The Latest From John Eveland and the ACSL

Did you provide the right link? That page has been out for awhile and was posted on a few boards back then.

Though i do agree with most of this 100%

"In 2006, the Pennsylvania Legislature's House Game and Fisheries Committee approved a one-year, independent, scientific assessment of the PGC's deer management program – to determine if it was based on sound science and justified. However, former State Representative David Levdansky (acting as an agent for Audubon and the PGC) successfully stonewalled legislative funding for this legitimate study, and replaced it with his own version of a fraudulent audit -- one that had been designed with questions that would yield a positive response in favor of the PGC's deer reduction program. In addition, Rep. Levdansky hired the original designer of the deer-reduction program to conduct the audit – a blatant conflict of interest and possible violation of state law. Thus, Rep. Levdansky wasted $95,000 of taxpayer funding by hiring a biased auditor to conduct a fraudulent audit.

Aware of this attempt to deceive sportsmen, state legislators, and the PGC's own Board of Commissioners into believing that the deer reduction program was based on sound scientific footing, John Eveland conducted a four-year, independent, scientific investigation that reveals the reason behind the deer reduction program, how it was achieved, and who were the responsible parties. (John Eveland's biography is presented for review within this website.) This investigation has uncovered original documentation that the deer reduction program had nothing to do with science or the best interests of sportsmen, deer, or the citizens of the Commonwealth. Instead, it was concocted in 1996 to increase revenue for the State (DCNR) through enhancing the salability of lumber and other wood products, and to advance the environmental agenda of a handful of ideologues.

An Independent Assessment of the Pennsylvania Game
Commission's Estimated Annual Deer Harvests (2000-2010)
Prepared for the Sportsmen of Pennsylvania
And
The Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives
By
John Eveland
March 23, 2011
Introduction. In early March 2011, the Pennsylvania Game Commission released its "2010-11 Deer
Harvest Estimates," stating that a total of 316,240 deer (both antlered and antlerless) were harvested.
Staunch supporters of the Game Commission's deer-reduction program were quick to write that "The
final annihilation of the deer herd didn't come to pass." However, many sportsmen with first-hand
field experience remain convinced that the statewide herd-reduction program has been so dramatic that
the deer herd is virtually unhuntable in some areas. A source inside the Game Commission has
indicated that general hunting license sales have declined from a once-high of around 1.4 million
licenses to a last-year's low of about 670,000 – a direct result of a declining interest in hunting by
sportsmen (especially young hunters) because of the declining deer herd.
Personal communication with a game commissioner indicated that the herd may have been reduced to
only 1-2 deer per square mile (dpsm) in portions of wildlife management unit 2G (throughout the north
central portion of the state), and that the targeted density is possibly only 5-6 dpsm in that area.
Further, as stated during a personal communication with PGC staff, "We've literally exterminated deer
in some areas, and still the forest hasn't regenerated."
Purpose. With the "battle lines so deeply drawn in the sand," and with such conflicting claims and
information, an independent scientific assessment was made of the Game Commission's annual deer
harvest estimates of the past 11 years – from 2000-2010. The purpose of the assessment was to
determine the minimum size of the statewide deer herd that would be required to support and maintain
the level of harvested deer that the Game Commission has annually estimated. These figures would
represent an indicator as to the veracity and integrity of the PGC's estimated annual deer harvest
claims. Calculations are presented in the following table.
Results. As depicted in the table, the 2010 statewide harvest of 316,240 deer does not represent the
total number of deer lost from the population, but instead represents only 71% of annual mortality,
with other losses being attributed to vehicles, natural causes, unknown causes, illegal activity, and
predation (as listed by the PGC in their order of significance (Rosenberry 2009)). Total annual
mortality is listed in column (C) of the table, and for 2010 was calculated to be 445,408 deer.
Therefore, based on the PGC's harvest estimate of 316,240 deer in 2010, this number indicates that last
year 445,408 deer that were older than 6 months of age were lost from the herd – 316,240 due to
hunting and 129,168 from other causes.
The Game Commission has stated that their goal to reduce and stabilize the herd has been achieved,
and this they indicate in the six years of rather stable harvest estimates between 2005 and 2010 –
AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE PGC'S ESTIMATED ANNUAL DEER HARVESTS
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
PGC-ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL HERD SIZE NEEDED CORRESPONDING OVERWINTER DEER DENSITIES
TOTAL MORTALITY1 & TO MAINTAIN ANNUAL Avg. Deer Per Sq. Mi. Avg. Deer/Sq. Mi. on All PA
YEAR HARVEST RECRUITMENT2 HARVEST & MORTALITY3 on All PA Forestland4 Forestland and Agricultural Land5
2000 504,600 710,704 2,030,583 76 dpsm 57 dpsm
2001 486,014 684,527 1,955,791 74 dpsm 55 dpsm
2002 517,529 728,914 2,082,611 78 dpsm 59 dpsm
2003 464,890 654,775 1,870,786 70 dpsm 53 dpsm
2004 409,320 576,507 1,647,163 62 dpsm 46 dpsm
2005 354,390 499,141 1,426,117 54 dpsm 40 dpsm
2006 361,560 509,239 1,454,969 55 dpsm 41 dpsm
2007 323,070 455,028 1,300,080 49 dpsm 37 dpsm
2008 335,850 473,028 1,351,509 51 dpsm 38 dpsm
2009 308,920 435,099 1,243,140 47 dpsm 35 dpsm
2010 316,240 445,408 1,272,594 48 dpsm 36 dpsm
(1) As stated in PGC's 2009-2018 Deer Management Plan, hunting represents 71% of mortality of white-tailed deer > 6 months of age (Rosenberry 2009).
(2) As stated in PGC's 2009-2018 Deer Management Plan, recruitment is the number of fawns born in spring that survive until fall. To maintain a population at a stable level, the annual recruitment must equal the
annual mortality (Rosenberry 2009).
(3) As published by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Cook and Gray 2008) and determined from classic research in Michigan (Hickie 1937; Caughley 1977), once a population has
reached a stable level, unabated the herd will increase annually by about 35%. With approximately 35% annual mortality, a population will generally remain stable. A deer herd will continue to grow with annual
mortality rates of less than 35%. The total population will decline with a 40% or greater annual mortality rate. Herd size represents the overwintering (post-hunting-season) deer required to sustain the PGC harvest.
(4) There is a total of 16,992,800 acres (26,551 square miles) of forestland (private and publicly-owned) in Pennsylvania, representing 59% of the state's land area (Finley and Jones 1993; and Devlin 2010).
(5) There is a total of 5,736,960 acres (8,964 square miles) of agricultural lands (croplands and pasture lands) in Pennsylvania (USDA Economic Research Service, 2007). Combined with 26,551 square miles of
forestlands, forests and agricultural lands represent 79% (35,515 square miles) of Pennsylvania's land area (National Resources Inventory, 2007). Note that nonforested urban and developed areas represent the
remaining 21% of Pennsylvania's 44,820 square miles of land area (Finley and Jones 1993). An additional 1,238 square miles of the state's surface area is covered by water.
ranging from 361,560 to 308,920, and averaging 333,338 deer harvested per year during the last
six years. Classic scientific studies indicate that a deer herd will increase at the rate of 35% per
year (Cook and Gray 2008; Hickie 1937; and Caughley 1977). Considering that in order to
maintain a population at a stable level the annual recruitment of fawns surviving from spring
until fall must equal the annual mortality (Rosenberry 2009), then column (D) represents that
number of deer that would be required to maintain the total mortality as listed in column (C), as
well as the PGC-estimated harvest as listed in column (B).
Overwinter Herd Size. In 2010, therefore, an overwintering (post-hunting-season) population of
1,272,594 deer would have been required to sustain a harvest of 316,240 deer. Column (E)
depicts the corresponding density (in deer per square mile) that would result from 1,272,594
deer. The average number of overwintering deer required on every square mile of the state's
26,551 square miles of forested lands would be, therefore, 48. If all agricultural lands were
included with all forestlands, the 2010 harvest estimate would have required an average
overwintering herd of 36 deer per square mile through-out every forest and woodlot and on every
parcel of agricultural cropland and pasture within the state.
Summer Herd Size. According to the PGC's 2010 harvest estimate, in order to sustain a stable
population at a harvest of 316,240 it would require a summer (pre-hunting-season) herd of
1,718,002 deer. Annual mortality of 445,408 would reduce the size of the herd to an overwinter
population of 1,272,594 deer. Corresponding deer densities would, then, be significantly higher
during the summer than overwinter, with 65 deer per square mile existing on every square mile
of forestland, and (when combining all forest and agricultural lands) over 48 deer per square mile
on every square mile of forest, woodlot, cropland, and pasture land in the state.
Discussion. The above overwinter population of 1,272,594 deer and corresponding summer
population of 1,718,002 deer that would be required to sustain the PGC's 2010 harvest of
316,240 deer does not likely exist. If such a population existed, then the corresponding deer
densities on all forested land in the Commonwealth would be 48 deer per square mile during the
winter and 65 deer per square mile in summer – an unlikely circumstance. When all agricultural
land is included with all forestland in the state (consisting of all potential deer habitat), the
corresponding deer densities that would be required to sustain an annual harvest of 316,240 deer
would be 36 deer per square mile during the winter, and 48 deer per square mile in summer –
also not a likely situation.
According to the Game Commission's new deer management plan (2009-2018),"The Game
Commission follows an adaptive management approach to deer management. The focus of
adaptive management is on monitoring responses to management actions and learning"
(Rosenberry et al 2009). Quoting further, "Deer management objectives are no longer defined
by deer densities. Instead, deer management objectives are defined by measures of deer health,
forest habitat health, and deer-human conflicts. The change from defining deer management
objectives by deer densities to specific measures for each goal has ensured the controversy that
has accompanied deer management endeavors in this state and countless others for decades
remains. Although the Game Commission acknowledges the desire of hunters and the public to
know how many deer are in Pennsylvania at any given time, the Game Commission has a duty to
implement a responsible and credible deer management program that addresses deer
management goals through the most efficient use of available data" (Rosenberry 2009).
Therefore, according to the PGC's deer management plan the agency no longer uses quantitative
data to estimate the size of the herd or deer densities. Instead, indicators such as forest
regeneration, deer health, and the frequency of deer/human conflicts are monitored and used to
determine the number of antlerless permits to be allocated and the application of other herd
reduction methods. A $50,000 grant to Penn State University has been testing the proposed use
of the frequency of Indian cucumber root (an uncommon native plant that grows in forests from
Nova Scotia to Florida) as a primary method for adjusting the size of the deer herd – reducing the
herd until the occurrence of Indian cucumber increases to an undetermined but acceptable level.
From a Pinchot Institute study (Shissler and Grund 2009), Pennsylvania is the only state that uses
such non-quantitative value-laden methods and an adaptive ecosystem management approach to
deer management. It has been said that although the authors of the study consider PGC to be
"ahead of the curve" in its qualitative approach to deer management, it is more likely that the
agency is "out in left field". The time lag involved in monitoring the occurrence of forest
regeneration and Indian cucumber root, the effects of other non-deer-related environmental
factors that could impact frequency and occurrence of certain seedlings and wildflowers, and an
unacceptably high margin of error in achieving target deer densities renders the PGC's nonquantitative
value-laden approach to deer management to be unscientific at best.
Conclusion. Managing deer without knowing how many deer are in Pennsylvania represents a
mechanism for reducing the herd to any desired level without the need for accountability, and
creates a heightened risk of inadvertent overharvest – a recipe that could result in collapsing the
herd. Managing deer without knowing how many deer are in Pennsylvania has permitted the
Game Commission to claim that an average of 333,338 deer have been harvested per year during
the past six years – an unlikely circumstance given that in order to support such a harvest it
would require a corresponding average summer deer density of 51 deer per square mile on every
square mile of forestland and woodlot and on every parcel of agricultural cropland and pasture
land in the Commonwealth.
From peer review of this documentation, it has been suggested that the Game Commission's
annual harvest estimates might be explained by one of two circumstances: incompetence or
deception. Because a summer population of 1,718,002 with a corresponding average density of
51 dpsm is not likely to exist in Pennsylvania, then it might be concluded that an average harvest
of 333,338 per year cannot occur – making the PGC's harvest estimates inaccurate. If, however,
the PGC's harvest estimates are accurate, then a dire circumstance likely exists – the deer herd is
being grossly overharvested and is collapsing.