2015 deer harvest totals =====

GAME COMMISSION RELEASES DEER HARVEST ESTIMATES

 
The Pennsylvania Game Commission today reported results from the 2015-16 deer seasons, which closed in January.
Hunters harvested an estimated 315,813 deer – an increase of about 4 percent compared to the 2014-15 harvest of 303,973.
Of those, 137,580 were antlered deer – an increase of about 15 percent compared to the previous license year, when an estimated 119,260 bucks were taken. Hunters also harvested an estimated 178,233 antlerless deer in 2015-16, which represents an about 4 percent decrease compared to the 184,713 antlerless deer taken in 2014-15.
The percentage of older bucks in the harvest might well be the most eye-popping number in the report.
A whopping 59 percent of whitetail bucks taken by Pennsylvania hunters during the 2015-16 deer seasons were 2½ years old or older, making for the highest percentage of adult bucks in the harvest in decades.
Game Commission Wildlife Management Director Wayne Laroche pointed out the trend of more adult bucks in the harvest started when antler restrictions were put into place. More yearling bucks are making it through the first hunting season through which they carry a rack. Season after season, a greater proportion of the annual buck harvest has been made of adult bucks.
In 2014-15, 57 percent of the bucks taken by hunters were 2½ or older.
“But to see that number now at nearly 60 percent is remarkable,” Laroche said. “It goes to show what antler restrictions have accomplished – they’ve created a Pennsylvania where every deer hunter in the woods has a real chance of taking the buck of a lifetime.”
While the 137,580 bucks taken in 2015-16 is a sharp increase over 2014-15, it compares to a 2013-14 estimate of 134,280 bucks. In 2014-15, a number of factors including poor weather on key hunting days and limited deer movements due to exceptionally abundant mast contributed to a reduced deer harvest overall.
The decrease in the 2015-16 antlerless harvest was a predictable outcome, given that 33,000 fewer antlerless licenses were allocated statewide in 2015-16, compared to the previous year.
Reducing the allocation within a Wildlife Management Unit allows deer numbers to grow there.  Records show it takes an allocation of about four antlerless licenses to harvest one antlerless deer, and the success rate for antlerless-deer hunters again was consistent at about 25 percent in 2015-16.
Game Commission Executive Director R. Matthew Hough congratulated deer hunters on their successes afield during the 2015-16 seasons.
“While the Game Commission again reduced the number of antlerless licenses that were allocated in 2015-16, and the antlerless harvest dropped accordingly, as expected, the overall increase in the harvest – and, in particular, the buck harvest – show this was another outstanding deer season in Pennsylvania,” Hough said. “The pictures I’ve seen of trophy bucks this season came from all over the Commonwealth – including the big woods of the northcentral – and they were jaw-dropping and impressive. And the best news is there are plenty of new memories waiting to be made when deer hunters get back out there in the coming license year.”
Harvest estimates are based on more than 24,000 deer checked by Game Commission personnel and more than 100,000 harvest reports submitted by successful hunters. Because some harvests go unreported, estimates provide a more accurate picture of hunter success. However, in 2015-16 the rate at which successful hunters reported their harvests increased slightly.
The antlerless harvest included about 63 percent adult females, about 20 percent button bucks and about 17 percent doe fawns. The rates are similar to long-term averages.
Agency staff currently is working to develop 2016-17 antlerless deer license allocation recommendations, which will be considered at the April 5 meeting of the Board of Game Commissioners. Wayne Laroche, Game Commission Bureau of Wildlife Management director, said that in addition to harvest data, staff will be looking at deer health measures, forest regeneration and deer-human conflicts for each WMU.
Total deer harvest estimates by WMU for 2015-16 (with 2014-15 figures in parentheses) are as follows:
 
WMU 1A: 6,000 (5,100) antlered, 9,100 (10,800) antlerless;
WMU 1B: 6,900 (5,800) antlered, 7,700 (8,800) antlerless;
WMU 2A: 6,500 (5,100) antlered, 10,500 (9,600) antlerless;
WMU 2B: 5,200 (4,300) antlered, 15,000 (13,000) antlerless;
WMU 2C: 9,100 (7,000) antlered, 8,490 (9,029) antlerless;
WMU 2D: 12,300 (11,400) antlered, 15,700 (16,400) antlerless;
WMU 2E: 4,700 (4,400) antlered, 5,300 (5,600) antlerless;
WMU 2F: 7,000 (6,000) antlered, 5,400 (5,900) antlerless;
WMU 2G: 6,100 (4,800) antlered, 4,100 (4,700) antlerless;
WMU 2H: 1,400 (1,700) antlered, 1,400 (1,100) antlerless;
WMU 3A: 4,300 (3,300) antlered, 4,000 (4,300) antlerless;
WMU 3B: 6,800 (6,000) antlered, 7,400 (8,100) antlerless;
WMU 3C: 7,600 (6,500) antlered, 10,500 (10,300) antlerless;
WMU 3D: 3,500 (4,200) antlered, 3,700 (5,200) antlerless;
WMU 4A: 5,100 (3,300) antlered, 8,670 (6,805) antlerless;
WMU 4B: 5,700 (4,600) antlered, 7,000 (5,600) antlerless;
WMU 4C: 5,400 (4,800) antlered, 5,000 (5,000) antlerless;
WMU 4D: 7,200 (6,500) antlered, 7,443 (6,848) antlerless;
WMU 4E: 6,200 (5,800) antlered, 6,900 (5,900) antlerless;
WMU 5A: 2,900 (2,400) antlered, 4,600 (3,300) antlerless;
WMU 5B: 8,000 (6,900) antlered, 11,500 (12,400) antlerless;
WMU 5C: 7,400 (8,000) antlered, 13,600 (22,200) antlerless;
WMU 5D: 2,200 (1,300) antlered, 5,200 (3,800) antlerless; and
Unknown WMU: 80 (60) antlered, 30 (31) antlerless.
 
Season-specific 2015-16 deer harvest estimates (with 2014-15 harvest estimates in parentheses) are as follows:
WMU 1A: archery, 2,610 (2,320) antlered, 2,480 (2,350) antlerless; and muzzleloader, 90 (80) antlered, 1,120 (1,050) antlerless.
WMU 1B: archery, 2,560 (2,270) antlered, 1,480 (1,340) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (30) antlered, 720 (560) antlerless.
WMU 2A: archery, 2,160 (1,940) antlered, 2,110 (2,020) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (60) antlered, 1,390 (1,280) antlerless.
WMU 2B: archery, 3,750 (3,060) antlered, 7,880 (6,610) antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 (40) antlered, 920 (890) antlerless.
WMU 2C: archery, 3,130 (2,740) antlered, 1,687 (1,776) antlerless; muzzleloader, 70 (60) antlered, 1,066 (1,040) antlerless.
WMU 2D: archery, 4,780 (4,510) antlered, 2,330 (2,650) antlerless; muzzleloader, 120 (90) antlered, 1,970 (2,150) antlerless.
WMU 2E: archery, 1,460 (1,460) antlered, 800 (780) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (40) antlered, 700 (720) antlerless.
WMU 2F: archery, 1,860 (1,730) antlered, 780 (960) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (70) antlered, 720 (840) antlerless.
WMU 2G: archery, 1,340 (1,050) antlered, 800 (850) antlerless; muzzleloader, 60 (50) antlered, 700 (850) antlerless.
WMU 2H: archery, 290 (380) antlered, 250 (140) antlerless; muzzleloader, 10 (20) antlered, 250 (160) antlerless.
WMU 3A: archery, 1,180 (870) antlered, 760 (540) antlerless; muzzleloader, 20 (30) antlered, 640 (460) antlerless.
WMU 3B: archery, 2,320 (1,950) antlered, 1,620 (1,500) antlerless; muzzleloader, 80 (50) antlered, 1,180 (1,200) antlerless.
WMU 3C: archery, 2,060 (1,660) antlered, 1,940 (1,780) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (40) antlered, 1,460 (1,420) antlerless.
WMU 3D: archery, 1,060 (1,350) antlered, 980 (960) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (50) antlered, 520 (440) antlerless.
WMU 4A: archery, 960 (740) antlered, 1,401 (1,057) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (60) antlered, 1,285 (1,096) antlerless.
WMU 4B: archery, 1,660 (1,650) antlered, 1,400 (1,190) antlerless; muzzleloader, 40 (50) antlered, 800 (710) antlerless.
WMU 4C: archery, 2,150 (1,840) antlered, 1,380 (1,240) antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 (60) antlered, 620 (660) antlerless.
WMU 4D: archery, 1,840 (1,920) antlered, 1,714 (1,356) antlerless; muzzleloader, 60 (80) antlered, 968 (913) antlerless.
WMU 4E: archery, 2,150 (2,070) antlered, 1,340 (1,070) antlerless; muzzleloader, 50 (30) antlered, 760 (630) antlerless.
WMU 5A: archery, 880 (960) antlered, 1,010 (720) antlerless; muzzleloader, 20 (40) antlered, 590 (380) antlerless.
WMU 5B: archery, 4,430 (3,730) antlered, 3,790 (3,920) antlerless; muzzleloader, 70 (70) antlered, 1,010 (1,180) antlerless.
WMU 5C: archery, 4,880 (4,790) antlered, 6,310 (10,210) antlerless; muzzleloader, 120 (110) antlered, 1,090 (1,490) antlerless.
WMU 5D: archery, 1,770 (990) antlered, 3,440 (2,730) antlerless; muzzleloader, 30 (10) antlered, 160 (70) antlerless.
Unknown WMU: archery, 0 (40) antlered, 10 (0) antlerless; muzzleloader, 0 (0) antlered, 0 (0) antlerless.
 

“But to see that number now at nearly 60 percent is remarkable,” Laroche said. “It goes to show what antler restrictions have accomplished – they’ve created a Pennsylvania where every deer hunter in the woods has a real chance of taking the buck of a lifetime.”
 
 
Pretty much sums up the mind set of the PSGC, in their minds, we only hunt the bucks for the antlers.  Laroche should be running for the President of The U.S., he can BS with the best of em.  Unfortunately, it's the PA politicians that believe his rhetoric. 
 
Thanks for taking the time to post the info Doc, long time no see?

Agree Esox.  
Decent down this way this year.  Lots of nice 2.5 or better bucks at the local butcher shop on the Monday AM I dropped off my buck and there were more coming in. 
Several really nice bucks way older than 2.5 in there too waiting to be picked up to head off to the taxidermist.  
 
Butcher was doing better business than the previous years.
I definitely saw more doe this year than 2013 and 2014 which is a good sign for my core area but, hunting pressure was way up this year too.  
 
Looking forward to getting my kids more involved this year.  Double ladder stands, here I come.   Keep it up PGC.
-eyes...........

DarDys you and I must be the only ones that can see the light. Everyone became a deer biologists but never mic a tooth which only proves its at least a 2.5 year old. Any assumption would be pure speculation as to saying a deer saw 3.5,4.5 or older. Even the PGC has a hard time doing it. As to 60 percent being 2.5 years old. Where's the proof, I've never had any Pa buck,tooth sampled by a warden or biologist,have you?  I'll bet there's not one person on this site or any hunter you know ever had this down. As for hunting pressure.almost non existent in 1A gun season. Having killed my two bucks with a bow,I drove around and saw nobody at the usual pull offs. Anybody know the number of license sold this year?  

 You must of read my post wrong,I never said they aged deer older that 2.5.Visual observations only prove it's not a 1.5 year old deer. It only proves it's at least a.2.5 year old deer. It impossible to visual look at a deer back tooth and say it's age without microscopic observation.  I think most hunters no what a  mature whitetail looks like ,but to throw this b.s. about age is only guessing. And that's just what PGC does,just like their round numbers,it's only a guesstimate. That guess could be off by several thousand deer. Other states I hunt have actual numbers,not rounded out guesses.
 

There's a section in the 2016 QDMA whitetail report discussion how states calculate their harvests.  The majority of the states use a correction factor or non-compliance rate to determine actual harvests, as we do here in PA. 
 
 https://www.qdma.com/uploads/pdf/Master_WR_2016.pdf
 

DarDys

They may not list specific ages in their public reports (gee could their be a reason for that?), but they do "talk" to those that help them. There is more information out there than hits published reports. The same is true with studies conducted by universities. There is a lot more information than gets printed, especially if some of that information is either non conclusive or happens to point in a direction other than the interest where the grant money came from to fund the study.

 
The reason they do not publish specific ages in the public reports is because they recognize that the specific ages above 2.5 YO can't be accurately determined without using Cementum Annuli methods.  Visual observation of the jaw bone is all that is necessary to determine the ages in the categories I previously mentioned.  To use laboratory methods to estimate the ages would be costly, and I'm not sure what value the data would provide. 
 
I'm not exactly sure what you're intimating in the second part of your post, but I really doubt they are using anecdotal evidence or hearsay in these estimates. I'm sure a quick email to the PGC could easily clarify the process they used to come up with this number if you are truly interested.             

The PSGC biologist must conduct field studies, other wise they would lack any evidence to report, thereby, dashing the dreams of their supporters. 
 
Or, the need for the existence of biologist in the PSGC, in the first place.
 
 
300,000 (+/-) deer kiiiiil....errr harvested and they might test 600, and that sets the stage for calling their deer program a success?
 
4% increase in the kiiiil......  errrr harvest() as compared to last year.  I take that as; they received 4% more report cards then they did last year.
 
40,055 sq. mi. in PA. and testing 600 (<>) deer, of which not all the deer met the requirements, and that proves the deer program in PA, is working?
 
Does it take a "degree" to be able to walk into a local butcher shop and visually pick out the older deer, from a pile of recently killllll...... errrrr () harvested deer?  I wouldn't think it would take too long to locate, what you would be looking for, to fit your agenda and allow for generating positive reports.

BeenThereDoneThat.
The PSGC biologist must conduct field studies, other wise they would lack any evidence to report, thereby, dashing the dreams of their supporters. 
 
Or, the need for the existence of biologist in the PSGC, in the first place.
 
 
300,000 (+/-) deer kiiiiil....errr harvested and they might test 600, and that sets the stage for calling their deer program a success?
 
4% increase in the kiiiil......  errrr harvest() as compared to last year.  I take that as; they received 4% more report cards then they did last year.
 
40,055 sq. mi. in PA. and testing 600 (<>) deer, of which not all the deer met the requirements, and that proves the deer program in PA, is working?
 
Does it take a "degree" to be able to walk into a local butcher shop and visually pick out the older deer, from a pile of recently killllll...... errrrr () harvested deer?  I wouldn't think it would take too long to locate, what you would be looking for, to fit your agenda and allow for generating positive reports.

For the purposes of determining the total harvest and non-compliance rates, the PGC checks around 25,000 deer annually.  The actual reporting rate has no bearing on the accuracy of the harvest estimate; that is not how math and statistics work.  The accuracy or precision of the harvest estimate is based on the statistical parameters used, which primarily refers to the sampling methods, any biases, and the sample size. 
 
And I'm sorry, but I don't trust anyone to visually assess the age of deer while laying in a pile at a butcher shop.  It's been shown time and time again, that accurately aging deer on the hoof is nearly impossible beyond saying young or old, so why would we expect anyone to be able to accurately age a pile of dead deer?  Visually checking the teeth provides an accurate means to differentiate between 1.5YO and 2.5+ YO.     

Esox_Hunter

For the purposes of determining the total harvest and non-compliance rates, the PGC checks around 25,000 deer annually.  The actual reporting rate has no bearing on the accuracy of the harvest estimate; that is not how math and statistics work.  The accuracy or precision of the harvest estimate is based on the statistical parameters used, which primarily refers to the sampling methods, any biases, and the sample size. 
 
And I'm sorry, but I don't trust anyone to visually assess the age of deer while laying in a pile at a butcher shop.  It's been shown time and time again, that accurately aging deer on the hoof is nearly impossible beyond saying young or old, so why would we expect anyone to be able to accurately age a pile of dead deer?  Visually checking the teeth provides an accurate means to differentiate between 1.5YO and 2.5+ YO.     




***********************************************************************************************
 
Sorry Essox, I'm hearing the same rhetoric about delegates and the Republican nominee process, numbers can be twisted and turned to make any story look good.
 
As for checking deer to support my agenda, I'll be pulling the teeth on any of the "older looking" deer I can find.
 
It is also a fact, certain areas of PA. have always produced better quality and quantities of Bucks and age had nothing to do with it.  The area now designated "The Pennsylvania Wilds"() has always (or did) produced many fine White-Tailed Deer.  
 
I might add, I hear the PA Elk heard is expanding quite nicely since their range expanded from 350 to 835 sq. mi. back in 1998.  That is almost the same area as the "The Pennsylvania Wilds" (what a coincidence) although, I hear the Elk range will or has expanded south of I-80.
 

"I think one of the big reasons this topic often becomes so contentious is because people have a hard time accepting that their personal experiences are not representative of the entire state, or even across the township they hunt in for that matter. "
 
The above statement is probably the most truthful thing in this entire post. With that being said though remember that it cuts both ways.
 
I'll use this example to explain. I've started a log on my deer hunting in 1993. my notes run from 93- 2000 and again from 2007-2015. I lost my notes from 01-06 due to not backing up a cpu.
2015 was for me the worst year in sightings and opportunities.
I could blame the PGC but  I think there were a # of factors that resulted in less sightings beside less deer. On the other hand I just drove across I80 on Wens. evening and just east of the Dubois exit was a 6-8 acre field that had 25+ deer in it. If that was my home area I'd think things were just peachy as far as deer numbers and would wonder what the big fuss is as far a population gripes.
 
Personally I think the PGC estimating model is flawed, but as far as the numbers go IMHO they are both right and wrong. They're just #'s and anyone can make them says anything they want to support their opinion.
 
Mike
 
edited for spelling and spacing

Essox I agree my personal experiences are not representative of the entire state, just the areas of Venango and Mercer Counties that I have hunted since 1962.  However, I did quit Venango County just over ten years ago as  needing 4 different antlerless tags to be able to hunt my old stomping grounds just wasn't worth it, any more. 
 
When I first moved here 9 years ago and for several years after, on any given evening, I could sit on my back deck (my favorite deer stand) and watch upwards of fifteen deer feeding in my field.  Less then a hundred yards away, another field where, deer would be seen feeding. 
 
In the spring we enjoyed watching the new born and it wasn't uncommon to walk the tree line behind my home and not spot new born twin fawns laying in the grass and brush.
 
Now, I'm feeling lucky to see 3 deer a week and as for the new born in the spring, if it does happen, maybe one following a doe out to feed in the evening.
 
I have pictures taken with field and pocket cameras of deer feeding 20 yds from my front porch but that, was four years ago  Today, I get maybe two...  three pictures with the field cams every couple weeks.
 
So what do you suppose, made such a difference in my little piece of Penn's Woods regarding the population of White-Tailed Deer?
 
I have my suspicions, that include additional changes in the laws, since the deer reduction plan was initiated.
 
Pretty pathetic when there appears to be more wild deer in the suburbs and cities then can be found in the wilds. 
 
 

Mt. Lebanon is six square miles, I be willing to bet dimes to doughnuts there isn't near 115 deer living in 6 sq. mi. of area in my little piece of Penn's Woods.  

I have made a suggestion a number of times as to getting  better harvest reports. With the new computer aided licensing system this would work easier. How about a report either by computer or mail by all licensed hunters. Now this is what we have already right. Well yes, however if a licensed hunter does not report then their next years license costs say $5.00 more. All hunters need to report successful or not or face the $5.00 fee.
 
They could have more information gathered on other subjects also.
 
With the poor reporting history it would be a revenue also. No one should complain because they only pay the $5.00 due to their own negligence.

Let me see if I understand this, you want people who get out of their cars barely walk 100 ft and than complain there's no deer for them to shoot take the time and energy to fill out a report card!! Lol!! I doubt they would blink an eye at a $5.00 fine and refusing them a licenses the following year seems a bit much! Maybe consider a 50% increase in their license fee the following year! Then who checks to see if they turned in a report card? Do you take their word or trust the kid hired off the street, paid minimum wage and doesn't want to be there in the first place take the extra step to check? It's a great idea but. I don't see it happening.