1980 is not pior to the beginning of AR/HR

ORIGINAL: wayne c

2A Buck harvests. No twisting required.

2000--------13700
2001--------11600
2002---------9900
2003---------7500
2004---------7800
2005---------8500
2006---------8100
2007---------6600
2008---------6700
2009---------6800
2010---------5800


These numbers also show the total slide much better, so ttt for them.

As I posted before there have been NO significant changes and the changes that have occurred were the ones the HUNTERS ASKED FOR. Is that not what all of you keep saying that the Game Commission needs to listen to and do as the HUNTERS ASK?

But, when they give the hunters what they ask for and demand it just infuriates someone else that is also a hunter.

R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

So for those reasons I see nothing in the 14.7% reduction in 2A last year that would lead me to believe there is any concern. Besides if the deer population is declining in unit that is a good thing based on what I observed the last time I hunted the unit which was about eight years ago. Back then I was seeing a lot of evidence of deer populations that were starting to have a seriously damaging affect on their own habitat and food supplies.

R.S. Bodenhorn

WEllll-----It must be that your leaders are lying to the Pennsylvania Legislature because they are telling them a entirely different story than you are telling us.

They are telling them that the estimated deer population for WMU 2A has DECREASED BY 29% from 2005 to 2010. They said the TREND is DECREASING in spite of the GOAL being STABLE.

My guess is it would cost your leaders a lot more getting caught BS'n the Legislature than it costs you BS'n us so I will have to believe them over you.

ORIGINAL: S-10

As I posted before there have been NO significant changes and the changes that have occurred were the ones the HUNTERS ASKED FOR. Is that not what all of you keep saying that the Game Commission needs to listen to and do as the HUNTERS ASK?

But, when they give the hunters what they ask for and demand it just infuriates someone else that is also a hunter.

R.S. Bodenhorn

There are a whole host of changes that have been made in the timeframe that ESOX was speaking of "NONE" of which were asked for by hunters and "NONE" that were made with the interests of hunters in mind. Following are some of them.

1. In 2005 the AUDUBON became a major player in deer management when following their leadership in the early stages of HR they published their 350+ page "Managing Deer From an Ecosystem Perspective" which is the blueprint for PERMANENT herd reduction and is currently being followed.
2. Following the mid 1990's release of the FISHER as part of improving Biodersity and controling small game populations one main reason given for needing the reduced deer population was the declining populations of ground nesting birds. The Fisher is a major predator of ground nesting birds and animals.
2. In the late 2000's the PGC began to partner with the HSUS---You know, the radical anti hunting organization. Steve Smith, the PGC Legislative Liaison took Sarah Speed of the HSUS to meet with all the politicians to promote laws pertaining to increasing fines on hunters.
3. In spite of loading the CAC's with people of their own choice the PGC was unable to convince them the Herd Reduction program was not going too far. Most CAC's wanted to slow the killing and allow a few more deer. The PGC's Answer----ELIMINATE THE CAC'S.
4. The PGC hired 14 new NON-GAME biologists and others to help oversee the expendure of monies they were to receive from State Wildlife Grants and other monies. There is NO PROBLEM EXCEPT in order to receive those monies the PGC has to spend an equal or greater amount than they will receive and all money is spent on non-game species. Then they let the AUDUBON and other non/anti hunters determine where to spend the money. This at a time when they cry they are unable to spend monies on game research or increasing ringneck populations.
5. To make all this appear proper and give them cover, in 2011 the PGC BOC in a quickly called meeting changed their official policy giving every non or anti hunting group in the state the same influence as the hunters on "ALL" issues regarding wildlife or the use of State Game Lands.

Yes, I would have to agree with Esox's comments that there have been many SIGNIFICANT CHANGES in the last few years that were not to the hunters benefit and the HUNTERS DIDN'T ASK for any of them.

ORIGINAL: RSB

 
But, I still absolutely nothing that would lead me to believe there is a shortage of deer in the unit or that the unit should have more deer than there are at the present time.

ORIGINAL: RSB


To start with the goal was to reduce the deer population in unit 2A. Everyone who was paying any attention at all most certainly should have known that.

No one knows why the buck harvest was down in unit 2A but everyone who has any understanding of deer management and deer harvest data certainly knows that one year of high or low data does not mean much of anything since it takes at least three years of increasing or decreasing harvests to even see a trend.

As doe the unlimited doe licenses I think we would have much better deer management with unlimited antlerless licenses in all units.

They have had unlimited licenses in the special regulations areas for about twenty years now and the deer populations are very healthy there even though they been harvesting 5 –10 times as many antlerless deer per square mile, city streets included, as they have in the big woods units during each of those years.

You are much more likely to experience seriously declining deer numbers from not harvesting enough then you are from harvesting too many.

That is especially true in the areas like you have down there with deer living on posted ground or within the residential areas where hunters have a hard time getting to many of them.

So, the bottom line is that there is no evidence that what is occurring in unit 2A is anything other than what is the best possible management direction to have the best possible deer populations for the future of the area. That is true even though many people who are not deer management professionals do not understand it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

All of the special regulations areas have had unlimited antlerless licenses for nearly twenty year now and they still have the highest deer populations in the state

But when you look at the facts of the harvest history for the counties that make up unit 2A it certainly appears that the harvest in 2A should be very comparable to the harvest of 2B.

As you can see for the first fifteen years both the antlerless and total deer harvests for the counties that make up unit 2A were higher than the harvests in the counties that make up unit 2B. But, during the past ten years or more the harvests per square mile for both does and total deer have been higher in 2B.

If you jump to conclusions and reduce the allocations and harvests only to find out the deer are in a natural decline

Besides at this point there is nothing to indicate the current antlerless allocation and sales are going to result in an antlerless harvest that was any higher then the previous harvests or the target harvest.

You cannot forget that unit 2A went from a 12-day concurrent season to a 7-day concurrent season this year.

That change was the reason they increased the allocation.

So, the bottom line is that there is no evidence that what is occurring in unit 2A is anything other than what is the best possible management direction to have the best possible deer populations for the future of the area.