PA hunters is it a good thing or a bad thing?

[bowhunter56]

I don't blame him for the way the deer management has gone, I think the bonus tags, and 2 week doe season, changes things, I would like to see one doe tag per hunter if drawn, and no bonus tags, and only a 3 day doe season.It's funny though, i recently spoke to a retired game warden, he said the deer are out there, but they are being shot at all the time, they have gotten smarter, plus there are less hunters ,which i agree with kids/youth don'thave the interest as when i was growing up, Weather it be a problem or just no hunters, or smarter deer, something has changed, and i don't blame one person.

[Doc]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't blame him for the way the deer management has gone

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly who is to blame then? Don't we hold anyone accountable for doing their job right anymore?

Doc

[iron buck]

I feel it is a bad thing that Gary Alt is gone. I feel that we were/are on the right track.

The deer are out there. And those who are willing to hunt can & do find them. On both public & private land.

[turkeygirl]

Well I live in NY so I don't know much about PA game management but I ditto what bowhunter 56 says. The deer where I hunt(and live) get shot at all the time when it is shotgun season because our neighbors get a ton of people together, surround the fields, and push the deer out of the woods then shoot at them running flat out across the fields and they don't have scopes on their guns even! Deer are getting smarter I agree. Andy and I will do 2 person drives but we don't take shots at running deer across the fields, we wait for a good, close shot. I heard somewhere that there are more middle aged/older hunters than youth hunters these days and that is a said thing because more kids should be out in the woods hunting. Near the end of the season a few weeks ago, I was out trying to fill my buck tag when the neighbors did a drive in front of me and shot at does running across the field. I met Andy on the other side of the property as he was going to try to push some deer towards me and when we were walking out, we found deer tracks with small specks of blood from a doe the neighbors had shot! We followed it but it was not a heavy trail, just pin head size specks but that goes to show how shooting at running deer does not gurantee a dead deer!

[buckbuster11]

I have no idea whether its a good or a bad thing....it all depends on who replaces him and what changes are made.

[DJR]

I cant waut to read what happens after the meeting

[Rut-Nut]

I definitely think it is a BAD thing! Too bad he had to leave now, but I understand why. With all the changes to the state retirement system- it was better for him to retire before jan 1, 2005. Of course the ALT-bashers will say he got "Chased" out!

[DJR]

heres the link on when they are meeting

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...amp;A=11#board

[snapper]

I feel this is why the PGC and our deer herd is always messed up. They can't leave well enough alone....always changing something. Why is there always new laws every year? Will we ever get to a point where someone says "Thats it, nothing else to do, no need for change?"

I think Alt leaving is a will be a bad thing, but I will hold out and see what happens. If they bring someone in and start making more changes...then it will def. be a bad thing.

[Strut10]

I say "good riddance". But whether it's good or bad depends on who's next.

Personally, I think the biggest threat to PA deer and deer hunters is the DCNR. Here's a letter from the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania that lays some pretty embarassing tidbits out that you may have missed in Outdoor Life or on the 6:00 news. (Kinda long, but a good read).

Letter to Commissioner Russel E. Schleiden:

December 22, 2004

Russell E. Schleiden, President
Pennsylvania Game Commission
Harrisburg, Pa. 17110

Dear President Schleiden:

Following the most dismal deer season in the lifetime of most deer hunters, can it be that the Game Commission is plotting with DCNR to propose seasons and bag limits that will further reduce deer numbers on State Forest Lands? Before you venture too deeply into the planning process, may I suggest that you take a closer look at the sorry state of the deer herd on public land the way hunters have over this past deer season, and do not fall for DCNR’s highly exaggerated claim of being overrun with deer.

Let me begin by saying this letter is not coming from a scorned hunter who is angry about not getting a deer. I killed a buck again this year and our camp continues to do well as a result of spending countless hours in the woods scouting. But we refuse to participate in the senseless slaughter of antlerless deer in our deer depleted environment and encourage others to refrain as well. It’s our small way of protesting the deer eradication plan which has reduced hunters to nothing more than deer management instruments. It troubles me deeply that the simple thrill of just seeing deer is being sapped unnecessarily from our traditional deer camps across Pennsylvania, just so the timber industry can experience greater profits. The fallout from this can be nothing short of catastrophic for the future of hunting in Pennsylvania.

From my experience and virtually every deer hunter I have spoken to following this past season, it seems unconscionable that you could possibly seek further deer reduction, especially on public lands. I hunt exclusively in the Susquehannock State Forest in southern Potter County, specifically a rather large area from Cherry Springs to Cross Fork, and Oleona to Conrad. Granted, I can only report on what I experienced in my neck of the woods, and perhaps it’s different in other parts of the state. But I seriously doubt it. From what I hear the Sproul, Elk, Tiadaghton, and Bald Eagle State Forests are even worse than where I hunt.

At the end of the 90’s following years of responsible and systematic deer reduction strategies, the quality of our deer herd was at it’s zenith, with the perfect blend of deer numbers and quality of bucks. Since that time you have implemented concurrent buck and doe seasons, DMAP, and issued previously unheard of numbers of antlerless deer permits encouraging hunters to kill multiple deer per season. This has resulted in the demise of over 2 million deer just from hunting! In addition we have a far greater predator problem in northern Pennsylvania than anybody cares to admit, and with the last two difficult winters thrown in we are very quickly approaching an unhuntable deer herd. Yes, you read that right. When hunters do not see a deer on the first day, or camps with over 20 hunters drive these mountains for days during deer and bear season only to see a handful of deer, one could certainly conclude that we are fast approaching an unhuntable deer herd. Personally I hunted bear for 2 days with my brother and we never saw a deer, and that was in a designated DMAP area where there is allegedly an excess of deer! Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident, which makes it easy to understand why DCNR cannot sell out it’s allotted DMAP permits. Why would hunters purchase deer tags to hunt where there’s no deer?

Some would also argue that we are on the verge of violating Title 34. Section 322 outlines the duties of the Game Commission to “Serve the interest of sportsmen by preserving and promoting our special heritage of recreational hunting and fur taking by providing adequate hunting opportunity to hunt and trap the wildlife resources of this Commonwealth.” I’ll let the legal experts wrestle with that one, but they just may have a case – especially after next season.

Based upon the demands laid out by DCNR in your meeting with them on Nov. 15, it’s laughable that they want the exact opposite of what needs to be done. We need shorter seasons and far fewer doe permits to remedy this problem. How can it be that hunters who combed these woods for weeks this fall looking for deer and other game, are so far apart from DCNR in their assessment of what’s out there? And it’s not because we didn’t venture “back in”. The reality of the matter is that in many cases the further “back in” you go, the less deer you see.

Perhaps it’s because DCNR’s vision is clouded by dollar signs. We must keep in perspective that to a forester the only good deer is a dead deer. The biggest myth perpetrated upon the public is the carrying capacity of the land, and the notion that deer are the major inhibitors of forest regeneration. There’s no way that the few deer we have in our forests today are having a major impact on regeneration, especially oak regeneration which coincidently is a problem for every state in the east. There are many places across Pennsylvania where the soil is so poor that nothing can grow but mountain laurel and scrub oak. To base the carrying capacity upon the visual inspection of what grows there, without first factoring in the quality of the soil is unscientific at best, and nothing short of agenda driven.

I’m guessing that DCNR doesn’t really know how many deer there are, nor do they care that much. Their primary motivation seems to be meeting the requirements of a California based firm named Scientific Certification Systems - the organization who certifies their timber. SCS says in their 2004 Recertification Report that DCNR must reduce deer densities which they claim are negatively impacting oak regeneration and biodiversity; in turn SCS will grant them certification and a premium price for their timber. So if we just follow the money trail as with so many political issues, we arrive at the real heart of the matter. Most people are also unaware that this Recertification Report which condemns deer was co-authored by Pennsylvanian Dave deCalesta, a long standing anti-deer advocate who worked with the Department of Forestry. How convenient! Interesting how these little tidbits of information never find their way out into the public; all we hear is just kill the deer.

So the question becomes: Does the Game Commission cave in to the whining demands of DCNR and sell out their primary stakeholders – the license buying hunters; and become an accomplice to this money grubbing venture under the guise of deer management? It boggles my mind how the Game Commission bites the hand that feeds it. This deer eradication plan has to result in the loss of license revenue and Pitman-Robertson proceeds for the Game Commission, as well as income for thousands of retail outlets such as sporting goods stores, butcher shops, lodging establishments, and ultimately tax revenue for state. Maybe the ultimate objective is to put the Game Commission in such financial straits as a result of decreased license sales, that they will have no other recourse but to merge with DCNR. When that happens, God help us!

There are undoubtedly places in Pennsylvania, primarily in the southern part of the state that require serious deer reduction strategies. Why then does the Game Commission seemingly ignore this problem, and cater so much of their efforts to DCNR and State Forest lands where deer numbers are least? Why have you based so much of your deer management plan on the input of a state agency whose primary motivation is money, and totally disregarded the voice of the sportsmen? Well Russ you can very soon count on hearing the voice of the sportsmen as well as legislators, in an unprecedented verbal assault precipitated by the deterioration of deer hunting in what was once the deer rich state of Pennsylvania. Growing up in Pennsylvania you know that deer hunting is a sacred institution in this state, and messing with it is something you do with extreme caution. Sportsmen have been more than patient during this 5 year experiment as deer numbers have plummeted, hanging on to the promise of more and bigger bucks. We are certainly not seeing more bucks, and it’s even debatable how many bigger bucks we have. Instead our deer numbers have been reduced to alarmingly low levels, and hunter satisfaction is at a low not seen in our lifetimes.

The experiment has run it’s course. With Gary Alt now gone, perhaps it’s time to revisit the ideas of The Deer Management Working Group which held so much promise back in 1999, before they were unceremoniously cast aside to bring Dr. Alt on board. In either event I would hope you give strong consideration to your major stakeholder, the Pennsylvania sportsmen and sportswomen and by making some serious adjustments. Deer hunters can provide a more objective assessment about Pennsylvania’s deer herd than DCNR, because we are not motivated by money, and nobody spends more time out in the woods. Hunters will tell you there are many areas of the state where you should have a bucks-only season like they do in New York, and predators and winter mortality would likely keep the herd stable. Citizen Task Forces which have been bandied about for years, and are also in use in New York would probably arrive at the same conclusions. I guess that’s why they were never implemented in Pennsylvania……

The solution to this problem is real simple. If DCNR wants to reduce the deer herd on State Forests because they feel there are too many deer, they simply need to state their case by submitting a qualified deer census as a result of aerial infrared mapping techniques. I’m sure the Game Commission will respond by issuing DMAP tags and hunters will be more than happy to help them out! What could be fairer than that? Otherwise they should get on with the business of managing their forests, and leave the business of deer management up to the Game Commission.


Gregory D. Levengood, Chairman of the Board
Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania

[TreeStandBowHunter]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't blame him for the way the deer management has gone, I think the bonus tags, and 2 week doe season, changes things, I would like to see one doe tag per hunter if drawn, and no bonus tags, and only a 3 day doe season.It's funny though, i recently spoke to a retired game warden, he said the deer are out there, but they are being shot at all the time, they have gotten smarter, plus there are less hunters ,which i agree with kids/youth don'thave the interest as when i was growing up, Weather it be a problem or just no hunters, or smarter deer, something has changed, and i don't blame one person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree...almost. I think some areas need the 2 weeks of doe. Out in Bedford county, around those farms where I hunt, 2 weeks of doe doesn't even put a dent in the herd. HOWEVER, I do agree that alot of areas do not need the 2 weeks nor bonus tags. I know out where I used to hunt in Lebanon County, hunters are seeing hardly anything and that used to be a good area out there. I think some changes need to be made quick. I don't know what to think about Gary Alt so I can't answer the initial question but I do know that changes need to be made to bring the herd back in a lot of area. Just my 2 cents...