deerfly 
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
Maybe I Was Wrong
Based on the antlerless allocations it appears the PGC doesn't give a rip about deer hunters or the future of deer hunting in PA.
BOARD SETS ANTLERLESS DEER LICENSE ALLOCATIONS
The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners today set antlerless license allocations for each of the 22 Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) for the 2011-12 seasons. After hunters purchase a general hunting license, they may apply for antlerless deer licenses based on staggered timelines, which are outlined in the Pennsylvania Hunting & Trapping Digest presented to each license buyer.
WMU 1A allocation is 42,000.
WMU 1B allocation is 30,000.
WMU 2A allocation is 65,000.
WMU 2B allocation is 71,000.
WMU 2C allocation is 58,000.
WMU 2D allocation is 60,000.
WMU 2E allocation is 25,000.
WMU 2F allocation is 34,000.
WMU 2G allocation is 23,000.
WMU 3A allocation is 26,000.
WMU 3B allocation is 40,000.
WMU 3C allocation is 29,000.
WMU 3D allocation is 39,000.
WMU 4A allocation is 28,000.
WMU 4B allocation is 23,000.
WMU 4C allocation is 35,000.
WMU 4D allocation is 37,000.
WMU 4E allocation is 29,000.
WMU 5A allocation is 19,000.
WMU 5B allocation is 50,000.
WMU 5C allocation is 117,000.
WMU 5D allocation is 22,000.
Note that unlike in previous years they failed to provide last years allocations. The reason for that is the allocations increased in all WMUs with the exception of 5B and 5C. The total allocations increased from 815K in 2010 to 902K in 2011. What is even more disturbing is they issued 71K more tags then they allocated in 2000 when we had 1M deer and a 4 day antlerless season.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/13 18:44:24
(permalink)
But the herd wasn't stable back then  ...WF
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/13 19:04:58
(permalink)
SO much for the "new look" bull-.
Its business as usual at Elmerton Avenue.
The board is a joke and so are the upper staff. As long as the same type are handpicked and stacked in at pgc, nothing will ever change.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 07:14:21
(permalink)
After reading how the herd has been stable now ,as per the PGC master plan,I am unable to see the reasoning for a 10% increase in the doe allocations.I do like to hear both sides of the discussion and draw my own conclusions.I am kinda lost on this one though, any explaination from the other side? I would like to hear the rest of the story[sorry Paul Harvey]...WF.. grey wolves are lookin better now 
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 09:16:34
(permalink)
well just a short comment from the "other side" === In 2009 the following WMUs were put on the split season antlerless season for the fall hunting season of 2010... 2C,2D,2E,2G,3C,4B,4D,4E, The results were an even split.... 4 WMUs had a lower kill as a result of less days to hunt... the other 4 had increased harvests... 4E only reduced the harvest by 400 deer by splitting the season while 2D increased the harvest by 2,000 by splitting the season..... so over all it looks like shortening the season does not really save any deer state wide and to keep the herd stable more have to be harvested so they increased the tags available...
|
SilverKype
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3842
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/24 11:58:02
- Location: State
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 09:17:58
(permalink)
Careful careful now. A rise in tags with a shortened season may not have the effects on deer numbers you think. Look at the original 4 WMU with the shortened seasons compared to prior years with concurrent. Doe harvest drops. But buck harvest rises. Ultimately, it offsets itself in terms of deer numbers, but replaces 2.5 year old bucks, with more button bucks. So if you're a horn hunter, the split season is no good. If you want a little more deer available, it's better than what you had.
My reports and advice are for everyone to enjoy, not just the paying customers.
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4938
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 09:18:19
(permalink)
That's a good explanation Doc.
Thank you.
I didn't even see Feaser's lips move.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 12:31:50
(permalink)
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 17:34:59
(permalink)
well I felt like doing a little more diggin in the split season idea... I'll use the same WMUs that I used above... remember me saying that with the split season now here in 2F it would not really bother me.. I'd just NOT pass on a doe in archery ???
well I must not be the only one thinking that way...
Of the 8 WMUs put on a split season for 2010 the archery harvest increased in all but two of the units...2D and 2G were lower the other 6 amounted to almost 900 extra antlerless killed in archery season compared to 2009....
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 18:26:49
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
well just a short comment from the "other side" ===
In 2009 the following WMUs were put on the split season antlerless season for the fall hunting season of 2010...
2C,2D,2E,2G,3C,4B,4D,4E,
The results were an even split.... 4 WMUs had a lower kill as a result of less days to hunt... the other 4 had increased harvests...
4E only reduced the harvest by 400 deer by splitting the season while 2D increased the harvest by 2,000 by splitting the season.....
so over all it looks like shortening the season does not really save any deer state wide and to keep the herd stable more have to be harvested so they increased the tags available...
Did you make any attempt to account for the effects of the decrease in the antlerless allocations in each of the WMUs? Did you account for the difference in size of the various WMUs? Did you account for the effects of the various OWDDs in each WMU?
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 20:38:56
(permalink)
Nope === just put out the harvest figure facts like you do... 
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 20:48:16
(permalink)
No, that is not what I do. I do my very best to account for all the variables that influence the harvest while you chose to ignoer the major factor that influences the antlerless harvest.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/14 21:28:59
(permalink)
there is no ""major factor that influences the antlerless harvest."" in my opinion..
I can count about 10 things that have a major influence on the harvest and I put done of them as being the #1...
If I DID have to choose just one I would say a tie between number of hunters and weather...
|
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/15 01:53:04
(permalink)
What about posted ground, Don't you think it's a major ?
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/15 10:18:27
(permalink)
Not really there is so much public land.. land open to hunting... land open with permission... and then the land no one can hunt and leased land... Nope not a major factor... In most areas the posted land that no one can hunt is pretty stable from year to year and is not a high percentage of all the available land.. A three day freezing rain or snow with high winds for the opening days would have a far worse effect that the amount of land that no one can hunt because it is posted.. and for sure 200,000 less hunters has more effect than posted land that no one can hunt You have to remember there is a TON of land that is posted NO HUNTING .. but permission will be granted to hunters for various reasons, if you know the owners... while one guy is posting about not being able to hunt a certain property because it is posted and he was told NO... two others guys are reading it knowing the have permission to hunt the same property.... In most areas the posted land that no one can hunt is pretty stable and is not a high percentage of available land..
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/04/15 10:21:13
|
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/15 10:55:50
(permalink)
I assume you are talking your areas that you hunt. In both my northern and southern hunting areas things are quite different. Deer tend to hold on posted property and can not be harvested only by a selected few.While public land such as game lands, timber co properties (enrolled in forest and game) are usually over hunted thus resulting in a low kill. We only let a small amount hunt the posted property up north due to the declining herd and also a small amount of hunters south that being a safety factor. I found it interesting that you found no major influence that limits doe harvest.
post edited by Outdoor Adventures - 2011/04/15 10:56:20
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/15 12:40:29
(permalink)
there is no ""major factor that influences the antlerless harvest."" in my opinion..
That is why your opinions carry so little weight. Common sense should tell anyone that the number of tags issued is the major factor controlling the antlerless harvests. If no tags are issued no antlerless deer can be harvested legally accept for crop damage. Even the PGC stated that if the split seasons reduced the harvests below the desired they would simply increase the alllocation and it appears that is what happened in 2G this year.
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4938
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/15 15:07:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
Not really there is so much public land.. land open to hunting... land open with permission... and then the land no one can hunt and leased land... Nope not a major factor...
In most areas the posted land that no one can hunt is pretty stable from year to year and is not a high percentage of all the available land..
A three day freezing rain or snow with high winds for the opening days would have a far worse effect that the amount of land that no one can hunt because it is posted..
and for sure 200,000 less hunters has more effect than posted land that no one can hunt
You have to remember there is a TON of land that is posted NO HUNTING .. but permission will be granted to hunters for various reasons, if you know the owners...
while one guy is posting about not being able to hunt a certain property because it is posted and he was told NO... two others guys are reading it knowing the have permission to hunt the same property....
In most areas the posted land that no one can hunt is pretty stable and is not a high percentage of available land..
I beg to differ. In an area that I was granted permission to hunt last year -- as one of only four hunters on 400 acres -- there is a block of approximately 2,500 to 3,000 acres that are private and posted in a similar manner. There probably less than 20 people permitted to hunt on all of it. Another area that I do not have permission to hunt on, which boarders a state game land, has two parcels that are owned by a father and son, respectively, and that comprises about 4,000 acres that less than a dozen people hunt on. And no, sorry, no more permission will be granted. Want to guess where those deer go come the first shot? So it has a huge affect. Maybe just not at the end of your nose.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/15 22:06:28
(permalink)
That is why your opinions carry so little weight. to you and a few others who agree with you... Common sense should tell anyone that the number of tags issued is the major factor controlling the antlerless harvests. If no tags are issued no antlerless deer can be harvested legally accept for crop damage. Even the PGC stated that if the split seasons reduced the harvests below the desired they would simply increase the alllocation and it appears that is what happened in 2G this year. Even here in your own example you use two factors ... allocations and season length both can't be number #1 unless you agree with me that there are many factors equally important.. As I said there are many factors.. I just do not thing any one can stand alone as the major influence... but yes allocations is one of the factors, just as weather, number of hunters, open/permission properties, weapons used, season length, ARs, population, recruitment of fawns, breeding rates, habitatat... on and on....
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/04/15 22:14:10
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/15 22:12:12
(permalink)
Dars.. I guess I did not state my case too well ... I was simply replying to OA that I do not feel posted land is the major factor ( #1 factor) . not that it is or was not a factor.... As I first posted there are many factors effecting harvests and harvest rates... I just listed my more popular factors and again will say I put number of hunters and weather as the two of the top factors -- but all that I just listed to deerfly are important factors... I guess I am thinking "major" as being number one ... and getting folks confussed...
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/04/15 22:17:19
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/16 09:34:10
(permalink)
Even here in your own example you use two factors ... allocations and season length both can't be number #1 unless you agree with me that there are many factors equally important..
I did not use two factors in my example. I simply pointed out that if other factors decreased the antlerless harvest, the PGC would offset that decrease by increasing the antlerless allocations. That makes the antlerless allocations the major factor controlling the size of the antlerless harvests.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/16 10:19:04
(permalink)
It sounds like the PGC professional wildlife Biologists agree with you Deerfly. This is what Carl Roe had to say about it. Pennsylvania Game Commission officials released the total whitetail deer harvest estimate for 2005-06 seasons is 354,390, down from the previous year's harvest estimate of 409,320. While the antlered harvest was similar to the previous year, the reduction in the antlerless deer harvest followed changes in antlerless license allocations, which were decreased in response to declining deer population trends in most Wildlife Management Units (WMUs). "Going into the year, we expected WMU antlerless deer harvests to drop in most WMUs because the Board of Game Commissioners approved an overall antlerless deer license allocation that was down 15 percent from the previous year," said Carl Roe, Game Commission executive director. "For example, in WMU 2G, a 44 percent reduction in the unit's antlerless deer license allocation resulted in a 42 percent drop in the antlerless deer harvest. Most of the changes in the antlerless harvest can be accounted for by the change in antlerless allocations, and demonstrates the strong relationship between antlerless license allocations and harvests. END ARTICLE That should and does hold true until the herd is taken low enough that it offsets any increase in allocations. EX: If there are only 1,000 deer no matter how many tags you issue you cannot kill more than 1,000.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/04/16 10:20:34
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/16 10:34:31
(permalink)
You guys still amaze me in your arguements I have many times said that allocations more than season length help determine the harvest... that's a proven fact... All I am saying here is I do not believe there is one single factor that contributes to the deer kill.. It is many... If I went to extremes like you guys I'd say if no one hunted I could care less how many tags were issued or how long the season was... the harvest would go down and it would be because of lack of hunters plain and simple... all the factors I listed effect the harvest... even the fact that 200,000 guys have stopped buying lisense has a big impact on harvest totals, or do you guys dis-agree with that too... it does not matter how many tags issued those 200,000 are not going to be shooting ANY deer..... In S-10's example It sounds like the PGC professional wildlife Biologists agree with you Deerfly notice what Carl really does say... and demonstrates the strong relationship He does NOT say the major factor.... or #1 influence or even #1 relationship ... he states a "strong relationship" ... seems he agrees with ME that it is one of many that has a "relationship" with the harvest totals !!!!
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/04/16 10:40:37
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/16 10:48:36
(permalink)
Most of the changes in the antlerless harvest can be accounted for by the change in antlerless allocations, Did you miss this line from your wildlife professional Doc. Get your limit already?
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4938
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/16 12:22:57
(permalink)
"I put number of hunters and weather as the two of the top factors --"
I understand your point. My point is that in the two of many examples which I posted that I know of first hand, the number of hunters is directly and severly influenced by posted land -- nothing else. The two can be intertwined and are not always separate. Posted land never increases the number of hunters but only serves to reduce the number of hunters in an area.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/16 13:01:21
(permalink)
even the fact that 200,000 guys have stopped buying lisense has a big impact on harvest totals, or do you guys dis-agree with that too... it does not matter how many tags issued those 200,000 are not going to be shooting ANY deer..... Yes, I strongly disagree because the PGC isn't having any problem selling all the antlerless tags, except in a few WMUs like 2B and 5C. There are still a lot more hunters than the number of deer that can be harvested on a sustainable basis. Furthermore, the PGC has stated that the harvests have been keeping the herd stable or reducing it in the vast majority of WMUs. That means our current number of hunters are harvesting all the deer that can be harvested on a sustainable basis and that means that more hunters wouldn't increase the harvest.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/16 23:28:23
(permalink)
that means that more hunters wouldn't increase the harvest we'll see what happen in 2011 ... with the increased allocations and split seasons in more WMUs .. I can see 2F going up right now... both buck and doe as long as the other factors remain about the same === more doe tags equals more guys hunting them equals more killed...
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/17 08:08:55
(permalink)
If they allocated enough tags so that the harvest exceeds recruitment, naturally the harvest will increase ,but it won't be sustainable. The following year the harvests will decrease regardless of the number of hunters. For example, in 2002 1.006M antlerless hunters harvested 352K antlerless , while in 2004, 1.017M hunters only killed 285K antlerless.
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/17 12:17:30
(permalink)
For example, in 2002 1.006M antlerless hunters harvested 352K antlerless , while in 2004, 1.017M hunters only killed 285K antlerless. and I MAY believe that EXCEPT ==== I know it is NOT correct...... There was not that many antlerless HUNTERS.... I'm pretty sure that was the number of TAGS issued --- Sate wide there were probably THOUSANDS like me who had mulitple tags but for what ever reason did not fill them all .. I had 3 last year and used only ONE ..... then you have to allow for the thousands (according to some) who buy tags and burn them or have no intentions of using them .... so I'm not buying that arguement AT ALL....
|
bluntman
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 684
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/12 18:39:12
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/17 12:29:33
(permalink)
|