relevance to anything except a post season estimate for that year in that particular spot.

[Laturkeyhtr]

That’s smaller than a flea on the surface area of a humped back whale!

hehehe, now that is a funny thought! We all know that fleas don't live in water. :D

[Altjaeger]

Badger I am not playing your silly challenge and certainly not the absurb what only residents know game. Especially since the majority of Pennsylvania hunters disagree with you.

Through your various claims as a former LEO, Public Accountant, Pastor and Farmer I have seen you try to establish your expertise. I have seen you rail against the FLIR studies and call for them, I have seen you claim there was never an overpopulation of whitetails and that there was an abundance of food despite great documentation to the contrary. You have called public officials names, spoken disparagingly of them and generally castigated them constantly switching your demands when they were met and gave results that was contrary to your claims.

Now you throw out formulas based on questionable assumptions and undocumented claims such as how many deer per sq mi there are not with no documentation to suppot it or shown how many there are. It would be a fools game and I will leave it to you to figure what kind of person would propose it.

What I do know is that I began reading of the problem well over 20 years ago in national magazines. I know that Dr. Alt's plan was scientifically based and has shiown results such as increased deer size and health. The whiners and selfishly motivated have called for outside studies and got it. When they realized that it would be approached scientifically conducted they and you immediately moved to be discrediting the study before it was ever started.

Nope, not playing your silly game and leaving to to continue discrediting yourself in every post.

[Badger]

Renegade and Altjaeger,

What you guys are saying is you cannot use a $5 calculator. LOL. The PGC deer numbers do NOT add up. FLIR data in ANY WMU would confirm ,or dispute, PGC deer Estimates. I support FLIR data and you guys do not. Please tell us folks where the deer are and how many per square mile. Do the math or read PGC press releases. Bottom Line: THE PGC DEER NUMBERS DO NOT ADD UP. Believe it or not, the numbers are not adding up. The Deer Audit did not confirm PGC deer numbers. If you use your calculator, how many deer per square mile does PGC SAY we have? How would YOU verify that number? How many live in center city Philadelphia? How many square miles does Philadelphia occupy? Where did the deer go? LOL!
Badger

[Altjaeger]

Renegade and Altjaeger,

What you guys are saying is you cannot use a $5 calculator. LOL. Badger

I would say that if that is your interpretation of what was posted you clearly are challenged in reading comprehension.:smile:

[Renegade]

Renegade and Altjaeger,

What you guys are saying is you cannot use a $5 calculator.
Now it's starting to make sense. You were using a $5 calculator, which is why you believe your in line with the snake oil salesman, the chemist, and the financial planner. That's what they obviously use as well.

Let's do this Badger. Typically this gets a reply unrelated to the questions, but I'll try again. Lets say you and those 2,000 (being generous) usp people are correct, the PGC has it all wrong and are way out in left field and clueless about wildlife management. What is the current population of deer in PA? What was the pre-season population of deer in the fall of 2009 in PA? What was the antlered and antlerless harvest of 2008-09 and 2009-10? And, if you don't mind, the harvest rate per square mile for wmu 4D in each of the past 5 years. That shouldn't be too hard to gather.
I mean come on. You surely aren't making the claim that the PGC numbers are all wrong if you haven't seen the right ones. That would be the pot calling the kettle black wouldn't it?

[Badger]

Renegade,

Use PGC estimated deer numbers on whatever calculator you chose, the results are the same. The numbers do not add up. Keep worshipping PGC estimated deer herd numbers if you wish. As for deer numbers, you got to understand that is what an audit is all about, or should be. Pennsylvania is 45,333 square miles and PGC says there are 850,000 to 1,280,000 deer. It appears they have Bernie Madoff as a consultant for those BIG self-serving numbers. LOL. If you want deer numbers in WMU 4D, ask WMI to do some FLIR work there. They should have done it initially.

Face it, you try to defend PGC numbers and get ticked when the numbers don't add up. How many deer did you say live in the 400+ square miles of Philadelphia and suburbs? Where did they go since PGC estimates put 18.75 to 28.23 deer per EVERY square mile of Pennsylvania? Have a nice day and keep worshipping the PGC. As for deer numbers, you posted the PGC numbers in the "Audit" summary at the start of this thread. Are you recanting those numbers now?

Note there is nothing "unrelated" here. You provided PGC deer numbers and the state is a finite size of 45,333 square miles, so what is your problem?

Badger

[Renegade]

I'm not ticked off by any numbers in the audit. What ticks me off is that some folks won't take the time to understand what each figure is and how it's fit into the picture, but instead like to just mix and match them to suite their agenda... or should I say jimbo's agenda. They like to cherry pick figures and use them out of context.

Note that it was ALL unrelated, just as I predicted. Shall I post it again for you. Like most uspee's your full of "percieved" problems to point out, but offer no solutions, nor no evidence to back up your claims. So again, I respectfully ask: What was the pre-season population of deer in the fall of 2009 in PA? What was the antlered and antlerless harvest of 2008-09 and 2009-10? And, if you don't mind, the harvest rate per square mile for wmu 4D in each of the past 5 years.

[GF.]

You're crackin' me up, Badger....

A 'statewide deer density' estimate is about as useful as the entirely true statement that the average American has one testicle - give or take a little rounding error, anyway.

We have the same problem in CT - some areas (private land) are overrun with deer and others (public dirt) are virtually devoid of 'em, so some hunters are tired as hell of never seeing a deer for their efforts and others are just plain tired of gutting and dragging the damn things. Doesn't mean the statewide management effort is misinformed, misguided, or just plain failed, it means that local conditions vary. By and large, public land hunters are thoroughly unhappy and private land hunters are happy as pigs in slop. It's not perfect and it's not 'fair' that some should have it so good while others don't, but Life Ain't Fair in any other respect, so why should we listen to ourselves (or anyone else) moan and whimper about it when it just is the way it is?

[southtexas]

GF: I have always like Ogden Nash's quote: "No generalization is worth a damn, including this one."

But your comment on the # of testicles tops it!

[Badger]

GF and southtexas,

The PGC put forth the Pennsylvania deer numbers with a high and low range, got it? THAT is the PGC Model. Get a 5-cent pencil and a piece of paper and "Do the math!" The numbers are far too high. The state is 45,333 square miles in area, got it? PGC says we have 850,000 to 1,280,000 in THIS state. How many deer per square miles does that equate to? This is an 8th grade math problem, even you guys sould be able to solve. I don't care if it cracks you up or you can't count your testicles! LOL!

Unfortunately, the exhaggerated PGC "Deer density estimate" is what they use to ALLEGEDLY manage the PA deer herd. The "Audit" was a sham. The estimated numbers are far too high, like it lump it! Keep on worshipping the PGC "Deer Numbers" if that pleases you guys, who cares?

Badger

[Renegade]

"This is an 8th grade math problem,"
Yes it is, but the audit is on a 1st year college level. Maybe this is why your trying to simplify it. Can you admit that deer are not distributed evenly across the landscape? Let's start there.

And again, I respectfully ask Badger: What was the pre-season population of deer in the fall of 2009 in PA? What was the antlered and antlerless harvest of 2008-09 and 2009-10? And, if you don't mind, the harvest rate per square mile for wmu 4D in each of the past 5 years.
If you know the PGC's numbers are wrong, then you must have the correct number to be able to contrast it against. I'm simply asking for you to show us what the right number is.

[southtexas]

GF and southtexas,

The PGC put forth the Pennsylvania deer numbers with a high and low range, got it? THAT is the PGC Model. Get a 5-cent pencil and a piece of paper and "Do the math!" The numbers are far too high. The state is 45,333 square miles in area, got it? PGC says we have 850,000 to 1,280,000 in THIS state. How many deer per square miles does that equate to? This is an 8th grade math problem, even you guys sould be able to solve. I don't care if it cracks you up or you can't count your testicles! LOL!

Unfortunately, the exhaggerated PGC "Deer density estimate" is what they use to ALLEGEDLY manage the PA deer herd. The "Audit" was a sham. The estimated numbers are far too high, like it lump it! Keep on worshipping the PGC "Deer Numbers" if that pleases you guys, who cares?

Badger

Badger: thank you so much for including me in your conversation.

Just got a couple of questions:

1) does the 45,333 sq miles include or exclude the 450 square miles of inland water and the 750 square miles of Lake Erie?

2) Where can I get a pencil for 5 cents?

thanks

[Altjaeger]

And again, I respectfully ask Badger: ... If you know the PGC's numbers are wrong, then you must have the correct number to be able to contrast it against. I'm simply asking for you to show us what the right number is.

or simply to prove the numbers are wrong, not just his opinion or the USP opinion they are wrong.

[venado]

Badger says:


Unfortunately, the exhaggerated PGC "Deer density estimate" is what they use to ALLEGEDLY manage the PA deer herd.


Interesting statement by the guy that has no numbers, no answers but lots of complaints about a subject that he has consistently posted foolish statements about. Perhaps if he was knowledgable enough and actually lived in PA he would realize that the PGC, as has been stated many times, does NOT manage by deer numbers but by the deer's impact on their habitat. Of course if a guy in Texas knows this then any intelligent person in PA would also know it. Due to the ineptitude of a few PA hunters I think the PGC should never tell the dummies that follow the USPee line what any deer count is. In that aspect I disagree with the WMI. The real PA hunters will continue to kill deer and the whiners will get even better at complaining so we outsiders can laugh at them more.:tongue:

[Renegade]

House Game and Fisheries Committee
9:00 a.m., 3/09/10, Room 205 Ryan Office Building
By Joseph McGarrity, PLS Intern

Members Present: Chairman Edward Staback (D-Lackawanna), Minority Chairman Ron Miller (R-York), and Representatives Mark Keller (R-Perry), Dom Costa (D-Alleghany) Neal Goodman (D-Schuylkill), Deberah Kula (D-Fayette), David Levdansky (D-Alleghany), Michael McGeehan (D-Philadelphia), Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster) Keith Gillespie (R-York), Dan Moul (R-Adams), Curt Sonney (R-Erie), Todd Rock (R-Franklin), Harry Readshaw (D-Alleghany), Gary Haluska (D-Cambria), Jeffrey Pyle (R-Armstrong), Garth Everett (R-Lycoming), Tim Krieger (R-Westmoreland), Michael Peifer (R-Wayne), Mike Hanna (D-Clinton), and Marc Gergely (D-Alleghany).

The committee met to discuss the findings of the Deer Management audit conducted by the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI).

Scot Williamson, Vice President, Wildlife Management Institute, stated that WMI is a "private, nonprofit, scientific and educational organization, dedicated to the conservation, enhancement and professional management of North America's wildlife and natural resources." Williamson went on to explain the services that WMI provides, including conducting agency program reviews and assisting in the development of wildlife policy. He explained the deer management audit was intended to review the scientific basis of the Pennsylvania Game Commission's (PGC) deer management program. Williamson revealed WMI considered many factors such as "deer management goals, deer population and habitat measurements, and citizen input procedures." Williamson presented the findings and conclusions of the audit which ranged from acknowledging the Sex-Age-Kill (SAK) model as being scientifically sound and credible for monitoring the deer population and its trend to revealing the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is not incorporating all citizen desires as it is currently established. Williamson also recommended several actions from WMI to be considered, including scrapping the "embryos per adult doe as an index of herd health" to increasing resources for measuring forest regeneration in Wildlife Management Units (WMU) across the state. Williamson stressed that WMI concentrated only on the "scientific foundation of the PGC deer management program" and the audit was not a "comment" on recommended policy decisions.

Rep. Levdansky noted he proposed the resolution that led to the audit and acknowledged it took longer than expected, but he hopes it will lead to constructive dialogue for managing PA's deer population.

Chairman Staback mentioned the health of the forest, health of the deer population and citizens' concerns are three subjects that were part of the audit. He asked for clarification of the report, particularly questioning if the deer population is an asset to the forest or if, as the report stated, the "abundance of deer is the major cause of forest regeneration failure." Dr. William Healy, with WMI, responded that deer are not the only hindrance disenabling forest regeneration, but the deer population is the primary factor. He offered several other factors inhibiting forest regeneration such acid precipitation, evasive species, and loss of tree species. He noted that Native Americans conducted controlled burns over the previous 5,000 years to enhance regeneration. Healy stated, "We can cope with those problems if we can keep deer populations at a reasonable level." Chairman Staback pressed by asking if deer are the major cause of forest regeneration failure and questioned if the immediate factor is the deer population or if there are other primary factors and deer are not the primary cause. Healy responded that there are other underlying factors that are serious, but deer are the immediate factor and the other factors contributing to forest regeneration failure cannot be dealt with unless the deer population is addressed.

Chairman Staback, referring to a 2005 study that found fewer deer in WMU habitats than before, asked if "less deer are in the woods and the habitat is getting worse, does that suggest other factors are coming into play?" Healy responded that there was an increasing trend of "poor" WMU, but the trend decreased in the last two measuring periods. He warned that forest systems are a product of lasting effects and will not change overnight. He stated "give the system enough time and you will see forest health improve if the deer herd is managed."

Chairman Staback asked if the problems with the data and methods used "not giving reliable information" in regards to herd health, support critics who question the scientific foundation of the measurements. Williamson responded that "most jurisdictions" in the range of white tail deer have looked at the health of the herd in terms of reproductive rates, but PA is the only state that uses reproductive rates as "a management goal." Williamson stated that the number of embryos per adult doe is based in good science, but the method is not sensitive enough. Williamson said the theory is that as the number of white tail deer, increases the habitat diminishes and the reproduction rates of deer decrease. Chairman Staback asked if the PGC should continue using the deer embryos to measure adult doe reproductive rates when making considerations. Williamson responded it should no longer be used and the PGC should consider fawn to adult doe transition and fawn reproductive rates.

Referring to the audit, Chairman Staback questioned how the inadequate harvesting reports affect how allocation is set and populations and trends. Williamson responded that WMI's report stresses incentives for reporting deer harvested, disincentives for not reporting, or a combination of both in order to increase reporting rates. Williamson stated that the method used by the PGC is scientifically sound, but "common sense would say if you are looking at 80% and estimating 20%, there is less room for error than if you are looking at 40% and estimating 60%." He stated WMI would be more comfortable if reporting rates were higher, but warned against providing disincentives to hunting and driving hunters and youth away from the sport. Chairman Staback asked how land managers know when enough deer have been killed, and raised the concern that by tying forest regeneration and deer population together risks killing off the deer while waiting for regeneration. Williamson suggested that the PGC use its experience "as it has done since 2005" and noted that PGC has stabilized herds and is waiting for forest regeneration. Williamson also noted that other factors are considered when examining forest regeneration.

Minority Chairman Miller asked, in regards to stressors on the forest health, if the deer herd is the being reduced. He suggested it might be the easiest factor to control rather than dealing with other stressors. Healy responded the deer are not the easiest to control and mentioned that the longer the deer problems last, the longer it will take to correct the forest regeneration situation. Healy stated, "We have to get habitat improved before deer numbers can be increased."

Rep. Goodman asked how the PGC deer harvest reporting can be credible scientifically but unsuccessful in its results. He also asked if the 25% deer reduction mentioned in the audit is accurate. Williamson reassured the committee the percentage is correct and stated the sampling of meat lockers is accurate. He noted there has "not been an assessment of biases." Minority Chairman Miller noted that PGC increased antlerless allocations in 2000 and asked if the report has any findings that the increase is motivated by financial gains. Williamson stated WMI looked at the same variables and found no instances of "deviation for financial gain." He noted the increase was strictly for deer management.

Rep. Levdansky attempted to understand how the PGC "goes about estimating the deer kill" and stated that the PGC cross references meat locker deer against the reported deer killed and uses that variable to determine unreported deer killed by allowing the PGC to estimate a deer kill number. Williamson stated the PGC utilizes another variable that gives a number and "a level of confidence about that number." Rep. Levdansky asked if the statistic is broken down by WMU. Williamson responded in the affirmative. Rep. Levdansky asked if hunters who butcher their own deer show up in the statistic. According to Williamson, they do not get reported in the statistic. He stated the hope is that the deer taken to meat lockers and counted have similar sex-age ratio as the deer that are home butchered. Rep. Levdansky stated that the fine for not reporting is $25 and has not been increased in 24 years. He said, "Since so much of deer management is predicated on this model" we need to have better harvest reporting and model to ensure efficient deer management.

Rep. Gergely asked what, other than hunting, kills the most deer. Williamson responded road kill is the next leading measurable cause of deer death. He noted that the PGC uses road kill deer to determine the reproductive rate by harvesting the embryos. Rep. Gergely asked if road kill deer are a factor in the index to determine herd numbers. Williamson revealed that road kill deer are already an indirect part of the SAK model and all morality is included and indexed in the SAK model.

Rep. Pyle suggested that incentives such as elk tags and bear tags be raffled in a pool of hunters who return their kill reports. He also recommended that a possible joint hearing between the House Game and Fisheries and House Environmental Resources and Energy be convened to discuss the issue further. Rep. Pyle asked how long forest regeneration will take if controlled burns are utilized. Healy estimated that it will take a decade before controlled burns will make forest regeneration a success.

Rep. Haluska discussed the increasing numbers of predators in PA and any effect that could have on the fawn mortality study. Williamson referred to the audit and stated they look at fawn to doe ratios in each WMU. He said there are "big difference between units" and noted the PGC could respond to the differences by using the SAK model. Rep. Haluska asked if predation is a cause of decreasing fawn populations. Williamson responded that a lack of resources in certain WMUs does not allow does to support fawns and they will die in a matter of weeks.

Rep. Krieger asked when the first regeneration problems were noticed. Williamson answered it was first noticed in the 1930s and 1940s. Rep, Krieger asked if the problem is getting better or worse. According to Williamson, WMI is encouraged by the data it is receiving from DCNR. Rep. Krieger noted that "the forest didn't appear to change, but we are no longer seeing deer." Williamson clarified that the model suggests the deer population decreased in "most units" and some units saw a decrease greater than 25% and other saw a slight increase. Rep. Krieger asked that if the fact that regeneration problems occur with and without suggests deer are not the primary factor. Healy responded that when much of PA's forest regenerated in the early part of last century, "there were not that many deer." Healy noted that "60% of state forest is up at 80-100 years old" and that makes the problem more obvious. According to Healy, a large portion of the forest is ready to be harvested and that makes the number of deer critical. Rep. Krieger asked if the WMU should be made smaller. It would make sense to shrink the size of the WMU, according to Healy, but he warned the units have to be large enough to get adequate sampling for "harvesting, deer health, forest health, and citizen desires."

Chairman Staback asked if WMI suggests continued killing of deer in areas that have not seen regeneration, even though the herd has already been reduced in the areas. PGC is stabilizing the deer herd until it can determine if regeneration is occurring and if PGC should increase, decrease, or continue to stabilize the herd, was the reply. Chairman Staback stated that PGC should be looking at other factors if regeneration is not occurring. Healy confirmed that foresters do take all other factors into consideration when determining their course of action to regenerate the forest. Chairman Staback asked for suggestions in dealing with concerned citizens and for enhancing the CAC process. Williamson stated that nothing is more important than addressing the concerns on constituents. WMI is not suggesting "throwing the baby out with the bath water" but rather suggests "tweaking" certain aspects of the deer management programs, such as statewide polls to reinforce the CAC. Chairman Staback asked if the PGC adopted suggestions made by the CAC. The PGC adopted 7 of the 15 recommendations, according to Williamson.

Roe briefly commented about the audit and stated, "We are pleased with the major conclusions of the reports." Roe offered to accept questions at a later date due to time restraints.

[GF.]

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to circle back on the committee minutes above, but OK, Badger, I'll bite....

850,000 deer /45,333 sq mi = 18.75 deer/sq mile. 1,280,000 deer /1 PA = just under 28.25 deer/sq. mile.

Those numbers don't seem too unreasonable as statewide averages go; nor does the practice of providing a little 'give-or-take' margin of error on an estimate, seeing as estimates are only estimates...

So yeah, I guess it'd depend on what percentage of the terrain has been developed beyond usability by the deer and what time of year they took the survey; after all, if you figure there are 1 million deer at the end of the hunting season, and 70% are does that will drop a fawn or two next year, then you might very well expect to see the population break 2,000,000 come spring. And that's a lotta deer per square mile, especially after you've tossed out the sq. mi. numbers for Philly, Pittsburgh, and other heavily settled areas.

So, Badger, you might have a point, or you may well not.

How about you tell us what you think your point is, and we'll tell you if we think there's any merit to it? 'Cuz I'm not fool enough to try and guess....

[dave-t.]

Just jumping in late, but the deer density averages around Pittsburg, Philly, etc, may actually drive up the deer per/sq mile numbers.

The last report I searched out in the city limits of Kansas City had deer densities at 118 per sq mile.:tongue: When you consider how much of each square mile is developed....deer are thicker than rabbits in sprawling big cities.

[Renegade]

GF - What it seems Badger and the PUS is trying to do is simplify something that is not so simple. He's trying to say, or give the impression, that since there's roughly 18 or 19 deer per square mile that each and every square mile has that many deer within it. No more, no less, except that cities and town areas must be taken out of the land area total. And ignoring the indisputable fact that the deer are not distributed evenly. If it were, hunting would be as simple as putting on a 25 person drive (the max. per roster) on a square mile piece of land.

But as Dave-t and I pointed out to him, some of these "cities" have way greater numbers than does a forested square mile. Places like Fox Chapel which is a wealthy suburb northeast of Pittsburgh. Its 8.5 square miles, 3.5 of which are wooded. They did a fly over FLIR of that area about a decade ago, after hunting season, and found a density of between 80 and 128 dpsm. And that's one suburb. There's Fairmount Park, Penyypack Park, and Valley Forge in the Philly area that have high densities of 100+. And as I said in an earlier post "Heck they estimate Valley Forge National Park and Letterkenny Army Depot to have well over 100 dpsm and Gettysburg with just under 100 dpsm and that’s all on just 42 square miles." Now just using a round figure of 100 dpsm, that's roughly 5 times what the estimated statewide density is. So to spread those deer out, those 42 sm of deer should be covering (5x42) 210 sq. miles if we were to look at it like Badger wants us to. And that's just 3 parks worth of deer.
In a nutshell, he's using statewide estimates, or even wmu sized estimates and trying to apply it to his perception of the spot(s) he hunts.

Here's a quote from an October 2009 story:
For the deer, Valley Forge is a 5.3-square-mile forest sanctuary, one surrounded by houses, hotels, and the giant King of Prussia mall. The park draws more than one million visitors a year, though at times it can seem like deer outnumber people.

Between 1997 and 2007, the herd grew from 772 to 1,023, peaking at 1,398 in 2003, a park study found. The herd stood at 1,277 last spring.
That's 241 dpsm!
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20091006_For_deer__a_siege_ahead_at_Valley_Forge_p ark.html

[GF.]

Numbers like that no longer shock me, I'm afraid.....

I still don't understand the complaint, though... A statewide average isn't particularly useful, but it sure doesn't mean that anybody's lying to you....

I thin kdeer management is a particularly tough way to make a living in the eastern half of the country, where the public land parcels are small, few, and scattered; heavy hunting pressure on opening day drives all the deer onto the private dirt that can be reached in just a few seconds at full-tilt boogie, and then you're either happy because you're a private land hunter or you're up a creek. Liberalizing the take by the guys with access to the deer where they are during the season is about the only option, but it sure doesn't mean there aren't any deer around....

[Altjaeger]

Well I see our Badger has run true to the pattern he has demonstrated consistently for years and makes his namesake so appropriate. Just as a badger tends to be nocturnal shrinking from the light of day by heading for the darkness and safety of his den; our Badger has once his claims were exposed to the light of truth has slipped away to cower in his hole of darkness and untruths.

[Renegade]

:rofl: Yep, that's usually the way it is with them :dontknow: They complain :bawling: , try to drum up disent :motz: offer some misinformation, avoid basic questions :ahhhhh:, and then go away. :flybye: Remember that kid that came on here for a short time, pgc game hater, guru, cornelius, flattcat, or whatever name he uses that day; he came here, spread his ignorance and hatred:argh::stupido:, got called on it :pcguru::boxing: couldn't convince a host of objective out of staters or present anything to back his agenda, got irrate :mad:, showed his true colors:thefinger:, and left :vroam:

[AvidH]

Jesses HuntinG (http://scottcroner.blogspot.com)

Well I see our Badger has run true to the pattern he has demonstrated consistently for years and makes his namesake so appropriate. Just as a badger tends to be nocturnal shrinking from the light of day by heading for the darkness and safety of his den; our Badger has once his claims were exposed to the light of truth has slipped away to cower in his hole of darkness and untruths.

I am more then a little late on this thread and read it in it's entirety and was going to "try" and post a witty remark, but after reading a badgers habits it would be impossible to write anything better.:top:
_________________
AvidH
Jesses HuntinG (http://scottcroner.blogspot.com)

[Laturkeyhtr]

AvidH, very well said. Since I don't recall you posting here, let me welcome you to the QDM forum. I think if you hang around a bit, you will learn more about the infamous Badge.