Eveland

I am not sure why the PGC gave this tard the time of day, but here it is anyways:

This just in from the Pennsylvania Game Commission:

In the last year, John Eveland has been offering his views of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s deer management program.  Unfortunately, there have been many mistakes and errors on the part of Mr. Eveland, as well as completely false allegations. I would like to offer your readers a rebuttal from the Game Commission.

It is important to note that the debate over deer management has existed in this state since the first antlerless deer season was held in 1923.  So, in a larger sense, Mr. Eveland is simply the latest to play the role that many others have over the past nine  decades; that of proclaiming the imminent demise of our deer herd.  It is without doubt, that this debate will last another 90 years. I do not believe anyone can pretend that a solution could ever be reached that will please all interests, from hunters to landowners, from farmers to those who want to return to the days of seeing hundreds of deer a day while afield.

However, as that debate continues, certain facts regarding wildlife management practices must be reinforced, as these principles hold very specific meaning to those trained in the science of wildlife management. Admittedly, some of these concepts are as foreign to the layman – myself included – as nuclear engineering. Despite the complexities, the procedures and techniques used by wildlife management professionals involved in the present scientific community are irrefutable, no matter how dry, boring or confusing they may be to you or me.

That being said, the premise for most of Mr. Eveland’s allegations is that the Game Commission’s deer management agenda was defined by Audubon, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), and other environmental interests and focused solely on deer herd reduction. On this point alone, Mr. Eveland’s assertion is patently false.

The fact is, in 2000, the Game Commission began an earnest effort to reach deer density objectives that had been put in place in the 1980s.  Unfortunately, during the 1980s and 1990s, deer populations routinely exceeded these objectives. Difficulties in reaching these objectives were documented in two articles published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, in 1997. The Game Commission’s desire to achieve these objectives led to increased hunting pressure on deer populations, not an alliance with “special interests” as claimed by Mr. Eveland. There was no conspiracy, nor secret meetings. Every step of the agency’s herd reduction plan was discussed and adopted in public meetings. The bottom line is Mr. Eveland’s allegations that the Game Commission’s deer program was designed by some secret cabal are false.

In his most recent series of claims, Mr. Eveland takes on the Game Commission’s deer harvest estimates. Game Commission deer harvest estimates are the most reviewed component of the agency’s deer management program. The Game Commission uses common, time-proven wildlife management methods to estimate the harvest. In fact, Game Commission procedures have been peer reviewed and published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, one of the world’s leading wildlife management journals. Deer harvest estimates receive their principal data from hunter-provided harvest reports; more than 100,000 annually. To corroborate hunter harvest reports, the Game Commission annually surveys hunters and asks them how many deer they harvested. For the past two decades, hunter survey results have consistently matched harvest estimates. The credibility of harvest estimates has been acknowledged by scientific reviews and is confirmed by hunter surveys.

In his analysis, Mr. Eveland calculated the deer population and then concluded the Game Commission’s deer harvest estimates are inaccurate. He further accused the Game Commission of incompetence and deception. However, Mr. Eveland’s recent assessment of deer harvest estimates contained numerous errors.

Mr. Eveland’s conclusion is based on a series of assumptions and miscalculations. First, he attempted to calculate the deer population in Pennsylvania using deer harvest estimates and annual mortality rates. Although he references scientific sources for his numbers, Mr. Eveland incorrectly identifies the population he calculated. He claims to have calculated a “post-hunting season” deer population when he actually calculated a “pre-hunting season” population. Population growth rates assumed by Mr. Eveland are based on pre-hunting populations, not post-hunt populations. As a result, Mr. Eveland is correct when he states that his estimate of 1.7 million deer is unlikely; but the reason is because of his calculation errors, not the Game Commission’s.

Based on his miscalculations, Mr. Eveland then concludes that “a dire circumstance likely exists – the deer herd is being grossly overharvested and is collapsing.” There is no evidence to support his conclusion. Now consider this: Harvest estimates since 2005 have averaged 333,000 harvested deer. In addition, hunter survey results since 2005 averaged 327,000 harvested deer. These harvest levels could not be sustained if the herd were collapsing.

In addition, field studies involving hundreds of tagged and radio-collared deer across Pennsylvania show that the majority of these marked deer survive our hunting seasons and the population is not collapsing.

Second, Mr. Eveland claims hunting license sales have declined from a peak in the early 1980s as a direct result of lower deer populations. Again, facts do not support this allegation. During the 1980s and 1990s, deer populations increased, but license sales declined. Contrary to Mr. Eveland’s claim, hunting license sales have been steadily declining for nearly 30 years, despite deer population increases during 20 of those years. Declining numbers of hunters is a concern throughout the United States, but increasing deer populations through the 1990s did not result in higher license sales and more deer will not reverse this trend.

Third, Mr. Eveland makes a number of mistakes when presenting Game Commission information. For example, he incorrectly states that license sales dropped to 670,000 last year. Hunting licenses sales since 1998 are available to the public on the Game Commission’s website. A quick look at the website shows 948,323 general licenses were sold last year. Not 670,000 as Mr. Eveland claimed.

He also incorrectly states that the Game Commission has a target of five to six deer per square mile in Wildlife Management Unit 2G.  In fact, there are no deer density targets in the Game Commission’s 2009-2018 deer management plan, which may be reviewed in its entirety on the agency’s website. Mr. Eveland later contradicts his own statement when he accurately quotes from the Game Commission deer plan, “Deer management objectives are no longer defined by deer densities.”

Mr. Eveland’s finger-pointing, erroneous calculations, and inaccurate reporting mislead the public. None of his claims promote a constructive discussion on deer management, nor do they do anything to improve deer management for Pennsylvania’s citizens, wildlife or habitats.

The Game Commission employs an objective and open process to manage Pennsylvania’s white-tailed deer. The Game Commission has engaged the public to identify deer management goals. It also has completed citizens advisory committees in each of the state’s wildlife management units. These committees provided deer population recommendations that were considered along with deer and forest habitat health. In most cases, the Game Commission followed the citizens advisory committees’ recommendations.

The Game Commission’s deer program has been reviewed by professional wildlife biologists, investigated under a legislatively-sponsored audit, and challenged in court by lawsuits brought by the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania. None of these reviews or investigations has identified deceptive practices or agenda-driven recommendations. The reason for this is simple: the Game Commission’s deer management program is an objective and scientific program that strives to meet our state constitutional obligation to manage wildlife and habitats for current and future generations.

The deer program routinely has solicited constructive criticism and uses the best available science to improve management decisions. Game Commission staff continually scrutinizes the deer program and strengthens it through field research, evaluations, and external reviews from wildlife professionals throughout the country. For information on all aspects of the Game Commission’s deer management program, please visit the Game Commission’s website, www.pgc.state.pa.us, and click on “White-tailed deer.”

In closing, as hunting and deer inspire deep and personal passions, I am under no delusion that this reply will end the debate. On the contrary, democracies are kept alive by thorough and rigorous debate. What I certainly do hope can be put aside are the outlandish conspiracy theories and claims that the Game Commission is attempting to “exterminate” the state’s deer.  No one who works for the state’s wildlife management agency at any level would sit still or quiet if that were the goal, and such claims do nothing to move the discussion forward.

Jerry Feaser
Press Secretary
PA Game Commission  

http://skunkinthewoodpile.com/?p=3456#more-3456

They were wise to address it. Whether you agree with what they said or not. Some damaging stuff. Course they had no answers for much. Looks like pgc damage control in full force, lol. Eveland must be making even more waves than i thought. Funny seeing pgc scramble after all they have done to the hunters of our state. ha ha ha!

Jerry Feaser is funny too. I actually saw him once referred to on a message board as being the Pa equivalent of "bagdad bob". Saying things are great things are fine, as you hear the bombs dropping and buildings crumbling all around him. Thought that was funny, coz it was so true. ha ha ha.

And QDMA response to Eveland from www.skunkinthewoodpile.com
 
This was sent along by the Quality Deer Management Association:
The Pennsylvania Quality Deer Management Association has conducted a review of Mr. [John] Eveland’s evaluation of the Pennsylvania Game Commission Deer Harvest numbers which has been distributed to politicians, Game Commissioners and presented in the Outdoor News under the title “Biologist says PGC deer numbers are deceptive”.   The Outdoor News article simply presented a portion of Mr. Eveland’s view with no back checking of facts.
The PA Quality Deer Management board found Mr. Eveland to be incorrect or ill informed in the following areas:
First, in the full report by Mr. Eveland, he claims that the 2010 was the lowest in license sales due to the lack of deer but states no facts that declines are related to deer.  PAQDMA reviewed certified license holder statistics by the FWS from 1985 to present.  PA lost 85,075 hunters from 2000 to 2009 or a rate of   8 percent.  By contrast, the decade before the current deer management program from 1990 to 2000, Pennsylvania lost 139,840 certified license holders or a rate of 12 percent.  How can deer be the primary force of license decline when nearly 40 percent more hunters stop buying license the decade before the PA deer program was changed compared to the decade during the current deer program?
Looking at two northern states with similar hunting traditions and numbers of hunters, the state of New York  lost 100,630 and Michigan lost 95,617 from 2000 to 2009  compared to PA’s loss of 85,075 (2010 not yet available).  Therefore, Pennsylvania has been able to hold onto hunters at a better rate than both New York and Michigan during the last decade.  No evidence exists that the decline in Pennsylvania is directly attributed to the decline in deer numbers.  (In fact, fishing license sales in Pennsylvania closely follow the same rate of decline as our hunting license sales.  Is that related to deer too?)  These facts are in clear contrast to Mr. Eveland’s allegations.
A second point made in Mr. Eveland’s report was a reference to a past study by the U.S.G.S Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Cooperative unit rapid assessment of deer impact.  Mr. Eveland claims the use of a single rare plant, named Indian Cucumber, as a plant that will be used to determine the appropriate deer densities and allocation.  The Cooperative unit professionals are always trying to improve the accuracy and timeliness of data and are striving to develop a protocol that saves the tax payer funds and provides more consistent data for better decision making.  The actual protocol measures include a tally of tree seedlings >30 cm and <150 cm tall, by species; the presence of deer browsing on each seedling, a Tally of Trillium spp., Indian Cucumber, Canada Mayflower, and Jack-in-the-Pulpit. The measurement of percent ground cover of ferns, Rubus spp., grasses, and forbs along with a tally of shrubs and saplings by species including the presence of Viburnum spp. shrubs (esp. hobblebush), greenbrier, and elderberry.  Does Mr. Eveland’s characterization that only one plant is used seem accurate now?  It is very clear that Mr. Eveland simply failed to either understand the protocol or intentionally presented false information by only stating the Indian cucumber is being utilized as the only measure of forest habitat health.

PAQDMA also closely examined Mr. Eveland’s calculation of the needed herd size to sustain the harvest amount stated by PGC.  The density of deer is calculated by numbers of deer over a given area and therefore under the same deer numbers, the smaller area defined the higher density of deer.  Mr. Eveland only included forest land and agriculture in his calculations.   He did not include abandoned and reclaimed mine lands, grasslands and shrub lands not in agriculture reverted fields; all of which hold many deer.    Using a detailed Pennsylvania State University analysis on suitable deer habitat which eliminates all areas not used by deer such as roads, developed areas, and water determined that habitat suitable for deer at 42,710 square miles or an amount of 7,195 square miles missing from Mr. Eveland’s calculations.  That is more than 4.5 million acres Mr. Eveland did not consider in his density calculations which greatly inflates the deer densities in his report.
Mr. Eveland also used research from several sources to calculate the winter or post season deer density.   A QDMA board member contacted Mr. Gray Smith of the Alabama Department of Wildlife who authored some of the research for which Mr. Eveland used in his report.   Mr. Smith has written dozens if not hundreds of published articles on deer populations.  He also strongly indicated that the 35 percent mortality rate needed to stabilize a deer herd was based on a pre-hunt or fall deer population and not as a post deer population as Mr. Eveland claimed.   Therefore, Mr. Eveland’s used the harvest calculations to build the summer population and then added it on again to incorrectly and grossly overestimate the summer population.   Using the correct square miles of 42,710 and the proper use of the Alabama research, the summer herd would be 1,272,595 or 29 deer per square mile in the summer, not 51 as Mr. Eveland calculated. The winter density or post hunting density of 19 deer per square mile is much more believable when you use accurate data.  Mr. Eveland also failed to discuss the hunters themselves who sent in over 111,000 report cards of actual deer harvest. Most people do not argue that our reporting rate is very low.  Why did Mr. Eveland not use the known report cards and well documented reporting rate to establish the estimate?
In summary, PAQDMA has found that Mr. Eveland’s full report did not provide evidence that the decline in license sales has a direct relationship to deer numbers; it grossly mischaracterized the study conducted by the U.S. G.S Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Unit; it excluded 4.5 million acres when calculating deer density; and PA QDMA also confirmed from one of Mr. Eveland’s research sources that he incorrectly used the herd calculation for both pre and post season deer density.  PAQDMA understands the controversy with deer hunting in Pennsylvania, but when facts in deer management are clearly twisted and misused, PAQDMA feels obligated to address those issues.
QDMA is a nationally recognized scientifically based white-tailed deer organization with over 50,000 members.  The PA QDMA board alone is comprised of wildlife biologist, foresters, biologist and consultants from a variety of agencies and universities who cumulatively hold over 40 years of education in the forest and wildlife fields and over 200 years of forest and wildlife management experience.

ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter



   

Anyhow, I sure didn’t see any ‘damage control’ going on here.  All I saw was Eveland being humiliated about the erroneous piles of dung he has been feeding people.
.

+100

The fact is, in 2000, the Game Commission began an earnest effort to reach deer density objectives that had been put in place in the 1980s.  Unfortunately, during the 1980s and 1990s, deer populations routinely exceeded these objectives. Difficulties in reaching these objectives were documented in two articles published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, in 1997. The Game Commission’s desire to achieve these objectives led to increased hunting pressure on deer populations, not an alliance with “special interests” as claimed by Mr. Eveland. There was no conspiracy, nor secret meetings. Every step of the agency’s herd reduction plan was discussed and adopted in public meetings. The bottom line is Mr. Eveland’s allegations that the Game Commission’s deer program was designed by some secret cabal are false.

While Feaser is right in saying there was no secret cabal he is flat out wrong about DCNR influence on the DMP. The SCS Audit specifically directed DCNR to exert whatever political was necessary in oder to get the desired HR.

&
Auditor
Comments
BOF RESPONSE: “The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
and the Bureau of Forestry have taken several significant steps to address the
overabundant deer herd on State Forests and State Parks and throughout the
Commonwealth. Secretary DiBerardinis has raised the issue to its highest level
in state government and has personally assumed leadership on moving the issue
forward. To that end, the Secretary placed a moratorium on the use of DCNR
grant monies for use in purchasing State Game lands stating that he could not,
in good conscience, help fund projects with an agency that is preventing him
from meeting his public trust responsibilities of managing DCNR lands
sustainably.
The Secretary was invited to meet with the President of the Pennsylvania Game
Commissioners, Pennsylvania Game Commissioners, and Pennsylvania Game
Commission (PGC) Executive staff to address the deer and other resource
management issues. As a result of the meeting, the Secretary believes that the
deer issue and the department’s perspectives are receiving serious attention and
consideration by the Game Commissioners and PGC Executive staff. Due to this
open dialogue, the Secretary has lifted the moratorium on the use of DCNR
grant funds for potential PGC acquisitions. The Department has submitted
written statement to the PGC for consideration. Subsequent meetings with
Commissioners and PGC Executive Staff are scheduled.

From that statement by BOF it is clear that DCNR blackmailed the PGC in order to get the herd reduction needed in order to get their forests certified. So it is perfectly clear that the PGC is still lying to the hunters.

Care to cite your source for the 205k loss in deer hunters since 2000?

It doesn't seem very plausible that 205k deer hunters quit when you take into account that per the PGC data: total general license sales only dropped by approximately 90k since 2000.  Especially when you consider that the estimated number of small game hunters has dropped tremendously since 2000.  Something isn't adding up here...

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=631768&mode=2
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=596054&mode=2

Also in an article a few years back, Us Fish & wildlife had said that nationwide the average decline in hunter numbers was 4% from 2001 to 2006. (and unlike some here, i didnt "cherry pick" those were the years the data was given for AND fall within the deer plan key years) In Pa, if i recall correctly the numbers from the pgc website show a 10% decline for that same period. Decline was OVER DOUBLE during key years of the "plan" compared to nationally.

For more recent commentary, here is a more recent article:

NATIONAL HUNTER NUMBERS UP NOT SO MUCH IN PA

And QDMA response to Eveland

Gee, great timing, releasing it right alongside pgcs statement...ALMOST as if they knew pgc would be making a release too eh? ha ha ha. Guess the rumors are true. Qdma Pa is nothing but pgcs little hand-puppet.

Just more proof showing what many of us already knew for some time now. Qdma Pa is nothing but a politicaly driven "yes-man" group. Those of us who know those involved, understand fully. As do the legislators whom many of we concerned hunters have made aware as well.

I think the fact that the PAON poll showed us what most thought of qdmas credibility when the majority on the poll stated they did NOT believe qdma and their data in their fraudulent "deer report".

I also see far more complaints about qdma than good on most of the message boards. If they dont knock off the outrageous claims, they're liable to end up like the "Pa deer association" another of the "Pa self support manufacturing group" did. -Belly up.

Kinda blows popular theory around here, out of the water.

Nope, not at all. The number declined more than that in "deer plan" years.



(edited original reply was in regard to "other" statement made in qdma report previously)

ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The data is from Table 8 ,page 36 of the DMP. Remember , even though the deer harvest has decreased by around 40%. Dr. R. still claims the hunter success rate hasn't dropped much. The only way that could be true is if there are a lot fewer deer hunters and that is what the data shows.

Thanks, I found it now.

It still doesn't make much sense to me that we only dropped roughly 100k in general license sales over that same period.  Basically that is saying that out of the 200k loss in deer hunters that half of them stopped buying a license(being generous and assuming all hunters who no longer purchase a license were deer hunters).  The PGC data shows we are losing small game/turkey hunters at a high rate as well.  So where are these 100k+ hunters going who quit hunting deer yet still buy a license? 

Maybe I am missing something here, but this isn't stacking up with me.  

While I agree it makes you wonder who is buying all the general licenses if you look at the spread between general license sales and the number of deer hunters prior to 2000, you will see that going back to 1986 the spread was around 150 K more general license holders than deer hunters. But , after 2002 the spread increased to over 220K, which IMHO indicates more hunters are quitting deer hunting directly due to HR.

every hunter in their 40s then is now over 65 and most are probably NOT hunting

If that were true ,can you explain why the number of senior hunters are increasing?

every hunter in their 50s then is now at least 75 and I doubt there are many hunting

How many junior hunters were recruited during the 25 years between when hunters were 50 until they reached 75?

Resident Senior 46,929 43,759 43,574 43,200 40,607 39,099 37,718 34,664 31,761 31,615 31,236
Resident Senior Lifetime 4,515 3,529 3,946 3,461 3,174 3,049 3,163 3,195 3,707 2,814 3,019 4,119

Not so sure I would call that much of an increasing... PLUS you have to remember the first of the baby boomers is just now reaching 65.

In 1998 hunters purchased 51,544 senior licenses and by 2009 it has increased to 101,762. I'd say that would be a pretty significant increase in anybodies book.

BTW, your figures are from 1998 to 2008, not 1998 to 2010!

4,000 a year buying a senior license because they reached 65 is significant increase ??
not when you look at the age structure in the USA as a whole...

But, we are not talking about the age distribution of the USA as a whole, we are talking about a specific group of people in PA who buy hunting licenses. For the sake of this discussion we are talking about two classes of hunters, those that are young than 65 and those that are 65 an older. So, what percentage of our hunters under 65 would you expect to turn 65 each year and what percentage of hunters over 65 quit each year? If you don't know those numbers you don't know what you are talking about.

For those that claim that the loss off over 200K deer hunters from 2000 to 2008 was mainly due to older hunters quitting,here is an interesting quote from a PGN article.

In Pennsylvania, and across the nation, our hunting population appears to be getting older. Yes, of
course, we're all getting older; what this means is that the average age of hunters is older than it
used to be. Participants in this survey averaged 47 years of age, most falling into the 45-54 age
class. Survey data from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that, in 2001, the majority of PA
hunters fell into the 35-44 age class, and in 1996 the 35-44 age class also ranked largest, but with
11 percent more hunters than in 2001.

So even though the majority of our hunters are on average 10 years younger than the national average, we are losing deer hunters at a much faster rate than states where hunters average ten years older than PA hunters.

I agree that the pic does a fine job of describing your understanding of the issue being discussed!