Cornelius08

"I think what Audubon is saying only scares those that have the least amount of knowledge about how nature actually works."

Makes no sense. Because you arent "scared". I have plenty of knowledge in that regard, and am not "scared" anyway. If anything, Id say po-ed that they have been given the okto run Pa deer management and hunting straight into the ground.

"I am very much a hunter, always have been and always will be. During the deer, turkey and pheasant hunting seasons I spend about every free hour I can find hunting, "

If you say so. Though for 7 years on hpa board I never heard you mention it till relatively recently when you were accused of being a "borderline" anti, with comments like "HUNTERS SHOULD TAKE THEIR MONEY AND TAKE A FLYING LEAP". As well as many others through the years similarly hunter "unfriendly." Id always taken you as "environmentalist" more than hunter. I could be mistaken, but I doubt it.

"yet I pretty much agree with a good bit of what Audubon had to say in that report."

There never was a doubt in my mind.

Not because you agree with them.......but Audubon are fruitcakes and thats a fact. When speaking of "extreme" no players in this "game" are moreso. They are also not friends to hunters and that is a fact.

Screamin Steel

No we wouldn't have more deer. Unless you somehow predict that deer in the future are going to refrain fromeating! YOU constantly piss and moan about habitat and balancing the herd within the habitat, biodiversity, blah, blah, blah...then you say that when the habitat recovers the deer will explode. Would you have us belive that the PGC will allow those numbers to remain highas you implied, only to set themselves back to square one all over again? No. This is what the future holds. Biodiversity nutjobs calling the shots and hunters getting hosed. Anyone who thinks PGC will ever approve deer numbers over 20dpsm again is smoking something good.

bluebird2

I think almost everyone but RSB and Doug realize that the habitat in 2G is not controlling the herd as RSB claims. But, if anyone still belives RSB is right here is some data from Elk Co. that proves he is wrong beyond all doubt.


The herd in the NC counties peaked at over 40 DPSM in the mid 70's which resulted in significant over browsing. But the herd in Elk Co. increased from 17 DPFSM in 1981 to 33 DPFSM in 1987 because the harvests were less than recruitment. When harvests once again exceeded recruitment the herd dropped to 21 DPFSM in 1991 and then increased to 30 DPFSM in 1994. If the habitat was controlling the herd , the herd would have either remained stable at 17 DPFSM in 1981 or steadily decreased.


DPFSM-Buck--DOE--TOTAL
1981 17 2640 3545
1982 24 2560 1869
1984 20 2874 2226
1987 33
1988 29
1989 30 3454 4353 7807
1990 25
1991 21
1992 22

1993 26 2,995 2,653 5648
1994 30 3,255 4,073 7328
1995 29 3,105 4,289 7379
1996 23 2,395 3,166 5561
1997 21 2,760 3,035 5795
1998 24 2,725 2,600 5325
1999 26 2,970 2,100 5070
2000 26 2,745 2,969 5714
2001 24 2,588 2,519 5107

Screamin Steel

And so they claim "decades and decades of overbrowsing", yet the highest DD in nearly thirty years havenot surpassed30dpsm, which is not an unreasonably high DD for a contigous forested habitat, and the last ten years significantly lower DD have not achieved acceptable regen.?

Maverick 1

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that we will never have good deer hunting in Pennsyvania again unless their is a change in attitude in the PGC leadership. D ick is not in a leadership position but, guys like him have got to go andguys like him are not going to go quitely. They will leave kicking, scratching and, clawing.

R.S.B.

That post proves how little some of you actually know about how the deer numbers and habitat conditions are tied together. You guys seem to have this goofy idea that the deer are being sacrificed so foresters can have more trees. You are wrong, completely wrong. You are not only wrong but you are the very problem you want solved.

If you keep too many deer through the winter you frequently don’t end up with more deer the next year, you end up with fewer. What is even worse is that by having kept more deer then you should have you not only end with fewer deer you also end up with less food available for any future deer. That then results the habitat not being able to support as many deer in the future.

The professional resource managers, both deer and forest managers, know that and understand that you simply can’t have more deer unless you first have more habitat, healthy forest regeneration, needed to feed more deer.

You also say that the PGC will never allow more deer, but that is just ridiculous talk that has no bases in fact and again shows a lack of knowledge about how good deer management really works. The condition of the habitat is what determines how many deer can be supported in a healthy condition through the winter and that also determines how many fawns will be recruited into the herd the next spring. There will always be some variation in that balance based on the mast and winter snow conditions but in general you can’t increase a deer population until the conditions of nature, and that means the forest habitat health, allow for increased fawn recruitment.

If the habitat is able to improve it WILL result in higher fawn recruitment during more years unless there is a really adverse winter. When fawn recruitment increases it means hunters can and should increase their harvests the next fall to once again bring the deer herd back down to the correct carrying capacity of the habitat. That means more opportunity for hunters. But, also as the habitat improves hunters don’t have to kill as many deer to get the deer herd back down to the correct natural balance, so that also means even higher recruitment during future years. But, as soon as hunters fail to bring that increasing recruitment back to the correct natural balance both the habitat and deer numbers will once again start to decline from natural herd reductions.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

You really do like those old over winter deer per square mile estimates don’t you? I guess you should though since they are the only thing you can find that comes even remotely close to supporting your incorrect theories and opinions. But, in just a couple more minutes I am going to show everyone that even those numbers really don’t support your misguided agenda.

It has been pointed out time and again that those estimated deer density numbers were the least accurate of all of the estimated numbers used. They have the lowest level of reliability and are only used only slightly in deer management today. Those old deer density estimates simply weren’t very reliable because they are estimates that come from calculating about four other sets of estimated numbers before you get those over winter deer density estimates. There if just to much coefficient of variation for those numbers to be used the way you want to use them.

But, even using your estimated over winter deer numbers it still shows that as hunters harvested fewer antler less deer we didn’t averaged more over winter deer. Here are the average harvests and estimated over winter deer densities for the same periods based on those numbers you provided.

Elk County data in harvests/square mile compared to estimated over winter deer density for the same five year periods:

………………………….........…83-87.………………88-92.…………….93-97.………………98-02
Antlerless harvest…………3.76.………………..4.97.â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦4.15.………………..3.52
Estimated OWD/sq.mi……..27.………………….25.……… ………..26.………………….25

As you can see, just like I have said happens, the numbers you provided prove that once the over winter deer numbers increase they are frequently followed by a reduction, or crash, even when hunters are killing fewer antler less deer. This also shows that areas like Elk County can’t be sustained at higher over winter deer densities, even when hunters harvest fewer does. If it could the over winter deer density would have increased during five years or more of reduced doe harvests. But, it didn’t increase and instead decreased as the harvests decreased. That happens when you try to keep more over winter deer then the habitat can sustain on a long term bases.

Thank you for once again providing the numbers that prove you and your misguided agenda are wrong.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

Where did you get the idea the habitat is Elk County was acceptable?

Elk County is split between units 2F and 2G. The habitat is still rated as poor in both units.

It has improved some the past few years following the major deer population crash that followed the harsh winters of 2003 and 2004 but it still has a long ways to go before it reaches even acceptable let alone good habitat.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

You have it completely backwards. It is the guys like you that have caused the low deer numbers we have in so many areas today. Is the past public and political pressures to harvest fewer antler less deer that has destroyed the habitat and deer populations in those areas. What is worse is that the guys like you are working just as hard as you can to ruin even more habitat so it can’t support as many deer either.

Fortunately we have had a Board of Commissioners over the past few years that weren’t willing be a part of the further destruction of the habitat and deer populations so they did the right thing for the resources in spite of the clamoring of people that don’t understand the deer/habitat relationships. Hopefully the future Board of Commissioners are as wise as the present Board.

I may not be in a position to make the decisions but I figure I am still making positive strides toward a brighter future for our resources, the deer and hunting.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08

"You guys seem to have this goofy idea that the deer are being sacrificed so foresters can have more trees. You are wrong, completely wrong. You are not only wrong but you are the very problem you want solved. "

Thats exactly why the herd is being slaughtered. + the eco-nuts desire for absolutely ridiculous levels of biodiversity. Anyone doubting can easily see the audubon website and the dcnr site. They want deer slaughtered and have to power to make it happen, and are.

"If you keep too many deer through the winter you frequently don’t end up with more deer the next year, you end up with fewer."

We all know this,problem with your theory ismost areas of thestate we have far from too many.

"You also say that the PGC will never allow more deer, but that is just ridiculous talk that has no bases in fact and again shows a lack of knowledge about how good deer management really works."

Thats a fact. There will be NOT be more deer permitted and you know it.

The condition of the habitat currently is meaningless as is the herd health. The econuts are running this show and its been shown time and again.

The herd was slaughtered anywhere and everywhere that it could be done...Didnt matter how good or bad the habitat was, didnt matter how healthy the deer were... And neither still matter. The slaughter will continue until hobblebush, trillium and other blatant nonsense abound.