What is Next In Deer Management

What comes after what comes next? by John C. Street

License sales have been trending downward for over thirty years so it’s not fair to say the new – albeit now nearly twelve year old - deer management program is solely to blame.

Based on the last ten years of deer harvest reports, however, it is fair to say the deer management program is accelerating the decline in license sales. When the population of the state’s preeminent game animal declines, hunter interest declines proportionately.

Despite the heroic efforts of the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania to use the courts to stop the program … and despite the documented “mismanagement” exposed by John Eveland and the Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League … and despite the overwhelming objection/rejection by hunters across the state … the controversial deer management program retains the support of a majority of the PGC’s Board of Commissioners.

To even a casual observer, then, it’s obvious what comes next; the deer herd will be culled even further and license sales will continue to decline. No crystal ball needed there. But the question that no one is asking is, “What comes after what comes next?”

For many years now the Pennsylvania Game Commission has been pleading with Legislators for a fee increase and for those many years the Legislators have refused. Therefore, given that they’re wedged between this Legislative rock and a financial hard spot, one would think the leadership of the PGC would go out of its way to protect its primary source (resident license sales) of income.

But that, as evidenced by the Board of Commissioners’ seeming ambivalence to the negative impact of the deer management program on license sales, appears not to be the case.

Still, granting the Board the benefit of the doubt, from the micro economics perspective of the PGC’s budget woes, this might be nothing more than differences of opinion regarding the “science” behind the program.

However, from the macro economics of the state’s economy, the Board‘s decision makes no sense at all.

According to the message massagers at the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the deer management program was initiated to create “Healthy forests, a healthy deer herd and to lessen deer/human interactions.” In short then, the – macro - economic impact of deer and deer hunting (roughly $1.7 billion annually), was weighed against the timber, agriculture and insurance industries’ financial impact on the state and the decision was made that the economic engine of deer hunting would be placed at the bottom of the priority list.

Ostensibly, a decision of this economic magnitude would have been made only after a thorough cost-benefit analysis had been conducted. And if that be the case, a point of equilibrium between the competing industries (timber, agriculture, insurance and hunting) should have been established. And how would that work?

Well, let’s postulate that 100,000 fewer deer translates into $10 million in additional annual profit for the timber industry and that 200,000 fewer deer translates to $15 million in additional profits. How much more profit could the timber industry realize if there were 300,000 fewer deer, 400,000 fewer or even 500,000 fewer deer?

What the cost-benefit analysis would reveal is that somewhere on a lineal chart, the profit derived by the timber industry as a result of fewer deer would flatten out. But to accurately weigh these “benefits,” it would then be imperative to know how big a “cost” the hunting industry paid for these reductions.

And if this figure is not known - and taken into consideration - then what we have are some unelected government beaurocrats picking out the winners – and by causal consequence, the losers - in the economic lottery.

When asked how many deer must still be culled, the managers of the program say they don’t know, that the condition of – and the “biodiversity” within – the forest will tell them. But, they say, keep on shootin’, we ain’t there yet.

What they’re actually saying is, the industry of hunting is not all that important to the economy of Pennsylvania and, once this industry and its clientele are no longer a major economic factor, the Pennsylvania GAME Commission becomes as useful as a set of wooden oars on an aircraft carrier.

So, “What comes after what comes next?”

That’s easy.

The Bureau of Wildlife Management within the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

+100 - nothing but a waste of time,money,and resources

Agreed Bings.  PFBC/PGC merger would be a win/win from just about every angle. 
 
Now, PGC/DCNR merger, no way, no how...

It sure seems odd that all of our neighbors are functioning just fine operating their versions of PFBC, PGC, and DCNR under the one entity.

I would guess PA is one of the last states with separate fish, game, and natural resources programs. 

Truthfully, the way they have operated the PGC that last 10 years It probably won't make a whole lot of difference if they do merge. They just will no longer have to pretend they are trying to maintain or increase hunter numbers or satisfaction. As the DCNR Director of Policy Mike Krempasky said in a earlier meeting on the Wilds Initiative when asked about the lack of deer on the state forests Quote: Forget hunting, hunting is a thing of the past.If you look at the outdoor recreational activities, hunting is not one of them. Kyaking, hiking, bird watching, etc are activities that all encompass more than anyone hunting. Rick Jones wanted to promote a wildflower weekend instead of worrying about hunting which he said was dying out. That's what we can expect to see from a merger.

I could say the exact same thing about you,since you chose to point out that you didn't think the USP efforts were heroic. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if the PGC decided to manage red tailed hawks at 50% of the MSY CC? There is a problem with oak regeneration and turkeys eat a lot of acorns,so should the PGC manage turkeys at 50% below the MSY CC? Does the PGC even know what the MSY CC of the habitat is for turkeys? When our current stands of oak saw and pole timber originated turkey populations were at an all time low, but you won't find a single study on the effects of turkey predation on oak regeneration.I wonder why?

No , Slinsky made that claim, not the USP. But, I would agree that was an absolutely ridiculous claim.

just like John Street is ACSL...

Acsl has never made any wild claims and are very middle of the road, probably somewhere in between Usp and the extreme other environmental end with Pennfed. Just my opinion, but thats kind what i see when i look into the few groups spoken of.

I dont agree with everything ive read from Street by FAR, as i dont agree at all with his stance on bowhunting and some other issues, but when it comes to political and special interest awareness issues, he is usually right on the money.

I was simply pointing out slimsky is sort of like the voice of the USP and Street for the ACSL..

When did Rocco Ali become and outdoor writer and what paper does he use to spread the message of the club ???? To my knowledge he is just the secretary for the PFSC and most recently presented the PFSC's testimony at the January PGC Meeting.... ???

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I could say the exact same thing about you,since you chose to point out that you didn't think the USP efforts were heroic. Can you imagine the uproar that would occur if the PGC decided to manage red tailed hawks at 50% of the MSY CC? There is a problem with oak regeneration and turkeys eat a lot of acorns,so should the PGC manage turkeys at 50% below the MSY CC? Does the PGC even know what the MSY CC of the habitat is for turkeys? When our current stands of oak saw and pole timber originated turkey populations were at an all time low, but you won't find a single study on the effects of turkey predation on oak regeneration.I wonder why?

 
I don't know if I should laugh at or cry for you, deerfly?  I had to read that a couple times to make sure you actually posted something so rediculous but alas, you did...
 
grasping at straws?
 
My future deer hunting and management will go something like Ironheds...
 
S-10,
I'd fully support a combined PGC/PFBC "Wildlife" agency completey separate from DCNR, but definitely not under it.

Wayne there are a TON of outdoor writers that belong to the PFSC...
and some write articles about what the PFSC is champhioning at any given time.

Frye is, in my opinin, of of the better ones who does not always take sides and gives a fair observation of the subject he is writing about.. there are several others too and those are the ones I read and link to ... every Sunday night or Monday morning I go to a BUNCH of newspaper websites so I can link to various outdoor articles that appear in them...


But those two Slimsky and Street go out of their ways (IMHO) to write about what they perceive as the good things their groups are doing... and seem to care less when it "blows" up in their faces... i.e. the Amish Mt Lions... brown and gray deer species.. cross-breeding wolves.. deer hooves damaging trees...lawsuits.. and of course the less than 50K deer in Pa... etc.. etc...

street even has his own section on the ACSL webpage ... and unless one of his articles appears on a message board I have not read any of his stuff since 2000...

not sure about Slimsky because I never click on the USP website... and again only read what's on a message board.. sooooooooooo



We are each entitled to our own favorites when it comes to outdoor writers and those two would be on the bottom of my list just because of their affilation with those clubs and their anti agendas... I mean COME ON they just come off as SOME ANGRY, NEGATIVE DUDES TO ME..

especially since hunters in PA no longer carry the "clout" they once did and are terribly divided on a lot more issues than just the PGC's deer management

..


I agree. There are alot more issues that divide our ranks alot more. I dont think the deer management plan divides us all that much. Most who agree with HR to the extent that its been done arent hunters. And those that are, that support Herd blanket reduction as was done are a very small minority.

"Frye is, in my opinin, of of the better ones who does not always take sides and gives a fair observation of the subject he is writing about.."

Yep. Just as unbiased as slinsky & Street. NO more no less. Ive found Fry to be alot of things, but unbiased isnt one of them.

"But those two Slimsky and Street go out of their ways (IMHO) to write about what they perceive as the good things their groups are doing... and seem to care less when it "blows" up in their faces... i.e. the Amish Mt Lions... brown and gray deer species.. cross-breeding wolves.. deer hooves damaging trees...lawsuits.. and of course the less than 50K deer in Pa... etc.. etc..."

How many of those articles you mentioned were written by Street or anyone from ACLS? Answer: None. Your attempt to group everyone together who doesnt support pgc and slander them all. Thats bs. doc. Its bad enough you bought into all the environmentalists exaggerated attacks on slinksy... And thats fine, but everyone else that doesnt agree with pgc isnt a blood decendant of Jim Slinsky and of the same exact mindset. There are alot of diversity among the views of those that do not support pgcs current direction.

"We are each entitled to our own favorites when it comes to outdoor writers and those two would be on the bottom of my list just because of their affilation with those clubs and their anti agendas... I mean COME ON they just come off as SOME ANGRY, NEGATIVE DUDES TO ME"

Easy to preach the positive message doc when things are going their enviro extreme direction for them and things arent going against their beliefs. Let responsible management be put into place, and the nonsense program be actually significantly altered, then see which writers are the "angry negative dudes" then.

How are other states dealing with their merged systems?

I don't see why PA can't function as all of our neighbors do?

Every states dcnr/dnr doesnt have the same people running them. People are individuals with individual values and interests. Differing stakeholders also carry differing levels of clout from state to state. Do a search for deer management + audubon + any other state. In many you get very little. In some nothing at all. In Pa you get several days worth of reading. lol.

In one state with dcnr/dnr type system the agency may be borderline antihunting such as the case in some states that have had their seasons repealed or restricted. and in the next state may be made up of the best game management professionals in the nation.

Regardless of whether the agency is independant or not, you have to have the right people in place.