The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
1 - 20 of 135 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,335 Posts
They gotta doctor it so that it can support the legislation's theory that we need to kill 100,000 more a year. It will be along shortly as will an increase in allocations. I would add a decrease in hunter satisfaction but I dont think it could get much worse. The bandwagon will be along shortly to say that theres a deer behind every tree... in three... two...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
I enjoy seeing the harvest numbers and the discussions on here that follow. But really it's just a "nice to know" thing. Does it really influence anything anyone does while in the woods hunting? Doubt it. Patience. They will be out soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,102 Posts
Yea, can't wait to see the #s either. Travel baseball all summer {scouting season }and football all fall with 2 kids I was only able to kill 3 deer. Off year here. Not a fan of popcorn, but I sure like beer and more beer. I'll go get a couple now and watch the posts come in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
I know I didn't add to the total. Of course without a license it would have been illegal.
The "no deer crowd" will be attacking the process saying how the PGC just makes it up ....
Wait, that's already started!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,335 Posts
Theres a definitive difference between "no deer" and being misled. I dont care who is doing the misleading but saying that we havent shot enough and need to kill more here is just wrong on all levels.

I will keep hunting, I will keep supporting the GC. But what I see now vs what I saw 5-10 years ago is a drastic difference. I was for some HR but maybe we should change the term to HD.

Take a survey in 4d, see what you find.

Someone noted that numbers dont effect what you do. That is not true. I hunted 2D last year for the first time ever due to harvest trends I saw. Its too bad I didnt do more of it but had limited time and got sick as a dog. Based on what I heard in one day, things are very different there than at home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,950 Posts
5yr buck kill avg 118K, previous 5yr buck kill ave 138K previous 5yr buck kill avg 192k. Habitat varies from worse to marginally improved after over a decade. They really need to put their big boy pants on and let some of their drones go and bring new blood in.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
I would hope there is a difference between now and 10 years ago when we had entirely too many deer. After all, that was the reason for HR and in some areas it wouldn't hurt to remove more.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,035 Posts
I would expect the 2012/2013 deer harvest results any day now.

In 2010 they were released on March 22. In 2011 they came out March 8th and in 2012 they were released on March 14th.

So, all though they are a little later this year than they were the last couple years they are still not out of the normal range of when they have typically been released.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,335 Posts
John S said:
I would hope there is a difference between now and 10 years ago when we had entirely too many deer. After all, that was the reason for HR and in some areas it wouldn't hurt to remove more.
Yeah, the cities, youre absolutely right. But here, enough is enough. At the rate 4d is going my 20 month old will have to go to PSU to see a deer. "See these buddy, daddy used to hunt these in PA right here at home". After we are done with that we can head to penns cave and get a lesson on how man ruined the buffalo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,335 Posts
WOW so 15 years ago we shot 80,000 more bucks a year and thats not significant? What happened to the age classes spreading out. Oh... no high grading right... if the writing isnt on the wall I dont know where it is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
IMO the deer numbers are WAY DOWN in my part of 4D. It gets worse every year and the PGC just issues more doe permits and every year there are less deer. To put it plainly it stinks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,035 Posts
jlh42581 said:
John S said:
I would hope there is a difference between now and 10 years ago when we had entirely too many deer. After all, that was the reason for HR and in some areas it wouldn't hurt to remove more.
Yeah, the cities, youre absolutely right. But here, enough is enough. At the rate 4d is going my 20 month old will have to go to PSU to see a deer. "See these buddy, daddy used to hunt these in PA right here at home". After we are done with that we can head to penns cave and get a lesson on how man ruined the buffalo.
Why don’t we go ahead and look at some facts concerning the antlerless harvest history of unit 4D before you go spouting off about high harvests being the reason you aren’t seeing deer.

Here are the historic antlerless harvests per square mile of landmass over the past twenty-five plus years.

Unit 4D:

Time period…………..Doe harvests/square mile
83-87………………………..3.39
88-92………………………..5.25
93-97………………………..4.41
98-02………………………..4.90
03-07………………………..4.03
08-11………………………..2.60

Now let’s look at how 4D compares to the highest and lowest antlerless harvest per square mile units during recent years.

Year…………Highest harvest unit…………….unit 4D…………Lowest harvest unit
2003……………2D / 9.40……………………18th / 5.89………..22nd / 2G / 4.95
2004……………2B / 11.74…………………..20th / 4.62………..22nd / 2G / 2.58
2005……………2A / 10.82…………………..21st / 3.06………..22nd /2G / 1.51
2006……………2B / 12.11…………………..19th / 3.61………..22nd /2G / 1.75
2007……………2B / 11.23…………………..19th / 2.95………..22nd / 2G / 1.60
2008……………2B / 11.23…………………..17th / 3.39………..22nd / 2G / 2.21
2009……………2B / 14.68…………………..18th / 2.95………..22nd / 2G / 1.02
2010……………5C / 11.06…………………..21st / 2.00………..22nd / 2G / 0.88
2011……………2B / 12.47…………………..21st / 2.41………...22nd / 2G / 1.34

Just how low do you think the 4D doe harvest should be? How long do you think they would need to reduce the doe harvests year after year before people would start to realize that continuously reducing the doe harvest isn’t resulting in more deer and the problem must be something other than harvests being too high?

Why can they harvest four to five times as many antlerless deer, year after year after year in units like 2B without hurting their future harvests yet the doe harvest in unit 4D can’t be sustained at the levels they harvested even twenty years? Why is that they keep harvesting fewer and fewer does in units like 4D and 2G and the deer populations still aren’t increasing or seemingly high enough to satisfy most of the hunters?

Do you think perhaps the decades of hunters insisting that doe licenses need to be low in those areas and forcing the land carrying extra deer through the winter might have resulted in such poor habitat in those areas they can’t support many deer today?

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
One of the reasons unit 2B can sustain the harvests year after year is the sheer amount of property that exists there that is totally unhuntable, yet still holds deer. I live just inside unit 2B. I had 17 deer in my yard the other night. Rode around a bit and saw many more, that after a very liberal hunting season. These deer live in people's backyards. You can't hunt, even with a bow. Enough deer cannot be shot in 2B to lower the population. There is ALWAYS a certain amount of deer that exist on unhuntable land that will be there to repopulate what was shot off. The habitat here doesn't need to be good because so many people feed them in the winter. They make their rounds from one house to the next. There are 8 homes within 1/2 mile of my house that I know of who feed them. Honestly, I think it's getting worse not better. I could fill 10 2B tags in my own back yard and there would still be deer the following year. The last deer I shot here fell over right on my neighbor's driveway. Thank goodness I have great neighbors.

What effect on these harvest numbers posted does the fact that the herd has been lowered have(in units like 4D)? I mean, is it really reasonable to EXPECT the deer harvest to remain as high as it was in the past?
Like around 1990. Tons of deer then and the harvest was high. Now the herd has been lowered so naturally the harvest numbers will not be the same just by sheer math. Depending on the exact population numbers, couldn't you really be harvesting a higher percentage of the deer even though the straight numbers of deer shot are less? (And I am not saying that's the case.) Wouldn't that too keep the herd down? And with higher populations of predators like bobcats and bears,(coyote pops are probably stable for what they were), aren't the predators doing a bigger share of the work that the hunters used to be doing?

I totally get the gist of your post and what you are getting at. Hunters are not shooting lots of deer and the habitat is dictating the herd level. And you are absolutely right. So don't take this as complaining about "no deer."

But isn't just posting the numbers you have there not really telling the entire story?
 
1 - 20 of 135 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top