# QDM Results From PA



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Here is a link to the 2004 harvest stats from PA.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=163698&A=11

The buck harvest was the lowest since 1983 and it was down 39% from the record harvest of 203K buck in 2001. If the percentage of 2.5+ buck harvested was the same as in 2003, we harvested fewer 2.5+ buck with AR , than we did in 2002 , before any buck were saved by AR. Therefore, none of the predictions Dr. Alt made about the effects of AR came true.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Wow, all those bucks saved!

You guys are looking at some awsome buck hunting in the future!


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

"By decreasing the deer herd, and thereby deer impacts on the habitat in these areas, we believe that overbrowsed habitat will begin to recover so that these areas can one day sustain higher deer numbers, as well as other game and nongame species," DuBrock said. "In other words, we are asking hunters to work with us and endure some short term pain, in terms of lower deer densities, so that we can achieve long term gain, in terms of better habitat that supports more deer and other wildlife for all Pennsylvanians."

I think that just about says it all.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Letmgro said:


> Wow, all those bucks saved!
> 
> You guys are looking at some awsome buck hunting in the future!


 Could you please quote the section of the report that indicates the number of bucks that were saved in 2004? In 2002 we saved 80K buck which reduced the harvest from 203K to 165K. In 2003 the PGC claims we saved even more buck and the and the buck harvest dropped to 142K. Now in 2004 the buck harvest dropped even more to 123 K. So, could you please tell me when we can expect to start harvesting all those buck we saved?

BTW, the PGC stats show we harvested 85% of our 2.5+ buck in 2003.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> Could you please quote the section of the report that indicates the number of bucks that were saved in 2004? .


Overall, compared to the 2003-04 harvest results, the 2004-05 statewide antlered deer harvest was down 13 percent, ranging from a decline of 35 percent in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 2G to an increase of 13 percent in WMU 4B

13% less bucks shot last season, means more bucks available this season.

No fuzzy math there!


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Letmgro said:


> Overall, compared to the 2003-04 harvest results, the 2004-05 statewide antlered deer harvest was down 13 percent, ranging from a decline of 35 percent in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 2G to an increase of 13 percent in WMU 4B
> 
> 13% less bucks shot last season, means more bucks available this season.
> 
> No fuzzy math there!


 No, that is not true. PA is in the process of reducing our herd by over 50%. The decreased buck harvests simply reflect the effects of the increased anterless harvests ,which increases the number of BB harvested and decreases the number of BB recruited. Therefore, there are fewer legal buck available to be harvested and fewer 1.5 buck available to be saved by AR.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

Not trying to start anything here. I don't care for QDM, but what about all the new hunters that will be flocking to Pa to hunt these bigger bucks? Has anyone thought of the increased hunters after the fewer bigger deer. I guess what i'm trying to say is it will be the same in the U.P. Now everyone will flock to the U.P. to get a big buck therefore increasing the hunter to deer ratio maybe double or even triple? Is this something that has been thought about? Thanks.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

WAUB-MUKWA said:


> Not trying to start anything here. I don't care for QDM, but what about all the new hunters that will be flocking to Pa to hunt these bigger bucks? Has anyone thought of the increased hunters after the fewer bigger deer. I guess what i'm trying to say is it will be the same in the U.P. Now everyone will flock to the U.P. to get a big buck therefore increasing the hunter to deer ratio maybe double or even triple? Is this something that has been thought about? Thanks.


the number of out-of-state tags that are available. The number of tags should/would be dependant on the resources availablity - 


ferg.....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

HH,

Again, when you have unlimited permits on public land it is not QDM...doesn't matter who calls it that. QDM involves sight specific doe harvest..not the indiscriminate potential removal of large portions of the population.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> HH,
> 
> Again, when you have unlimited permits on public land it is not QDM...doesn't matter who calls it that. QDM involves sight specific doe harvest..not the indiscriminate potential removal of large portions of the population.



The PGC still claims that most of the state is above the OWDD goals. Only WMU 2 G is below the goal and they claim that low level is necessary to allow for regeneration. Therefore, while hunters consider the herd to be over harvested the PGC says they are balancing the herd with the habitat.

This conflict highlights why QDM does not work when implemented statewide. States do not have the will or the resources to micromanage the herd as individual land owners or coops do, so public land is always over harvested and private land continues to have higher densities than the state says the habitat will support.


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

North, not even if QDMA stands firmly behind what is going on in PA? Sure sounds to me like they are calling it QDM. Seems like everytime I turn around there is conflicting information.

From the most rrecent QDMA publication, Quality Whitetails, March 2005. From the Ex Director of QDM, Brian Murphy

""Make no mistake, Brian continued. "Landowners, hunters and wildlife professionals around the nation are watching the deer situation in Pensilvania. Under Gary's (Alt) leadership the Game commision has made significant progress towards achieving the kind of balance in the states deer herd that is critical to not only the long term health of the herd, but also the health of the states wildlife habitat and all the species that use it." 

"All of us at QDMQ, especially our more than 2000 PA members, are hopeful that the Game Commission will stay its cousrse and remain focused of the long tearm health of the deer herd and its habitat."

So its sounds to me like QDMA is firmly behind the PA experiment and the results so far. So if the Ex Dir of QDMA says its QDM, then I guess we have to believe him right? Or are there other things that he states that are inaccurate?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> This conflict highlights why QDM does not work when implemented statewide. States do not have the will or the resources to micromanage the herd as individual land owners or coops do, so public land is always over harvested and private land continues to have higher densities than the state says the habitat will support.



I sure wish I could take credit for this, but I can't - it's from 'safetreehunt' and post he made in a thread back on the 10th of March:

QUOTE 

To fix this problem the DNR should sponsor and create a Voluntary DMU Deer Management Advisory Group in each DMU. The group would be charged with getting information throughout the county from members of the group on deer numbers for their DMU. The DNR should set the format of the needed info and sponsor setting up these groups. This kind of activity will also allow the DNR to see what one DMU can do relative to another and find some common threads that all will need to implement. I expect that hunters would be more than willing to provide this free labor to the state, just as moms do for schools. There are many people in each DMU that are more than willing to lash out at the DNR for any given reason. So lets volunteer some time to solve the problem and put up or shut up. Three meetings a year in each DMU ought to make and enormous impact.

UNQUOTE


Man I sure wish I could sell this - it's the answer to the problem - we just need to get it implemented somehow!!!!

ferg....


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

bioman said:


> So its sounds to me like QDMA is firmly behind the PA experiment and the results so far. So if the Ex Dir of QDMA says its QDM, then I guess we have to believe him right? Or are there other things that he states that are inaccurate?


Therein lies the problem, you can't convienently hold up Alt and PA as a success story of QDM when it suits your agenda and then try and distance QDM from PA when critics question the data.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Saving bucks in areas with harsh winters is like investing in the stock market at the top of a bull run...you save 100, but probably only 70 live to see the next year. Or whatever the number might be, but the chances of a 1.5 year old buck who has lost 30% of his weight surviving a harsh winter are low. 

Swamper


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

NorthJeff said:


> HH,
> 
> Again, when you have unlimited permits on public land it is not QDM...doesn't matter who calls it that. QDM involves sight specific doe harvest..not the indiscriminate potential removal of large portions of the population.


For years I have read on these very forums how "QDM" was working in PA.. 
PA was always used as an example of expected outcomes of QDM. If you want to see how good WE CAN HAVE IT IN MICHIGAN, JUST LOOK AT PENNSYLVANIA! However, now that things seem to be going awry in PA and there is much hunter dissatisfaction I read.... "THAT IS NOT QDM".... 
Seriously, we in Michigan should take a hard look at Pennsylvania and learn from their mistakes. <----<<<


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

""""Therein lies the problem, you can't convienently hold up Alt and PA as a success story of QDM when it suits your agenda and then try and distance QDM from PA when critics question the data."""""" - Sib 

Freakin AMEN!!!!! Right on the money!!!!

""""For years I have read on these very forums how "QDM" was working in PA.. 
PA was always used as an example of expected outcomes of QDM. If you want to see how good WE CAN HAVE IT IN MICHIGAN, JUST LOOK AT PENNSYLVANIA! However, now that things seem to be going awry in PA and there is much hunter dissatisfaction I read.... "THAT IS NOT QDM".... 
Seriously, we in Michigan should take a hard look at Pennsylvania and learn from their mistakes.""""""" - Joe Archer 

Can we get another.... AMEN!!!!!!


----------



## Rondevous (Mar 14, 2005)

This makes for some interesting reading thank you!


----------



## lostmale (Dec 28, 2003)

> DuBrock also noted that the harvest data showed that the statewide antlerless deer harvest was comprised of 22 percent of button bucks,





> The 2004-05 antlered deer harvest was 124,410 and the antlerless deer harvest was 284,910


So I think that would mean 62,680 button bucks were taken which is over half of the total of antlered deer( 124,410 )taken this season. 

Almost a 1/4 of the anterless deer harvested were button bucks. Gee I wonder what happened to next years 1-1/2 bucks.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Actually, let's take a real look at what Brian Murphy said in the March 2005 Quality Whitetails magazine:

"Herien lies the dilemma. Should our public lands be used simply as "deer factories" with no regard for forest health, or should deer populations be maintained a levels compatible with the forest, but produce a lower harvestable "surplus"? In my opinion, neither option alone is correct. Instead, I contend that a combination of active habitat improvement 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 halth of our forests. Otherwise, deer hunting will become a sport exclusively for those with access to private land".

You guys who keep preaching "it won't work", etc., are just further exposing how little you know of what QDM actually is. Again, PA WAS on the right path, AR's, lower deer numbers where needed, etc...BUT, where they left the path was when they began to attempt to, as Mr. Murphy put it about populations that are "maintained a levels compatible with the forest, but produce a lower harvestable surplus". That is not QDM, and neither is the "deer factory" statement. Unlimited permits on public land is not QDM so if that is what is going on, which it is, and you point to that to say QDM doesn't work, well it's not QDM so your example is not valid....easy as that.

From what Mr. Murphy described what is going on in PA is not QDM. The doe harvest is not site-specific, and of course, not QDM....so quit calling it that. Again, I'll keep saying this until it sinks in...you can have QDM without doe harvest (at least by man).

QDM will work anywhere it is correctly implemented. Always has, always will.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Instead, I contend that a combination of active habitat improvement and site-specific antlerless harvest is the answer."


Please note that B. Murphy includes active habitat management, which you leave out as a requirement for QDM. He also calls for site specific anterless harvests ,which are simply impossible when the state is managing the plan,simply because they cannot control the harvest on private land. Therefore , they have to allocate anterless tags to produce the desired average anterless harvest within each DMU on both public and private land. As a result, public land is over harvested and private land tends to be underharvested ,because those that support QDM say their land can support a lot more deer because of their food plots and habitat improvement.

The last I heard the PA QDM branch of QDM still supports the plan and wants the commissioners to stay the course. So, appparently you have a disagreement with your fellow QDMA members in PA.


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

North, please refer to anything I have ever posted and you will see that I never stated or suggested that QDM won't work. I am simply, as someone who wants to find out more about it, raising what I believe are valid questions.

Brian Murphy actually said those qoutes and I am questioning as to why some QDM members are shying away from PA results while the Ex Director seems to be praising and supporting these very same results. Whether it worked in PA in some areas and not other areas doesn't matter, either it is QDM in PA or it is not. We can't be blowing two horns with one mouth.

And as far as anyone comparing what happened in PA with the recent proposal for the U.P., it can't be done. In my opinion, the U.P. proposal was not QDM but rather antler restrictions. There would not have been a wholesale slaughter of does in the U.P. The only area that may have needed increased antlerless harvest is the southern Ag areas when the 1 1/2 year old buck harvest was lowered substantialy.
This harvest taken out of the equation would have made it harder to keep the herd within carrying capacity without that number being made up somewhere. But I believe those areas already need more doe harvest, QDM or not.

One other thought you state "From what Mr. Murphy described what is going on in PA is not QDM." 

Then how can the Executive Director, the chief mouthpiece of QDMA, praise Alt and his results so explicitly?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

HH,

I've had many disagreements in the past over the doe harvest issue as well with fellow QDMA members and I won't keep my mouth shut just for the sake of "brethren". As someone who recieved the national 2004 "Al Brother's Deer Manager of the Year Award" from the QDMA for the successful implementation of QDM on my U.P. property while at the same time NEVER harvesting a doe over the life of the property...I personally feel I may have a different experience than some regarding this issue. Since I recieved an award from the QDMA for practicing this different experience, you can imagine I may feel rather strongly about this issue and if you look back on the history of my comments you will see that for about 3 years now I have been preaching about effective and appropriate doe harvest.

Going back to 1999 I was instructed by QDMA scientific hierarchy NOT to shoot does on my property and so from that day forward my view of QDM has been drastically different than many. Most areas of the country need significant doe harvest. Some of the country needs none, some needs considerably more. All is QDM, but it has to be site specific and you just cannot reach definitive population goals with unlimited antlerless permits on public land without experiencing unecessary and unwanted population drops in many areas...I've seen it in PA and it's not QDM. They can call it STM or "Save the Trees Management", but it ain't QDM.

Bioman, I wasn't necessarily including you in the "it won't work" crowd. As far as Alt...Didn't Alt himself just resign..was this the way he wanted to go with the doe permits...not sure, just asking. Alt changed history and implemented a campaign to significantly change buck age structure while at the same time improving the health of the forest...anyone who does that will be a deer management legend and should be commended. But, I would challenge anyone to find where they see the unlimited harvest of does on public land with no definitive end result is QDM.


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> HH,
> I won't keep my mouth shut just for the sake of "brethren".


 have to respect that!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Nothing against someone who is...but I never was a "union guy"


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Bioman, I wasn't necessarily including you in the "it won't work" crowd. As far as Alt...Didn't Alt himself just resign..was this the way he wanted to go with the doe permits...not sure, just asking. Alt changed history and implemented a campaign to significantly change buck age structure while at the same time improving the health of the forest...anyone who does that will be a deer management legend and should be commended. "

Alt specifically stated that an over harest was better than an underharvest. He also opposed the plan to limit bonus tags to private land.

AR's did not significantly improve the buck age structure in PA . The harvest of 2.5+ buck only increased from 52.6K in 2002 to 62 K in 2003 and 2004. At the same time AR increased the harvest rate of 2.5+ buck from 75% before AR to 85% without AR. No one knows if the average age of the PS adult buck increased or decreased due to AR.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

That looks like a significant number from 52 to 62K considering the intense slaughter of does and overall reduction of herd numbers doesn't it?..or am I looking at it wrong it's getting late.

Like I said, there are many great things to praise Alt for, but again the overharvest of does is not necessary on public land. In fact, a gradual reduction of population if needed while still allowing the forest to regenerate at positive increments seems to be by far the best in the long run....basically something for the forest, something for the hunter that would ultimately lead to a middle ground and sustained carrying capacity in the future without huge fluctuations in population due to overly agressive doe harvest. 

That's why Brian Murphy finished with:

"It's with these and many other issues in mind that QDMA remains active on many fronts and leading the charge for sound, common-sense deer management and preservation of our cherished hunting heritage."

In my expience too, a little common sense goes a long way. Just like when Brian told me he was hunting a new QDMA lease property in KY. The deer population was low so in his opinion they did not need to harvest ANY does, and that was still QDM. Just like in TX where on the famed King Ranch where they experience a .37 fawn recruitment rate...very few does are need to be harvested, and that is still QDM.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"That looks like a significant number from 52 to 62K considering the intense slaughter of does and overall reduction of herd numbers doesn't it?..or am I looking at it wrong it's getting late."

How significant are 10K 2.5+ buck when spread out over 45K SM? AR only added 0.22 additional 2.5+ buck PSM while reducing the buck harvest by 79K or 1.7 buck PSM. Adding .22 , 2.5= buck PSM will have zero efffect on the breeeding ecologly, but reducing the buck harvest by 39% will have a dramatic effect on hunter satifaction.

B. murphy refers to using common sense and i agree . but, the PGC and MIDNR have very diffferent opinions regarding what is ,common sense deer management. For example, the PGC says that farm lands and food plots have no efffect on the carrying capacity of the habitat and the herd should only be managed based on the carrrying capacity of forested habitat. Where is the commmon sense in that position?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

There is no commen sense in that comment.

There are many plans that get a "QDM" tag to them. The AR initiative here in the U.P. and the plan in PA for example, when it truth only portions of the plan are true QDM. I would challenge that if it was trully a QDM plan, it would often have very different results.

The biological principles of QDM are very basic and easy to implement...if you know and understand them. It doesn't take a biology degree or even research experience but you just need to accurately address the concerns in appropriate ways. In my opinion went a great direction with the AR they implemented, as well as their attempt to get carrying capacities in line, but although their intentions may be labled "QDM", some of the end results are not and they do not seem to reflect the balance or common sense that Brian refers to, obviously the don't appear to be getting it right.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

You and I both agree in principle that QDM will work every time where you have complete control over the hunters, the harvests and the habitat. The problem is that the states do not have that complete control,so they are incapable of implementing statewide QDM ,simply because they lack the control that is necessary. There is simply too much variation between conditions on public and private land that are hunted and private land where hunting is forbiddden to allow the state to manage the herd based on the principles of QDM.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I still firmly believe that although QDM includes appropriate doe harvest, that the doe harvest issue in itself has just as much potential to be grossly mismanaged whether you have a QDM program or not. You really need to look at 2 areas for management of either statewide management, private, or public:

1. Improvement of buck age structure

2. Appropriate doe harvest

It's easy to implement the first with an AR because you can use guidelines that will give you an effective yearling buck protection rate of anywhere from 50 to 80% depending upon what criteria you go with. It's easy to get close to that 80% protection rate and that in itself will get you an older age structue.

As far as number 2, well, that can be done right or wrong despite a QDM plan or not. PA could have agressively decreased numbers with the same number of doe permits they currently have because they are "overkill" in most areas, even without the AR. Doe harvest still needs to be carried out correctly. 

The forests have been ravaged for years by high populations. On public land they could have instead increased doe permits gradually, resulting in less deer but when regeneration started making positive strides they could have maintained or adjusted doe permits accordingly to allow both the deer population and forest to be effected gradually with steady progress, instead of unlimited permits on public land with no real grasp at the end result.

But again, the doe harvest issue can be just as mismanaged whether it's called QDM or not, or whether AR's are in place at the same time.

Personally, I would have liked to see them go with the AR's first, and then 1-2 years later begin the gradual and stubborn increase of doe permits in an attempt to improve the forest, improve the buck age structure, while at the same time maintaining hunter satisfaction as high as possible finally resulting in a sustained carrying capacity over a lengthy period. Go for positive strides slowly and incrementally, and make slight adjustments as you go to guard against drastic fluctuations...but I'm just a backwoods fella from the north so what do I know.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"It's easy to implement the first with an AR because you can use guidelines that will give you an effective yearling buck protection rate of anywhere from 50 to 80% depending upon what criteria you go with. It's easy to get close to that 80% protection rate and that in itself will get you an older age structue.'


if one sets that AR limit at a lvel that protects 80% of te 1.5 buck, that will also protect 30-40% of the 2.5+ buck. that means that in order to keep the her stable ,you have to havest more adult doe. It also means you will be protecting a higher percentage of inferior 2.5 buck which will become dominant breeers as 3.5 buck.

"The forests have been ravaged for years by high populations. On public land they could have instead increased doe permits gradually, resulting in less deer but when regeneration started making positive strides they could have maintained or adjusted doe permits accordingly to allow both the deer population and forest to be effected gradually with steady progress, instead of unlimited permits on public land with no real grasp at the end result."

The PGC doesn't base it's goals on the amount of regeneration. They base their goals on the USFS inventories that are conducted once every ten years. the last time a survey was conducted in PA wa 1989.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

HH,

Just from personal observation and conversation with area research biologists with 30 years of experience, but an AR in my area of MI protects approximately 82% of all yearlings, but almost an insignficant amount of 2.5 year olds. It is extremely rare to have a 2.5 year old 4-pt or worse. In my observation an 8 pt. is actually more common than a 7pt 2.5 year old, let alone a 6 or 5 point.

Of course I don't have the data, but I thought I saw a PA college study that followed 250 bucks where it showed no spikes, and a 5 pt was the smallest 2.5 year old...do you remember any such study?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

for all those that keep taking pot shots at everything that is recommended, suggested, discussed or tossed out here - and NEVER offer up a solution - please post on this thread:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87557

I have noticed that there are some noticable people from this forum that have been absent from providing positive input and recommendations.  

It's real easy to disect everything little thing everyone says - it's much more benifical to hunters and deer management to offer up solutions or recommendations to solve the problem. What's the old saying? Lead, follow, or get out of the way - 

It's time for hunters to 'LEAD' and some have offered up some great suggestions in the link above - (there is some great reading there for those that have not read that thread) - I'm saddend that some others, that have great information and insite, have failed to offer up any positive movement in the management of ANY deer herd. Michigan's or any other -  




ferg....


As to the debate in this thread, it has, once again, become just more of the same, and can be read in many, many, many other 'closed' threads in this forum - it's time to move forward, it's time to learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others -


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Ferg,

We are just having a civil conversation...quite refreshing if you ask me and the thread you alluded to isn't appropriate for the continuing discussion.


----------



## Rondevous (Mar 14, 2005)

There hasn't been any name calling off topic wandering here and yet we are now reminded to post in a more PC way?



> What's the old saying? Lead, follow, or get out of the way -


Why would one get out of the way of an issue they believe deserves to be discussed?
What may be important to many members is now unexceptable to posts?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Post your hearts out - I think everything here is just fine - if I didn't - well, that would be a different story - the line of discussion here is great - I'm only asking for some more input into that other thread from some that have posted in this thread that have yet to offer up any solutions.

Very simple - 

There have been no unacceptable posts here - or this thread would have been closed.

Over moderating? I don't think so, only trying to stimulate positive input into the other thread by those that have the most to offer - a crime? I think not.

ferg....

But thanks for checking up on me


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

It's getting late..just slap me! I did give my "one-post" back on that thread on 1/28 though 

But I agree though...lot's of discussion sometimes with no real offered solutions.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Of course I don't have the data, but I thought I saw a PA college study that followed 250 bucks where it showed no spikes, and a 5 pt was the smallest 2.5 year old...do you remember any such study?'


__________________

The stats in the 2001 Annual Report of the PGC showed that 3% of the 2.5 bucks that were harvested were spikes ,1% were 2 pts. ,4% were 3 pts,10% were 4 pts. and 8% were 5PTs. So under a 3 pt. on side regulation , 50 5 of the 1.5 bucks are saved and 26% of the 2.5+ buck are protected. in order to save 80% of the 1.5 buck , PA would need an 4 pt. rule , and that would save an additional 17% of the 2.5+ buck ,or 43% of the 2.5+ buck.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Only 18% of the 2.5 year olds were saved weren't they? 5 pts are legal under a 3pt on a side rule since only 1 side has to have 3 pts. Where is the yearling buck data?

Of course you can throw all these stats out the window when populations are within carrying capacity and both body weights and antler growth improve which will further increase the gaps between yearling and 2.5 year old bucks or, statistics are used from farmland compared with forested public land.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Only 18% of the 2.5 year olds were saved weren't they? 5 pts are legal under a 3pt on a side rule since only 1 side has to have 3 pts. Where is the yearling buck data?
> 
> Of course you can throw all these stats out the window when populations are within carrying capacity and both body weights and antler growth improve which will further increase the gaps between yearling and 2.5 year old bucks or, statistics are used from farmland compared with forested public land.



You are corrrect. i shouldn't have included the 5 pt. 2.5+ buck. But in order to save 80% of the 1.5 buck , we would need a 4 pt . rule statewide .

"Of course you can throw all these stats out the window when populations are within carrying capacity and both body weights and antler growth improve which will further increase the gaps between yearling and 2.5 year old bucks or, statistics are used from farmland compared with forested public land.'

Most of the state is currrently within the true carrying capacity of the habitat,so that would not be true in the majority of te state.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Most of the state is currrently within the true carrying capacity of the habitat,so that would not be true in the majority of the state."

Is that 2001 data? Changes can occur in a very short period of time. In just a few years on the property I hunt in AL the average # of points on 3.5 year old bucks went from 7 to 11 points when herd numbers were drastically reduced and native vegitation began to significantly improve.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> "Most of the state is currrently within the true carrying capacity of the habitat,so that would not be true in the majority of the state."
> 
> Is that 2001 data? Changes can occur in a very short period of time. In just a few years on the property I hunt in AL the average # of points on 3.5 year old bucks went from 7 to 11 points when herd numbers were drastically reduced and native vegitation began to significantly improve.



Based on my experiences , changes in habitat occur very slowly in stands of pole and saw timber due to the closed canopy and intense shading. The slow rate of change can be demonstarted by observing the growth of recent clearcut compared to the growth in the understory in adjacent stands of pole and saw timber. One will see little or no change in the understory of the uncut portion while there is lots of new growth in the clearcut.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

The are a few things that will make changes for the positive that I can think of off the top of my head...

1. Less deer can have changes in social structure that positively effect herd health

2. Less deer means more available food and cover for the deer that are left

3. As there are less deer, the forest will begin to improve resulting in an increase in available browse AND sustained carrying capacity as long as deer herds are maintained at appropriate levels.

Anyways, since 2001, at least around where I hunt in PA, there have been drastic changes in total population. Just from my own personal observations I would think it would be easy to say we have 1/3 to 1/2 the deer we had in 2001, maybe less. Although the above #3 would not have had time to take place as you suggest, #'s 1 and 2 have had the time to begin to make significant improvements in overall health. In fact, the local CO that retired in our area had said that as the deer numbers had decreased for the past several years, the body weights by age class had increase each year. Antler growth is certainly relative and because of the drastic reduction in herd density you would think the 2001 data would be obsolete.

Also, about that study, the study I was referring to was on known age bucks that were tagged and followed by ...Penn State? I was thinking it was around 250 bucks and I believe they gave a little different picture than what appears to be check-in data that you gave for 2001. I've personally watched deer get checked-in near the Bradford area and honestly you could look at the buck and be more accure a substantial amount of the time. The check-in would go something like this....."boy, it looks like a yearling, well, maybe 2.5...well, what do you think? yearling? what's the beam diameter? I'm going to have to say it's probably yearling." Maybe you are sharing the same study I'm thinking of, but it was on tagged deer of known age where their lives were followed for mortality, growth, anlters, etc.


----------



## Buckacc (May 19, 2002)

I think one of the reasons for the buck harvest being down in PA. , is that a buck becomes harder to kill as they get older. Its not easy to kill a mature buck and never will be , but its sure fun trying. 

Buckacc


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

1. Less deer can have changes in social structure that positively effect herd health

2. Less deer means more available food and cover for the deer that are left

3. As there are less deer, the forest will begin to improve resulting in an increase in available browse AND sustained carrying capacity as long as deer herds are maintained at appropriate levels.


While those three theories are widely accepted as fact, when analyzed objectively they simply don't hold up. Valley Forge PARk has 181 DPSM ,terrible overbrowsed habitat ,but the experts expect the herd to increase. If social strees at 181 DPSM didn't limit breeeding rates and recruitment ,social stress can't be a significant factor at 20-30 DPSM.

Cameron Co has been close to its OWDD gaol for over twenty years,yet it still has the lowest harvest rates in the state indicating the habitat didn't improve in over 20 years.

The PGC news release state 70 trained PGC personal collected the data mainly at deer processors. I see no reson to question the validity of the results from either the antler buck survey of 2001 or the recent radio collared antlered buck study,which buy the way provided little data on rack size.


----------



## bobht (Jan 24, 2005)

Tred Barta and Fred Trost are my favorites. I like their outlook on hunting.Have fun.Do your own thing as long as it is legal!


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Still, the bottom line is that the hunters in Pennsylvania are dissatisfied with harvest rates when managing for sex ratios. The issue (in my book) has always been management for a balanced sex ratio OR management for increased harvest rates. Nobody rides for free <----<<<


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> 1. Less deer can have changes in social structure that positively effect herd health
> 
> 2. Less deer means more available food and cover for the deer that are left
> 
> ...




?????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

May i ask what the purpose of that post might be?


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> 1. Less deer can have changes in social structure that positively effect herd health
> 
> 2. Less deer means more available food and cover for the deer that are left
> 
> ...



May I ask what the purpose of this statement was for?

Basically you have just cast a shadow of doubt, on those "many thousands" that have studied their whole lives, breathing wildlife management, as lacking in even the basic knowlegde to enter the deer woods.

I am sorry, that the very basic building block of animal:habitat relationship, has been altered forever, by one mans quest to wipe any form of proper deer management, off the face of this planet! :sad:


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

The statement,"less deer" is a meaningless statement unless you establish a baselline. If the herd is at the MSY level reducing the herd further will not accomplish any of the stated goals. The herd in PA has proven that the habitat can support much higher OWDD's than the PGC goals and therefore reducing the herd by 50% will not produce a heathier herd with bigger buck.


However, I agree those three statements apply when a herd is at or near the max. carrying capacity of the habitat , so I am not contradicting the widely accepted deer management principles as you claim.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Haven't you embaressed yourself enough?


----------

