I live in rural York county and am one of the people saying the herd is gone. I have 14.5 acres mostly wooded with 3 acres of fields and am surrounded by two huge farms that get hunted heavily. There are very few deer left here and I can't remember the last time I saw a dead deer along the road by this property. 3 miles from here there are land owners with alot of acreage on both sides of the road who do not allow hunting, I have seen a few deer get hit there and see them most nights. I guess what I am saying is the PGC can give out as many doe tags as they want but it is not going to work when you have landowners that have tons of land and don't allow hunting. Now does this mean we have a good deer population? In the meantime, here I am 3 miles from there and watched my local herd disappear due to over harvest.

ORIGINAL: ready2fish

Like RSB said, the vast majority of vehicle vs. deer crashes are not reported to PennDOT. Many are not reported to insurance companies either. I work in a rural area and our coverage area experiences about 15 called into us a year. I have personally hit 2 while working and countless near misses. None of them, including mine, were "reportable". I actually can't remember the last reportable one we had. Also like RSB said, the numbers quoted in the article are just the tip of the iceberg. If I had to make an educated guess, the actual number of vehicle vs. deer collisions are probably 4-5 times what is quoted in the article, most end up being non-reportabale. I heard 2 in one night this week, neither was reportable......

 
I am sure that many more deer are hit than are reported. 
 
I am also sure that many deer that are not hit get reported as deer accidents as another poster pointed out. 
 
I am also sure that in a drive area where I previously saw 80 dead deer in a year and now see 4, as I posted,  something has happened to the deer population in that area.
 
And let's not forget, among the unreported deer/vehicle crashes those that were purposely run down by the gand with brush guards on their truck because the want the antlers that badly.
 
 

Between Hollidaysburg and Mount Union.
 
I can't rightly say what has gone on since the Spring of '09.

The funny thing is that when the herd was larger and the PGC was conducting their embryo/doe study, there were so few roadkills checked that they had to use 3 yr. averages. Now that the herd has been reduced roadkills are once again a big problem

Maybe if the PGC could figure out what wiped out our natural breeding pheasant population,they could apply the same plan to wipe out the deer in the same areas.

By Tom Fontaine and Mary Pickels
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, November 4, 2010


Oh, deer.

Motorists whose paths collide with a deer likely utter more colorful language.

In Western Pennsylvania, the annual "Dodge-'em" game began by late September.

"The lid blew off probably about two weeks ago," said Dee Mignogna, office manager at Mignogna Collision Center Inc. in Greensburg. "It's been pretty bad. It's always bad."

About half of all crashes involving deer occur in October and November, with almost 80 percent happening between sunset and sunrise, according to PennDOT.

PennDOT said 2,930 deer-related crashes occurred last year, the most in a single year since it began tracking the wrecks in 1997. It was up 4 percent from the previous year's 2,809 crashes, the second-highest total.

PennDOT counts crashes in which a vehicle needs to be towed or someone is injured. When less-serious crashes are factored in, numbers skyrocket. State Farm Insurance estimates more than 100,000 collisions occurred between deer and vehicles in Pennsylvania last fiscal year.

"This year seems to be a little bigger than normal," said Robert Roche, the body shop manager at Day Centennial in North Union, Fayette County. He estimated 10 customers with cars damaged by deer came in between Monday and Wednesday alone.

"We have been getting them for probably about a month," he said. "Right now, it's probably about 35 to 40 percent of our business."

The majority of claims rolls in this time of year, said Jason Mignogna, who owns the Greensburg business. "We have had deer loss claims for the last six weeks. Last week alone we probably had 10 (customers) in."

Mignogna said the number of deer collisions is up from five years ago or more along with commercial and housing construction along Route 30. Because there are fewer wooded areas, he said, more deer seem to head for the busy roadway.

Locally, Westmoreland County leads the way in deer-related crashes, with 475 over the last five years. Indiana County logged 143 and Fayette County, 93.

Hotbeds in Westmoreland County have been Hempfield (75 crashes) and Washington Township (55); Indiana County, White Township (41); and Fayette County, Franklin Township (11).

Since 1997, 8,597 people have been injured and 92 killed in more than 32,000 crashes involving deer, PennDOT said.

"Motorists can reduce their risk of being involved in a crash with a deer by driving defensively and staying alert, especially when driving between dusk and dawn," said PennDOT Secretary Allen D. Biehler.

Deer are less cautious and move around more during their breeding season, starting in October and peaking in mid-November. The crash risk goes up as hunters take to the woods for the opening of archery and small-game seasons. Nocturnal movements of deer make them hard for motorists to spot.

The state's deer population has decreased in recent years through Pennsylvania Game Commission deer management efforts. But a commission official suspected crashes are going up because of better reporting, urban sprawl increasing traffic in deer stomping grounds and careless driving.

Tom Fazi, regional information and education supervisor for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, said hunters and development chase the animals away from their homes, but they may not go far.

"Deer are very adaptable animals that do well in urban and semi-urban areas," Fazi said.

And a buck in pursuit of a doe during mating season is not going to stop for traffic, said Rich Weaver, a commission supervisor.

"It all comes down to access, the amount of traffic and the speed at which it travels," Weaver said.

Not only are crashes going up, body shops say damage is more serious because deer are getting larger. Weaver said that is probably the case, because antler restrictions imposed this decade have allowed many bucks to grow older and larger.

State Farm says the average cost of damage to property last year was $3,103, up 1.7 percent from a year ago.

Lou Calandrella, 48, of Avonmore agrees deer are getting bigger. He should know: He's contracted by PennDOT to remove and dispose of dead deer along roads in Westmoreland and Lawrence counties.

"The most I ever picked up in one day was 55. That was a long day. It took three truckloads," Calandrella said. Although such hauls are rare, he said it's not as uncommon to come across a 250-pound deer as it was when he started removing them from roadsides a decade ago.

While I may have saved more money in the 4 years of no comp premiums than the repairs cost THIS TIME --


I have added comp back to my coverage !!

DD, that is why I hate to wear shoes!!!..WF

But Doc has consistently reported that the herd has not been "devestated" in his area, but he still dropped comp.ins.

WHY ? You sound confused.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

but still saved money while I was off of it and paid for the recent repairs, but as I said I added it back on 1st of March..

There must be some nice bucks getting whacked along that section of highway during the summer too, many I have seen laying along there have had the antlers cut off...... and I do not think anyone would take the chance of getting caught for a "scrub"...

I've been told that the SGL along there gets hunter pretty hard, although I have never hunted or scouted the game lands.. but know successful hunters who do hunt it regularly.. good for grouse too I am told...

I really have a problem with deer now, my sister-in-law is coming now for dinner and I don't have enough cooking in the pan for everyone. Hope she likes pizza!!...WF

touch a nerve there did I?  Remember this, to most perception is reality.  You'd be well served to keep that mantra in mind as more and more hunters are deciding it's not worth the time and effort for diminishing returns....

ORIGINAL: zugbug

touch a nerve there did I?  Remember this, to most perception is reality.  You'd be well served to keep that mantra in mind as more and more hunters are deciding it's not worth the time and effort for diminishing returns....

 
No you didn’t touch a nerve at all, I have always know that some people don’t have a clue about the deer management objectives and are quite content with being unwilling to learn.
 
I have also known for a long time that perceptions are not reality anywhere except in the minds of the people basing their thoughts on perceptions instead of reality.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

ORIGINAL: S-10

Before you get too critical of Zug you might want to remember that there are many in the PGC and others that agree with him that 2G is too large and with too varied a habitat for one WMU. If I'am not mistaken it is one of the WMU's under consideration at the present time to be broken down into two or more units.

Below is the official version of why we went to WMU's in the first place. I'll resist commenting.

Why did the Game Commission change from smaller county-based units to larger WMUs for deer management?


First, WMUs were not designed specifically for deer management. They were designed for all wildlife species management programs.


Second, it is commonly argued that smaller WMUs are better than large WMUs. This would be true if enough data were collected in each of the small WMU to support management recommendations. Unfortunately, limited time, personnel, and resources combine to prevent adequate data collection at county, or smaller, management units. As a result, larger WMUs were implemented to provide data for making defendable deer management recommendations. The PGC previously combined 67 counties into 31 groups to improve precision of deer-related estimates. Twenty-two WMUs improves precision of and increases confidence in management recommendations within each unit.


Third, unlike the 31 county groups, WMUs are created considering land use, land ownership, urbanization, and geography. WMUs are more similar within themselves than they are to other units. County groups were simply based on map location. Also, defining unit boundaries by roads and other physical features like rivers makes them easily recognizable. County boundaries are lines drawn on a map. There are no lines in the woods between counties.

 
I am very aware that there is a very really likelihood of making some adjustments to some of the WMU. The original management plan called for evaluating the WMUs next year. I also completely agree that there are some advantages to having smaller units provided you can also get the scientific data required to provide better management within each of the additional units. But, making smaller units without FIRST having the required data is not likely to provide better management and might very well make it worse instead of better.
 
I am also very familiar with the area Zugbug is talking about and seriously doubt there will be any change in the WMU lines in that area. In fact the two areas he is complaining about have ALWAYS had totally different management objectives since the old county line boundaries split the area up much more than they are split up now with the WMU lines.
 
In the past when the area he is complaining about was managed with the old county lines the area was influenced by the management objectives for Elk, Clearfield and Jefferson County. They all had totally different management objectives, as I will demonstrate by posting the average antlerless allocations and total deer harvests for the five-year period prior to management by WMU and then the more recent WMU data. All data is based on the number per square mile for the five years prior to WMUs and then the first five years with WMUs.
 
Area…………………antlerless allocations………..total deer harvest
Elk Co……………………11.42………………………..6.76
Clearfield………………...16.63………………………..11.56
Jefferson…………………22.26………………………..13.77
 
2F………………………..14.44…………………………7.14
2G…………………………8.26…………………………4.00
 
As anyone wanting to be the least bit honest and objective can see that area has always had great variance in the management objectives because unit lines have always divided it. Before WMUs it was divided by three sets of county unit lines but now only two WMU lines divide it.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

Let me see if I got this correct. For many decades we managed our deer herds by smaller county units. Per the PGC- one reason for going to larger units was the fact we didn't have the time or manpower to obtain the data necessary to support smaller unit(county) changes. Per RSB- since we went to larger units we have now been able to collect the scientific data required to acheive better management by going to smaller units. Yep, it makes perfect sense to me.

 
 
No you don’t have it correct.
 
Deer were not really managed by county before because there simply wasn’t ever enough data to manage on that small of unit. There were typically three to five counties of data lumped together much the same as there is now with the WMU management. In fact even with multiple counties added together they frequently had to use the data from multiple years and average it to have enough data for sound management direction. The management goals and objectives were then the same for each of the counties within that block of data collection counties.
 
The only differences with the county size units was that allocations were set for each county, based on the data for the whole block of counties, and hunters were restricted to hunting only the county of their antlerless license instead of the larger units we have today. Of course public and political interference sometimes resulted in changes in the allocations that were far outside the management objectives for some counties the same as what is occurring for some WMUs today.
 
There really isn’t any difference between the management goals with the county units that there is with the larger WMU size management goals. The only difference is that the individual hunters are less restricted on where they can legally hunt and take an antlerless deer.
 
The problem is basically that perception thing being discussed where hunters haven’t bothered to get any facts before forming an incorrect opinion.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn