DennyF

Back in 1960 when I started to hunt deer in the area of Tioga Co. where my camp still is, it was also perfect deer habitat with very few deer. Eventually as our deer herds grew and expanded, we also had lots of deer there. Yeah I know, according to the internetdeer experts, there were lots of deer in Tioga County then according to the stats they like to parrot. Just weren't many in that part of the county backthen.

Never occured to me to complain about low deer numbers there backin the 60s, because that's just how it was.Now that some people enjoyed great numbers of deer for a few yearsand have seen these numbers decline due to HR, guess that's the reason to complain?

bluebird2

The difference is the PGC was not responsible for the perceived lack of deer in your area in the 60s. The deer have proven over many years that the habitat can support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow in many areas and that is why so many hunters are complaining.

DennyF

That's only part of the difference. And even back then, some were grumbling about not seeing enough deer, because other places had more deer at the time. Guess who they blamed then? The game commission is charged with managing wildlife and working to provide huntable numbers of game species.Nothing in there that I've ever seen, that says them must provide as many of a game species as each and every hunter demands.

If roughly 800,000 of us are still killing over 300,000 head of deer each year, I'd say that should more thanmeet the definition of"huntable numbers".

The real difference is that the PGC Board of Commissioners onceallowed deer numbers to grow far beyond what they should have been in many areas and more recent BOCs finally decided to do something about it 7 years ago.

Normal human nature to complain, if they once had lots of something (even if briefly), then someone "took it away" from them. For many it doesn't even matter why, they just want it back again. In my experience, this brief period of a great glut of deer, ran from about the mid 80s to the late 90s, in most areas. Fun for many while it lasted, but it should've never happened in the first place.

Pawildman

Uhhhh.....Excuse me..... That is exactly what you said.......

bluebird2

That is exactly what i said. Note I did not say farm crops , I said farm land. During the winter dormant hay fields increase the carrying capacity of the habitat with no loss to the farmer. Deer eat waste corn with no loss to the farmer. Every field that borders a woodlot provides fringe habitat that increases the carrying capacity.

bluebird2

That is simply your biased opinion. Where I grew up we had very few deer in the early 50s and just seeing tracks was news worthy. No one hunted for deer because it was a waste of time and no one complained or blamed the PGC because no one ,not even the PGC experts expected that the southern tier counties would provide the best deer hunting in the state. The herd increased and we had good hunting until the pGC declared that the goal for 5C was 6 DPSM. The habitat in our area can support over 90 DPSM but the fools at the PGC claim it can only support 6 DPSM. IMHO that is total incompetence on the part of the PGC.

PA Hardwoods

Im sorry but even in the midwest where food is plentiful and the whitetail habitat is darn near perfect 90 DPSM is WAY Too many. Sounds to me like you've been drinking the Unified Sportsmen of PA's coolaid bluebird2

bluebird2

I did not say the herd should be managed at 90 DPSM, I said the habitat could support 90 DPSM .If the PGC would have stated the herd in 5c had to be managed at 6 DPSM based on deer/human conflicts , that might make sense. But they claimed the herd should be managed at 6 DPSM based on the carrying capacity of the habitat and that makes no sense.s

Pawildman

I don't believe the PGC has ever recognized "farmland" as carrying capacity for the deer herd regardless if it contains unused/unharvested crops or not. Once again, you beat a hollow drum just for the sake of making noise. You have waded into one here, and you are over your head with your rediculous comments. I, for one am done with your innane commentary.......

bluebird2

You are correct the PGC assigns no carrying capacity to farmlands just like they don't assign any additional carry capacity to food lots on SGLs, reclaimed strip mines, and right of ways. That is why 5C had a goal of 6 DPSM while 2F had a goal of 17 DPSM. The habitat in 5C was a lot better than in 2F but the PGC refused to acknowledge that fact and that explains why they are managing the herd at such low numbers.