spencer0071

I am originally from PA. I am trying to move back andget a job near my hometown. I am curious why people are saying that the PGC is mismanaging the deer heard? What are the facts behind this claim?

PA Hardwoods

Can't wait to see these reply's

lead poisoner

Spend a day in the woods and come to your own conclusion on that subject.

jf5

Yeah this will be good.

If you read the threads on the boards, most will have you believing there are 3 deer left in PA. I know other hunters that have hunted PA for 30 years and are very happy with the quliaty of deer they are seeing and taking.

LP's suggestion is a good one, but pick your spot wisely.

It all depends on what you want. If you want to see allot of deer everytime out, like PA used to be. Then I thinkyou will be dissapointed on public lands. If you want a chance to fianlly shoot a decent buck thats better than a scrub rack 8, and are willing to scout and hunt hard for that animal, you just may like the changes. Everyone has differences on what "quality hunting" is.

Also remember that the complainers, wether warrented or not, are always the loudest voices.

Rob/PA Bowyer

Spencer, it's only the "I want a deer behind every tree" that will tell you that.

I do realize in some areas of the state that the deer herd was decimated but it wasn't the PGC that shot the deer. It was the hunters with no dicipline, IMO. Take ec intentionally shooting 5 button bucks on state land just because she/he/it could. There in lies the problem with PA, is it the PGC or is it selfish hunters.

Spencer, I had a wonderful year. I tagged out on a gorgeous buck in archery season. I invited friends to hunt so I could keep in the hunt and saw some real beautiful bucks, saw bucks chasing doe and witnessed the largerst buck of my life. I've never had a better season so welcome home. I bet it's going to be hard to leave Kansas though. ? .

spencer0071

I won't even wave when I leave. Well, maybe one finger.

I read a lot of hunting and other magazines. PA is the worst state for deer/vehicle accidents. I just don't see the deer heard being mismanaged if a very large number are being killed by motor vehicles. Idrove I-80 from Williamsport to the Ohio state line a few years back. I remember pass at least 50 deer that were killed by motor vehicles.
I understand that they may be thinner or thicker in certain areas but the whole state? Just very hard to believe. This is why I am asking for facts.

Crazy Horse RVN

Spencer, the deer hunting is so good on public land that not a single PGC executive manager nor any of the eight members of the PGC's Board of commissioners hunts there for the rifle season.

I noticed you said you saw many dead deer on I-80 "a few years ago." That was true then. I don't believe you'll see that problem today.

Choose the area you decide to settle down in with care. In fact, perhaps "Rob/PA", "fj5", "PA Hardwoods", will give you somedirection as to their better deer locations?

Perhaps this will shed some light on the matter...

Unlike the bitter debate about deer numbers currently taking place in Pennsylvania between sportsmen and the timber industry, up until about 6 years ago there was relative peace between deer hunters and foresters in the Commonwealth. Oh, everyone knew there were too many deer in the forests of northern Pennsylvania in the 60’s and 70’s, but in the 80’s we began to responsibly bring that number down with the advent of bonus tags and higher antlerless deer allocations using a deer management plan known as Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). By the end of the 90’s the deer herd was greatly reduced in the northern part of the state, resulting in more and bigger bucks, and less pressure on the habitat. Deer numbers also developed more uniformly across the southern part of the state, and we seemed to have the perfect blend between deer numbers and the quality and number of bucks. Hunters were happy, trust and confidence in the Game Commission was high, and life was good. With the advent of the 40-person Deer Management Working Group to represent Pennsylvania's stakeholders, our deer hunting future looked bright.

It was around this time though, that a document was produced that may forever change the way we manage deer on Pennsylvania’s public lands. With the blessing of Governor Tom Ridge and a goal of maximizing timber profits for the state treasury, a California-based firm by the name of Scientific Certification Systems was selected to evaluate the forestry practices on our State Forest Lands. Scientific Certification Systems is one of 12 accredited certifiers from around the globe, and an extension of the Forest Stewardship Council; an international body of environmentalists based in Bonn, Germany. According to their website, "Trusted environmental organizations including Greenpeace, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and The World Wildlife Fund all support and encourage FSC certification." Hmmm….That kind of company throws up a “red flag” right off the bat.

SCS was selected to do this study to obtain certification for the Bureau of Forestry by meeting the standards of a sustainable forest as set forth by this international body of environmentalists. Conforming to their standards and meeting the conditions upon which they will grant future certification will ultimately translate into marketability of the state's vast timber reserves on the international market, and greater profits for DCNR. With funding from the Heinz Endowments this evaluation was conducted between December of 1996 and June of 1997, and a report was released in October of 1997. The ultimate objective was to have Pennsylvania’s timber “certified”.

The Bureau of Forestry was subsequently granted certification in November 1998, and was advised that the certification process would be reviewed every 5 years. One of the primary conditions upon which future certification would be granted was to reduce the deer herd from the PGC goal of 21 deer per forested square mile (dpfsm), to the biodiversity capacity which is a significantly lower number. Regardless of what you may hear from the PGC or DCNR, the real driving force behind the deer eradication plan we are suffering through today is a direct result of this single requirement. [/b]In other words DCNR is really calling the shots, with the PGC and hunters merely being used to achieve their money motivated objective.

On May 10, 1999, Tom Ridge’s good friend Vern Ross was appointed as the new Executive Director of the Game Commission following a stint as the chairman of the Governor’s Sportsmen’s Advisory Committee. A short time later the Deer Management Working Group was dismissed and a new sheriff by the name of Gary Alt came to town. It didn't take Gary long to abolish the use of bonus tags for private land only, initiate concurrent deer seasons, recommend record numbers of antlerless deer allocations, initiate DMAP, and recommend more and longer seasons to harvest multiple numbers of deer. The rest as they say…..is history.

Interesting to note it was also in December of 1999 that Game Commissioner George Venesky was terminated by Gov. Ridge from his position of Game Commissioner in northeastern Pennsylvania. Commissioner Venesky was opposed to and quite outspoken about the deer reduction plan, and was coincidentally fired without cause. When he questioned why he was being terminated, George was told by a Gov. Ridge spokesman, “We’re not giving a reason and we don’t have to”. This was a very significant event because it set a precedent for what would happen to any Game Commissioner who opposed the newly initiated deer reduction plan, and paved the way for their plan.

The BOF was audited again in August 2003, and their certification was renewed in April 2004. While this was good news for the state of Pennsylvania and I'm sure cause for joy in the Governor's mansion, it does not bode well for deer hunters because further deer reduction is a pre-requisite for future certification.[/b] Consequently this requirement continues to mold the [/b]future of deer hunting in PA as deer numbers continue to fall, along with interest in deer hunting and the sale of hunting licenses.

It is also troubling to note that these certification documents were co-authored by [/b]Pennsylvania’s Bryon Shissler, who along with outdoor writer Ben Moyer and Gary Alt spearhead an organization named The Ecosystem Management Project. The primary and perhaps only objective of this organization is to be an advocate for major deer reduction in our state. It should come as no great revelation then that substantial deer reduction was written into the plan as a[/b] condition for future certification[/b]. This pre-determined bias against deer seriously jeopardizes the credibility of the report, and at the very least can hardly be considered an independent study.

This further begs the question of whether we are cleverly being held hostage through the leverage of a well-disguised, self-serving certification document designed to further the agenda of some of the eco-terrorist extremists and the anti-hunting organizations who endorse them. At the very least it is designed to further the agenda of the forestry industry in Pennsylvania, which unfortunately spells doom for deer hunters unless you own large tract of private land.

Nobody will fault DCNR for striving to maximize timber profits for the state; certainly the citizens of Pennsylvania expect nothing less. But how and why does our Game Commission justify the facilitation of a plan whose primary objective is to generate greater timber receipts for DCNR at the expense of sportsmen? What is the primary purpose for our forests; is forestry subservient to wildlife, or has wildlife become subservient to forestry? A quick review of Title 34 should answer that question for us.

Has there ever been a cost/benefit analysis done to determine what's best for all parties concerned? DCNR whines about regeneration on the paltry 1% (at most) of the forest they cut each year. Yet according to their website, they had an 18% increase in board foot volume since 1989! They also bemoan spending $2 million per year for fencing - but just like any other farmer there's a cost for growing trees. If fencing is so objectionable, perhaps they should explore some other options like testing the pH level of the soil to see if desired plant species will even grow; or perhaps raise the pH levels by liming clear cuts to facilitate faster growth. Also, with deer numbers as low as they are, is it really necessary to fence out an animal that no longer exists in large enough numbers to impact regeneration on the vast clear cuts conducted by DCNR?

Nationally acclaimed hardwood regeneration ecologist Dr. Lee Frelich from the University of Minnesota claims that a hardwood forest with a pH level between 4 and 5 cannot grow fast enough to get past the feeding deer, and regeneration will be severely inhibited. It’s interesting to note that DCNR is not required to monitor soil pH as a requirement of the certification document, just kill the deer. Any 8th grade biology student can tell you that plant growth is a function of soil quality, water, and sunlight; the last of which is readily apparent any time there is a break in the forest canopy allowing the sunlight to shine through. Amazing how the under-story blossoms like tulips in April when you open up the canopy…..

So the option according to DCNR are to continue spending $2 million a year to fence these areas that allegedly have too many deer, or go to near zero deer density if necessary which is the implication being made by DCNR. Actually Commissioner Tom Boop finally coerced a number of 5 deer per square mile for perhaps "a generation" (20-25 years!) out of Bureau of Forestry Director Jim Grace at the January 2005 PGC Meeting. Well I’m sorry Mr. Grace; sportsmen are not going to sit idly by and allow a 100-year-old hunting tradition which in itself generates far more revenue in this state than the timber industry; as well as have the future of the Game Commission destroyed by an organization whose primary motivation is money.

Our detractors say that hunters are just being selfish, greedy, and want a deer behind every tree. In reality just the opposite is true. It’s DCNR who is being greedy by turning our forests into tree farms to generate maximum profitability. Hunters are willing to compromise, and all we want is a credible and scientific deer management plan starting with a valid deer census in each WMU to determine how many deer actually exist in Pennsylvania; deer population objectives for each WMU using the USDA objective of 20 dpsm as a guideline; implementation of mandatory deer harvest reporting systems to accurately monitor the results; and improved forestry practices to allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor and promote regeneration before timbering. These are objectives which everyone should be able to agree upon.

In some areas of the state we should consider closing doe hunting to give the herd a chance to bounce back. Simply reducing the doe permit allocations is too little, too late. In WMU 2G where I spend a lot of time having hunted it for 40 years , I believe we could eliminate all doe hunting and the deer herd would be kept in check by the tremendous numbers of coyotes, along with bears, bobcats, and now mountain lions……

Deer management need not be rocket science; it’s actually relatively easy if you treat it as the biological issue that it is, instead of making it a money-motivated political issue. Unfortunately the Pennsylvania Game Commission has succumbed to the tremendous pressure being exerted by the Governor and DCNR to put dollars and cents ahead of our rich deer hunting traditions, and have sold out sportsmen. Ironically the USP is one of their strongest advocates in the fight to remain independent and not be merged with the PFBC under DCNR. To some degree the Game Commission is being victimized in this battle, with heavy pressure to reduce the deer herd by the environmental community such as Audubon, DCNR, and the powerful forestry industry. But ultimately it is the Game Commissioners who incidentally are only appointed with the blessing of DCNR, who make the final decisions and as such must be held accountable.

[align=right][/align]

Windwalker7

I will explain it.

Back in the 60's and 70's Pa's NC region had too many deer. The deer destroyed their habitat. Today we need to reduce deer numbers for the carrying capacity of that destroyed habitat. We did that in recent years.

What does the PGC have to do with this?

The pgc exists to control game animals populations to keep them within the habitat' carrying capacity. This is their job.

What did they do wrong? Well..........back in the 60's and 70's the PGC failed to keep deer numbers down to........ PREVENT........ the habitat from being destroyed. It was their job to maintain deer populations at proper levels. Instead of allowing more deer to be taken way back then....they did nothing.


It is the PGC's fault that the habitat in NC PA was destroyed. If they just would have allowed mutiple harvests instead of one deer per hunter, per year, they could have prevented the mess they have today. Our neighboring states were letting their hunters take multiple deer but not PA.

Some on here would claim that hunters would have been up in arms at the thought of allowing multiple deer to be taken by one hunter. Isn't that funny. I recall hunters eing up in arms several years ago about Antler Restrictions. That didn't stop the PGC from going through with it. Now we have hunters up in arms about too many does being taken. That doesn't stop them either. Since when, does the PGC care what hunters think?

Now we have a problem with the PGC not taking the timber. Why aren't they?

Everyone knows that cutting trees will allow sun light to get through that thick, old growth forest canopy of North central PA> Yet the PGC doesn't even cut the 1% of the timber they could.

Why?

Because the PGC wants its forests to be Certified first. After certification the PGC could get top $ for its timber. The only thing that stands in the way, is that before being certified, deer populations must be drastically reduced. Then, and only then, can the PGC get top dollar for its timber.

That's why they aren't cutting it now. They want certification to get more money. Its all about money. Lots of money stands to be made in the sale of timber. Why would the PGC cut it now? If they just get the deer population down to nil, they can sale for lots more.

This is a slap in the face to all PA hunters. Some of you guys just turn the other cheek not realizing what is really going on.

The PGC should be managing Game animal populations not timber sales.

Windwalker7

Crazy Horse,


You must type faster than me!

BTBowhunter

Not sure how long you've been gone Spencer but I'll give you my before and after:

Before: Opening day ofbuck season meant driving north to the big woods and spending the day seeing 40-50 knee high deer bouncing around like pinballs. The number of orange suits you'd see would sometimes come close to the number of deer.Hearing 300+ shots that day was commonplace and you spent your day scoping or glassing those 40 or 50 deer tring to see a set of spikes or, if you were really lucky, a pair of forks.
After 10AM your chances of bagging a buck went way down and you began looking forward to next opening day.

After: Opening day ofdeer season means that you will likely not see anything close to 50 deer except on rare occasions. You will notice thatdoes and buck alike are decidedly fewer but also decidedly bigger. the number of orange suits has declined but only when you get back in off the roads. your chances of bagging a buck don't decline near as drastically as the season goes by but you have to hunt for them as opposed to sitting on a stump waiting for other hunters to move them past you.

whether the deer are being mismanaged currently depends on which you prefer, the "before" or the "after". IMHO,the good old days of deer hunting in PA arehappening right now.

Oh, and if you're returning to western PA, (north or south) feel free to email or PM me. I'll be glad to point you toward some good areas!