PA Deer Management

[LetEmGrow]

did something need done? yes, did it need to happen at that level? I don't know, maybe it did to allow the habitat time to recover.  What I do know is we have far healthier deer now than 30 years ago, in size, weight, and antler health.

 

Last years decline in numbers has nothing to do with the deer management plan or whether its working or not working or whether people agree with it or do not agree with it.  The weather on 2 of biggest days of their season was lousy, rain, high winds.  Hunters of today want instant gratification and everything handed to them with little work on their own part.  in our area by 10 am the first day the woods were essentially empty, thats not a deer management issue thats a hunter issue because you cant kill a deer setting on a couch, in the local coffee shop or riding around in your vehicle ( even though some people do )

 

 

I know lots of bucks made it through last season and deer numbers overall seem to be strong and with fawning this summer there should be a decent herd population by start of season, the PGC just released antlerless allocation numbers and most areas decreased or remained the same for the upcoming season.

 

This is the general feedback I seem to get from PA hunters.  I seem to find they think things are in much better shape health wise and there are nicer bucks now.  And the drop in buck numbers last year had more to do with weather than anything else. 

 

There must have been a lot of people who enjoyed the days when every field in PA would have 50+ does in it.  How that can be seen as proper management is beyond me.

 

They got rid of the does and they started protecting the bucks creating a healthier herd. 

[LetEmGrow]

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.

 

No it is not a wonder.  They have brought deer numbers down to more realistic numbers while making a healthier herd.  Decimated?  You would go over to PA and see field after field loaded with does.  Now you don't but that does not mean decimated unless you want to look at it like there should be 100 deer per square mile.  Now that is insane.

 

I can totally see a re-forestation problem with the number of deer they had before.  You ever try to plant deciduous seedlings in the spring?  Unless you have tree tubes you are going to lost many of them to browsing even if the number of deer is minimal. 

 

I understand opinions vary.  But it always seems like it is quantity hunter who is upset with PA while the quality hunters seem to support it.

[LetEmGrow]

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?

 

 

That's the way I remember it.  Dead on.  And when you did finally see a buck what was it?  A spike?  People from PA would come to NY and tell us how great our deer season was because they could shoot a buck that was a fork horn, a 6 point, or the occasional 8.   No joke.

[Doc]

Lol.... Imagine how great the forest regeneration would be if the deer were made extinct. We all seem to suffer from a bit of tunnel vision at times. We only seem to be able to concentrate on one thing at a time. Somebody says that the forest regeneration is being hampered by deer, we seem to think the only alternative is to eradicate the deer. I hate to say it, but that is not management. That is knee-jerk over reaction to accommodate some earlier knee-jerk over reactions. Setting those deer density "perfect" levels always seems to be a bit of black magic that involves more art than science. But the one thing that we have gotten real good at is inventing some real good stories that make it sound like we really know what we are doing.

[SteveB]

If there was nothing but a few spikes before, what was breeding those 100's of does in the fields?

[reeltime]

If there was nothing but a few spikes before, what was breeding those 100's of does in the fields?

 

there were lots of happy bucks running around.

 

like I have said many times since this all started back in early 2000's doc,  they went the wrong way on unit sizes. another issue is the northern tier of the state went to a 3 point to a side while the richer soil western central area was 4 points to a side, ALOT of folks started going back to their camps in marrienville, benezzette, emporium because their thought was I have a better chance of shooting a legal buck, when the buck didn't come along they shot a doe. the first couple years it was combined buck/doe all season and thats when they really trimmed numbers.

 

they did clear cutting throughout the ANF  and then fenced off areas to protect from deer browsing, the results were very noticable,  but again like I have said it went too far in some area, but to set back and allow the herd to grow at the rate it was growing back in the 70's/80's would likely of been more detrimental to the herd especially with the human population increase and increased rate of habitat loss due to more homes being built.

 

we all like to see deer while on stand, how many we should see will vary from hunter to hunter, whats best for the habitat will vary from hunter to hunter, I do know that I wouldn't want to be the deer biologist for PA. because you will never please all the hunters.

[Buckstopshere]

Lol.... Imagine how great the forest regeneration would be if the deer were made extinct. We all seem to suffer from a bit of tunnel vision at times. We only seem to be able to concentrate on one thing at a time. Somebody says that the forest regeneration is being hampered by deer, we seem to think the only alternative is to eradicate the deer. I hate to say it, but that is not management. That is knee-jerk over reaction to accommodate some earlier knee-jerk over reactions. Setting those deer density "perfect" levels always seems to be a bit of black magic that involves more art than science. But the one thing that we have gotten real good at is inventing some real good stories that make it sound like we really know what we are doing.

 

It boggles my mind that AR advocates paint a picture of all of Pa. as if it was completely deforested by deer (not that acid rain, tent caterpillars, natural succession and poor forestry practices had anything to do with certain areas having less than optimal regeneration of certain tree species.) I hunted there every day during the seasons during the 80s, 90s, and never saw an overpopulation in Unit 3A in Northern Potter and Tioga counties. Anecdotally, it looks the same. A lot of big bucks were tagged as always through those years.  They were tough to hunt as always. I killed a lot of nice 6 and 8 points. (There were enough bucks then to be selective.) There is no difference now in the deer size or health-wise except nearly a 50% drop in the deer population. Where are the stats and research that proves the deer are larger and healthier today in Pa. due to the current fad management scheme?

 

Edited June 24, 2015 by Buckstopshere