Pennsylvania Hunters Satisfied Or Fed Up?

I grew-up hunting in PA and continue to hunt there every year. There are many hunters there who have hunted their entire lives with an abundant deer population (I’m talking seeing herds of 50+ regularly). The concept of QDMA was contrary to everything most of us PA hunters ever knew. However, I can say for sure, that there are a heck of a lot more branched-antler bucks roaming around these days.

As one who spends portions of well over 300 days per year afield, most of them in Pennsylvania, it seems to me that there are less deer in many areas but there is an improved buck to doe ratio and there are many more “decent” bucks out there.

That being said, the deer management issue is one that is impossible to win. I think it can best be summed up the the following situation.

An officer has a load of roadkilled deer to dispose of and says something to the effect of, ” look at that, now tell me there are no deer.”

A hunter who hunts in an area where the deer population is very low says he hunted all season and only saw a few deer and is very disgusted and ready to quit hunting.

Surprisingly, both are right in their comments and if the sportsman had to pick up that number of deer, he would be unhappy and if the officer hunted where the sportsman does he would be discouraged.

The problem is that deer are plentiful in some areas and these are often areas where they create problems, such as near major highways which pass through farmland where the crops attract larger numbers of deer, while in others areas numbers are low enough to dishearten hunters.

The antler restriction argument is another one that cannot be won and depends somewhat on one’s location also, but in my experience irestrictions likely do not produce a large number of trophy bucks, but they do greatly increase the number of 8 point or more bucks with spreads of 12″ or greater. This is a great difference from when most bucks were taken in their first year and were spikes and four points.

The issue is extremely complicated and there are many different poositions that can be intellectually defended.

Before deer numbers were reduced, officers were often confronted by persons who wanted to know. “what are your going to do about the deer, they are eating me up”, or “I can’t drive down the road without hitting one-something needs to be done”.

Almost overnight this changed to the opposite and the standard comment was, “what happened to the deer?”

I keep reading where more and more WMD have sold out of antlerless deer permits. From your comments above about deer being sparse in some areas and not in others, causes me to ask two questions.

1. Does the Game Commission have a good handle on deer populations in WMDs and are issuing the right number of antlerless permits for each zone?

2. Is it safe to assume that because some hunters who say they think too many does are being taken, resulting in too few deer, and the sellout of antlerless permits, that overall hunters are not that concerned about deer populations? If they cared or were concerned enough, wouldn’t they NOT buy the permits?

I’ve hunted in PA for many years, so I think I can ‘chime in’ a little…at least on the second question posed in this comment. I can’t speak for everyone, but I do know that there are hunters who by the permits to PROTECT the doe. They know that if they don’t purchase a tag, another hunter will. So, they buy a tag and don’t use it.

I suppose if we had all the numbers in front of us, in other words, total permits sold for each region, number of permits filled, success rates past and present, then we could “guesstimate” how many permits are being bought and used in that fashion.

Got any educated guesses on that?

I know when Maine first began it’s moose hunt, people were scrambling to apply in hopes of getting a permit so other couldn’t. I imagine that still goes on to some degree but nothing like when it began.

1. This question is a major portion of what the controversy is centered about. It seems as though PGC officials think it does have a good handle on deer numbers, while many sportsmen and legislators think it does not. An aspect that makes the problem much more difficult to adress is something like this.
Lets take a mountain with lush agricultural fields at the bottom and typical woodland habitat on the rest of it. The top of the mountain is a victim of gypsy moth damage which destroyed most of the good food trees years ago and they were replaced with species which are not good food producers. Now most of the deer are in the agricultural area, but a hunting club owns a substantial tract along the upper parts of the mountain. There is no food there to attract the deer, while the farmers are experiencing considerable crop damage, yet for one reason or another, they will not allow the hunters to access their property. The club members best hope is that hunting activity in the low lands will cause deer to move higher on the mountain. However, hunting patterns have changed and many sit in tree stands and do not move the deer, so the club does not see many deer and has a poor season. As you have stated before, it is increasingly difficult to find a place to hunt. Someone may tell these people to go where the deer are, but it may not be all that simple to do that. This is an oversimplification, but it gives one an idea of the problem.

2. Bryan is correct in his observations on this point as I have heard this sentiment voiced or written many times. Many however go with the theory that “they” (the PGC) want them killed and if I don’t do it someone else will”, so they then engage in the exact behavior they are condemning. Many are happy with the reduced deer numbers and of course feel they are doing the correct thing by harvesting does. I quit hunting in 1998, not because of a perceived shortage of deer at the time, but because I decided to concentrate on wildlife photography and video, but personally if I still hunted and felt that deer numbers were too low I would not shoot does.

3. Another point: Many persons have tried to sort this situation out and it seems as though no one can find an answer acceptable to all or perhaps even to a substantail number of people. This is because what is considered the correct number of deer is inevitably influenced by ones interaction with the resource. A typical statement is that “we must do what is best for the resource”, but this is doomed from the start because a persons perception of what is best for the resource is colored by his relationship with it. (Hunters and persons interested in watching and photographing big game may want large numbers that are easily seen, while agricultural and forestry interests look at it from an entirely diffent perspective, and find that any wildlife damage is too much to endure. Bird watchers also come from another perspective and are concerned about deer destroying habitat and reducing song bird numbers, yet if the shoe were on the other foot and an aggressive bird of prey reduction program were introduced to reduce predation on small game species I predict that they would react the same as many hunters to the deer numbers reductions.

Willard – I think you have touched only the tip of the iceberg and I appreciate your input on this subject. It’s complicated. I have been reading the document that contains much of how Maine manages it’s deer and the algorithms they use. I think I am on my third reading and much of it I still don’t fully understand.

Here’s another question open to all readers. If as Willard describes is true, his scenario of the mountaintop and lowlands, is this a case where the PGC could implement baiting? In other words, if the deer aren’t voluntarily going up on the mountain because of lack of food and habitat and they are destroying the farmers land, yet he doesn’t want hunters on his land, why not lure the deer up there? Of course this would have to be a case where science shows that “drastic” measures must be implemented to deal with a bad problem.

Here’s another part of the permit issuing issue I raised and hope to get a response about. Bryan mentioned that some hunters are buying the permits and not using them to protect the does. If the PGC recognizes this and still have their objectives of reducing deer numbers in particular areas, won’t they just simply offset that act by issuing a few more permits?

The scenario I outlined is completely a hypothetical situation as far as I know and illustrates an extreme situation, If it is at such a localized level it would be hard for a state agency to address except for prephaps trying to get landowners to open their property to sportmen which of couse the PGC does with its Farm Game Program.

Situatuions somehat similar do; however, exist and in undamaged habitat the location of deer populations in a small area may vary from year to year as in one year there may be an excellent mast crop on the high ridges and the deer could be there while not in the lowlands and then those who happened to own property in the lowlands and could hunt no where else would have problems.

It seems though that in the current situation it is a matter of a large number of hunters being unhappy with the situation year after year starting with the implementation of the herd reduction program originated by Dr. Gary Alt.

It is complicated, which is why the situation in Pennsylvania has degenerated into the “Deer Wars” as many call it.

As for baiting, it has been implemented in certain urbanized areas to deal with problems, but it seems unlikely that it would be utilized on a statewide basis unless thelegis-
lature passed legislation requiring that it be done. There are currently multiple bills attempting to loosen regulations on baiting or to legalize it statewide, but all have ran into substantial oppositon, much of it from sportsmen’s groups. Add this with the threat of CWD and the expansion of baiting does not seem likely.

I do not know the answer to your final point, but it seems likely that they would consider this. As you have discovered there is a mind boggling amount of material out there on this subject and it is easy to miss reading something, or one can sit through a meeting and miss absorbing a point like that.

Tom, you raise a good point in suggesting that the game commission can simply offer more tags.

If nothing else, this post has generated a great discussion…and I know it is stimulating m thinking quite a bit.

Thanks