The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Why H/R
New to this site.55 yrs hunting and more deer than I can count.On this topic I see Keyboard cowboys who never seen a wild deer,Guys from 5C argueing with guys from 2G about deer populations,antler freaks VS. meat hunters (me).
Its time to look at the overall picture and see what is up with the deer herd.
I am sure the Pgc dropped the numbers for a reason. Genetics? Diseas? Interbreeding?.Anybody have an idea?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,350 Posts
to increase habitat and herd health.

get ready for a huge debate and everything getting off topic. not sure if that is a question you want to ask on here. you are going to get 500 different answers (opinions). if you truly want to know, it would do you better to do research and read some fact filled articles. since you are new here you probably havent noticed that EVERY post on here gets turned into a HR and AR debate. you can just look at those posts (a few hundred from the past few years) and you can get the same answers you are going to get in the next few hours on this thread.

good luck in your quest and welcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks for the insite 308,I can weed out the key board cowboys pretty quick and all other opinions I respect.Habitat is one issue that comes up,By the size of the deer I see I'm sure it was a factor.I see fewer deer but very large size.
If you ever seen a massive winter kill like Pike County in the 70'S,you understand that nature handles overpop in her own way. I think the PGC had other reasons for H/R
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
234 Posts
There has been links from biologist John Eveland that have been posted several times on some of the other posts. That explains it all clearly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,621 Posts
Half Racked said:
Thanks for the insite 308,I can weed out the key board cowboys pretty quick and all other opinions I respect.Habitat is one issue that comes up,By the size of the deer I see I'm sure it was a factor.I see fewer deer but very large size.
If you ever seen a massive winter kill like Pike County in the 70'S,you understand that nature handles overpop in her own way. I think the PGC had other reasons for H/R
Overall, there are multiple reasons for HR. One stated by the PGC in their management plan was to reduce human-deer conflicts. Deer are not habitat specialists by any means and when overpopulation occurs, roses and gardens get eaten more often, cars hit them more often, farmers have more crop loss, etc. Nature does take care of itself, but there is a long time for human-deer conflicts to occur between May and January/February when winter kills take care of the problems.

I also have no doubt that if the PGC was not proactive in HR, CWD would already have been detected in PA and likely have a strong hold on the deer population.

Of course, many folks tell me they like AR but not HR. The problem with this is that AR without HR would be counter productive as it would increase the deer population and herd health would decline. This would result in more conflicts as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,715 Posts
Furtaker Ron said:
There has been links from biologist John Eveland that have been posted several times on some of the other posts. That explains it all clearly.
what it explains are mr evelands opinions, and why they are different from pgc or most other deer management plans. theres always different conspiricy theoeies in anything controversial or unpopular, this is no different.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
234 Posts
No. Not just opinions. LOTS of supporting facts. You are just trying to dismiss it all because of your opnions. Plenty in there other than his opinions on the issues that cannot be debated, but is strictly fact.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
234 Posts
I agree with some of what you said Wiz, only things I would add is that you have to have too many deer for their health to suffer. That is not the case today, and in most areas it would not be an issue with SOME herd growth either.

As for cwd, thats not an issue because of too many deer, we probably would never have it here if it weren't for the deer farming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,715 Posts
Furtaker Ron said:
No. Not just opinions. LOTS of supporting facts. You are just trying to dismiss it all because of your opnions. Plenty in there other than his opinions on the issues that cannot be debated, but is strictly fact.
everyone who drinks milk will die. thats an undisputible fact, no?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,806 Posts
Furtaker Ron said:
Sure it is. But unfortunately it doesn't oppose any of the scathing facts in the Eveland files.
Just what scathing facts would that be?

I have read the report and I don’t see all of this conspiracy stuff that some of you seem to think and say exists.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Come on guys,I want to hear opinions,from observation over the years of hunting,not facts from booked learned biologist.Example,I preached there was a problem with the deer herd long before it was an issue.I was seeing big mature doe with no fawns at there sides.Nobody thought anything of it because there were still deer to shoot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,902 Posts
True, I noticed the same thing long before HR. started. I also remember seeing groups of 15, 20, or more deer & not a buck in the bunch, to me that is not normal. 15 years ago oak regeneration was non existent, on our camp property now I am seeing good regeneration. Browse lines which were very common I no longer see. The deer population is lower then it was, but the deer are definately healthier,larger bodies,both doe & buck,& we are seeing many doe with twins, & larger racked deer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,715 Posts
Furtaker Ron said:
Sure it is. But unfortunately it doesn't oppose any of the scathing facts in the Eveland files.
like some of the facts in mr eveland's report, they don't reflect reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
On my land I have watched the increase in oak seedlings occur coincidentally with the decrease in the area's deer population.
Hmmm ... There were always trees growing, now I actually get some regeneration of preferred browse species.
The PGC biologists understood that way before I did and they learned it from a book and then observed it in nature's classroom.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
That book learning is dangerous stuff, especially when it is correct!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
135 Posts
Plenty of oak seedling on the lands I hunt. Lots of other deer foods also. Always was. Yet pgc mowed the herd down anyway.

Yellodog that was not true, just another cheap shot at the guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,461 Posts
If you ever seen a massive winter kill like Pike County in the 70'S
As you're new, what you will find after some more posting, is that a large percentage of the "keyboard cowboys" (your term), haven't even seen the 70's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,461 Posts
Most of the hunters that have hunted the 70's refer to it as the good old days.
That's certainly a relative term. I'm sure, in the northern tier, regarding Deer numbers only, the "good old days" surely were the 70's. Here in Washington County, rest assured, the "good old days" for sheer numbers of deer, were the 90's. Even today, after HR, there's more deer than in the 70's down here.

I'd also like to add. Although I am a proponent of AR, it has done little to increase the actual body size average of Deer down here. I'm sure the same can't be said for the northern tier. We had more agriculture (working farms) in the 70's here than we do now, and the Deer you could find then were very large, if you ask me, moreso than they are now down here. Again, more agriculture and not as many Deer will lend to that. It's all a matter of relevance.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top