Field and Stream Editorial

[Altjaeger]

Anthony Licata, editor of "Field and Stream" chose the situtaion in Pennsylvania as his topic for the April issues editorial. Following is as few excerpts of that article.

" But I know that there was something not quite right with the way I grew up hunting in Pennsylvania. On opening day it was common to see 40,50 deer, the vast majority of them does. When a forkhorn or basket 6 showed up you shot it because if you didn't, someone else would. As a result yearling bucks made up an astounding 80% of the antlered deer harvested. You don't have to be a trophy hunter to want at least the opportunity to hunt a mature buck."

"After eight seasons of antler restrictions (either 3 or 4 points per side depending on the unit), my friends and I see more big Pennsylvania bucks in one fall than we'd seen in our entire lives."

"Pennsylvania, like many places, uses the big bucks produced by antler restrictions to ease the pain of another common goal of modern whitetail management-reducing deer heards. For years herd number were kept to high, resulting in overbrowsed forest and a degraded ecosystem."

"...hunters are only the wildlife managers that we claim to be when we do what is best for the resource, not just what's best for us. The future of hunting does not depend on unlimited hunting opportunities;it depends on sounds science and our willingness to live up to the responsibility of being the best tool for managing this countries wildlife."

[venado]

"My brother owns some land. It's a couple hundred acres, just an old farm, and there's nothing particularly special about the land, other than that it's ours and we've had a lot of nice memories there. There's deer and turkeys and fish, and it's one of those places that says home to me."


From that quote it appears that Licata is thankful for what he has and doesn't make his own existance miserable by fighting science and the professional wildlife managers of the PGC. I suppose it would be safe to assume he isn't a USP member or support their cause.:bawling:

[Twanger]

I'm conflicted over this.
To suit my own tastes and where I am in my hunting evolution I'd be happy to see antler restrictions in MD (at least 4 points on one side), and would even like to see the antlered deer harvest at one per season per hunter. I will kill small bucks only in a herd management situation where all deer must go, and that said will still only shoot them if no viable doe is in range. Generally I kill only very small bucks (spikes) or very big ones, and try to leave the mediocre sized 6 and 8 pointer to grow another year or two.

However, I try not to be selfish, and try to think of other hunters. Who am I to deny a new hunter their first 4 or 6 point buck? I know when I started out that I cherished any opportunity to take such a deer. I would not want to see a law on the books deny them this opportunity.
I wish there was a way to factor in the experience of the hunter into such laws. Perhaps, after a hunter has killed a few bucks they should then only be able to shoot truly big ones.

Not being in favor of too many laws, I'd keep the MD law as it is, and can only hope that experienced hunters will pass mediocre bucks so that they will become trophy bucks in a year or two. Probably won't happen, but we could hope...

[kjjm4]

Twanger, in PA the ARs don't apply to junior license holders. A kid can shoot any buck legally defined as "antlered" (over a 3" spike).
.

[Bushman]

I like that idea of junior license holders. I'd pay more being a senior, if they would pay less as a junior and it might help get more kids into the sport if they could bypass the antler restrictions for a few years. One of my best hunting memories was shooting my first buck at the age of 13 and he was only a 4 pointer.

[GF.]

However, I try not to be selfish, and try to think of other hunters. Who am I to deny a new hunter their first 4 or 6 point buck? I know when I started out that I cherished any opportunity to take such a deer. I would not want to see a law on the books deny them this opportunity.



The thing is, though, their opportunity on that 'first' 4 or 6 pointer would just be upgraded to a 'first' as an 8 or 10, no? OK, granted, it might take them an extra year or two to learn enough to keep up with these older bucks well enough to actually take one, but unlike when we were kids, they can have their early successes on does. Net-net, they might need more years to kill their first buck, but fewer to fill their first tag...... and so what's wrong with a little delayed gratification?

Just bein' cranky and idealistic again, I suppose, but maybe the guys who'll quickly lose interest if they don't get to kill something aren't the best people to be bringing into the sport... :hmmmm:

[kjjm4]

I like that idea of junior license holders. I'd pay more being a senior, if they would pay less as a junior and it might help get more kids into the sport if they could bypass the antler restrictions for a few years. One of my best hunting memories was shooting my first buck at the age of 13 and he was only a 4 pointer.

Junior licenses are cheaper ($20.70 for an adult and $6.70 for a junior). However, the boneheads made all the stamps (archery, ML, etc) the same price for everybody.

GF: There are plenty of dinky little 8 pts with a 12-14" spread around where I hunt now. I passed on 3 of them last year.

[Altjaeger]

To me this was the most important quote of the editorial:

"...hunters are only the wildlife managers that we claim to be when we do what is best for the resource, not just what's best for us. The future of hunting does not depend on unlimited hunting opportunities; it depends on sounds science and our willingness to live up to the responsibility of being the best tool for managing this countries wildlife."

[Laturkeyhtr]

Altjager, I couldn't agree more. I didn't get to read the article, but that quote is a good one.

[Badger]

Altjaeger,

Interesting thread about PA. Anthony Licata makes an overly simplistic observation about PA deer and PA forests. He says, "For years herd numbers were kept high resulting in overbrowsed forests and a degraded ecosystem." Ok, IF the PA forests were "Overbrowsed" how come the deer numbers remained HIGH year after year? Why didn't the alleged overbrowsing REDUCE the deer herd pre-Alt? Degregated ecosystems SHOULD have reduced deer numbers BEFORE the CONCURRENT Deer Seasons brought in by Alt. Why didn't that occur Pre-Alt? As for Licata seeing BIG DEER, I say good for him, he needs to visit other areas of PA suffering the "Stay The Course" kill as many as possible Alt policy to save the trees.

The "Field & Stream" editorial MERELY applies to the small area Anthony Licata hunts and CANNOT be applied to ALL of Pennsylvania anymore than the views of non-residents who never saw PA.

With much lower deer numbers in PA now, why are our forests NOT regenerating? Most WMUs are NOT reporting improved forest regeneration, so maybe the deer were not the problem after all? ACID RAIN falls every year and the deer take "The RAP."

Badger

[Altjaeger]

Badger you have had these questions answered many times and I am under no illusion that you will be satisfied this time. All the same I appreciate the opportunity to answer them again so that others new you this years long discussion may see them.:biggrin:

Many things happen before herds crash and those events were long in place and increasing in severity. One is the decrease in ground vegetation and development of browse lines. Another is the decrease of small gqame and birds. Grouse hunting had begun suffering years before, song birds were in decline and the problems were only getting worse.

Foresters tell us that after you stop the damage it often takes years or even decades for regeneration to occur. This is a pretty new program and such slow starts are not surprising. Last if acid rain were the problem then areas that have been protected from deer and overbrowsing would not be so lush and abundant in their production.

Though you act as if Licatas experience was isolated in its nature the same is being said be many pennsylvanians in many aprts of the state. The USPs position and yours clearly is the minority and disputed by most if not all creditable professiuonals.

[Badger]

Altjaeger,

Ok, you expoused your limited non-PA views, NOW, please address the questions.

IF we HAD TOO MANY DEER in the decade of the 1990s and our forests were ruined, WHY were there many deer in PA Year-By-Year? Our PA deer herds did not "Crash" so where was the habitat destruction? Did the deer feed at the local Agway in the 1990s? You can pretend to "Know" about PA, but your responses reflect your TEXAS BJBS.

When did you ever see a PA forest? What year? I happen to own many acres of PA forest and it is NOT ruined by deer! There is some regeneration and also ACID rain. The soil PH is ACIDIC.

Our deer are gone and our forests are NOT regenerating. You are not qualified to answer PA deer questions, even if you wished you were. LOL.

Badger

[Altjaeger]

Thank you for verifying my predictions and spewing your normal bile further discrediting yourself.:smile:

[Badger]

Altjaeger,

Please review my LAST post that presented Pennsylvania questions to you. I see no "bile", only your inability to EXPLAIN HOW we had MANY deer year-by-year in the 1990s in PA despite the horrible "Habitat Destruction" you alleged. You discredit your non-resident PA "Knowledge" because you do not have a CLUE! LOL!

Your "Handle" really should be "PA CLUELESS" and then we would all know how little credibility about PA you possess. LOL! When were you LAST in Pennsylvania?

Badger

[postoak]

The sentence that struck me was:


"...hunters are only the wildlife managers that we claim to be when we do what is best for the resource, not just what's best for us.

This is starting us down the road of the enviro-crazies. We actually, IMO, should do what is best for US. Best for the deer, some might say, would be to end all hunting by humans.

[Altjaeger]

Having lived and hunted 6 years in Germany where QMA has been practiced for generations I can say I killed more AND bigger deer than I have in my life. Most of the rest of my life I have hunted public lands with various traditional styles and know the other side. The people encouraging this movement are hunters, not enviro-crazies.


The sentence that struck me was:



This is starting us down the road of the enviro-crazies. We actually, IMO, should do what is best for US. Best for the deer, some might say, would be to end all hunting by humans.

[Altjaeger]

Altjaeger,

only your inability to EXPLAIN HOW we had MANY deer year-by-year in the 1990s in PA despite the horrible "Habitat Destruction" you alleged. You discredit your non-resident PA "Knowledge" because you do not have a CLUE! LOL!

Badger

Abe Lincoln is reported to have once asked if you call the dog's tail a leg how many legs does a dog have? His answer was four for no matter what you call a tail it is not a leg.

The answers to your questions are there whether you choose to say they are or not.:smile:

I, like the other Texans here do not claim to have first hand knowledge of Pennsylvania but apparently have acquired more than you because we have actually studied the issue instead of simply emitting belicose whines and cries resorting to name calling. You never argue the facts with us providing detailed backup for we are not providing the facts, but submitting those provided by professionals and your fellow Pennsylvanians. You notice that even your fellow Pennsylvanians here most often disagree with you?

[kjjm4]

The sentence that struck me was:



This is starting us down the road of the enviro-crazies. We actually, IMO, should do what is best for US. Best for the deer, some might say, would be to end all hunting by humans.

That depends greatly on how you define "best." If deer aren't hunted, the populations will soar and they'll eventually wreck their habitat. In situations where there is overpopulation, malnutrition is more common, as is disease. Hardly what I'd call "best" for the deer, unless you view nature in a Disneyfied fashion and you worry about the deer missing their pals when a mean old hunter shoots them.

I agree with the view that hunters have to be advocates of sound management that benefits the animals, their habitat, and other human users of the land, not just themselves, because non hunters vastly outnumber us.

[venado]

postoak, maybe the word "resource" is what needs to be defined to resolve the issue to those of us that are interested in the discussion. I assumed that it was all encompassing, to include the deer, their environment and all of those many many interfaces that exist. Based on your comment, perhaps you saw "resource" as just deer. I really don't know what the author had in mind, but QDM itself is an attempt to balance those various needs which to me makes sense with "us" also all encompassing.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Ok, IF the PA forests were "Overbrowsed" how come the deer numbers remained HIGH year after year? Why didn't the alleged overbrowsing REDUCE the deer herd pre-Alt? Degregated ecosystems SHOULD have reduced deer numbers BEFORE the CONCURRENT Deer Seasons brought in by Alt. Why didn't that occur Pre-Alt?

Badger, indulge me while I comment from here in Louisiana. Deer have to eat something and will do so. That doesn't mean that they are getting proper nutrition. Poor nutrition will affect their reproduction rate. It will affect their weight and overall health, BUT not necessarily kill them. Besides for way too many years there wasn't any hunting on the reproductive segment of the herd.

Where do you learn that degradated habitats necessarily kill off the herd? It willl eventually, but imho, it will take years and years before a serious die off occurs. You must remember too that the herd has been being reduced all along through traffic accidents.

Now I have a question for you. How can you continue to discredit authors from PA because they have such a limited parcel to observe? But yet you expect us to believe you when you state there are no deer in PA, "just come up here and look at my place." Is there really any difference? I would appreciate a thought provoking answer to my question.

[Badger]

LATH,

You are a reasonable guy and you deserve a reasonable answer. You are not correct when you say, "for too many years there wasn't any hunting on the reproductive segment of the herd." What do you mean? If you suggest there was "No doe hunting" you are wrong. I have a PA "Doe Tag from 1958" my first, so please square that with your quoted statement?

Indulge me, please: Why do you fail to account WHY we had MANY PA deer year-by-year in the 1990s? IF the deer ALREADY Destroyed ALL the habitat, why did the deer herd NOT CRASH? The PA deer herd CRASHED WITH Alt's CONCURRENT DEER SEASON!

I will gladly chat with you and thanks for the reasoned inquiry. Be well.

Badger

[GF.]

Ok, you expoused your limited non-PA views, NOW, please address the questions.....

I happen to own many acres of PA forest and it is NOT ruined by deer! There is some regeneration and also ACID rain. The soil PH is ACIDIC.



You sound exactly like those whack-job antis around here; their claim, too, is that it's the acid rain killing off the forests, not the deer.... But riddle me this one, wontcha...

How is it that the acid rain falls so heavily in the suburbs, where hunting pressure is low, and not at all in the state forests, which see 1 hunter per every 20 acres on opening day?





If it makes you feel any better, the antis can't explain it either :aetsch:

[southtexas]

Badger, indulge me while I comment from here in Louisiana. Deer have to eat something and will do so. That doesn't mean that they are getting proper nutrition. Poor nutrition will affect their reproduction rate. It will affect their weight and overall health, BUT not necessarily kill them. Besides for way too many years there wasn't any hunting on the reproductive segment of the herd.

Where do you learn that degradated habitats necessarily kill off the herd? It willl eventually, but imho, it will take years and years before a serious die off occurs. You must remember too that the herd has been being reduced all along through traffic accidents.

Now I have a question for you. How can you continue to discredit authors from PA because they have such a limited parcel to observe? But yet you expect us to believe you when you state there are no deer in PA, "just come up hnutritiousere and look at my place." Is there really any difference? I would appreciate a thought provoking answer to my question.

LATH: If the Texas Hill Country model is valid, you are correct. The herd degredation takes place over many years. Average body weights decline as the population increases. The deer remove their most favored (and the most nutritious) plants first, slowing working down their priority list. A die off is generally precipitated by an event such as a drought year. And it ain't pretty.

[Laturkeyhtr]

Hey Badgr, I thought I made a simple enough answer. As for my comment regarding 'doe hunting' I thoght it was well accpted that PA hunters were primarily buck hunters. Many have commented about seeing 40-50 a day and not a buck in the bunch. This doesn't happen where there is hunting on the female segment of the herd. As you have well noticed the herd has been reduced and largely in part to a responsible PGC taking appropriate steps to reduce the herd.

I think I aswered the part about a herd crash. Deer will continue to survive, but they are not eating preferred browse. Personally I don't think PA's herd has crashed as you suggest per Alt, but rather have been bfing properly managed.

Now that we are both reasonable, I ask that you commet to he following:

Now I have a question for you. How can you continue to discredit authors from PA because they have such a limited parcel to observe? But yet you expect us to believe you when you state there are no deer in PA, "just come up here and look at my place." Is there really any difference? I would appreciate a thought provoking answer to my question.

[GF.]

Many have commented about seeing 40-50 a day and not a buck in the bunch..........

That just cracks me up. How can anyone with half a brain see dozens of does in a season, but no bucks, and conclude that there is an overharvest of does that is causing the buck shortage?

'Unencumbered by the thought process' rides again!