O A
   The private land no hunting  issue is prominent here in Ct as well. It definately causes a very high DPSM  in many areas causing the 'hunted' properties to be over harvested and the non hunted to continue having deer 'issues'.
     Some landowners here have also gone to the leased arrangement- unfortunately many in one particular corner of the State have leased to an outfitter who then charges hunters. One would think that the landowner could easily manage that type of 'business' himself if he is to allow hunting anyway.   Seems that the regular guy may be getting squeezed out here and there, but that's what hunting' future may become---a Business venture.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The population didn't shift from the northern tie to the southern tier counties from 2000 to 2010.  The result is there has been a significant change in the distribution of the harvest.

So there are more deer in the northern tier than the southern tier?

It's been a few years.  I used to have some friends with camps in Warren and in Jefferson.  One was sold after a death in the family and the other one I haven't been to since a family fued started. 
 
Most of my friends still do the camp hunting in the NC region(Potter area) so I still have plenty of contacts in that area.  Again, they all seem to be doing quite well...
 
 
I never liked the "mountain" hunting persay.  I would rather hunt the small woodlots close to home. 
 
 

ORIGINAL: retired guy

OA,
Considering the fact that hunting in the not so far distant past was quite often, if not generally, done on private properties it may be worth thinking about a property tax differential or deduction with public access to hunters being the issue.
( you can tell I'm elected to office) It would seem to make a certain amount of sense that if one were to open their property to the public (as opposed to not doing so) a consideration could easily be brought up and may likely get enough support to be seriously looked at.
   Most state Game agencies are faced with similar issues of trying to manage herds with the  ever growing fact of non supportive landowners becoming a really big stumbling block to  management goals and objectives , therefore a State may well be supportive.
   My personal belief is  ( I have heard this time and again from owners when asking permission) insurance limitations are   commonly a reason for no longer allowing hunters. This combined with slobs who treat others property poorly are hurting us. Those may well be addressed within any legislation that offers fiscal considerations as well as any other serious issues landowners have.
  Just a thought.-Money talks.

I understand what your saying. A Pa property owners may enroll in clean and green and close their property to the public thus taking advantage of a tax break. The areas I hunt it's not a liability issue at all although many will tell you that. Doesn't make sense when the property owner will let you cut fire wood but not hunt. After getting to know them they will tell you that they don't want any more deer killed. The liability excuse is often used as not to pizz off the hunter.The ones that do grant access ask you to join the Pa Landowners**** and post your property. The ones that don't want to join with the landowners are told to hunt on the state game lands. The land owner has control of the game in many areas and it's growing, not the PGC.

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: deerfly

ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter

190k antleress and 120k bucks killed last year hardly constitutes a "lack of deer" by any stretch.

Compared to 203K buck and 300K antlerless in 2000, that certainly constitutes a lack of deer in many areas.

Please stop using the single year highest ever harvest numbers for your argument. Take the 5 years before AR and the 5 years after then average them. Or, the 10 years before a AR and the 10 years after. Or, the 15..or. You get the drift.

Please don't tell me what to post. If you want to post the five or ten year averages you are free to do so. All you have to do is search RSB posts and you will find all sorts of 5 yr. averages.

The high harvests and OWDDs show that after being above the PGC deer density goals, the habitat still supported a health herd that was almost twice as large as what the PGC claimed the habitat could support on a sustainable basis. What would your preferred five year averages show?

you are right == it does make something look ridiculous .. we just disagree on what that something is

Comparing the highest to the lowest always did leave me wanting more info... especially about what is in that middle area

If my highest bowling score was a 300 in 2001 and the lowest a 145 in 2008 ... what type bowler am I.. what's my average in our league in 2011... ?????

OA-
If I understood you correctly that Green classification lets the owner get a tax break for keeping folks OUT. Thats nuts.
One would think that Govt would give a break on whats to become public funds only if the public IS included. That was the point- as you know - of my suggestion.
    As I recall somebody on the posts was talking abut other PA state funds for land improvement where the owner MUST allow folks in. The debate was wether or not that was being adhered to.
    Seems off for a state to have 2 so completely different rules with money coming in or out. Are the antis involved in pushing that GREEN thing? If so it might be a real neat way to get the opposite enacted as well-Politicos HATE to be seen playing one side or the other.
I would think a decent break based upon a  classification of land for those allowing hunting and cooperating with State Game agencies could readily be established, after all its really no different that offering a lease deal but in this case the regular Joe could be involved.
Not just talking PA here.
Most all states I have hunted the State owns the Game. The landowner may  restrict tresspass but the Game is ultimately the property of the State ( taxpayers) that would be the elemental hook for giving a break or establishing a 'special class' of landownere who cooperate. It seems your State is already doing that to some degree with that land improvement thing- might be neat to see about expanding.
  The opposite may be worthwhile too. Most States have special exemptions   ( lower rates) for Farm or Forest land that break may become tied to allowing hunting.. Not talking a hundred guys on a hundred acres here but a reasonable approach. Example a hundred acres -a couple of NON relatives with written permission on their person.

"you are right == it does make something look ridiculous .. we just disagree on what that something is

Comparing the highest to the lowest always did leave me wanting more info... especially about what is in that middle area"

Then i guess that just too bad, since i dont believe the man was posting in a manner to suit your particular needs. He posted what he saw fit to make a point, and did so in a very accurate manner.

and as expected .. no mention that we now have antler restrictions protecting lots of bucks from getting harvested each year and that would lower the harvest.. but S-10 does not see it that way...

but that decreasing buck harvest will change starting this year thanks to the current BOC...

#1... split seasons cause higher buck kills in general

#2... alot more 1.5 year olds will be killed in the old "4 point" areas...

ran off to check this--- every single WMU that was added to the split season last year had an increase in the buck harvest... except one that stayed the same .

ORIGINAL: S-10

Comparing the five years prior to AR/HR averages 191,792
Comparing the last five years averages---------- 119,632
average yearly decline in buck harvest============72,160

The other point to remember is the buck harvest was on a steady increase prior to the start of AR/HR

Per the PGC---The greasest sustained deer harvest is at 50-60% of maximum carrying capacity.

If someone cut your current pay by the same percentage and made the claim that you were still making good money and should be happy what would your answer be.

 
Five years prior to the "past" five years is cherry picking trends.  If your issue is with AR/HR, use the begin date and compare 5 prior to 5 after paralleling the issue exactly, like 10 before and 10 after.  Not the five before and five after you want. That is the only fair assessment.  The kill will probably still be higher before AR/HR but may not be as weighted as a cherry picker would like.
 
 
The original example of cutting someone's pay and you bringing it up again are terrible examples of comparisons for this instance.  Pay is the foundation for our livelihood, deer numbers are not.  Pick something of equal value for fairness.   Of course, perhaps there are folks here that deer numbers (and the manipulation of them) IS their livelihood.    
 
My answer to your pay scenerio is, you got two choices.  You could choose both.  Keep beotchin' and/or get a new job. 

he posted figures to support his opinion just like you post your -- I post mine -- S-10 post his and RSB does the same..

...just as long as YOU dont confuse opinions within those posts for facts and vice versa.

"And as the world turns, the whining still goes on....."

And it will for the next 10 years, the same as it has the last 10 until someone puts a stop to the fraud. Legitimate gripes shouldnt be confused with whining, but im betting thats probably the least of your posting inaccuracies across this board. lol.

" Believe me, there are plenty of deer and plenty of bucks still in many areas of 2B,"

Dont need your anecdotal evidence. That is nothing more than an individual opinion based deducation anyway. The numbers speak for themselves. If you are happy with the decline in 2b, and will be still on into the future, more power to ya brother. I personally dont hunt there, and therefore not my immediate concern. But did find it interesting.

What inaccuracies Wayne?

Someone needs to take a ride on the WAAAAMMMMMbulance.....

W"ayne, where in the world did you come up with a harvest of 16,500 bucks in 2B?

A quick check shows that the total buck harvest in all of Westmoreland, Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Allegheny counties was around 22k in 2001.

The 2B buck harvest has remained pretty steady since the transition to the WMU system. "

Sorry, my bad that was the ANTLERLESS harvest from 2006 that i misread as antlered.

The antlered harvest in 2b fell from 8100 in 2000 down to 4000 in 2010. Only cut in half. lmao. And the harvests since 2000 will similar to the late ninties (until recent 4 years), the harvests havent been sustainable, they continued to drop.

Though it could be argued that this is the desired direction for an urban sra.

2A's fell much further from 13,700 down to an asnine 5800. And we arent an sra. Nor are many of the other units that have dropped like a brick.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Five years prior to the "past" five years is cherry picking trends.  If your issue is with AR/HR, use the begin date and compare 5 prior to 5 after paralleling the issue exactly, like 10 before and 10 after.  Not the five before and five after you want. That is the only fair assessment.  The kill will probably still be higher before AR/HR but may not be as weighted as a cherry picker would like.

That is pure nonsense. The effects of the plan did not stop after the first five years. Therefore comparing the five years before the plan was implemented to the five years after the plan was implemented is an invalid comparison,when evaluating the true effects of the plan on the harvests .

And the affects of the previous plan did not begin in 2000. I'm not so sure you are pointing to the correct "pure nonsense."