The True Effects OF HR and ARs in the NC PA

I do not and never did support ANY reduction.

UNLESS we are talking about a reduction in armchair biologists who waive short term studies around that support the DCNR and their own interests in having more 12 inch oak seedlings that will die off at 10 years old anyway.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Elk , Clinton and Cameron counties make up the majority of 2G and in 1987 the average buck harvest rate for those three counties was 4.5 buck PSM.By 2003 the average buck harvest rate for 2G was reduced to 2.46 buck PSM and by 2009 it dropped to 1.26 buck PSM. So while the statewide buck harvest decreased by 47% from 2001 to 2009 the buck harvest in the NC counties dropped by 72% from 1987 to 2009.

For those of you that still support the current DMP ,can you honestly say you would support the plan if the herd was reduced by 72% in the area you hunt?

I will answer your question then I have a question for you.

In the two primary areas I hunt in Washington County.  One is private posted and I would be opposed to a 72% drop in deer numbers.  We have reduced the herd here to where we feel a balance has been achieved.  The other farm is private un-posted and is enrolled in the cooperator program.  I believe there still is a bit too many deer here and it could be reduced but not by 72%.

In the areas of 2B that I hunt, private posted, I would be in favor of a significant reduction.  Not sure about 72% but up there. 

My question to you is, the antlered harvest PSM is 1.26 in the area you pointed out.  Has hunter density changed through the period you mention?  If so, has it been redistributed elsewhere?  The point you are trying to make is because harvest PSM has changed, the deer numbers have changed by the same amount.  Is that correct?

Edited. Double post for some reason.

Isn't that like the fish commission not stocking a lake or stream that they have been stocking for decades and then blaming the lack of fish being caught on the fact that fewer people are fishing it. People by nature go to places where the fish or game is, they tend to leave the places where there is no longer sufficient numbers of either. To blame lack of hunter success on lack of hunters rather than lack of game in those areas seems rather silly to me.

ORIGINAL: S-10

 To blame lack of hunter success on lack of hunters rather than lack of game in those areas seems rather silly to me.

 
I am not blaming lack of success on that, just looking for data to back up an assertion that was made that the deer herd has been reduced 72% based on harvest PSM.  I see it as a stretch if we do not know if hunter density or particpation days have changed during the same period. 

I am a bit surprised that you would base your 72% reduction in deer numbers on harvest PSM not knowing hunter density or participation changes? 

That is only because you apparently don't realize that the PGC does rely on hunter density or participation changes when calculating deer density.

ORIGINAL: pghmarty

15 to 30 years ago I usually got a buck every year or at least a doe in McKeen Co
Now I see more in the city limits of Pittsburgh

That is the sad truth. I could adapt and start hunting allegheny county. I could learn that hunting is a sport to be enjoyed within earshot of vehicles, families, industry and with a city skyline in the background. I could learn to hunt where you may have one safe shooting zone that takes up 15 degrees of the 360 degress around you. I could change my weapon of choice to go there and then worry that when I did I would be harassed by anti hunters who owned the surrounding properties who are still upset that the deer ate $1500 worth of Begonias last year (but they planted $2000 worth this year and can't understand why the deer keep coming back and eating all of them). I could do all of these things, and I could kill deer (nice ones)!

OR

I can go to a place where I can walk a full day in some directions and never cross a paved road. Where I may sit in a treestand for an entire archery season and never see another hunter. A place that is nothing but forest for as far as the eye can see and the only noises that annoy me are the woodpeckers that make it difficult to hear a deer, and the squirrels that sound like a deer behind me. A place where an anti-hunter's vehicle would get stuck and be unable to pass the road 2 miles from where I am. A place where getting your meat out requires as much planning as actually taking the game.

The latter is where I learned to hunt, it is what I enjoy and it is where hunting is meant to take place. The fact that controlling forces have fundamentally changed the core of our sport saddens and scares me.

DPMS The Board of commissioners asserts that it has been reduced by at least 50% in that area. And without digging up the audit, it showed a similar reduction statistic in those areas.

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: deerfly

That is only because you apparently don't realize that the PGC does rely on hunter density or participation changes when calculating deer density.

Actually I do.  So you stand behind your assertion that the deer herd in that area has been reduced by 72%?

I can't say for sure because I don't know the margin of error involved in those calculations. But, based on the previous deer densities in Elk Co. compared to the current densities the herd has been reduced by 70 to 75%.

As I am sure you are well aware the PGC has not released any data on the county level since 2003 and that is precisely why I based my comparison on the 3 counties that make up the majority of 2G rather than just on Elk Co.

If you are asking about hunter density and shifts in hunters from one area to another, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

And vice versa...the number of bucks in the woods certainly has something to do with the number of hunters in those woods.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

As I am sure you are well aware the PGC has not released any data on the county level since 2003 and that is precisely why I based my comparison on the 3 counties that make up the majority of 2G rather than just on Elk Co.

If you are asking about hunter density and shifts in hunters from one area to another, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

I am well aware of it, deerfly. I am not debating the fact that there are less deer.  I question basing a 72% decrease in population off of antlered harvest PSM without weighing the largest variable to the equation which is hunter density and participation days through the same period.
 
Hunter density and particpation days are very relevent to the question I bring to you. 

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

Are you really sayin' the number of bucks harvested per square mile has  nothing to do with the number of hunters in the woods ?

No, I am saying there are still enough hunters in 2G to keep the herd stable .

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

 It's no secret there are a lot less deer and a lot less people heading to 2G to hunt. I don't see a need to take one side of the issue and run with it.. both are contributing factors.

 
I don't hunt there but talking to alot of hunters on just about a daily basis, that is the general consensus I hear. Less deer and less hunters. 
 
I believe both are contributing factors as well.  They have to be. 

YES!!!