The parts I had access to were in Allegheny and Washington Counties.  I remember seeing a deer track in the snow in Allegheny County in the mid eighties.  It was the talk of the neighbors for awhile.  Saw few deer then.  In Washington, the farm I hunted was small game primarily.  Saw a few deer but I did all of my deer hunting in northern Butler and southern Venango back then.   

Deer were far from scare in Allegheny and Washington CO. in the mid-80s. Here are the buck and doe harvest for 1986. Allegheny,778 and 1,024, Washington, 1,521,and 2,816 ,Butler 2,498 and 1,695.

I have already said a few times that the are problems with the current DMP. The above has it's flaws but I agree with the steps that have been taken for the most part

The steps that were taken so far were based on lies and misleading statements about the health of our herd and the carrying capacity of the habitat. But I guess that doesn't bother you since as you said you haven't been negative effected by the effects of the plan. Would you still support the plan if the herd in your area was reduced by over 60%?

As far as 60% in my areas. In Allegheny, yes.  Too many deer in much of the county.

So, why hasn't the PGC increased the antlerless allocations in 2B like they did in 5C? In 2009 2B had a harvest rate of 17 DPSM while in 5C the rate was 14 DPSM and in 2G it was 2.3 DPSM. So, do you think the hunters that hunt 2G have a legitimate reason to complain?

Are you aware of the fact that that the current deer management team set the goal for 2B at 13 DPSM,while in 5C the goal was 6 DPSM? The current harvest in 5C is over twice the the OWDD proposed by the experts of the PGC and that goal was based on the carrying capacity of the forested habitat, rather than the social carrying capacity. Imagine how low the statewide buck harvest would be if the PGC achieved their statewide goals and 5C was reduced to 6DPSM, 2B was reduced to 13 DPSM and 5B was reduced to 5 DPSM.

If the PGC was actually managing the herd based on forest health, they would still be issuing 1M doe tags , since the majority of the WMUs are still rated as poor for forest health. But, the PGC relies on the fact that the vast majority of the hunters are only concerned about deer management for a month or two ,so they are easily mislead and deceived.

So, are you saying that because the hunters in 2B refused to buy additional doe tags ,the PGC admitted they are unable to control the herd in 2B? If that is true ,why didn't the PGC implement a firearms doe season from Oct. 1 to Feb 1? It would increase hunter opportunity to harvest a doe which is what the PGC has been promoting for years.

The majority of the land area in %C is not designated as an SRA and increasing the harvest opportunities in 5C during archery would in effect destroy the deer firearms season in that WMU since archers are already harvesting more than 50% of the buck harvest.

In our area the small game hunting is worse than deer hunting. Our wild pheasant population crashed in the 70's and there are so few rabbits it is not worth owning a beagle. The only decent hunting left is for squirrels and groundhogs and in todays world few people want to eat either one.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

So, are you saying that because the hunters in 2B refused to buy additional doe tags ,the PGC admitted they are unable to control the herd in 2B? If that is true ,why didn't the PGC implement a firearms doe season from Oct. 1 to Feb 1? It would increase hunter opportunity to harvest a doe which is what the PGC has been promoting for years.

It makes no difference how many tags are sold in 2B, they have never sold out that I can remember. Allocate more tags and nothing will change. The season already runs from mid-sept all the way until the end of Jan with only a few brief breaks. That is of course only if you hunt with a bow.


The problem I see in 2B is that there will never be a way to control the "urban" deer population. Tag allocations and seasons seem to be based on the highly populated areas, where hunter access is almost non existant (not that it is good anywhere in 2B) and also where the most human-deer conflict is happening. Really, all I see ocurring is that the less urban areas are back to having "normal" deer populations and very little has changed with the more urban, problem areas other than the exception of a few small towns allowing "sharpshooters" in to help.

Bottom line is; human densities and a lack of access will continue to make it a struggle to manage 2B effectively for the PGC.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Well , as usual you are misguided. No one knows more about the conditions on land he owns and hunts than a hunter/landowner,yet you expect hunters that visit an area just a few times a year ,or just when they are hunting,to know enough to decide whether a doe should be harvested or not. That makes absolutely no sense.

Hunter/landowner is going to give you his personal opinion of conditions, which you say is no good.

My immediate area I generally hunt is dmap this year. The entire thing.. thousands of arces. Many places are void of deer in that area. Many have a few. Some places are loaded. The pgc does not and can not give specifics on where the most deer are per square mile. So yes, it is up to the hunter to find them.

ORIGINAL: benthook62

 2A, can handle far more deer, why cut the herd? They get shot and eatin. As far as crop damage, the farms are gone, but the food is still good here.

 
Browse lines remain evident in some parts of 2A.  Some parts of 2A the numbers are down for sure, others still way to many IMO. 
 
On one property that I have access to in Washinton, EHD opened our eyes a bit in regards to the benefits of less deer.  Since then we have made a conscious effort to keep the numbers below where they used to be. 

"Browse lines remain evident in some parts of 2A."

As they are in "some parts" of every wmu, in some localized areas to some extent. Overall the habitat type & yes, condition, imho is as good as it gets in this state.

"Some parts of 2A the numbers are down for sure, others still way to many IMO."

Again, same could be said of any wmu. but why on earth should we care if some land owners CHOOSE to have that many deer on their properties and dont care. Dont utilize any of the tools available, and in many cases dont even allow hunting? Is this the type situation deer management in a unit should be based upon?? Most landowners I know dont manage their lands for, or against deer.. Some allow hunting to anyone, others limited hunting, and in most cases neither have a clue how many deer are killed on those lands from one year to the next. And many couldnt care less if there were 3 or 300 on their properties. And my point is, that its not them making conscious decision in many cases to have tons of deer or very few deer. But if they do want less, then they need to so something about it, other than pgc just jacking up the tags to be used everywhere else in the unit except where needed most.

"On one property that I have access to in Washinton, EHD opened our eyes a bit in regards to the benefits of less deer. Since then we have made a conscious effort to keep the numbers below where they used to be."

I didnt see much benefit from having 80-90% of the herd killed off in some of the areas that got hit that we hunt. I will admit to having seen somewhat more regeneration. Though i didnt see any problem with it to begin with. Especially since when it hit us hard, was in 2007, AFTER our herd reduction for the unit had already supposedly turned into stabilization. So the areas i speak of were already reduced before getting whacked hard by the ehd.

Hunter/landowner is going to give you his personal opinion of conditions, which you say is no good.

No, I did not say the opinions of a hunter /land owner were no good. I may have said that those opinions shouldn't be used as the basis for the statewide management plan and I stand by that.

It was always up to the hunters to find the deer ,so that is not the issue. The issue remains that the herd was reduced to levels much lower than the carrying capacity of the habitat for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry. The issue is that the PGC was supposed to manage the herd based on science but instead they are managing based on lies and misleading information.

Gotta love that new doe system! Got my 1B doe tag. Just enter your SS#

that's why there are 7700 left, not many have been issued
 

ORIGINAL: RIZ

that's why there are 7700 left, not many have been issued

 
The 13,000 issued represents 65%.
 
Everyone that I have been in contact with that has sent to this particular County Treasurer has been awarded their license but me.  My concern is that it never got there.  With non-residents able to apply on Monday, that will probably wipe them out.