PA Deer Management

[Cabin Fever]

Oh God no. There was only 3-4 hunters on ~120 acres and we only had 1 doe tag each. One adjoining landowner won't even shoot does. Its mountain country, so no crop damage permits either. Of course, the increase in coyotes and bear in the area might have a lot to do with it.? They were unheard of in that area, until 15-20 years ago.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

There are no scientific measurements that I am aware of that validate when an AR program is implemented, the deer are bigger. If you are saying that the bucks are older and therefore larger, because older deer at 3.5 years old weigh more than a 1.5 year old buck, that makes sense.  That is true any place whether there is AR or not. But the proponents of the Pa. AR system are saying that the deer are bigger, magically. Where is the logic for that sentiment? Do they mean that now in Pa. there are fewer whitetails, so the surviving population eats more so those individuals swell up?  I think a lot of hunters on the fence on the AR issue take those kind of statements as gospel, swallowing them hook, line, and sinker and trusting the AR sources when a bit of objective reflection shows us how nonsensical those types of statements really are. So when the AR advocates in the upcoming NY meetings say, "If we have AR in NY the deer will be bigger." Someone can ask for the proof and the data to support the nonsensical assertion.

With time and age all deer will get larger bodies and larger headgear..Kinda the nature of the beast.

[dbHunterNY]

There are no scientific measurements that I am aware of that validate when an AR program is implemented, the deer are bigger. If you are saying that the bucks are older and therefore larger, because older deer at 3.5 years old weigh more than a 1.5 year old buck, that makes sense.  That is true any place whether there is AR or not. But the proponents of the Pa. AR system are saying that the deer are bigger, magically. Where is the logic for that sentiment? Do they mean that now in Pa. there are fewer whitetails, so the surviving population eats more so those individuals swell up?  I think a lot of hunters on the fence on the AR issue take those kind of statements as gospel, swallowing them hook, line, and sinker and trusting the AR sources when a bit of objective reflection shows us how nonsensical those types of statements really are. So when the AR advocates in the upcoming NY meetings say, "If we have AR in NY the deer will be bigger." Someone can ask for the proof and the data to support the nonsensical assertion.

 

ARs aren't for every area and in some might not even be relevant and show any effect.  they can be used in different ways for different reasons.  many understand the outcome but not the why or how, so that's why you get vague/bs answers.  if you have very little deer and habitat can hold more ARs help can protect younger bucks and a lot of them to help the population rebound quicker assuming you're not hammering doe and have chances at better bucks than what you're used to seeing.  in areas where there's ton of deer and little quantity of bucks ARs can make the hunting action experienced more enjoyable, promote needed doe harvest and freezer filling, and have chances at better bucks than what you're used to seeing.  in areas where hunting pressure is very high (more than normal) saves plenty of bucks to maintain earliest possible and efficient breeding of doe which indirectly helps herd productivity to keep lots of deer hitting the ground to replace the ones being shot.  I don't know why so many think one buck can take care of ridiculous numbers of 20+ doe every season as well as be perfect fat and happy going into winter months when he's only eating mostly woody browse with very little nutritional value.

[Doc]

One thing is very likely ..... ARs may very well have an unintended consequence of higher doe harvests and consequently smaller herds. The reason? .... If just about every buck that walks by is illegal to shoot, more does will be used to fill freezers. To some that is good news, to some its not. But I don't think anyone has ever looked at ARs as being a herd reduction action eve though that very well could be the bottom line result. It's just another one of those things where you have to look at all sides and side-effects of every issue before you jump in with both feet.

[dbHunterNY]

Oh God no. There was only 3-4 hunters on ~120 acres and we only had 1 doe tag each. One adjoining landowner won't even shoot does. Its mountain country, so no crop damage permits either. Of course, the increase in coyotes and bear in the area might have a lot to do with it.? They were unheard of in that area, until 15-20 years ago.

 

coyotes can and so can bear.  if you hear a lot of coyotes and see bear then know they're eating something and not just berries, bird feeder seed, grass, and squirrels.  you only see them around often if there's plenty of food.  on heavily managed QDM properties where people have plenty of them around they encourage gutting deer elsewhere and not just out on the property where you shot it.  how often do hunters in NY do that?  not often, including us actually.  down south regardless of size deer are usually dressed back at the shed or camp.  my brother and dad have witnessed a sow and her cubs show up out of the blue hitting piles of entrails from harvested deer in wide open fields.  I've seen a couple coyotes running deer across multiple fields many times.  if one coyote can take a walk and find a fawn that can't run 35 mph and has nothing else to defend it then there going to happily eat it without hesitation opposed to running one down an adult deer or getting hoof boxed.  bear don't have to worry about boxing matches but don't exactly have the forest gump mentality either.

[dbHunterNY]

One thing is very likely ..... ARs may very well have an unintended consequence of higher doe harvests and consequently smaller herds. The reason? .... If just about every buck that walks by is illegal to shoot, more does will be used to fill freezers. To some that is good news, to some its not. But I don't think anyone has ever looked at ARs as being a herd reduction action eve though that very well could be the bottom line result. It's just another one of those things where you have to look at all sides and side-effects of every issue before you jump in with both feet.

 

for many farm properties even within the co-op I'm a coordinator for are using it for just that.  hunters on some farm properties pass on deer after deer to shoot a buck and the farmer is annoyed because they want more deer shot because they're eating their crops.  they're for ARs only if they can and do cause more doe to get shot.  those farms being involved is the only reason are co-op even took off.  i think the reason what you said can often be true is that there's a disconnect even with many hunters using so form of AR don't think of.  in many areas where ARs are used the properties are being managed to some degree by those that have jumped on the deer management band wagon that just have the mindset of hammering doe without reservation based on opportunity instead of a controlled harvest.  I've seen it translated that way through TV hunting shows and when knowledgeable deer experts words are taken the wrong way during seminars.  "just shoot doe" is not a good answer.  this along with the fact that everything in nature is cyclical is one of the big factors in the reduction of deer herds throughout the nation, so I've heard and what I've thought.  the concept of deer management in the past 30 years has grown in jaw dropping fashion.  we're blessed in NY to be without the problems of CWD or EHD that would only add to need to keep your finger off the trigger and add a piece to the puzzle.  regardless of ARs or what deer is in front of a hunter they should be thinking about the effects of them pulling the trigger every time if they intend to hunt in the future.  don't have to be a biologist but have to have an open mind and listen to what's going on around your deer woods.

[Doc]

......regardless of ARs or what deer is in front of a hunter they should be thinking about the effects of them pulling the trigger every time if they intend to hunt in the future.  don't have to be a biologist but have to have an open mind and listen to what's going on around your deer woods.

I think what you are saying is good advice, but while hunting philosophies of what should be done are very nice, I often get the feeling that such statements are basically preaching to the choir. I am still left with the question of what in reality is in the minds of most of the hunters out there. So when we are considering what side effects come from certain regulations, we have to remember that not all hunters are necessarily very well schooled in interpreting what they are seeing and reacting in exactly the most schooled way. I think most want a deer.....any deer. And if shooting bucks is frustrated by regulations, I have no doubt that they will pop a doe instead. Now that might be a great thing in areas where populations are high, but that doesn't sound like the condition down in PA. And I have to wonder if mixed in with their low deer population isn't that side effect of their ARs as a contributer.

[dbHunterNY]

I think what you are saying is good advice, but while hunting philosophies of what should be done are very nice, I often get the feeling that such statements are basically preaching to the choir. I am still left with the question of what in reality is in the minds of most of the hunters out there. So when we are considering what side effects come from certain regulations, we have to remember that not all hunters are necessarily very well schooled in interpreting what they are seeing and reacting in exactly the most schooled way. I think most want a deer.....any deer. And if shooting bucks is frustrated by regulations, I have no doubt that they will pop a doe instead. Now that might be a great thing in areas where populations are high, but that doesn't sound like the condition down in PA. And I have to wonder if mixed in with their low deer population isn't that side effect of their ARs as a contributer.

 

yea I can't speak for PA.  I've read sure but don't have first hand experience down there.  I completely agree as a hunter gets accustomed to shooting doe versus say a yearling buck they'll very readily shoot a doe.  I haven't seen where if they think numbers are low they will still shoot, but that's a good portion of only 4C.  hard to say what the mindset is down there without hunting and being down there.  just because I haven't seen it here doesn't mean ARs couldn't contribute to the low numbers down there.  I do think that with ARs protecting young bucks they could curb their doe harvest and bring numbers back up quickly and either ditch the restrictions or try something different with along with then from then on.

[gjs4]

I do not care how the harvest numbers go as long as they based on what needs to happen. We have a horrid census system and a follow up turd with out estimations on actual kills. I spend tons of time in 8g and when they went 60k dmps last year it was a total wtf. Heck we keep citing the 2012-2016 deer management plan- started in 2010 and we just had two epic winters here in any back to back .... Regardless of disease, road kills or variable troubles.... Bad times are ahead and for years to come. The gun hunter fraternity is only concerned with what they can shoot- not what's there or how their choices effect anyone/anything. Venison is not a guarantee and I am so done with this is how I feed my family excuse. Prioritize boys and girls... And think for yourself as the DECs priorities is revenue not our herd

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Buckstopshere]

What most do not realize or remember that in Pa., when they instituted the AR experiment back in 2003, there was another study that was the driving force. It is called: "The Pennsylvania Regeneration Study," (PRS)  a forestry study that one would have to say was the real reason for AR's, not buck density, herd health, bigger racks, etc. as hunter's were told. The first sentence of the PRS is: "Pennsylvania’s forests have long been plagued with tree regeneration challenges due to many factors, the most significant of which has been deer browsing."

 

While some might believe that herd reduction is an unfortuate and unforeseen consequence of antler restrictions, one does not have to be too much of a conspiracy theorist to connect the dots. 2+2 = 4. Hunters have been sold a new math.

 

Antler Restrictions and the PRS walk hand-in-hand. Deer are considered a plague...that is their words. And that is why there has been a 40% drop in hunter success in the last 15 years. The Pa. Game Commission along with the USDA  Forestry Service are reducing the deer herd in Pa. to ridiculous levels, and sold to hunters as "improving"  the herd. But you have to hand it to them, the AR story is a wonderful PR victory.

 

Sometimes I feel like that little dog "toto" in the Wizard of Oz that pulled the curtain back and exposed the man, pulling the levers and pushing the switches.

 

And by the way, in Unit 3A in Pa. (WMU south of Allegany County NY where I hunted for 40 years)  the Antlerless Permit for this year was increased by 1,000. The timber industry does not want deer,... any deer and consider hunters a pest at the best and at the worst, the enemy, that needs to be delt with in a sophisticated, political, sociological, touchy-feely way.

[Doc]

Deer are considered a plague...that is their words. And that is why there has been a 40% drop in hunter success in the last 15 years. The Pa. Game Commission along with the USDA  Forestry Service are reducing the deer herd in Pa. to ridiculous levels, and sold to hunters as "improving"  the herd. But you have to hand it to them, the AR story is a wonderful PR victory.

And one has to wonder if that same attitude toward deer isn't ruling deer management in NYS as well. Ever since I saw the listing of what constitutes the Citizen Task Forces ( the group that establishes our deer density goals and harvest levels), I have been concerned with what I call "anti-deer interests" having a greater say in management than perhaps they ought to. Consider what the DEC/Cornell use to establish what they call stakeholders. In their own words: "Farmers, hunters, foresters, conservationists, motorists, the tourism industry, landowners, small business, etc, are all considered as potentially distinct stakeholder groups." These are the entities that do a heavy portion of real deer management for the DEC. Look at the number of these interests that might have an outright anti-deer bias. Consider what happens if some of those anti-deer forces happen to have a stronger and more forceful personality and debate technique.

 

And so the question does arise as to exactly what are the goals of NYS deer management. I know we all assume that deer levels are being managed for balance with habitat and a healthy deer herd. But looking at the interests being represented by these Citizen Task Forces, you really have to wonder just whose voice is really running the show since the DEC has handed over management responsibilities to a handful of self-interested laymen.

[Goose chaser]

Many of the state game lands have fenced in area's to show the world the havic that deer play on the land. Since the deer per square mile is much smaller than 20 years ago, you can't tell the difference between either side. The DCNR, Game commission and insurace industry want way less deer. Us hunters want 150" bucks and lots of them running around. You can really understand why these game managers struggle about which direction to go. It used to be the sportsman had the biggest voice in how our game was managed. Not anymore.

[Lawdwaz]

I finally got a chance to read the article today.  A very well done piece.........written from a guy that has the experience on both side of the border for many years.

 

Hopefully this article gets passed around.  I'll be clipping mine out and sending it to a friend who also is in agreement and has as many or more years hunting both side in the same general area. 

[LetEmGrow]

You can blame the DEC/DNR for their demise. Like was said, They had piles of deer and tags were handed out free for the taking. Hunters had tags and they filled them. Look at all the states that are bitching about low deer numbers and you will see hunters listening to their DNR's saying here are the tags now go kill the deer, problem is..The DNR has no clue how many deer they really have in those states. Giving hunters 5 doe tags each in some states when deer numbers are not there will wipe out your herd quickly.

 

Many times hunters/Land Owners can make a better decision on how many deer should be taken on their property. DEC would have enough on their plate just trying to keep a huntable herd on land the state owns. 

 

It was also very hot when the season opened and they reduced DMPs by 59000.

http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2015/03/pennsylvania_deer_harvest_down.html

 

Most of the people I have talked to seem to like the antler restrictions.

[Doc]

It is hard to say whether any of us really has much of a handle on the attitudes of PA hunters toward the AR policies. Certainly nothing credible or scientific.

 

I think a lot of people could just be in love with the concept of AR, but not all that impressed with the results of the over-all herd management in general. I don't think it is adequately understood as to what the interrelationship between the two really is.

[Buckstopshere]

Psychologists call it  "the placebo effect." That is, when the newest fad, sold by slick snake oil salesmen actually makes us feel better and the new pill is the right thing to take, even though it is just a sugar-coated fantasy.

 

If the deer take had dropped 40% in 10 years (from 500,000 to 300,000) by any other reason, there would have been riots at the deer meetings and a deafening clamor for change, like in Wisconsin. But in Pa. they drank the purple kool aid and still to this day, few who swallowed the notion of statewide ARs have the stones to admit that they were led down the road by the Pied Piper Gary Alt.

[NFA-ADK]

From this discussion I come to a few conclusions.

 

1)AR will reduce the herd due to extra doe being taken

 

2)AR will cause larger deer basically due to extra food availability.  (Not larger antlers)  Basically the more food makes a healthier herd but this does not help hunters harvest more deer.  Lower deer numbers equal a healthy herd but less for us to hunt.  This was a goal for AR.  We should not be surprised.  When I say larger in effect they are just fatter for the winter, not larger in size.

 

3)AR is more about having a well balanced herd but that usually results in less deer, less harvest and more hunters who loose interest due to low sightings.  Great for trophy hunters but not good for hunting in general.

 

4)With less deer in an area they will gravitate to the properties that have the resources they require and will not have to travel long distances to get the sustenance they need to survive the rut.  This less travel results in less deer taken on top of the fact that less deer are in the area.

 

I was once an AR advocate but talking with members on this forum has changed my view.  I still trophy hunt but would rather let my hunting brothers and sisters choose what they want to shoot vs letting the DEC choose for them.  I believed the hype of the AR at first but now as it has progressed I can see it is really just another tool to get the herd reduced as much as possible vs getting big deer for hunters to shoot.

 

I still do believe in AR but think it should be handled by the land owners.  Most that do this type of control have a great population with many large bucks to hunt but they usually have neighbors with similar interests.   It's a fine line to get a good balance on a deer herd and it really needs to be micromanaged.  Regional AR's are not the answer, unless you want to cull the herd.

[dbHunterNY]

From this discussion I come to a few conclusions.

 

1)AR will reduce the herd due to extra doe being taken

 

2)AR will cause larger deer basically due to extra food availability.  (Not larger antlers)  Basically the more food makes a healthier herd but this does not help hunters harvest more deer.  Lower deer numbers equal a healthy herd but less for us to hunt.  This was a goal for AR.  We should not be surprised.  When I say larger in effect they are just fatter for the winter, not larger in size.

 

3)AR is more about having a well balanced herd but that usually results in less deer, less harvest and more hunters who loose interest due to low sightings.  Great for trophy hunters but not good for hunting in general.

 

4)With less deer in an area they will gravitate to the properties that have the resources they require and will not have to travel long distances to get the sustenance they need to survive the rut.  This less travel results in less deer taken on top of the fact that less deer are in the area.

 

I was once an AR advocate but talking with members on this forum has changed my view.  I still trophy hunt but would rather let my hunting brothers and sisters choose what they want to shoot vs letting the DEC choose for them.  I believed the hype of the AR at first but now as it has progressed I can see it is really just another tool to get the herd reduced as much as possible vs getting big deer for hunters to shoot.

 

I still do believe in AR but think it should be handled by the land owners.  Most that do this type of control have a great population with many large bucks to hunt but they usually have neighbors with similar interests.   It's a fine line to get a good balance on a deer herd and it really needs to be micromanaged.  Regional AR's are not the answer, unless you want to cull the herd.

 

everyone should still believe in ARs, because they're a tool that is never going to go away.  whether it is applicable to an area we hunt is entirely different.  ARs handled on a landowner basis don't often work well, cause frustration, and decrease opportunity.  the exception being co-ops that get a bunch of contiguous landowners together, but that's different.  state mandated ARs would have to be on a WMU level to be effective.  Regional level I agree is a little too broad.  Also if an AR is applicable there are very few bucks and they are young from a substantial harvest of 1.5 yr old bucks.  You'll see more young surviving bucks from ARs and maybe a large one here or there.  to get large bucks (older than 2.5 yrs old) you do need additional restraint from some in the area, neighbors that share the same interests, or a whole lot of luck.  No state regs will give you those requirements for larger bucks.  even then there should be provisions to get rid of them for youth during youth season.

[gjs4]

One of the last wired to hunt podcasts had some great insight from Gary Alt at the NDA convention- he said the numbers were whacked down to allow reforestation through protecting new growth, reducing car accidents and creating a a deer population more friendly with the human numbers. I am no rocket scientist and take a ton of pot shots from the non-thinkers on here but if only 8% of NY hunts 85-92% want deer numbers that don't negatively affect what they're interested in. Take a step back and look at this proposal and all the changes the past few years.... Data isn't there as to what the herd is or isn't ... More predators and snowfall (way) and with regard to regs; It's continually shifting toward kill more (longer seasons, more dmaps, rifles, so-on and so forth )

[Buckstopshere]

One of the last wired to hunt podcasts had some great insight from Gary Alt at the NDA convention- he said the numbers were whacked down to allow reforestation through protecting new growth, reducing car accidents and creating a a deer population more friendly with the human numbers. I am no rocket scientist and take a ton of pot shots from the non-thinkers on here but if only 8% of NY hunts 85-92% want deer numbers that don't negatively affect what they're interested in. Take a step back and look at this proposal and all the changes the past few years.... Data isn't there as to what the herd is or isn't ... More predators and snowfall (way) and with regard to regs; It's continually shifting toward kill more (longer seasons, more dmaps, rifles, so-on and so forth )

 

No doubt Alt "whacked the numbers down" for those reasons. So what? But what about hunters? I guess I am one of the "non-thinkers" on here, but it amazes me how Alt continues to justify the decimation of the Pa. deer herd and the resulting drop in success for the average Pa. hunter and it is supported by deer hunters! I hunted in Pa. for 40 years, hiked the ridges wild-crafting, and hunted turkey there. How much did Alt hunt there, spent time in the woods?  All I can say is when the AR experiment was first proposed, there was little mention of the catastrophic decline that the whitetail population there would undergo. Now he is telling the truth. And hunters...at least what are termed now "the thinking hunters"...support it. Unbelievable.

[Meat First]

Nobody is challenging me on the numbers, yet, though I have hand some pretty heated ad hominem attacks since the article appeared. I expect that from those that drink the AR koolaid as a panacea for getting a big buck.

Another aspect I didn't mention was the crock, the worn out mantra of "back in the day in Pa. when the Commonwealth was overrun with deer, they were tiny...like rabbits. And then we had AR and now we have bigger deer.  What a bunch of...road apples. For the last 30 years the Potter County Enterprise puts out an interesting edition. It is their big buck special. And in it are a lot of bucks, of all sizes, shot in the Coudersport area. I look forward to it each year...and surprisingly, the winner of the big buck contest is no bigger than that of 10, 20 or even 30 years previous. The only change is that there are fewer bucks entered. And that is a shame.

 

Change to ARs makes deer bigger... lol. What a crock! Bad science. about like the fetal measurements on timing the rut.

 

And since when is "herd balance" (as if it could ever be attained by the average hunter/landowner) really only more than an abstract notion.

 

BSH I would love to here your opinion on fetal measurements/ moon phase and rut timing...

[Buckstopshere]

Here ya go. I have a couple other columns on the subject.

 

http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20110909/News/309099951

[Meat First]

Thanks I guess i'll dig out that moonphase chart

[dbHunterNY]

Here ya go. I have a couple other columns on the subject.

 

http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20110909/News/309099951

 

you know if you average all the studies you referenced you get a date of 67 days for a 100 mm fetus?  aside from one study being the extreme low and another being the extreme high, the others independently come in anywhere between 67-69 days.  considering there's limited studies and data on this with each not being based in the exact same region, along with other variables, I think the results are pretty good.  No study ever dwells on extremes that far from the rest of the data when coming to a conclusive result anyway.  I know where I can get a fetus scale based on Hamilton's study which fell right there in the middle.  I wouldn't hesitate to use a fetus scale for deer, if I decided to pursue that information.  the method of determining duration of gestation by measuring a fetus from crown to tail bone base is commonly used for us humans.  they literally take a snap shot and measure it on the screen through software and clicking on the points during an ultrasound.  they've been doing it for years now and if the method sucked I doubt they'd continue to use it.  it's more beneficial for me to focus early harvest of doe before a buck expends energy chasing them around and breeding them.  the fetus wouldn't be at least 6 weeks old to be conclusive, and most likely the doe wouldn't even be bred by then to make a fetus.  your use of the term rut is a little confusing.  written as if it were a specific date, when in reality it's multiple stages that consist of more than a week each, that together form "the rut".  the first 2/3 of your article is hell bent on figuring out this one date and I'm not sure why given what I've previously typed.  heck the buck is with a doe at that right time for approximately 72 hours; 24 hours before, when ready, and after.

[Buckstopshere]

Thanks for the critique. The Cheatum-Morton study has the 54 day old fetus at 100 days, the Armstrong study has the same fetus at 67 days, the Short study has it at 79 days and the Hamilton study is 69 days for the 100 mm fetus. So which is right, if any? And that is just one variable and only one of a few major issues with the technique. As far as Ultra sound with humans goes...I believe it is used to back date the conception date for individuals, not the entire species as the fetus charts claim to do.  As we know, some babies are born at 7 pounds and others at 12 pounds with the same number of pregnancy days obviously their size is different. Bottom line, fetal measuring should be see as more akin to its precursor  phrenology, now discredited as science and considered pseudoscience. But at one time, considered like today's fetal aging, gospel. And state game departments use fetal aging to peg the rut. The rut is a confusing term, no doubt. And different people mean different things when they use the term. But what I mean by the high point of the rut is those few days when the bucks are going bananas chasing, and everyone in the woods in the same region is noticing it at the same time,... just before peak breeding. The rut (when the bucks are on their feet chasing during the daytime) varies each year and can be pretty well pinpointed by the moon formula, but not fetal aging.