# PA Hunters sue state over deer numbers



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

If anything this highlights the difficult position state resource agencies are facing today. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. On one hand you have the insurance and forestry lobbies threatening if populations aren't brought down on the other you have dissatified hunters threatening.

Win, lose or draw, litigation takes money away from resource management and gets diverted to CYA management.

Regardless of the decision made, state agencies are gonna be the target of the camp that wasn't satisfied with the decision. Kinda illustrates what a whiny-ass nation we've become. :sad:


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

It is sad because it will take money to fight it, 
but it also exposes other industries that are controlling our hunting. It will be harder for groups to state their claims on reason for doing things like reducing the herd for health reasons when the herd is being reduced for profit reasons.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

rzdrmh said:


> someday, somehow, hunters in PA must account for their own actions. they are the ones that manage the harvest. if they are unhappy, they need to look within, and quit blaming outside forces.


This holds some truth, but hunters do not control the number of tags issued, or block permits issued. If the DNR issued only 50,000 licenses a year in a few years the would be blamed for the deer explosion and if they issued 2 million tags they will be blamed for the deers low population. 

Not many hunters are thinking about what the othe guy is killing when they have a tag in their hand, they are think about what they are going to kill and then worry about the numbers for the season when the come out in May.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Anytime you have a QDM plan you are attempting to promote adequate buck age structure, populations in balance with the habitat, and appropriate sex ratios.

Basically, you could refer to some pretty low deer numbers and call it QDM if it met the 3 biological necessities of QDM....but that does not mean you can not have higher densities if there is room for the population to grow and still call it QDM..you CAN! In fact, from a hunter relation stand point, future license sales, future hunters, the enjoyment of hunting in general it almost seems reckless to have aggressive herd reduction with no real handle on the end result in certain areas, especially public. On private land, for example, it is very hard to overharvest does with aggressive permits in many areas..not all, but on private areas hunter numbers, habitat, and number of deer can be more closely controlled by landowners. BUT, on public land this is a different story and when most public land meets aggressive herd reduction you can have problems like PA is experiencing. Does it still fall under the definition of QDM...yes! Did PA need to reduce the deer herd by so much, so quick in order to have a QDM plan...in some areas probably yes, and in some areas probably no and the hunters voices need to be heard when it becomes so extreme. QDM is not about taking the enjoyment out of hunting and if there are areas on PA's public lands that have too few deer, and if those areas are becoming more the majority, than the minority, then shame on the PGC for letting their herd reduction get out of hand.

I like to repeat the message that Brian Murphy, Executive Director of the QDMA delivered in a recent Quality Whitetails:

"Herien lies the dilemma. Should our public lands be used simply as "deer factories" with no regard for the forest health, or should deer populations be maintained at levels compatible with the forests, but produce a lower harvestable "surplus"? In my opinion neither option alone is correct. Instead, I contend that a combination of active habitat imiprovement and site-specific antlerless harvest is the answer. This combination would enable the maintenance of huntable deer populations while minimizing negative impacts to forests. Despite the obvious staffing and funding issues, state agencies must find ways to satisfy hunter expectations while ensuring the long-term health of our forests. Otherwise, deer hunting will become a sport exclusively for those with access to private land."

A few points about Brian's comments:

1. It appears that the deer herd is being maintained in a way to produce a lower harvestable surplus only, and their is no balance whatsoever.
2. Also, I do not see any evidence that the anterless harvest is very site-specific which would instead guard against hunter disatisfaction due to uneccessary herd reduction.
3. The state agencies must find ways to satisfy hunter expectations while ensuring the long-term health of the forest...I would challenge that without a more concrete and site specific approach to antlerless harvest on public land, the long-term health of the forest is being taken care of, but any thought to maintaining harvestable numbers in an attempt to satisfy hunters to a healthy degree has been ignored.

There is balance to any management plan and I just don't see that PA is addressing that balance that Brian talked about in his comments, and the result is a strong number of angered sporstmen that are attempting to take matters into their own hands...and when that happens, NO ONE wins!

Also, just as a comment...notice you don't here much negative press about the AR's that are a part of PA's management plan...it's based mostly on the low herd numbers.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Shoeman,

Take MI for example. We already manage for keeping herds in balance with the habitat. In fact, here in the U.P. we have 11/19 DMU's below stated DNR goals between 5 and 50% so those areas could actually increase relative to DNR goals.

So, we already manage for herd reduction and maintainance...nothing would need to change. Then, it boils down to buck age structure, which can easily be addressed with restraint on harvesting young bucks....notice you don't hear many complaints about PA's AR program, for example.

So statewide QDM would be easy to implement....we are already part way there. Nothing is ever perfect. Some areas would have too few deer, some areas too many, some areas better buck age structure than others, but it's always a work in progress. It's not really a question of how, but instead if enough hunters want it to show support for the DNR to manage with tools more closely related to QDM, than Traditional deer management.

PA hunters aren't complaining about QDM, whether they know it or not, they are instead complaining about herd numbers too low, which can happen just the same with QDM or TDM.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

poz said:


> This holds some truth, but hunters do not control the number of tags issued, or block permits issued. If the DNR issued only 50,000 licenses a year in a few years the would be blamed for the deer explosion and if they issued 2 million tags they will be blamed for the deers low population.
> 
> Not many hunters are thinking about what the othe guy is killing when they have a tag in their hand, they are think about what they are going to kill and then worry about the numbers for the season when the come out in May.


well, poz, i know this.. we establish the number of doe we're going to take prior to setting foot in the woods. its based on visual sightings in the off season. that's generally a poor indicator, and we usually find that we can take a few more than we anticipated. however, if during the course of discussion with neighbors, if i found that many doe were taken, i'd adjust. if i go out intending to take "X" number of doe during the season, and am not seeing enough doe to justify it, i adjust.

tags in my county are pretty much unlimited right now, so number of tags issued are kind of irrelevant.

not many hunters are thinking about what others are taking?

shame on them.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I don't think PA is the poster of QDM at all. Right now, PA is doing what MI had to do a couple years ago, but even more extreme. Drastic herd reductions, at almost any cost. Limiting bucks that a hunter can shoot in order that they hopefully will shoot a doe is all I see in PA. If anything, this drastic herd reduction is setting the stage for possible QDM. It sounds like there isn't even enough food in PA. IMHO


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

the problem is that many people on this site were praising PA a few years back, and wanted michigan to follow suit, We heard countless arguements about what has happened in PA and the herd needed to be reduced to save the forest and habitat. 
And the herd in Michigan needs to be reduced or Michigans habitat will be destroyed also. Now we are starting to hear reports from Gary Alt himself that they are not sure how many deer are in PA. And also reports that the reduction might have been backed by the timber industry and Insurance groups etc. People are starting to back track now and say PA isn't a QDM state and we won't end up like them. Look back in this forum at threads that were posted a few years back, all you saw was praise for what PA was doing and how michigan should reduce the herd like they did in order to get bigger bucks. It funny to read them and look at the thinking that was going on.

As a hunter I want the healthiest and largest herd possible, I don't want my herd reduced to benefit other industries If we want to make Michigan a hunting destination than we have to do it by having a large quality herd, not a small quality herd.

P.S. 

Bob, congats on the little one again, Hope everyone is doing well.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

The idea in PA is great....get the herd in line with the habitat and improve buck age structure. But, it appears they may have gone overboard with agressive antlerless permits on at least some public land areas. Is the goal still good...sure! Has the execution been flawless..no! BUT, keep in mind like Bob said they are attempting a massive herd reduction like we did here in MI several years ago..even more aggressive. It isn't QDM that is flawed, in fact, you don't hear many complaints from PA hunters about AR's which most assume means QDM, but instead the population numbers are flawed, which can be a problem while managing for QDM, or TDM.

Sounds like PA game managers wanted to drastically reduce numbers....that would have happened with our without AR's, QDM, TDM, or any management style they chose to follow. 

All that being said, I'll still favor hunting PA public land over MI public land this year during rifle season for the improved buck age structure and no baiting.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I see herd reductions and habitat renewal as a necessary precursor to QDM.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Northjeff,

We did have a massive herd reduction in our state on grounds that the habitat couldn't support them. Was this massive reduction needed. I am going to start a new thread so we don't Hijack this one. All this talk about QDM and deer population and goals from the state has got me wondering if QDM guys in the state manage their lands to achieve the State goal of 20 dpsm.

Please see new thread.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106840


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Who in MDNR said anything about 20 dpsm? Maybe in heavy human populated SLP, but not NLP. From talking to different folks, I believe mid-30's dpsm is goal for much of the NLP.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Bob, 
The goal is to reduce the herd to 1.3 million deer Preseason., Michigan is 60,000+ square miles, that comes out to 21.76 dpsm


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Both will lose in this lawsuit.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Poz, it's been widely reported in several articles that there's only about 40,000-45,000 miles that are considered huntable or sustaining possible deer in the state. You need you subtract lakes, cities, suburbs, spawl, etc. That comes to roughly 28-33 deer per mile. But that's only overall average. Some better area's will have 40-ish and some other area's, often UP and TB-NELP will have less. 
Currently, it's pretty much the SLP that's above goal, from what I understand.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

poz said:


> As a hunter I want the healthiest and largest herd possible, I don't want my herd reduced to benefit other industries If we want to make Michigan a hunting destination than we have to do it by having a large quality herd, not a small quality herd.


So how many deer per square mile is a large, quality herd?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

This sounds a lot like the same thing that the Citizens Against the Political Eradication of Deer (I think that's the right name) tried a while back in Michigan. They tried to sue the DNR to stop them from issueing unlimited doe permits in north east Michigan. That suit failed in court. It's my opinion that Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania would be better served to spend their money on a massive publicity campain to urge hunters not shoot does in areas where the deer herd is too low.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

poz said:


> We did have a massive herd reduction in our state on grounds that the habitat couldn't support them. http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106840


Untrue and unsupportable. At most, our statewide herd has been reduced, over a period of years, by 22%. We still have one of the highest deer densities in the USA. 

To refer to our herd reduction as "massive" does a disservice to the english language. 

And FWIW, and Michigan has massively less than 60,000 square miles.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

farmlegend said:


> And FWIW, and Michigan has massively less than 60,000 square miles.


Michigan covers 96,810 square miles of which 56,809 square miles are land areas.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

56,809 square miles of land (deer are generally land animals) is about right. I was merely using the word "massively" in the same manner as it had previously been used in this thread.


----------

