4evrhtn

I have seen 11 bear since April, more than the total number of deer I have seen on public land in the same time span. Makes me wonder what impact these bears are having on our fawn numbers. I wonder if raising the bear population to the level it is at was the best idea. It seems to benefit the minority while the game animal most of us hunt loses out again. I enjoy seeing all types of wildlife and enjoy seeing a bear just as much as anything else but not where I deer hunt. I bought a bear tag for the 2nd year now, not because I love bear sausage or because I desperately need another mounted animal in the house but because I feel reducing their numbers is now necessary. If I get one, nothing will go to waste and I will have another taxidermy bill but I will be aiming for one different than the one below pictured.

I would like to know... How many other hunters are beginning to hunt bear and why? According to our PA Hunting Digest, last year was the 2nd highest bear harvest on record in PA. I just don't feel we need their population any higher, especially when all but 2 of these bear I have seenhave been in residential areas. It would appear the habitat isn't supporting them and now they are dependent on bird feeders and trash cans more than ever.

This is the smallest one on it's ownI have seen this year and I see him often, just about every time I go to my food plot. The feeder has since been removed with hopes he will move on. He's cool to watch and just a little guy, probably not going to inflict too much damage this year but next year and the year after guaranteed he will have his fill of fawn. What is the most tags anyone has seen in a bear's ears? I believethis onehas been trapped twice now, correct?

bluebird2

While bears certainly contribute to the non-hunting mortality, they are not responsible for the decrease in the herd, The PGC could reduce the antlerless tags to offset the effects of bear predation if they wanted higher deer densities, but that is not what they want.

crokit

Hopefully, they NEVER seek higher deer densities.

bluebird2

Why would you say that when the habitat and the deer have shown that we can have 1.6M healthy deer?

Ben / PA

It's funny you should mention this 4evrhtn, bears have been on the increase on our land and fawn sightings are down. A few of the guys are buying bear tags, not because they really want a bear (although, like you it would not go wasted) but because they fell like they need to cut our numbers as we have seen more bear lately.

R.S.B.

There is no question that bears, coyote, bobcat, fox and even raccoon will kill new born fawns when they stumble onto them or otherwise find one they can catch pretty easily. It is also a fact that where fawns have suitable habitat predation is not a significant factor in limiting deer populations. Fawn predation can be significant where deer don’t have suitable ground cover or under story though. So, fawn survival rates are pretty much a matter of the habitat being able to support more deer or not. If the habitat can’t support more deer it is a blessing for the future of the species if a higher percentage of the fawns fall victim to predation.

People also prey on fawns. I know of several fawns that are now dead because people captured them and took them home. In fact, I will be filing charges on one such case next week and have another active investigation of a car load of teenagers catching a fawn, putting it in a car and taking off. I’m still working on that one.

All bears get two tags the first time they are captured. Bears, especially males, tend to fight and rip tags out, so we put one in each ear to make sure it they lose one we still have one to allow us to collect the past capture history. If we catch a bear with a tag missing we replace it with a new tag. I just caught a 250 pound male with one tag missing a couple weeks ago. He left with one old tag and one new tag.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

Fawn survival rates have nothing to do with the ability of the habitat to support more deer. In every WMU ,the harvest by hunters determines how many deer survive to the following year and that in turn determines how many fawns are recruited into next years herd.

crokit

You can not be serious with this comment. If you are, obviously you have a major social disorder that can not accept direction from authority.

Habitat has nothing to do to support increase in numbers of a species?!?!? Incredible BB2, even from your lips.

As far as why would I not want to see deer densities increase: Personally, I think they are fine just the way they are. Only change I would like to see is improvements to access to those rascals.

bluebird2

That isn't even close to what I said. Here is what I said,

Fawn survival rates do not determine the MSY CC of the habitat nor do they determine how many fawns survive. The number of fawns that survive each year is determine by the number of fawns harvested.
So you don't want your fellow hunters to be able to harvest more deer even if the habitat could support more. That is a rather selfish attitude.

4evrhtn

Thanks for the info! As far as the habit on the land in the pic.... I have 2 1/2 acres of Timothy Hay/Weed mix(from horse manure being spread)that is 4 to 5foot high. I will be leaving it stand until the end of this month reason being I have seen doe lead their young into this thick stuff and until the little onescan travel and keep up with mom I want to reduce the chances of them being preyed upon.

Also, another question.. Last year the majority of the bears had been denning up before the bear season started due to lack of food. Why doesn't the PAGC hold out on deciding season dates for bear based off variables such as predicted accessibility to food- acorn harvest. It seems everything is in place as it is to ensure the bear population continues to grow to levels that aren't ideal for all game species including bears themselves.Or is it the goal to have our bear population grow even larger?It's hard to reduce their numbers in an effective way when most of them are denning up and not moving to save calories rather than expend more calories searching for food than they will replace prior to us hunters having the ability to hunt them.