Doe Tag Increase - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
 95Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 10:34 AM Thread Starter
The Man
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bucks County, PA 2G 5D
Posts: 5,001
Back To Top
Doe Tag Increase

Just read in the Endeaver news (a Northcentral Pa. publication)
3 area WMU's will get Doe Tag increases in the upcominig season.
2H 6000 to 7000
2G 21,000 to 25,500
3a 15,000 to 20,000

With license sales down
Many Disgruntled hunters over the Deer numbers in the Northcentral region.
The PGC crying for a License fee increase.

Kind of makes you wonder, an increase of 10,500 permits in 3 WMU's times the cost of the permit.
Does the Deer herd need that much thinning or is it for the Money?
Most of the people Ive talked in the Area of Potter I hunt seem pleased that the Deer sightings have
increased but are not Happy with 2G getting issued 4.500 more permits.
Do the math and figure out the percentage of increase in 2G and 3A.

Potter County
Gods Country USA
Potter Co. Joe is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 11:15 AM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: pa
Posts: 2,711
Back To Top
In the southern tiers i can see increasing doe license but the norther tier? That is just plain stupid. There is not enough deer in the northern tier to justify a doe tag increase. Sounds like a money gimmick to me.
bohunr likes this.

4B
pchunter1231 is online now  
post #3 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 11:34 AM
The Man
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,606
Back To Top
I'm not of the understanding that the 3A allotment increase came as the result of browsing studies performed on public land. Instead, it was a handful of private land owners complaining...... from behind yellow signs. ????


The last two years it was all about allowing the herd to increase in 3A because the habitat could sustain a larger herd......now it's knock them back to where they were before.


5000 more nails in the PGC coffin.
bohunr and nomad_archer like this.
Curly Maple is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 12:14 PM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Pennsyltucky
Posts: 1,440
Back To Top
The revenue increase from that is a drop in the bucket. Completely immaterial. They aren't going to piddle with $6 doe tags to balance the budget, I can assure you that. Deer populations in areas I frequent up there (mostly 2G), with the exception of a couple heavy-hit DMAP areas and pressured lease camp clusters/neighborhoods, have increased pretty dramatically in the past 5 years. I'd expect this trend to continue.
bigbear, htephil and Big Don like this.
elk yinzer is offline  
post #5 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 03:58 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Elk County
Posts: 13,482
Back To Top
To understand the reason you have to look at more of the facts than just an increase in the allocations might mean a higher doe harvest and fewer deer being kept over winter.

The first thing everyone needs to understand is that there is only so much food for the deer and anytime you allow the deer population to exceed the winter food supply you are guaranteed to have fewer deer in your future. Maybe even a lot fewer than if you had allowed hunters to harvest a few more, depending on a whole host of environmental conditions we have little to no control over, such as the severity of the next winter or two.

Then you need to look at what the deer harvests and habitat are telling you.

In 2G the buck harvests over the past two years increased 26% over what they had ben during the previous two years. That is an indication that the deer population increased. Then when you look at the antlerless harvests, controlled with allocations, you see that during the past two years the doe harvests declined by 30%. That decline in the doe harvests, due to fewer licenses being allocated, combined with the mild winters we have had the past few years has undoubtedly resulted in an increasing deer population. They need to keep up with that increase, by harvesting a few more deer, or the deer herd will destroy any habitat gains that have been achieved over the past few years and then result in a population crash yet again.

In 2H the buck harvest only increased by 3% over the past two years but the antlerless harvest was reduced by 14% over the same period. But, another factor that shows the deer herd has been increasing is in the fact that the hunter success rate has improved significantly the past couple years. It now takes just slightly over 3 antlerless licenses to harvest a deer instead of the almost 5 it was taking a few years ago. Once again all of the evidence indicates the deer herd is increasing and needs to be kept in check with the marginal habitat or there will be even fewer deer in the future without hunters reaping the benefit of having hunted and harvested them.

In 3A the buck harvest increased 29% while the antlerless harvest was reduced, through lower allocations, by 20%. Clear indications the deer herd has been on the increase. That is further supported with a better hunter success rate in that unit as well.

All of the evidence indicates the Game Commission made the correct decision in increasing the antlerless allocations, and hopefully increasing the doe harvests, in each of those units. That is what will be best for the future of the deer, their food supply and also the hunters, even if some hunters donít understand it.

Dick Bodenhorn
R. S. B. is offline  
post #6 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 04:05 PM
tdd
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northern Berks County, PA
Posts: 7,709
Back To Top
Plus, if the PGC was interested in printing tags to get more funds, I don't think the lower population (deer population) WMU's would be the place to do that...?

Would anyone even pause if 5C went up 5000 permits? I doubt it.

So if they wanted to generate revenue and that was the only reason, wouldn't it attract less scrutiny in the areas like 5C/5D and the like? Permits cost the same regardless of WMU. If they wanted to slip a fund raiser under the radar, they picked poorly on where to put the tags.
jimbridger and bigguy54 like this.
tdd is offline  
post #7 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 04:30 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: SW PA
Posts: 3,901
Back To Top
Just figuring, lets say 7 bucks a tag x the 10,500 = $73,500. As R.S.B mentioned above I believe the PGC is trying to manage deer in available habitat. $73,500 might buy 3 trucks or maybe one tractor or pay for labor and some signs to replace the ones shot up. Who knows. I don't think it was a money making deal.
Just my 2 cents.
bigguy54 likes this.
Laylow is online now  
post #8 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 05:16 PM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,914
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. S. B. View Post
To understand the reason you have to look at more of the facts than just an increase in the allocations might mean a higher doe harvest and fewer deer being kept over winter.

The first thing everyone needs to understand is that there is only so much food for the deer and anytime you allow the deer population to exceed the winter food supply you are guaranteed to have fewer deer in your future. Maybe even a lot fewer than if you had allowed hunters to harvest a few more, depending on a whole host of environmental conditions we have little to no control over, such as the severity of the next winter or two.

Then you need to look at what the deer harvests and habitat are telling you.

In 2G the buck harvests over the past two years increased 26% over what they had ben during the previous two years. That is an indication that the deer population increased. Then when you look at the antlerless harvests, controlled with allocations, you see that during the past two years the doe harvests declined by 30%. That decline in the doe harvests, due to fewer licenses being allocated, combined with the mild winters we have had the past few years has undoubtedly resulted in an increasing deer population. They need to keep up with that increase, by harvesting a few more deer, or the deer herd will destroy any habitat gains that have been achieved over the past few years and then result in a population crash yet again.

In 2H the buck harvest only increased by 3% over the past two years but the antlerless harvest was reduced by 14% over the same period. But, another factor that shows the deer herd has been increasing is in the fact that the hunter success rate has improved significantly the past couple years. It now takes just slightly over 3 antlerless licenses to harvest a deer instead of the almost 5 it was taking a few years ago. Once again all of the evidence indicates the deer herd is increasing and needs to be kept in check with the marginal habitat or there will be even fewer deer in the future without hunters reaping the benefit of having hunted and harvested them.

In 3A the buck harvest increased 29% while the antlerless harvest was reduced, through lower allocations, by 20%. Clear indications the deer herd has been on the increase. That is further supported with a better hunter success rate in that unit as well.

All of the evidence indicates the Game Commission made the correct decision in increasing the antlerless allocations, and hopefully increasing the doe harvests, in each of those units. That is what will be best for the future of the deer, their food supply and also the hunters, even if some hunters donít understand it.

Dick Bodenhorn

Are you meaning to tell me that this agency operates based on science, harvest data, and population estimates(all of which are false btw), and not in the interest of the auto insurance companies, the farm bureau, and other special interests???!!???? kidding.
Marcus99 is online now  
post #9 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 05:21 PM
Moderator
 
PAlimbhanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In the pines
Posts: 1,719
Back To Top
This year when you guys kill a deer, send in your report cards or report it online. This helps alot.

A squakin' turkey don't live long

Last edited by PAlimbhanger; 04-18-2017 at 05:24 PM.
PAlimbhanger is offline  
post #10 of 128 (permalink) Old 04-18-2017, 06:02 PM
Senior Member
 
yellodog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: springfeild twp,mercer co
Posts: 12,647
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly Maple View Post
I'm not of the understanding that the 3A allotment increase came as the result of browsing studies performed on public land. Instead, it was a handful of private land owners complaining...... from behind yellow signs. ????


The last two years it was all about allowing the herd to increase in 3A because the habitat could sustain a larger herd......now it's knock them back to where they were before.


5000 more nails in the PGC coffin.
But but but.........i thought the problem was bowhunters not shooting enuf does? Thats what you told me, no?🎯

Pence/Putin 2024
yellodog is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome