Not to get into this winter mortaility debate, but trying to recall something from my going to mush older brain.
 
I recall fishing Cross Fork in the Spring during -- '80, '81, '82, or '83 -- that is what I can't put my finger on -- and being told stories by many of the locals, some of whom lived way up on Cross Fork, about the severe winter kill that year due to deer falling on the ice and splitting their pelvus.  It really wasn't a food die off, but rather an injury related die off.  Many starved because the could not get up, many died from the injuries, and many had to be destroyed because of the injuries.  The stories referenced using dump trucks and tri-axle trucks to load the deer in for dumping.
 
Any of the oldsters here recall that?

I finally found the article about the winterkill in 1981.

" The winter mortality within Pa's deer herd in many mountainous counties was significant this year. Snow,cold and a thick ice crust combined to take the lives of thousands of animals. For example, early reports from Clinton County indicated 1,500 deer died as they plummeted down hillsides unable to stand or control themselves on the ice. Others died from "split pelvis" an injury caused when the hind legs shoot out from beneath the animal as they try to navigate the icy crust.Still others died of starvation , unable to free themselves of steep inclines and deep ravines."

As a result of the winterkill Dale Sheffer said," In some counties allocation may be reduced as much as 25-30%.

You're welcome. I enjoy reading the old PGN articles about deer management since they are very informative and show that PGC had quite a different attitude about the deer and deer hunters than the current PGC. Here is but one example.

Concerns with the muzzleloader over harvest began to surface upon analysis of the 1980 antlerless data. The fact that flintlockers took 17% (8,250 deer) or more of the antlerless in five counties was indeed disquieting. The record for 1981 is even more alarming when view from the standpoint that the Commission's ability to replenish the herd is seriously compromised when the unregulated removal exceeds 15% of the total harvest.

We now have fewer deer than we had in 1981 but we are still harvesting almost twice as many antlerless than antlered while in 1982 we harvested more antlered than antlerless. Maybe the good old days really were the good old days of deer hunting and deer management.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

You're welcome. I enjoy reading the old PGN articles about deer management since they are very informative and show that PGC had quite a different attitude about the deer and deer hunters than the current PGC. Here is but one example.

Concerns with the muzzleloader over harvest began to surface upon analysis of the 1980 antlerless data. The fact that flintlockers took 17% (8,250 deer) or more of the antlerless in five counties was indeed disquieting. The record for 1981 is even more alarming when view from the standpoint that the Commission's ability to replenish the herd is seriously compromised when the unregulated removal exceeds 15% of the total harvest.

We now have fewer deer than we had in 1981 but we are still harvesting almost twice as many antlerless than antlered while in 1982 we harvested more antlered than antlerless. Maybe the good old days really were the good old days of deer hunting and deer management.

 
After the Biologists and Commission realized the number of deer being harvested by muzzleloader hunters was a run away antlerless harvest they set it up so that muzzleloader hunters became part of the antlerless allocation system by making hunters turn in their antlerless application to get a muzzleloader stamp.
 
That system of turning in your antlerless application to get a muzzleloader license continued for many years and until the Biologists could accurately predict how many deer muzzleloader hunters would harvest each. Once that was determined then the muzzleloader harvests were compensated for in the antlerless allocations. It remains that way yet today.
 
I don’t know where you got the idea we had more deer back in 1981.
 
What I can tell you though is that in the five years between 1982 and 1986 (the first five years for which we have actual kill/harvest estimates) hunters harvests fewer bucks and does than they have during the most recent five years.
 
Here is the harvest data for the two time periods based on the number of male verses female deer based on harvests. I am also including the harvests per square mile to help put the harvests in perspective.
 
Sex ……………82-86……………………………………05-09
Males………….164,799 (3.68)…………………………..168,703 (3.76)
Females……….106,664 (2.38)…………………………...168,055 (3.75)
 
Total…………..271,463 (6.05)…………………………...336,758 (7.51)
 
Notice how the male to female harvests in recent times have come much more in line with what nature intends them being compared to back in the 80s when we were still over harvesting the males and under harvesting the females.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

What I can tell you though is that in the five years between 1982 and 1986 (the first five years for which we have actual kill/harvest estimates) hunters harvests fewer bucks and does than they have during the most recent five years.

I assume your not talking antlered bucks because we harvested far more antlered bucks between 1982-86 than we have in the last five years.---------- It is the antlered buck harvest that's the indicator of the deer numbers because the antlerless harvest(including BB) is simply determined by the number of tags issued.

I don’t know where you got the idea we had more deer back in 1981.

What I can tell you though is that in the five years between 1982 and 1986 (the first five years for which we have actual kill/harvest estimates) hunters harvests fewer bucks and does than they have during the most recent five years.

The reported buck harvest in 1981 was 73,322 and with a reporting rate of 60% the estimated buck harvest would have been 122,203 which is significantly more than the estimated harvest of 108K in 2009. Therefore ,it is more than obvious that the herd was larger in 1981 than in 2009.

The reported buck harvest in 1981 was 73,322 and with a reporting rate of 60% the estimated buck harvest would have been 122,203 which is significantly more than the estimated harvest of 108K in 2009. Therefore ,it is more than obvious that the herd was larger in 1981 than in 2009.

I don't know where you got the 60% reporting rate but the one they used in 1986 was 56.0% which would make it 130,932 for 1981. Either way it's stil a lot more than 2009. I can hardly wait to see 2010 results.

Added--they were using 48.9% reporting for antlerless harvest back in 1986.

There was nothing cherry picked about the numbers. They are the first five years of actual estimated kill data (1982-1986) compared the most recent five years of data available (2005-2009).

Not to be picky, but according to the PGC published harvest information data the first year of estimated harvest was 1986. I assume they ran a few numbers before that year to see how they looked but apparently didn't publish it on their site.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I don’t know where you got the idea we had more deer back in 1981.

What I can tell you though is that in the five years between 1982 and 1986 (the first five years for which we have actual kill/harvest estimates) hunters harvests fewer bucks and does than they have during the most recent five years.

The reported buck harvest in 1981 was 73,322 and with a reporting rate of 60% the estimated buck harvest would have been 122,203 which is significantly more than the estimated harvest of 108K in 2009. Therefore ,it is more than obvious that the herd was larger in 1981 than in 2009.

 
You just can’t get it into your head that antler restrictions protects a pretty substantial number of bucks can you?
 
If we went back to harvesting every buck with three inches of antler on his head again the buck harvests would climb right back up there close to what they had been before antler restrictions and certainly way higher than they had been in the eighties.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

You just can’t get it into your head that antler restrictions protects a pretty substantial number of bucks can you?

If we went back to harvesting every buck with three inches of antler on his head again the buck harvests would climb right back up there close to what they had been before antler restrictions and certainly way higher than they had been in the eighties.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Not on your life they wouldn't---Antler restrictions only affects the harvest numbers to any degree for the first year of implementation. Conversly, removing antler restrictions will only increase the harvest to any degree for the first year. any other increase or reduction in harvest is due to herd numbers increasing or decreasing. That sir is simple math.

It is a mathematical imposssiblity to have a buck harvest approaching the one we had before AR with the current size deer herd even going back to any buck with a 3" spike.

One can conclude anything.I can make numbers do all kinds of stuff. However, our local WCO has stated on the PGC website to avoid Cambria County if you want to fill your tag for the last 2 years....WF

ORIGINAL: World Famous

Fact #1- Doc killed 1 deer in 2010 in about 100 hours of hunting. Fact #2-Dardys killed 28 [1972-2000] in about the same anmount of time.By conclusion, it is 28 tines harder to take a deer in 2010 than it was in the time period of 1972 thru 2000. All factual numbers.Depends how you want to use them... Now thats cherry pickin...WF

 
Not be picky WF, but that was 28 bucks in the same amount of time, not 28 deer.  And , yes, there was 1 spike in that group.  There was also one that had 2 left on 1 side with the rest broken off and the other side broken off.  The rest were what would be termed "rack" bucks, including 5 8-points that were 16" or wider.  Keep in mind that these are big woods, mountain deer and they don't get too much bigger than that.
 
As for the number of "deer" in that period, I also harvested an antlerless deer every year that I had a tag -- some of those were one and done years, though.
 
In fact, from 1972 until 2000, I spent exactly 2 trips, not 2 seasons, to the deer woods with a rifle (that is all I use) that I didn't harvest a deer.  Not bragging, as Doc would say, just the facts.
 
Since AR/HR, I have harvested 1 buck.  It is the smallest 8-point I have taken.  I have still managed to harvest an antlerless deer 9 out of 10 years with the difference being that while my average season to harvest a buck and doe amounted to about 6-8 hours "back in the day," it now takes 6-8 days to harvest that doe.
 
So to me, at least, I don't quite think we have it as good.

You just can’t get it into your head that antler restrictions protects a pretty substantial number of bucks can you?
 
If we went back to harvesting every buck with three inches of antler on his head again the buck harvests would climb right back up there close to what they had been before antler restrictions and certainly way higher than they had been in the eighties.
 

I have no problem understanding or accepting the fact that ARs protect a substantial number of buck. But unlike you I understand that ARS don't substantially reduce the sustainable buck buck harvest as S-10 pointed out already. But maybe this example will help you understand what we are talking about.

The PGC claims ARs protect around 50% of our 1.5 buck. Therefore, if you double the 1.5 buck harvest you get a rough estimate of the PS 1.5 buck population. In 2009 we harvested 53,082 1.5 buck so the PS 1.5 buck population would have been around 108K. Therefore the max. sustainable buck harvest for a over wintering herd the same size as our herd in Jan. 2009 was 108K.

Now comparing 2009, to 2002 when we harvested 112,814 , 1.5 buck and had around 225K ,PS 1.5 buck, it should be obvious that max. sustainable buck harvest in 2002 was over twice what it was in 2009, with or without ARs.

ORIGINAL: World Famous

Exactly my point DD. Those of us old enough to have hunted since the 60's have seen first hand experiences and don't have to see numbers spouted at us that mean nothing. Easy to BS less experienced, time wise, hunters with seemingly black and white statistics that are massaged to someones views. Whats that phrase, dont pee down my back and tell me its raining?...WF..P.S. I know it was 28 bucks but for the convoluted example I gave, just useing the term deer was enough.

 
Yes it was. (That may end up in a double post because the site is acting up a little this morning.)
 
I guess what is lost in all of this is what an old friend and I were talking about last week.  He has a son that will turn 12 this year and he doesn't know what to do with him with regard to deer hunting.  What his lament is boils down to what he said to me.
 
"Its all about opportunities.  When we were his age and older, we had opportunities to shoot a deer.  If we saw a buck and didn't get a shot at or didn't have a killing shot available, it was not big deal.  We would see another one before the day was over.  If we missed a deer, again, it didn't matter.  We would get another opportunity that day or another day.  There was room for error.  Not now.  If you get a chance to shoot a deer now, you better make good on it because you might not get that opportunity again for the rest of the season.  And maybe for the rest of next season too.  That's a lot of pressure to put on an adult -- don't screw this up because it might be your only chance this year -- let alone a kid."
 
I can echo those sentiments.  There were days "back in the day" that I saw more bucks than I have in all the years since AR/HR combined.  There were other opportunites if one didn't capitalize on them.  I can't say that is the case today.
 
Hunting shouldn't be about pressure to harvest.  That makes people sloppy.  They take shots they shouldn't.  They hunt areas they shouldn't.  They do things they normally wouldn't do.
 
But hunting should be about harvesting.  I enjoy the outdoors as much as anyone, but when I step out the door with a firearm in hand, I'm not taking it for a walk.  I intend to use it.  I fully expect to harvest whatever I am hunting every time I go out.  Or I wouldn't go out.
 
A friend of mine just laughs when I catch a fish on the first cast and start with "its bad luck to catch one on the first cast" rant.  He says, you expect to shoot something every time you go hunting, why would you not expect to catch something on every cast?  Of course you don't, but if you make the right cast, you should "expect" to.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

well I finally see why Dars and I will never see eye to eye on hunting or deer hunting.. here's some examples...

If we saw a buck and didn't get a shot at or didn't have a killing shot available, it was not big deal. We would see another one before the day was over. If we missed a deer, again, it didn't matter. We would get another opportunity that day or another day

That's makes it sound like shooting and killing to me.. not hunting.. no challenge ... if all you have to do is sit and wait for the next one by.... I could never find that challenging or even fun...

Hunting shouldn't be about pressure to harvest.

again just sit and wait.. make it EASY.... and folks get mad when we say or the PGC say that today's hunters are lazy... how much more lazy can you get than just sit and wait.. no pressure.... ??

But hunting should be about harvesting. I enjoy the outdoors as much as anyone, but when I step out the door with a firearm in hand, I'm not taking it for a walk. I intend to use it. I fully expect to harvest whatever I am hunting every time I go out. Or I wouldn't go out.

I would agree with this to a point == I too leave expecting to catch a fish or shoot some game.. difference is I realize it free roaming animals or fish I am after they are not in a fence or on a preserve or some pay lake... ... there is ALWAYS a chance I will get "SKUNKED"
and at times I do.. that's what makes it fun and challenging... While I may be upset a little I was "SKUNKED" I get over it quickly and look forward to the next challenging day of fishing or hunting.. and leave that trip with the same optimistic view...

why would you not expect to catch something on every cast? Of course you don't, but if you make the right cast, you should "expect" to.

That one just makes me laugh, some stand-up comic should just that line... every cast.. LMAO...

AT best I "HOPE" to catch a fish every few casts at BEST... I'd have to say "expecting" a fish on every cast is just asking to have another complainer....

same as "expecting" to kill 28 buck in less than 100 hours.. or even believing for 1 minute that the average deer hunter in Pa. could have or "expect" that type success...and NO ONE who hunts State Game Lands could have that as a "record"...PERIOD



I find it almost IMPOSSIBLE to believe.. thats' only an average of a 3.5 hour hunt for 28 hunts over 28 years.. must really hunt close to road .. no walking into and out of the woods time, waiting for daylight, etc.. so it must be private land and travel on 4 wheelers ...

The best spots around here for a buck would require a 30-45 minute walk in and the same back out.... I sit for at least an hour before daylight and count that as time hunted... so I would use up 2.5 hours just walking in and out and waiting for daylight...

oh well === to each his own,

but I can see why if I shared Dars opinions on hunting, fishing, and being successful I would be one of the negative types here.....

 
Doc, Doc, Doc, you are barking up the wrong tree my friend.
 
Let me try this again so you understand.
 
I go hunting to shoot things and fishing to catch fish.  If that weren't the case it would be called "walking or sitting in the woods" or "standing in the water or being on a boat."  Those things can be accomplished without a gun or a rod.  They can be done without a license.  They can be done when one chooses, not when some agency says we can.  In case you didn't notice hunting involves shooting and killing for those that are successful.
 
Now I do understand if you don't find that as challenging as walking a short distance behind your house to shoot a deer you fed for 3/4 of the year.  That is right up there with climbing Everest on the challenge meter, isn't it?
 
As for the sitting part, I do have some good locations to sit, but have taken more deer while still hunting than any other method.  Since you won't even consider going where a deer drag might be difficult, do not judge me.  I would be willing to wager that you couldn't even walk into some of the areas I hunt, let alone hunt them and remove a deer from there.  Some time you want to see if I am lazy, come on down.  I'll take you into some Clearfiled County spots, but I won't carry you out.
 
Do you sit in those hemlocks or do you walk around in a little circle to make it more challenging?
 
I too know they are free roaming.  But they aren't ninjas.  And obviously I had success in killing them before AR/HR.
 
Why would you make a cast if you didn't think that you were going to catch a fish on it?  Arm exercise?  Casting practice?
 
Do you ever shoot at something you don't expect to hit?  I hope not.
 
Do you catch a fish on every cast?  No.  Do you hit everything you shoot at?  Also no.  But you should expect to.
 
As for the deer hunting success, I never stated that the average deer hunter should expect that.  I am not the average deer hunter in any thing except that I gun hunt only and typically have only 2-3 times per year I can go.  But if my results turned to what they did, how much worse are the average deer hunters results going to be?
 
I have stated many times before that I hunt on private ground.  I have also stated many times that it might as well be public because the landowner does not care who hunts on it.
 
You are right that the walk in is now only about 15-20 minutes.  Before they opened a gas well road, which was in 1995, the walk in was about 1.25 hours.  I don't count time walking in, sitting in the dark, or after a deer is on the ground as hunting because it isn't.  You can't shoot duirng any of those times, you know.  Before the gas well road, if I a deer hit the gorund at 8 AM, it was noon or longer until it was back at the vehicle.  You might consider dragging a deer with a filled tag and an empty rifle hunting, but I don't.
 
The absolute latest I ever killed a buck was 10 AM.  That means that the longest hunt was 3 hours.  Many of my hunts were over, that would be a deer on the ground, Doc, by 7:05 AM.  i would think that the average time of my buck kills was about 15 minutes beofre to 15 minutes afer 8 AM.
 
I have never been on a 4-wheeler in my life.  Wouldn't know how to use one.  And even if I did, that is the one thing that my primary spot landowner forbids.  Anyone can hunt, but use a 4-wheeler and you are gone.
 
You see Doc, this is just why people hop on you when you post.
 
All I did was lay out the truth about my hunting experiences and in an effort to try to find something, anything, you go on the attack and accuse me of being lazy, when they would need life flight to get you out of where I hunt if you ever wondered in there; you accuse me of using a 4 wheeler; you accuse me of just sitting and waiting, which I don't do for the most part, but you certainly do; you say I couldn't have that type of record, but I have the antlers to prove it; and you just can't stand it when someone shows a very different picture of what deer hunting used to be vs. what it is.
 
If you didn't want people to climb all over your frame for what you post, you could have read what I wrote and had no reply or you could have wrote something such as "Well it seems that you were successful in the past and that success has been somewhat effected by the DMP.  Sorry to hear that."  But no, you don't go that route.  You have to try to find some way, anyway to discredit what actually happened because the DMP could not have that type of effect on any one.  Well it did on me and I am sure it did for others.
 
As for my opinions on hunting and fishing, what is wrong with going hunting and through your skills expecting to harvest what you are hunting and when going fishing expect to catch the target species?  If you don't why would you go?