PA Deer Management

[dbHunterNY]

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.

 

 

like I said if you average the age estimates from those studies you get about 68 days and two of the studies got 67 and 69 days for age of the fetus.  so there you have your range for those few days you've determined those bucks are going bananas.  when I said variable I didn't mean varying results like the day discrepancy.  I meant variables as in differences in deer the fetal samples came from that would lead them to be different lengths for a given age, as in deer from the same area or north of the equator (Bergmann's Rule).  not some from Michigan, some from NY, etc.  I think peak breeding period for does in your area will last longer than a few days but not the point.  nobody's saying it's an absolute exact science but it's way more accurate then you're claiming which is saying it's basically worthless.  for babies it's the same idea of determining the gestation of a fetus or back dating conception and due date.  then you can't compare a fully developed baby to a fetus in this regard.  two completely different stages in the development process where other factors come into play.  there's specific requirements and perimeters for using the fetus scale to yield conclusive results.  so many things on here you write off as "Bad Science" yet it doesn't seem like fully under them.  Maybe you do and your reason's aren't compelling enough to me.  I don't know.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Thanks I guess i'll dig out that moonphase chart

While I agree with BSH on some things, youd be better off looking int the GPS collar studies done on deer that have proven that the moon theories are a myth, along with the idea of deer being nocturnal, the october lull, etc.

[Buckstopshere]

While I agree with BSH on some things, youd be better off looking int the GPS collar studies done on deer that have proven that the moon theories are a myth, along with the idea of deer being nocturnal, the october lull, etc.

 

 I remember studying the very first radio tracking studies of whitetails back in the late 70's/early 80's and finding them in the Journal of Wildlife Management. This was way before GPS or even the internet. I would go over to the Alfred University library and pull the magazines off the shelves, and then copy (on a copier) every article in the JWM on whitetails. Radio telemetry was pioneered by Marchinton in Alabama and Inglis in Texas. A few outdoor writers picked up the ideas so the early telemetry studies made it into the mainstream outdoor press by the mid-80's. But these early techniques were quite inaccurate because the researchers had to use triangulation, the info transferred to clip boards by pencil, then to maps, the technology was in its infancy, etc. Still it was a breakthrough. Years later with the advent of computers and GPS, our understanding of specific whitetail movement went up to a whole different level. But no matter how refined and detailed the data was, with computers and GPS, it never could tell WHY a specific deer was moving. And then came along the infrared-triggered camera, the trail cam! And then we could see for ourselves the correlation between the moon and the timing of the rut.  People are full of myths all right, I will agree with you there. They are afraid to give credibility to all sorts for things, from Herbal Medicine to acupuncture, mushrooms, and the moon. Our society as a whole believes that if ideas are not bought, sold and packaged all nice neat and clean by the mainstream media, they do not really exist. All we have to do is watch a flower turn towards the light to know that light has an effect on all sentient creatures. Moonlight is simply reflected sunlight. Sorry, I get even more long-winded on Saturday morning than usual.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Actually if you read the studies and findings, youll be able to see the lack of correlation between the deer's movements and the dates of moon phases. The studies all show a direct correlation between photoperiodism and rutting activity. You will also see how different weather conditions affect them. The most recent, most advanced GPS studies (using far more accurate, dependable and long term equipment) results are pretty clear.

Im not looking to debate or argue about it, just saying people should read the studies and draw their conclusions. I just have a tendancy to believe verifiable data from multiple studies in multiple areas that come to a similar conclusion.

[gjs4]

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.

I think we are the same page believe it or not.

With regard to nonthinkers- most on here base their arguments on the DEC on DEC supplied data and initiatives. Let's watch msnbc and try to support republicans while we are at it.... We are headed the same route as what you've lived in Pa deer camp- no deer. This will be done in the name of conservation. Ar s are simply the golden incentive for those with persistence. The lazy gun guy who hunts 3 days may drop out of the game, allow a couple drinks to make it near maturity while reducing pressure. So Bobby Bigbuck may see no deer for week or so but when it does have horns it will be bigger than what he was used to back in the day.

I kill does for organic protein. Where and when is based on my management of sed parcel or wandering herd. If I shoot a buck it's because he is 3.5 or older and dons sexy head gear. There are no laws that will offer the end result I desire. Those who believe the DEC will manage big bucks for them are too lazy to do it now. Those who believe the state cares more about their hunting satisfaction than the 90% of no hunters with financial/political pull are also on the road to sadness because there will not be big racks or does left if they get their way. We might as well go back to the gun laws versus crime reduction model.

I respect anyone that can consider others as much as they stand their ground... We don't have to be on the same page. The only reason I'd vote yes on ARs is to increase target identification..... The only reason I call people non thinkers on. Deer regs is the state tells us how many does need to be killed is the sate doe not have a clue how many deer we have and the end result is obvious (and mirrors our southern neighbors)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Buckstopshere]

Actually if you read the studies and findings, youll be able to see the lack of correlation between the deer's movements and the dates of moon phases. The studies all show a direct correlation between photoperiodism and rutting activity. You will also see how different weather conditions affect them. The most recent, most advanced GPS studies (using far more accurate, dependable and long term equipment) results are pretty clear.

Im not looking to debate or argue about it, just saying people should read the studies and draw their conclusions. I just have a tendancy to believe verifiable data from multiple studies in multiple areas that come to a similar conclusion.

 

WNYBH: Please post the urls or links to the info you reference. I may have read it, but maybe not. I'm always learning and never said I have all the answers. Love to read new stuff on whitetails! We are all on the path to a better understanding of this amazing critter. But all the popular articles I have read that say they have disproved the working formula that the moon fine-tunes the rut simply average fetal measurements and claim that proves the rut date is always the same. The peak of the rut here, is a moving target every year with up to a three week swing from late October to mid-November.

[Buckstopshere]

like I said if you average the age estimates from those studies you get about 68 days and two of the studies got 67 and 69 days for age of the fetus.  so there you have your range for those few days you've determined those bucks are going bananas.  when I said variable I didn't mean varying results like the day discrepancy.  I meant variables as in differences in deer the fetal samples came from that would lead them to be different lengths for a given age, as in deer from the same area or north of the equator (Bergmann's Rule).  not some from Michigan, some from NY, etc.  I think peak breeding period for does in your area will last longer than a few days but not the point.  nobody's saying it's an absolute exact science but it's way more accurate then you're claiming which is saying it's basically worthless.  for babies it's the same idea of determining the gestation of a fetus or back dating conception and due date.  then you can't compare a fully developed baby to a fetus in this regard.  two completely different stages in the development process where other factors come into play.  there's specific requirements and perimeters for using the fetus scale to yield conclusive results.  so many things on here you write off as "Bad Science" yet it doesn't seem like fully under them.  Maybe you do and your reason's aren't compelling enough to me.  I don't know.

Just because you can cherry pick a couple studies that have a closer correlation (3 of the 4) at a specific date does not mean that the theory of measuring fetuses to backdate the rut is scientifically valid. My point, which evidently I poorly made, is that though some may correlate at certain ages other studies disagree with each other along the 200 day gestation period to the point where it is not scientifically rigorous enough, or have enough correlation to hang your hat on. Just because you can connect the dots between two studies does not mean that it has any reliability for a future measurement, especially spanning strains of whitetails from one geographic area (deep south) to another (far north as you cited Bergmann's rule.)  Again, I have to stress, the sample sizes of these studies are tiny because of the issues with sampling (i.e. expense, manual variation, not to mention ethics - killing a pregnant doe to measure the fetus to get a known scale.) You did not address the real issue... and that is the only way to know if the fetuses can tell us the conception date is to kill nearly 100 does minimum that have known conception dates, pull the fetuses at two day intervals all along the 200 day gestation period so that you have a basic scale. However, it would still be suspect with so few fetuses measured, get my drift? The two studies you referenced Cheatum-Morton (1946) and Armstrong (1950)  only measured 17 and 76 fetuses respectively. Hamilton (a southern study - smaller deer)  measured 64 fetuses in 1985 while Short's study in Michigan only measured 21 fetuses. And that is what the fetal backdating proponents that claim to be able to gauge the rut date support? I think, even "thinkers" should be able to see through the rusty and crumbling methodology called fetal aging studies here. Thanks for wading through this. Sorry, I didn't follow your baby - fetus sentences. I really appreciate the critique though. Thanks!

[growalot]

theories are a myth, along with the idea of deer being nocturnal, the october lull, etc.

 

 

I can't say I agree with that... I personally see deer go from moving freely around the hill during the day....... They start limiting their travels from deep swamp cover and inaccessible safe zones. to just after dusk movements to food sources...I call that nocturnal and yes they do know safe zones...Why else would they come in and bed /feed within mere yards of two barking shepherds in a fenced kennel if not for safety?

[thphm]

I can't say I agree with that... I personally see deer go from moving freely around the hill during the day....... They start limiting their travels from deep swamp cover and inaccessible safe zones. to just after dusk movements to food sources...I call that nocturnal and yes they do know safe zones...Why else would they come in and bed /feed within mere yards of two barking shepherds in a fenced kennel if not for safety?

 

X2+

[dbHunterNY]

I can't say I agree with that... I personally see deer go from moving freely around the hill during the day....... They start limiting their travels from deep swamp cover and inaccessible safe zones. to just after dusk movements to food sources...I call that nocturnal and yes they do know safe zones...Why else would they come in and bed /feed within mere yards of two barking shepherds in a fenced kennel if not for safety?

 

that's what the research he refers to gets at.  some people think deer get nocturnal and literally stay put/bedded until the sun goes down.  that's just not the case.  they'll restrict their movements to areas nearby of little to no pressure.  they're still on their feet though just not where they've known you to be.  I think it's one of those things that's misunderstood.  you seem to get it.

[reeltime]

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.

 

Gary Alt did not "whack" the numbers down the hunters did, and continue to do. I cant tell you how many times in Pa sites and here on hny people say I didn't see a deer all day and then late afternoon I saw a doe and shot it.

 

Gary Alt "retired" or quit the PGC a number of years ago amongst all the deer management turmoil basically he had his and his family's lives threatened and he decided enough was enough. 

 

I would be willing to bet that Gary Alt spent more time in the Pa woods than any of us and understood what he was seeing more than any of us.  As the old saying goes hes forgotten more about animal biology than we will ever learn.

 

Did you attend any of the town meetings before the AR/HR began?  HR WAS talked about, but all most people seemed to hear was "bigger deer with bigger antlers"  Bottom line is they boosted the antlerless license numbers because of need and the hunters filled them and continue to fill them. But herd reduction WAS talked about people just failed to grasp what magnitude they discussed.

 

Did deer numbers need to be trimmed to such low levels in some areas? no,  unfortunately public lands got decimated simply because quite a few hunters think thats the only place they can hunt. 

 

When this all began in the late 90's the deer herd had been out of control for too long, most people couldn't see the over browsing issues if they jumped up and slapped them in the face.  what was being done for years was NOT working something had to be done before there was a complete ecological/biological collapse encountered.

 

Like I said were some areas decimated of deer, absolutely! have they began to try and adjust the allocation numbers, yes. has it recovered fully yet  to a complete balance? no. But to some if they don't see 30-60 deer a day its the states fault for killing off all the deer when in fact every person that shot multiple doe's a year are the ones to blame.  not gary alt, not the PGC, themselves alone are the cause. 

 

Those with vast private land didn't and continue to not allow over harvest to take affect, some areas did and people woke up and have taken back control of harvest numbers on their property.

 

Do I agree with the whole AR/HR program, not in its entirety, The game management units are too large and too hard to control harvest locations and numbers. did something need to be done? yes.  It was done and although it may of made it tough for a few years hopefully it curtailed something that would of taken a decade to recover from.  We have been under a tighter control in our area and with the antler restrictions and passing on younger legal deer we have some nice deer to hunt along with a very noticeable regeneration of our woods.

[Doc]

Yes, hunters do the dirty work. But let's understand who it is that is charged with the responsibility of game management and who it is who is drawing a paycheck for that function. We hire biologists and maintain a DEC (DNR) as the supposed competency center of wildlife management. So when the agency issues more permits, those who believe they really know what they are doing, do their best to fill whatever permits that they have been given. So whatever management shortfalls that occur come on the shoulders of those claiming authority and expertise. So management mistakes are not the fault of the hunters. They are simply victims of putting their faith in those that supposedly know and claim to know, what they are doing.

[dbHunterNY]

Just because you can cherry pick a couple studies that have a closer correlation (3 of the 4) at a specific date does not mean that the theory of measuring fetuses to backdate the rut is scientifically valid. My point, which evidently I poorly made, is that though some may correlate at certain ages other studies disagree with each other along the 200 day gestation period to the point where it is not scientifically rigorous enough, or have enough correlation to hang your hat on. Just because you can connect the dots between two studies does not mean that it has any reliability for a future measurement, especially spanning strains of whitetails from one geographic area (deep south) to another (far north as you cited Bergmann's rule.)  Again, I have to stress, the sample sizes of these studies are tiny because of the issues with sampling (i.e. expense, manual variation, not to mention ethics - killing a pregnant doe to measure the fetus to get a known scale.) You did not address the real issue... and that is the only way to know if the fetuses can tell us the conception date is to kill nearly 100 does minimum that have known conception dates, pull the fetuses at two day intervals all along the 200 day gestation period so that you have a basic scale. However, it would still be suspect with so few fetuses measured, get my drift? The two studies you referenced Cheatum-Morton (1946) and Armstrong (1950)  only measured 17 and 76 fetuses respectively. Hamilton (a southern study - smaller deer)  measured 64 fetuses in 1985 while Short's study in Michigan only measured 21 fetuses. And that is what the fetal backdating proponents that claim to be able to gauge the rut date support? I think, even "thinkers" should be able to see through the rusty and crumbling methodology called fetal aging studies here. Thanks for wading through this. Sorry, I didn't follow your baby - fetus sentences. I really appreciate the critique though. Thanks!

 

me averaging all the studies to together I don't believe is cherry picking.  within each study they averaged their sample.  i don't believe it's wrong for me to take the average for all of them, weighted based on quantity of deer in each study, and then choose a study that closely correlates with the average.  that'd be well over your 100 doe requirement.  I get your drift that more fetus samples and data would seem more conclusive.  In the future some research might be done again for it.  I'm sure when that happens there will be more gotten from the death of doe than only the measurements of their fetus.  When that happens it can be added to the research already done.  right now it's what we've got though.  Those minds together may have probably forgotten more about deer than either of us know.  To call what they did rusty and crumbling or just write it off with either mindset of whether it's conclusive yet or not is just not something I cannot agree with.  i think a fetus within a given age is uniform across the board.  region and genetics related to size take place in later stages of development is my understanding.  i can agree with you that using it to determine a specific date might allow for some error.  i don't understand the need for that kind of accuracy to the day anyway.  i believe it'll get you close enough to consider the date as approximate and more importantly allow you to determine related stuff like if the doe was bred in its first cycle and sooner than later.  thanks for the discussion. 

Edited June 14, 2015 by dbHunterNY

[Buckstopshere]

Gary Alt did not "whack" the numbers down the hunters did, and continue to do. I cant tell you how many times in Pa sites and here on hny people say I didn't see a deer all day and then late afternoon I saw a doe and shot it.

 

Gary Alt "retired" or quit the PGC a number of years ago amongst all the deer management turmoil basically he had his and his family's lives threatened and he decided enough was enough. 

 

I would be willing to bet that Gary Alt spent more time in the Pa woods than any of us and understood what he was seeing more than any of us.  As the old saying goes hes forgotten more about animal biology than we will ever learn.

 

Did you attend any of the town meetings before the AR/HR began?  HR WAS talked about, but all most people seemed to hear was "bigger deer with bigger antlers"  Bottom line is they boosted the antlerless license numbers because of need and the hunters filled them and continue to fill them. But herd reduction WAS talked about people just failed to grasp what magnitude they discussed.

 

Did deer numbers need to be trimmed to such low levels in some areas? no,  unfortunately public lands got decimated simply because quite a few hunters think thats the only place they can hunt. 

 

When this all began in the late 90's the deer herd had been out of control for too long, most people couldn't see the over browsing issues if they jumped up and slapped them in the face.  what was being done for years was NOT working something had to be done before there was a complete ecological/biological collapse encountered.

 

Like I said were some areas decimated of deer, absolutely! have they began to try and adjust the allocation numbers, yes. has it recovered fully yet  to a complete balance? no. But to some if they don't see 30-60 deer a day its the states fault for killing off all the deer when in fact every person that shot multiple doe's a year are the ones to blame.  not gary alt, not the PGC, themselves alone are the cause. 

 

Those with vast private land didn't and continue to not allow over harvest to take affect, some areas did and people woke up and have taken back control of harvest numbers on their property.

 

Do I agree with the whole AR/HR program, not in its entirety, The game management units are too large and too hard to control harvest locations and numbers. did something need to be done? yes.  It was done and although it may of made it tough for a few years hopefully it curtailed something that would of taken a decade to recover from.  We have been under a tighter control in our area and with the antler restrictions and passing on younger legal deer we have some nice deer to hunt along with a very noticeable regeneration of our woods.

 

As Doc said, hunters follow the lead of the state's wildlife biologists. IT was Alt's plan all along to decimate the Pa. deer herd because the power in the Pa. Game Commission is the timber and farming interests that suffer when any whitetail is on their land. What is mind boggling to me is that apologists like you continue to beat the drum, even when the deer take has dropped 40% since AR/s were introduced. That's 500,000 whitetails tagged by hunters to 300,000 last season. Forest regeneration...is controlled more by the canopy than the critters on the ground floor. Walking through the Pa. woods today in Northcentral Pa. (Tioga, Potter, and McKean where I hunting for 40 years) is no different than it was 15 years ago, except for one thing. There few deer trails now. And yes, those with large tracts of land and the money to create food plots suck what deer there are...especially the bachelor groups into a decent controlled hunting environment. No argument there. But what about the average hunter? They are the ones being screwed. But I have to say, there is no excuse for the deplorable actions by some threatening Alt and his family. The perps should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and then some...But many here in New York do not understand the anger and frustration in the rank and file Pa. deer hunter over the situation there, remembering the meetings as the deer population started to tank. New Yorkers are so lucky that we have not had to deal with the deer disaster...yet. Yes, I went to two of the Alt dog and pony shows (Coudersport and Cowanesque) and still have the VHS tape. I was on board to give it a try. I drank the koolaid. But then I watched from my stands each year how the population dropped. Now the true colors have come out and it was all about the business interests and the average hunter be damned.

 

[gjs4]

It's impending.

If you guys don't listen to the wired to hunt podcast you should check out the one from 3 wks ago from the NDA speech alt did. Blatantly states a lot of these moves were forced and hunter satisfaction was never a driver. That's out situation here. Bickering back and forth in the thread is cool IMO because at least we are thinkers. Sadly I fear the masses are not and bad times are imminent.

[reeltime]

As Doc said, hunters follow the lead of the state's wildlife biologists. IT was Alt's plan all along to decimate the Pa. deer herd because the power in the Pa. Game Commission is the timber and farming interests that suffer when any whitetail is on their land. What is mind boggling to me is that apologists like you continue to beat the drum, even when the deer take has dropped 40% since AR/s were introduced. That's 500,000 whitetails tagged by hunters to 300,000 last season. Forest regeneration...is controlled more by the canopy than the critters on the ground floor. Walking through the Pa. woods today in Northcentral Pa. (Tioga, Potter, and McKean where I hunting for 40 years) is no different than it was 15 years ago, except for one thing. There few deer trails now. And yes, those with large tracts of land and the money to create food plots suck what deer there are...especially the bachelor groups into a decent controlled hunting environment. No argument there. But what about the average hunter? They are the ones being screwed. But I have to say, there is no excuse for the deplorable actions by some threatening Alt and his family. The perps should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and then some...But many here in New York do not understand the anger and frustration in the rank and file Pa. deer hunter over the situation there, remembering the meetings as the deer population started to tank. New Yorkers are so lucky that we have not had to deal with the deer disaster...yet. Yes, I went to two of the Alt dog and pony shows (Coudersport and Cowanesque) and still have the VHS tape. I was on board to give it a try. I drank the koolaid. But then I watched from my stands each year how the population dropped. Now the true colors have come out and it was all about the business interests and the average hunter be damned.

 

 

yes hunters did as the biologist wanted.... they killed deer by the thousands. bragged and yucked it up all the while doing so.  Its not rocket science, you kill doe you are going to affect the populations, but people had tags and they HAD to fill them.  If people here shot doe like they do in pa ny would be seeing the same decline.

 

As I said SOMETHING had to be done, the carrying capacity was way over where it needed to be, and by your words the forest canopy has more to do with forest regeneration than deer, in one respect that's true it does but while trying to do selective cutting because of over population and over browsing forest regeneration targeted goals were not being reached. 

Mature forests will not and long term can not support excessive wildlife numbers, farmlands and more populated areas can and will support higher deer density numbers. 

 

As I said before I do not agree 100% with how this whole deer plan was done, yes something needed done, did it go too far in some area's yes.  my biggest gripe about the whole thing is they made the management areas bigger when in fact they should have been made smaller to better manage to carrying capacity.

 

I find it mind boggling that people could believe with antler restrictions and herd reduction that the end result would be anything other than a lower number of deer killed after a spike in doe kills. A number of factors go into the lower deer kill numbers,  

1. obviously lower deer density numbers.

 

2. no matter what the PGC says the numbers of pa deer hunters is WAY below what they claim. back in the 70's 80's they claim as they do today that a million deer hunters enter the woods the monday after thanksgiving.. I can remember vividly those days and the number of people I saw hunting, lines of cars parked along roads, and the number of pumpkins we saw dotting every ridge, hill and valley.. No matter what the license sales are not every license sale is for deer hunting and the deer hunter numbers are down. hunter numbers are down so kills will likely be down.

 

3. changes in how people hunt, you see way more box blinds today than I ever saw growing up in pa. nobody had 4 wheelers. todays hunting clothes and insulation quality is far superior than back in the old days so people don't need to move to stay warm. when I first started hunting in the late 70's we always saw people walking walkers move deer , moving deer ended up walking by a waiting hunter.  when people go into a blind and set there all day and so does the neighbor and his neighbor and nobody is moving the deer sightings will go down.

 

4. we as a society have grown to be an instant gratification society, if it doesn't happen as fast as we want we go do something else.  it amazes me how empty the woods are after 10 am the first day of gun season.  people think they should be able to go out and see 100 deer a day and shoot one by 8 am and be to the local coffee shop by 9 am ,,,,and don't care about any biological impact.

 

5.  not a personal slam to anyone here, but to be brutally honest today's hunters are lazy.  they think they should be able to walk in 100-200 yards and have a deer stroll by to shoot. I fully understand that some folks can not physically go any farther than that.  but year in and year out the number of 4 wheelers running the woods goes up.  your in the deers house, to me running a 4 wheeler through the woods is like someone running it in my house.  deer are not stupid.

 

6. deers age,  for the most part 1.5 year old deer are not terribly hard to kill and certainly make up a large percentage of the kill numbers.  they make a fairly large jump in survival skills from 1.5 to 2.5 years.  from 2.5 to 3.5 there is a significant jump in survival skills.  4.5 and up you better be on your A game hunting those animals.

 

 

like I said before, some area's and primarily public lands got decimated,  no different than public lands here in NY generally hold fewer deer numbers simply because more hunters moving deer means a greater chance that deer is going to go past a waiting hunter.  That's why I said the management areas should be smaller, same as they should be here in NY.  in many zones you have large city's and towns and vast farmland all in the same zone how can you properly manage a vast difference in habitat and accessibility for hunters.

[Doc]

yes hunters did as the biologist wanted.... they killed deer by the thousands. bragged and yucked it up all the while

doing so.   

And so the hunters did as they have been instructed to do by what passes for the game management authority and  competency center. You have a permit, your state's game biologists and experts expect you to fill it. They're supposed to be the experts, and if things go wrong, they are the one's who should be shouldering the blame, not the hunters, (yucking it up notwithstanding...lol). The system worked as it was designed. The experts issued the calculated number of permits and the hunters did their part by filling them as they are expected to.

 

By the way, anybody got any clue as to why that system works so thoroughly in PA, but here in NYS, our DEC claims that they can't make the permit system work so they have to bastardize game regulations with more hair-brained schemes? That's a bit off topic, but the point just occurred to me,so I just thought I would ask.

[reeltime]

doc, true the biologists set the numbers, their goal was to drop the numbers quickly because there was a vast over population problem.  they achieved that goal and have since tried to sustain a better carrying capacity number but again trying to do so over a vast variation of habitat is not the right way to do it.  it needs tweaking but they seem to be slow to do so although they are dropping antlerless allocations this year.

 

they achieved their goals so quickly in Pa simply because of hunter accessibility to open land whether it be federal, state or private.  here in NY as most are aware there is a ton of posted land whether its  posted for just family hunting, leasing, or people that just do not allow hunting period.  Deer learn quickly where they can go and not be harassed. 

 

for the most part about 300 days a year the woods are basically void of human scent then all of a sudden the woods are filled with human scent the first day of gun season, deer will change their patterns quickly to avoid humans in the deers house, older deer already know where to go and often times get there before it even gets light. 

 

the hunting heritage and just shear numbers of hunters and other than a few areas being shotgun/bow/muzzleloader quite a large portion of the state is and always has been rifle.  a combination of all those parameters equate to a very good chance at a higher deer kill.  even here in NY the southern tier counties that have allowed rifles for a number of years now that had high dmp numbers  those first few years had high kill rates and from what I hear people are noticing a decrease in deer numbers.  I know from personal observations that I see less deer throughout those counties during my travels and hunts there.  there are still deer there but not near the numbers as were there 15 years ago.

 

[Buckstopshere]

And so the hunters did as they have been instructed to do by what passes for the game management authority and  competency center. You have a permit, your state's game biologists and experts expect you to fill it. They're supposed to be the experts, and if things go wrong, they are the one's who should be shouldering the blame, not the hunters, (yucking it up notwithstanding...lol). The system worked as it was designed. The experts issued the calculated number of permits and the hunters did their part by filling them as they are expected to.

 

By the way, anybody got any clue as to why that system works so thoroughly in PA, but here in NYS, our DEC claims that they can't make the permit system work so they have to bastardize game regulations with more hair-brained schemes? That's a bit off topic, but the point just occurred to me,so I just thought I would ask.

 

There was never a "vast overpopulation problem" in Pa. with the deer. Sure, there were pockets that needed judicious addressing, just like in NY, today. But Alt and the PGC jumped on the issue to pursue their agenda to cut back the deer population by getting a significant percentage of hunters to buy in to it, thrilling their handlers the business interests. I hunted Pa. hard during those years, and so did my buddies. We never saw a "vast overpopulation problem" in Northcentral Pa. At least in Tioga, Potter, and McKean counties. Right now as we speak (or write) the buck index or bucks per square mile in 3A is worse than anyplace in the Adirondacks. The deer per square mile in Pa. Unit 3A (which spans the three counties) is worse than the bucks per square mile just a couple miles north in New York state in Units 9Y and 8X where I hunt. And I know what I am talking about because I am here. My buddies and I hunted Pa. in the 80's and 90's and it was a lot like hunting in NY now. Not better, not worse...as far as deer sightings went. But now, unless you have controlled, managed, private, posted land with food plots, etc. You will have a tough time getting a deer, any deer in Pa.'s Unit 3A. And as the deer numbers drop there, so have the hunters, the average hunter who does not make deer hunting his passion (like we do,) but just a rank and file deer hunter who likes to go out deer hunting for a week or so and have a good time and a reasonable chance at seeing a deer... and that is a real shame. It would be interesting to correlate the deer index in some of the Pa. Northcentral units with the square miles to come up with the index, back in the day when the AR experiment was instituted. It would be a bit complex because the Unit lines have changed a few times. But certainly worth doing. I would bet that the buck index there in the 2,000 to 2003 period was about 4.0 per square mile with a doe density of about 9 or 10. Just about where we are at now in our Southern Tier units. Not bad, certainly not warranting the wholesale apocalypse that has occurred. And to add further insult to injury...guess what? The Pa. Game managers actually increased the antlerless permit allocation in 3A! That's right. Up 1,000 for this upcoming 2015 season. I believe nothing will be done in Pa. to change things unless a Governor like Scott Walker in Wisconsin goes in and fires the whole deer management department and hires a private deer manager to build the deer population back up.

[reeltime]

There was never a "vast overpopulation problem" in Pa. with the deer. Sure, there were pockets that needed judicious addressing, just like in NY, today. But Alt and the PGC jumped on the issue to pursue their agenda to cut back the deer population by getting a significant percentage of hunters to buy in to it, thrilling their handlers the business interests. I hunted Pa. hard during those years, and so did my buddies. We never saw a "vast overpopulation problem" in Northcentral Pa. At least in Tioga, Potter, and McKean counties. Right now as we speak (or write) the buck index or bucks per square mile in 3A is worse than anyplace in the Adirondacks. The deer per square mile in Pa. Unit 3A (which spans the three counties) is worse than the bucks per square mile just a couple miles north in New York state in Units 9Y and 8X where I hunt. And I know what I am talking about because I am here. My buddies and I hunted Pa. in the 80's and 90's and it was a lot like hunting in NY now. Not better, not worse...as far as deer sightings went. But now, unless you have controlled, managed, private, posted land with food plots, etc. You will have a tough time getting a deer, any deer in Pa.'s Unit 3A. And as the deer numbers drop there, so have the hunters, the average hunter who does not make deer hunting his passion (like we do,) but just a rank and file deer hunter who likes to go out deer hunting for a week or so and have a good time and a reasonable chance at seeing a deer... and that is a real shame. It would be interesting to correlate the deer index in some of the Pa. Northcentral units with the square miles to come up with the index, back in the day when the AR experiment was instituted. It would be a bit complex because the Unit lines have changed a few times. But certainly worth doing. I would bet that the buck index there in the 2,000 to 2003 period was about 4.0 per square mile with a doe density of about 9 or 10. Just about where we are at now in our Southern Tier units. Not bad, certainly not warranting the wholesale apocalypse that has occurred. And to add further insult to injury...guess what? The Pa. Game managers actually increased the antlerless permit allocation in 3A! That's right. Up 1,000 for this upcoming 2015 season. I believe nothing will be done in Pa. to change things unless a Governor like Scott Walker in Wisconsin goes in and fires the whole deer management department and hires a private deer manager to build the deer population back up.

 

there never was an over population problem in Pa other than "pockets" back in the 70's 80's early 90's? 

 

[Buckstopshere]

The Pa. overall management plan that precipitated the AR experiment in 2003 is called the Pennsylvania Regeneration Study (PRS.) This is the first sentence with the emphasis on the word "plagued." The Pa. overall management plan blatantly stated in its first sentence:! (sic bold and italics, mine.)

 

 

"Pennsylvania’s forests have long been plagued with tree regeneration challenges due to many factors, the most significant of which has been deer browsing.

 

Isn't it any wonder the population has been decimated with that type of mentality.

[Buckstopshere]

there never was an over population problem in Pa other than "pockets" back in the 70's 80's early 90's? 

 

Right. Let's take a little stroll down memory lane, way back when I was a youngster and could run up one Pa. ridge and down another without thinking about it. Skidding deer through neck deep beaver flows and swamps with a rope in my teeth and a bow over my head.

 

Back then in the 1970s, in the later years the entire statewide buck take was 61,698 in 1978; 58,864 in 1979 and 73,196 in 1980. Hardly an overpopulation. The doe take mirrored it with 59,543 in '78, 55,930 in '79 and 62,281 in 1980.  For comparison lets look at last season in Pa. (2014) 119,260 bucks and 184,173 antlerless. So one would believe that hunters today have it a lot better than we did in the old days. Again, I repeat. There was no overpopulation of deer in the 1970s in Pa. and the harvest figures taken directly from the Pa. Game Commission prove it. 

 

Now lets look at the 80's. Ah the 80's and the advent of the compound bow. In the 70's I hunted with a recurve and an .06.

 

By the end of the 1980s, the Pa. herd was getting really fun to hunt, still a challenge. In 1988 Pa. hunters took 163,106 bucks and 218,293 antlerless deer and by 1990 it was up to 170,101 and 245,460 respectively. In 94 it was 157,000 and 238,000.

 

 The numbers show that certainly in the 70s, 80s  and early 90s, Pa. had no deer overpopulation problem, except in pockets, so I stand by my statement. There are the facts.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Buckstopshere

[reeltime]

Right. Let's take a little stroll down memory lane, way back when I was a youngster and could run up one Pa. ridge and down another without thinking about it. Skidding deer through neck deep beaver flows and swamps with a rope in my teeth and a bow over my head.

 

Back then in the 1970s, in the later years the entire statewide buck take was 61,698 in 1978; 58,864 in 1979 and 73,196 in 1980. Hardly an overpopulation. The doe take mirrored it with 59,543 in '78, 55,930 in '79 and 62,281 in 1980.  For comparison lets look at last season in Pa. (2014) 119,260 bucks and 184,173 antlerless. So one would believe that hunters today have it a lot better than we did in the old days. Again, I repeat. There was no overpopulation of deer in the 1970s in Pa. and the harvest figures taken directly from the Pa. Game Commission prove it. 

 

Now lets look at the 80's. Ah the 80's and the advent of the compound bow. In the 70's I hunted with a recurve and an .06.

 

By the end of the 1980s, the Pa. herd was getting really fun to hunt, still a challenge. In 1988 Pa. hunters took 163,106 bucks and 218,293 antlerless deer and by 1990 it was up to 170,101 and 245,460 respectively. In 94 it was 157,000 and 238,000.

 

 The numbers show that certainly in the 70s, 80s  and early 90s, Pa. had no deer overpopulation problem, except in pockets, so I stand by my statement. There are the facts.

 

if you are going to state numbers make sure you tell the whole story.  prior to 1986 the reported numbers were ACTUAL reported kills and we all know how few actually report their kills.  also prior to the implementation of

the more than 1 deer a year in the late 80's early 90's it was a 1 and done state no matter how many extra stamps you had.  now its 1 antlered tag and whatever antlerless tags folks get and dmap so folks can take multiple deer per year.

 

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2

 

back in the mid to late 80's also began the rapid advancement of hunting gear and information, thus making hunters more efficient at killing deer.  everything from more comfortable tree stands ( and Safer) , Far better camo patterns, trail camera's, and the list goes on.

 

late 70's to late 80's early 90's  in most of the state the deer population was certainly excessive, the roads were littered with deer carcasses, the deer damage reports were rampant, and the obvious over browsing was evident in many of the county's of the state.   The buck to doe ratio was so far out of balance it was not even funny, we could take a trip around our "block" which was about a 7 mile trip by road and we would see well over 100 deer.  seeing 100 + deer the first day of "buck" season was not uncommon from each member of our camp.  I can remember 1978 I set from dark to dark in a stand ( I had already shot a deer in archery so I was done) I counted 187 deer, biggest group was 47, not 1 buck was seen all day but obviously people were seeing bucks because it sounded like world war 3 all day long.

 

do you follow the unified sportsman of pa by chance?

 

[Buckstopshere]

 

Here is a link to the mismanagement of Pa.'s deer herd. It is Part 1 of 8, (links below to the other parts)  and does a better job than I can do, narrated by John Eveland, the former top deer and elk biologist in Pa. The first part is by way of introduction of him...about bears and kind of cool, but a bit off topic. He gets rolling in the other parts about whitetails.

No, I do not follow the Unified Sportsmen of Pa.

We can argue about numbers and our memories. But here are facts.

 

Part 2 -

 

Part 3 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG6Yb5QnoFQ

 

Part 4 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISihJZBj4S8‎

 

Part 5 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUQvjNFPYnQ

 

Part 6 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=tERrTqhLrxY

 

Part 7 -

 

Part 8 -

Edited June 17, 2015 by Buckstopshere

[reeltime]

i see info from a person with axe to grind against the pgc.  his closing statement of our whitetail deer population has been slaughtered to allow trillium flowers to grow speaks volumes.

 

there is lots of info out there on this guy, 

 

http://www.outdoornews.com/January-2011/PA-Eveland-his-critical-report-create-buzz/