DougE

These deer did not die from being hit by cars.They starved to death because thereis a lack of browse.Some residents do feed the deer but they feed them corn and not enough to keep a herd this large from starving.Thereweren't even any roads in the vicinity of thedead deer and we found as many as 4 dead deer togther.I doubt they got hit by a car over a half mile away,starved from broken jaws and then all decided to huddle together and die.No.They starved from lack of adequate browse.

deer_handler

Yet you are so sure of this without autopsy? This is just a assumption without any proof.There was no way a deer can crawl thru the woods with broken legs or travel with broken jaws. Everyone of them deer died of starvation from no food and was not hit by a car. Yep we believe that. Not without an autopsy being done though. We want scientific proof and not assumptions.



I foundover a dozen dead deerin the spring of 2004 in an area of about 1000 acres.That same spring we were doing a deer census with PSUand the groupI was with found 5 deer in a 76 acre patch of woodsthat died as a result of malnutrition.We busted open their femurs.

If I seen dead deer in a group of 4 I would of posted it with the above. More lies without proof. How much do you get for your propandayou post on here? Everything is just opinions without scientific proof. You can not prove this. So there it will be dismissed with question marks.

DougE

No lies here.A 76 acre patch of woods isn't very big and we found five dead deer in there,4 were very close to each other.Mark Hogan from the united bowhunters of pa was with me and so was Dave Jackson from PSU's cooperative extension office.We busted open the femurs on at least three of those deer and the bone marrow was red,a sure sign of starvation.

R.S.B.

There you go, now I can certainly seewhere and how your intelligence level can be rated.

Ireally don’t know why you would drag up a news release that says there are fewer deer in some parts of the state. That is pretty much a no-brainer. No one would even dispute that fact, but that most certainly doesn’t answer the questions about why there are those differences n deer densities. That is what I am trying to help people recognize and understand. Many people are just like you and have this mind set that any deer population reductionsmust have been created by hunter over harvestsyet they have absolutely no data to support that opinion. They don’t have data to support that opinion because that opinion is incorrect and all of the real deer data proves that over harvestopinion is actually wrong. Yet many hunter insist on hanging onto that opinion no matter what thereal facts are.

Now I will try once again to help you, and the others with your mind set, understand some of the factors of evidence that prove that hunters have not over harvested the deer and that over harvest is not the reason we have areas with fewer deer today.

First I will tell you right up front that, YES, there are differences in the number of deer across the various areas of the state. There always have been and there always will be. The variances from one area to another result from any number of variables that include differences in the soil types, the amount of forest opening, the tree species composition and where it is located in relation to other habitats, the amount of normaland annual or abnormal snow fall and also not the least of which how long the deer population was too large for the available habitat in any particular area and how much damage might have occurred to the food supply over a variable number of years or decades.

Some of those variables can be somewhat controlled and some of the previous mistakes, of allowing too many deer for too long, can be somewhat corrected. But, other differences such as the fact that some areas have rich fertile soil, to grow good plant and deer browse species, while other areas have no top soil and are covered with rocks and no plants or browse species can never be changed.With those variables people with a lick of sense should be able to figure out there will also be major differences in the number of deer the land can support, orhow many deer they will see, from one area to another. Unless we can train deer to be healthy, and produce lots of fawns, by eating rocks some areas will just never have as many deer. People should be able to figure that out by simply applying a little common sense.

Your thought process on the reasons for and what happens more tags is not at all correct either. Now I will explain how your thinking concerning antlerless license numbers is flawed.

Back just a few decades pretty much all of the state’s deer hunters had to come uphere to the north central third of the state to hunt deer because that was about the only place they could find deer. Over the past few decades though the number of deer greatly increased in the parts of the state that once had very few deer and naturally that also shifted the areas where many hunters wanted to hunt. Since there have been fewer hunters willing to travel to the north central part of the state, where once everyone want to hunt, there simply aren’t enough hunters to buy all of the antlerless licenses in any areas of the state,when hunters can only buy one antlerless license.

The number of antlerless licenses being allocated, for the counties or WMUs, has always been determined by the number of deer that need to be harvested multiplied by the number of license it takes to get one deer harvested. In some areas it takes four or more license to harvest one deer, so there are always going to be more license available in some areas of the state then hunters that can purchase them if they can only get one license. Since there are more license then hunters you have to allow hunters to buy more then one license, in some areas, or they simply couldn’t buy all license needed to reach the level of deer harvest required to keep the deer population in balance with their food supply. That has long been a problem for long time now, and one that far too many people simply fail to understand. Thatfailure to understand and accept is alsowhy we now have destroyed deer habitat and crashing deer populations in much of the more remote areas of the state.

I am going to post the antlerless deer license allocation history along with the recent hunter success rates for the northern part of the state so you can see that the allocations really haven’t increased nearly as much as people think. With the hunter success rates (number of license to harvest one antlerless deer) you can also see that the hunter success rates have changed very little over the years.

North Central Region and WMU recent years antlerless allocation per square mile of land mass and recent hunter success rates:

Years………………………….license/sq.mile………………license/antlerless harvest

57-61……………………….8.08
62-66……………………….7.06
67-71………………………11.73
72-76……………………….9.93
77-81………………………12.18
82-86………………………11.68……………� ��………3.15
87-91………………………16.47……………� ��………2.97
92-96………………………13.49……………� ��………3.12
97-01………………………12.83……………� ��………3.12
03-06…………………….....9.24…………… 03-05…...3.07(WMU - 2G)

As you can see the number of antlerless license and harvests per license, in the old traditional deer range, has not changed much over the entire history of deer licenses, so your argument of more doe license in recent years really has no bases of validity or fact.

Since I take it, or somewhat assume, you are really more concerned that they are going to issue too many license and harvest too many does in the Southwest part of the state I will post the same data for that area as well.

Southwest Region and WMU recent years antlerless allocation per square mile of land mass and recent hunter success rates:

Years………………………….license/sq.mile………………license/antlerless harvest

57-61…………………….4.03
62-66…………………….3.82
67-71…………………….6.60
72-76…………………….7.51
77-81...........……………..9.50
82-86……………………11.85………………� ��………3.91
87-91……………………16.19………………� ��………3.32
92-96……………………19.69………………� ��………3.20
97-01……………………23.89………………� ��………3.49
03-06……………………28.99……………03-05.…….2.88(WMU – 2A)
03-06……………………45.68……………03-05.…….4.54(WMU - 2B)

As you can see there has been a major shift in where hunters buy antlerless license today compared to just a few decades ago. There has also been a major shift in where the hunters have been harvesting the majority of the deer over the past few decades too. The hunters have been harvesting more deer per square mile around the city streets of Pittsburgh then they have in the remote areas of our public land for about the past two decades, which is about twenty years for those that don’t know how long a decade is. But, it sure doesn’t seem to be causing a decline of deer numbers in those areas. In fact hunters can’t kill enough deer there to keep up with the recruitment and many areas are now using professional sharpshooters to control the over abundance of deer because hunters can’t get enough of them.

Now just so people can see the differences between those two areas with the statewide average I will also post that data.

Statewide antlerless allocation per square mile of land mass and recent hunter success rates:

Years………………………….license/sq.mile………………license/antlerless harvest

57-61……………………………..6.62
62-66……………………………..5.84
67-71……………………………..8.64
72-76……………………………..8.40
77-81……………………………..9.43
82-86…………………………….11.08……… …………………………3.62
87-91…………………………….16.06……… …………………………3.32
92-96…………………………….17.00……… …………………………3.42
97-01…………………………….18.38……… …………………………3.51
03-06…………………………….21.68……… ……………03-05.……..3.46

Now after reviewing all of the facts surrounding antlerless license allocations and the harvest histories, across the state, I have to say that I simply can’t find one shred of evidence that supports the conjecture and opinion that there are too many antlerless license being issued or that too many deer are being harvested.

In fact, all of the evidence I can find indicate that if anything we should be issuing a lot more license and at least attempting to harvest more antlerless deer in even more areas of the state.

I know that is a shock for a lot of people to even think about. But, I have been studying this topic for about thirty years now and I simply can’t find any evidence that supports the opinion that we have or even could over harvest the deer herd any place there is suitable habitat to support more deerwhen using legal hunting methods and seasons. We have tried tooverharvest the deerin the special regulations areas of the stateso hunters there have not been able toharvestas many deer as possiblewith unlimited license and greatly lengthened seasons. They can’t even over harvest the deer, or so it seems, with the unlimited doe harvests. Now theyusesharpshooters and spotlights and they still might not be able to harvest enough to control or prevent the herd increases.

So in view of the facts why would you be worried about too many doe license?

Now if you have some facts that counter these please provide them. I have been looking for facts that would support those over harvest opinions for three decades now and I can’t find any facts that support that opinion. I must also say that opinions should never be permitted to override factual scientifically generated and supported data.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

I know it seems logical that the posted property of Allegheny County and other areas with posted property, or limited access, is what allows the deer herd to avoid over harvest in those areas. But, I don’t believe that is the real case. I have hunted in both Allegheny and Washington County, on both public and posted private land, and have also hunted the large expanses of public land in the northern tier.

I can tell you right now, with absolute certainty, that we have far more unhunted land serving as deer sanctuaries in these remote areas around here then anything you could find in Allegheny or Washington County combined.

Though the southern counties, and management units, have a good number of small protected properties they are both relatively small and most also get some hunting pressure. The thing that really saves the deer there isn’t that they don’t get hunted, but more the fact that the habitat is so thick you can’t see the deer inside them or even chase the deer out of them to where hunters can shoot them.

I tried to chase deer out of some of those thick brambles on the private land I hunted so my sons and hunting companions could shot them. By the time I had gone a hundred yards I was so tore up I looked like I have been attacked by a bobcat. Though I could hear deer going back behind me I couldn’t see them to shot one of them. In short the vast majority of the deer were unharvestable simply because the habitat wouldn’t permit hunters to maneuver the deer to where they could be shot. The deer simply become nocturnal and unavailable for harvest.

In the northern tier we have very similar types of habitat though much larger, and of far less food value, then the blocks of private land in the southwest. But, they are impenetrable and under harvested for a different reason. Here in the northern tier we have impenetrable laurel patches that are huge, some as much as 25-50 acres, which are so thick you can’t fight your way through them, even though the deer get inside them to avoid hunters. I have tried to chase deer out of them too, but it simply can’t be done. They just move out of your way and let you go past. The deer can here you the entire time you are busting your way through and they simply move to one side or the other and let you go past them. I have tried to track deer out there, in the snow, and it simply can’t be done and you will not see them while you are in there either. I once wounded one, in late muzzle loader season, and it got into one of those laurel patches. It took me about two hour to get to see it as it circled back and forth and over our own trail several times. I couldn’t get it to come out of the laurel and I never did get to see until it had lost too much blood and was just too weak to go any further.

Besides the laurel patches we have lots of 50 to 60 acre clear-cuts that are so think the deer can hear you moving in them the entire time and once again they just move out of your way as you try to chase them out. We also have areas with large swamps of several hundred acres that are full of deer, but you can’t go in after them because the water is just too deep and risky. We sometimes kill a few deer in the early morning or late evening around those areas as they slip up because don’t stick with their normal nocturnal movements and patterns.

I have never seen man tracks in many of those areas because they are simply not huntable even though they have deer tracks all around them from deer that move in and out of them at night.

We also have a number of large land tracts with very limited hunting that protect tons of deer. One hunting club is just shy of 9000 acres (that is about 14 square miles) where they only have 100 members and hunt only 4-point to a side and larger bucks. Their membership voted not to harvest any does last year. There is another area nearby that is over 12,000 acres (over 18 square miles) that is only open to a couple dozen high paying guests and there are typically less then 20 does killed per year on that land and then only because they permit their drives a day or two per year to hunt the land.

I would suspect areas like that protect far more deer then any place in Allegheny County, or anywhere else in the southwestern counties. Though I will agree that there are many small protected properties in the southwest that act as safe havens for deer, I think they are but a drop in the bucket compared to the safe havens for deer here in the northern tier areas. We have much larger areas that are either unhuntable or only open to small numbers of hunters that all to often don’t even harvest antlerless deer on those lands.

During the time I hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties I would see more hunters per hunting hour then I see while hunting here in the more remote areas of the north central during the entire deer season.

People will have a mighty hard time convincing me that the difference in deer densities, between the two areas, has anything to do with the availability of areas for deer to escape hunters. I am very much convinced that the difference in the deer densities, between the northern areas and the southern areas, is almost entirely habitat related.

I am convinced that difference rests in the fact that the northern areas have protected the deer instead of the habitat to the point the habitat was destroyed and can no longer support very many deer. Conversely the southwestern areas of the state started harvesting more deer as soon as the deer numbers started to increase there. By doing that they protected the habitat instead of over protecting the deer. That has allowed the deer herds in those areas to stay higher then they could have if they had protected the deer instead of the habitat.

Every single piece of factual evidence or logical conclusion I can find or come up with indicates that if we want to have the maximum numbers of deer in the future we need to stop protecting the deer and start protecting the deer food. If the food is there the deer will be there too. But, if the food isn’t there it will be impossible to have many deer there. That would violate the most basic laws of nature and that simply doesn’t happen for more then short term periods of time.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

You are simply grasping at straws to discredit the facts because you don’t what to believe or accept the facts.

Sticking your head in the sand really doesn’t protect you from reality, it just limits your knowledge of the realities and the dangers that might or might not surround you. The ostrich with his head in the sand never sees the lion until it is on top of him. Having his head in the sand did nothing more then limit his knowledge and prevent him from forming an appropriate action to avoid disaster.

It sometimes amazes me that people thatthink like that, live so long. There must be someone else looking out for them and protecting them while they have their heads in the sand.

R.S. Bodenhorn

deer_handler

Dead deer found in woods = starved to death because of no food.
Where is the autopsy so say these animals was not injured that cause the starvation? Femurs said it starved to seath. Fine. But don't conclude that it was from lack of food with an autopsy. That animal could of been hit by a car or gut shot. But did you all do an internal skeloton check on this animal or gut them open? Nope, you just presumed they starved to death. Think again who has whos head in the sand when it comes to looking for answers. I am the one looking for answers you all are making answers from an assumption without physical evidence other than ferum test and saying yep, It starved to death.. All I am doing is asking for hard evidence to say it starved because lack of food and not an accident. I bet you do a test on them deer and they all have had an accident other than no food source.

archer58

You know , it's funny how you sound like someone else who used to post here. He's gone and you show up w/ no profile info.

Things that make you go HHHMMMMMMMM!!!!!

R.S.B.

Like I said, you are grasping at straws.

I have examined a lot of deaddeer over the years and some of them have been winter kills. I am sure I have examined a whole lot more deer that died of winter mortality, or any other cause, then you have or likely ever will.

Though there are some deer that you just can’t tell what the cause of death was, or what contributing factors might have been involved in some of those that died of malnutrition, there are also a lot that you can simply and positively say died of starvation.

When I walk a draining, in the wintering grounds, and find two, three or four small, deer laying dead in a relatively small area and they all have red bone marrow I pretty well know they died of malnutrition. Then when I look around and see that they have eaten all of the hemlock boughs they could reach (leaving the small hemlocks bare of any boughs fro about five feet, other then what is buried under teh snow pack) and had then resorted to eating the beech back to the size of a pencil I already know what they died of without needing a more complete necropsy. But, then when I look in the rumen and find it full of beech browse it is very conclusive that they plain and simply couldn’t find anything nutritious to eat and died of starvation.

Now take a couple of minute to see if you can form a couple of rational thoughts and yourself this question, “Why would three or four wounded deer, that are miles from any major road, all go to the same place, in a prime wintering grounds to die of starvation a month or two later, but only after eating everything they could find”?

That simply doesn’t make senseto any logical thinking person, though it might for someone grasping at straws and not wanting to accept the fact that many areas have had more deer then the habitat could support for far too long.

R.S. Bodenhorn

NorthPA

Here's your sign, deer handler:
1. Newer "soft" bumpers on cars aren't effective in killing deer at point of impact thus deer can travel far before dying.
2. Deer are evolutionary cousins to elephants. (antlers are tusks)
They share the same trait of going to "dying yards' as elephants do, when faced with old age.
3. New road treatment compounds using sand/salt-based chemicalscause the tongue to swell and asphyxiation follows.