Commisssioner Putnam on 2G ===

A closer look
PGC to review management unit boundaries
Mark Nale


When the subject of Wildlife Management Units comes up, almost every hunter seems to have likes or dislikes. Many of those opinions center on where unit boundaries are drawn and the size of WMUs when compared to the former management by county.


Pennsylvania Game Commission deer biologist Chris Rosenberry has explained that reasonably large units are necessary to make statistically valid conclusions about species management. According to Rosenberry, even when county management has been used, often several counties would be lumped together in order to get numbers large enough to make management decisions.

Northcentral Pennsylvania’s 4,000-square mile WMU 2G, including the northern third of Centre County, is often mentioned as an area that is too large for effective management. It is the largest of the 22 WMUs.

While the system is statewide, complaints are usually local. It appears that there are enough concerns about WMU 2G that its borders will receive a close look during the next 12 months. It helps when one of the concerned hunters is a game commissioner.

“WMU 2G illustrates a lot of the problems that we have with deer management,” commissioner Dave Putnam said at the commission’s Feb. 1 meeting. From the hardwoods in the north to the mixed oaks in the southern part of 2G, the habitat varies significantly, according to Putnam. The habitat also differs somewhat from east to west. He would like to split up the unit into smaller areas based mostly on forest type. Putnam, who lives in Centre Hall, often hunts deer in the northwest part of 2G, where he has a hunting camp.

Ten years ago, wildlife management, antlerless deer license sales and harvest reporting was done by county.

At times, multi-county sections were set up for bear, turkey, pheasant or other game management. The current all-species unified WMU system was first implemented during the 2003-04 hunting and trapping seasons. Doe licenses were first allocated by WMU, instead of county, for the fall of 2003.

Almost everyone within the Game Commission agrees that it is about time to scrutinize the WMUs again. The commission’s chief forester, Dave Gustafson, and director of wildlife habitat management Bill Capouillez will be a part of the re-evaluation team.

“The landscape changes and species management changes. We are committed to looking at WMUs again,” Capouillez said.

“With any kind of a program, there is always a need to revisit it just to see how we are doing,” Gustafson commented.

The commission reviewed the WMUs in 2007 and made minor changes in 2008. Looking at a planned five-year interval, it is almost time to review the units once again — this is scheduled to happen in 2012. Several commissioners, it appears, want to get the process started early. Commissioner Robert Schlemmer, of Westmoreland County, mentioned at the winter commission meeting that he thought WMU 2B (Allegheny County and parts of adjacent counties) was too large and that the staff should look into shrinking it. Putnam is pushing for a new look at WMU 2G.

“The habitat sites are too different” from one end of the unit to the other, Putnam noted. “They are in different ecological cycles. Some areas have better habitat and could hold more deer, but currently we treat them all the same. For example, some of the best deer habitat in the state is currently in McKean County in the northwestern part of 2G.”

While some sites favor deer and grouse, others offer poor habitat in terms of soil, forest growth, and browse. “In much of WMU 2G, the habitat is controlling the deer, not hunter harvest,” Putnam explained. “The commission’s study shows that hunters in 2G are only taking about eight percent of the deer each year.”

Putnam provided a look at a state map with 2G highlighted in yellow. Drawn in ink over the map were dashed lines that proposed splitting 2G into three smaller units.

“I even hesitate to show you this map, because it isn’t my job as a commissioner to draw new WMU lines,” Putnam said.

Ken Kane, a private forester with Keith Horn, Inc., Consulting Foresters, agrees in part with Putnam and offers a reason for the habitat differences.

“There is variance within 2G. The northwest end of 2G currently has the best habitat,” Kane said. “This is a result of logging practices, as well as forest type. We had a big wind event in that area in 2003 — the same storm that knocked down the Kinzua Railroad Bridge. Between 2004 and 2006, my company alone handled the salvage cutting of over 25,000 acres in the northwestern end of 2G. Other companies handled that much or more. Those thousands of acres are regenerating and are now all prime wildlife habitat.

“I can see that the northwestern end of 2G can probably be broken out as a separate unit, merged into 2F, or maybe as a subunit,” Kane said. “However, they need to collect data for a year or two before reaching a decision.”

Gustafson added, “There are definitely habitat differences within 2G, but there is a large overlap area where we find mixed oaks on the southern slopes and more of a northern hardwood forest on the north-facing slopes. We don’t just look at deer or forest type, we will also consider land use, land ownership and population density.”

Capouillez concurred that his agency’s job is much more complex than just forests or deer.

“We must remember that, ultimately, WMUs are for all wildlife, not just deer,” he said. “Our goal is for the WMU’s size and shape to allow us to hit as many goals (for as many different species) as possible. We have to look at many different things.”

“I’m not saying, ‘Take this and eat it.’ I’m saying, ‘Let’s look at this.’ I just want to be helpful. I’m not the biologist in charge,” Putnam said.

Kane is not sure that anything needs to change with 2G, but he remains open to exploring the concept.

“I’m not totally certain that 2G should be split. I’m not so quick to jump on this idea, but I do agree that it needs to be looked at. If it is split, it needs to be done responsibly,” Kane said.

At this juncture, Gustafson is not sure if glaring problems even exist with any WMUs, but he is willing to look into the possibility. Capouillez acknowledged that 2G is an extremely large WMU and noted that effort would be put into reevaluating the unit.

PGC press secretary Jerry Feaser pointed out that easy landmark recognition was one of the requirements in setting up the WMU system. Using roads and rivers to delineate the borders of WMUs makes it easy for hunters in the field to recognize boundaries. He emphasized, “We also need to keep this in mind if we are going to change WMUs.”

Gustafson added, “Maybe we can use a different river or roads to delineate 2G. We will look at all of the different layers of data that we now have and see if anything pops out.”

I am glad that WMUs will again be reviewed. I understand the need for PGC biologists to have statistically valid numbers, but as to whether WMU 2G is too large or too diverse — that should be left up to the experts. It is encouraging that an intelligent discussion about the issue is beginning. Hopefully, it will end with the best decision being made for both wildlife and hunters.

Essox says: I don't see why 2B couldn't be split up into 2 separate units with one focusing efforts on the urban areas and one in the more rural areas. There would also be no reason to merge the rural 2B with adjacent units. I would think tag allocations would still remain higher for rural 2B than surrounding units.

Doc says: "we read about all the problems in 2G and as soon as someone comes up with an idea it is called "Pgc pandering for a fee increase "..

Dang === did ya ever think it might be to make a few hunters happy, and also where the units are far too large???????"

Why make "a few" people happy doc? 2g is one unit. There are quite a few more in the state where alot of their hunters are not "happy", and the units far too large

“WMU 2G illustrates a lot of the problems that we have with deer management,” commissioner Dave Putnam said at the commission’s Feb. 1 meeting. From the hardwoods in the north to the mixed oaks in the southern part of 2G, the habitat varies significantly, according to Putnam. The habitat also differs somewhat from east to west. He would like to split up the unit into smaller areas based mostly on forest type. Putnam, who lives in Centre Hall, often hunts deer in the northwest part of 2G, where he has a hunting camp.

how do we save our sport... that's the question for many of us...

Well with hunting taking a hit nationwide as a whole, I don't think it is something anyone can blame on our PGC or any other state's agency .

How do you explain why our out of state license sales have dropped by 24% since 2001

Ohio has achieved a cult status as a big buck state in the last 10 years