# National spotlight on Pennsylvania's deer debate



## Bob IL (Jun 8, 2005)

Ronde,

Why food plots? That is a valid question. My food plots help not only deer, but many other wildlife as well. It is nutrition year around for game and non-game species. Why have a bird feeder out the kitchen window? To enjoy viewing and helping wildlife. All the time, effort and expense managing my property probably don't make sense to alot of people, but it is rewarding to me. I know it doesn't make financial sense either, but neither does volunteering for charity, conservation or any cause you feel is worthwhile sacrificing for.

In your previous post you brought up a point about chemical use in various area's. Here I can agree with your utopian view, while using herbicides to counter others errors. Case in point in my area, purple loosestrife, Garlic mustard, honeysuckle, wild roses are but a few examples of non-native species that threaten my wetland, or timber, or grassland. I would be interested in how you manage non-natives without herbicides on a mid to larger scale. (20 acres & up)

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to use herbicides, fight wars, fix the pot holes in the road, go to work, and my computer would never crash. (I hear Peter, Paul & Mary humming in the background...) But reality dictates otherwise.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Bob IL said:


> If a given property can only support 3 deer, I believe it should be populated with 2, unless of course the steward enhanced habitat to the point it could support more comfortably.


If your property can only support 3 deer and you enhance it to support more, how is that QDM? aren't you creating an over abundance for the area. Does that mean your sq. mile should have more deer on it than the goal of the DNR. or are you not following the goals set by the DNR. 
How many people practice QDM on a property and plant food plots, etc. and than they sell the propety and the new owner does nothing. doesn't this hurt the herd in that area? Should there be a mass shoot off of the herd on this property to get it back to the goals.

I've asked this question a bunch on this site "why do QDMers think there land can support deer and everyone elses can't? And the deer herd needs to be decimated in these areas?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

poz said:


> If your property can only support 3 deer and you enhance it to support more, how is that QDM?


Where did he say it was 'QDM' ? 

He was reffering to: "good stewardship"

I didn't see 'QDM' in that post anyplace  

BTW - lets get this back on track - PA - and the national debate - I thought the FS article was nicely done - 


ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Just had to add my thoughts to what is happening in PA....

Unfortunately with the 12 years of experience I do have with PA there is "more than meets the eye" on this issue. As QDMer's, we tend to push less deer is better at all costs and that's that. There is certainly a balance, and while many private lands areas are over run with deer...although some are not, public land populations can face very quick reduction in any area agressive doe harvest is targeted. The problem is that with agressive doe harvest on public land, whether it be PA, MI, WI, anywhere, unforcastable hunter numbers can quickly reduce a herd to the point of unecessarily low levels, not to mention an unenjoyable hunt. At the same time, private land hunters in the same region have much more control. Limited hunters, habitat improvement, aggressive timber management, food plots, herd structure minipulation, etc. are all tools to use at the private lands manager's disposal and in many situations if a private landowner is complaining, it is because they have done nothing with the management of their lands. 

On the other hand, public land hunters are at the mercy of the number of antlerless permits and government management. 

Just a thought, but look at where the complaints are coming from. Are they from the public land hunter who may actually have a legitimate complaint about the reduction of deer so quickly and drastically in their areas? or are the complaints coming from private land owners that have done nothing to make their land improve in quality or deer attracting ability. 

Brian Murphy had an editorial in the March 2005 Quality Whitetails in which he said, "Should our public lands be used simply as "deer factories" with no regard for forest health, or shold deer populations be maintained at levels compatible with the forests, but produce a lower harvestable "surplus"? In my opinion, neither option alone is correct." 

I personally like that balance that Brian is referring too, and the more we manage for the ultimate health of the forest, the more complaints there will be, especially from public land hunters. There is certainly a balance, and the more we as QDMer's appear to be rigid and uncompassionate on this issue, the more is seems to be we lack the balance the Brian appeared to be suggesting. 

In the U.P. of MI for example we have 11/19 DMU's under stated DNR goals between 5 and 50%, and Rod Clute, DNR Big Game Specialist has publicly stated that he understands that the Northern Lower Peninsula of MI deer densities are low and that the recent 1 week addition to the late muzzleloader season will hopefully in part take doe harvest pressure OFF of the northern lower Peninsula. The problem is that while many private land areas continue to be high..but not all, many public land areas are unecessarily too low, and need more balance. We as QDM folks on mostly private lands need to recognize our public land hunting brothers complaints and measure each area as site specific, instead of broad-based use of state-wide population estimates that while overall may be too high, may not always be an accurate reflection of many public land areas.

Personally, I have seen and experienced land dedicated to the Nature Conservancy and it is basically a mature forest, and will remain in maturity, with very little noticable wildlife including snowshoes, grouse, deer, etc., for the forseable future. Actually, to me this is not a bad thing because we need areas like this, but, it sure does not represent much balance. On the otherhand, there are areas in PA and right here in MI, whether it be portions of Menominee in the SW U.P., or SW Lower MI, where excessive deer numbers have taken their toll in the form of habitat degredation, poor fawn recruitment, and low body weights. It's all about balance and certainly neither extreme represents that balance.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

" Brian Murphy had an editorial in the March 2005 Quality Whitetails in which he said, "Should our public lands be used simply as "deer factories" with no regard for forest health, or shold deer populations be maintained at levels compatible with the forests, but produce a lower harvestable "surplus"? In my opinion, neither option alone is correct." 

The question then becomes who determines forest health. Should forest health be based on the production of commmercially valuable timber or should it be based on the production of the max. biodiversity and the max. number of wildlife ,both game and non-game species. If the forests were managed for max. biodiversity more land would be clearcut with less regard for promoting the growth of oak, cherry and maple.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Mother nature tries to help but we don't let her :lol: We put out every fire that comes up. We need to improve the property not for "deer" but for the overall health. This does not mean rows and rows of pine trees we can cut for money later but areas designated to be managed for browse etc on a rotational plan while other areas are selectively cut when it is appropriate. To let land go and go forever without any cutting or anything is going to hurt the wildlife in general eventually and we all lose. The state lander IMO has been screwed in a big way lately while private landowners shoot as many deer as they want many state guys cannot get a single doe tag for the same area and on top of it they are seeing less and less every year. I agree with NorthJeff that the QDM crowd needs to listen to the non QDM stateland hunters and take them seriously to better understand what is going on and maybe increase membership in QDM (it can happen to the strangest people  ) But nothing will happen on a statewide basis until we can get through to the state and federal level to manage the habitat as well. Think about it in areas like the maple river game area and the shiawasee flats area they plant crops, do managed burns etc but these are areas where it is not needed as much as it is up north ( I realize a lot is for birds) but if we can do this stuff there why not in the stateland in the northern areas?

JMO

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

HH, It's all about balance.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

AW quote "But nothing will happen on a statewide basis until we can get through to the state and federal level to manage the habitat as well. Think about it in areas like the maple river game area and the shiawasee flats area they plant crops, do managed burns etc but these are areas where it is not needed as much as it is up north ( I realize a lot is for birds) but if we can do this stuff there why not in the stateland in the northern areas?".

I thought that I recalled reading your earlier posts about not being able to get all the owners of your 90 acres to agree to deer habitat improvement. Same thing with state land...many different interests determine what happens to state land, not only the deer hunters.

Swamper


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> HH, It's all about balance.



I agree it is all about balance , but the problem remains that public land hunters do not have a say in what values will be used to establish that balance. The state will always manage the herd at much lower OWDD's then the hunters would prefer ,since they will always manage public land to maximize timber production and revenue. That is why PA's statewide goal is only 12 DPSM which produces a harvest rate of 2 buck PSM. A club I know with 40 memebers that owns 2 SM of land and averages 12 to 14 buck /year. They would never get hunters to pay $1000 /yr. if their harvest dropped to 4 buck/yr. as it would with only 12 DPSM

So this club will always be in conflict with the states plan as will most clubs and QDM leases.


----------



## nky_bowhunter (May 31, 2005)

Happy Hunter said:


> So this club will always be in conflict with the states plan as will most clubs and QDM leases.


Where is it written that all land must comply with the state's overall deer herd goal? It's not like they know how many deer they have...it's an educated guess that's compared with an educated guess as to habitat conditions, and tags are based on this. The state is not going to issue more tags because the guy down the street has more than 12 dpsm, just as they're not going to cut tags because a piece of mature forested land only has 8 dpsm. A state's overall plan is just that, OVERALL. Besides, dpsm is an arbitrary estimate that has little if any bearing on a piece of ground under dozens of square miles in size.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

nky_bowhunter said:


> Where is it written that all land must comply with the state's overall deer herd goal? It's not like they know how many deer they have...it's an educated guess that's compared with an educated guess as to habitat conditions, and tags are based on this. The state is not going to issue more tags because the guy down the street has more than 12 dpsm, just as they're not going to cut tags because a piece of mature forested land only has 8 dpsm. A state's overall plan is just that, OVERALL. Besides, dpsm is an arbitrary estimate that has little if any bearing on a piece of ground under dozens of square miles in size.




Since the state establishes the goals and allocates the anterless licenses,they get to determine what the OWDD goal will be for any DMU,whether it is 100 % public land or 50% public and 50% private. If the private land owners decide to manage their land at 30 DPSM and the states goal is 15 DPSM, the state will continue to issue excess anterless tags in an attempt to reach the goal. Since the private land owners don't want to reduce the herd ,they won't buy the tags,so the excess tags will be bought and used by public land hunters and that is why there will always be a conflict between QDM private land hunters and public land hunters.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Happy Hunter said:


> so the excess tags will be bought and used by public land hunters


Then it is the public land hunter`s fault for the low deer numbers on public land. They don`t have to use those tags. If the deer numbers are low where they hunt, why do they buy an antlerless tag and shoot a doe? Don`t blame the PGC because the PA hunter doesn`t control his trigger finger.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Bob S said:


> Then it is the public land hunter`s fault for the low deer numbers on public land. They don`t have to use those tags. If the deer numbers are low where they hunt, why do they buy an antlerless tag and shoot a doe? Don`t blame the PGC because the PA hunter doesn`t control his trigger finger.



While you are correct that hunters are the ones that actually harvest the deer, it is not fair to blame the hunters ,since they are constantly being told to let the experts manage the herd and the experts say there are still way to many deer.

Furthermore. IMHO the vast majority of PA hunters have no idea how many deer there are where they hunt or whether there are to many or to few. They don't live where they hunt and they may only get out to their hunting area a few days a year. If they live in a town in the southern portion of the state they see lots of deer around the towns and see lots of road kills so they believe there are to many deer everywhere ,because that's what the experts tell them and all of the outdoor writers agree, even Kip Adams of QDMA ,who supports the plan with no qualifications.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

...a blunt tool for managing wild deer.

It may be unrealistic to believe that a bureacracy subject to the body-politic can _fine-tune_ a whitetail herd in a given township, county, or DMU. After all, the primary instrument of herd reduction - recreational hunters - will vary immensely in their knowledge, ability, motives, and commitment to kill deer. In short, they are amatuers. Some very good, some god-awful.

So what are the alternatives?

Governement paid shooters who can be sent to a given area at any time of the year?

A program of poisoning?

Or, an aknowledgement that there will always be inefficienies, awkwardness, and blunders, when we attempt to 'manage' such highly mobile and elusive animals as wild whitetails with part-time amateur hunters.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Then it is the public land hunter`s fault for the low deer numbers on public land. They don`t have to use those tags. If the deer numbers are low where they hunt, why do they buy an antlerless tag and shoot a doe? Don`t blame the PGC because the PA hunter doesn`t control his trigger finger."

Yeah, sure it's the PA hunters that shoot the deer, but when public land is concerned a less aggressive more consistant approach to reducing herd numbers with annual measurable progress is a whole lot more hunter friendly and probably appropriate. If you take that same approach, how about no limits for fish, rabbits, grouse, or deer in general...just leave it up to the public to decide when to say when. That just can't and won't work, you have to give the public pretty definitive guidelines on public land because that sense of ownership based responsibility that is present on private land just is not there on public land and neither is population structure observation. Most just don't have the experience to say when enough is enough.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

it sounds like a no win situation for the public land hunter. 

If he doesn't shoot the does and the dnr doesn't get their goal than sharp shooters will be brought in like other parts of the country to take care of the problem.

Or shoot all the does to fill the tags issued and not have a good hunting in public land.

How has hunting in michigan gotten to this point?


----------



## giver108 (Nov 24, 2004)

poz, IMO, one of the biggest mistakes the MDNR made was when they went from the traditional deer management units they had about 5-6 years ago and switched to deer management units by county. A typical county in the NLP varies too much in geography and the location of public land to encompass the entire county into one area. Combine with that the rule that eliminated the minimum 40 acre land requirement and tax #'s for a landowner permit. Even though the DNR has eliminated public land permits for several counties where they aren't needed (i.e. Lake, Wexford, Mason, and Manistee to name a few) without the 40 acre and tax # requirement people will still buy a private land permit and use it on public land knowing once it is in the truck, they're home free.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2005)

This exchange of deer management practices in PA. is healthy and in the long run will benifit the resources even with the input of chronic naysayers who have a narrow view for success. Speaking of resources arn't trees a major part of our resources. 


Many forest lands are privately owned and their management practices greatly impact the type and number of wildlife within these forests. There was a recent forest management convention in the UP last April attended by hundreds of biologists and forestors from many states. There is way too much criticism by the uninformed about the practices of the timber industry and that it's all about money. Yes Money does drive many management decisions, but not too many of us know the big picture. 

At this convention much was covered and learned. All timber corporations need regeneratioin certification in order to sell their products. In other words if they cannot prove to purchasers of their timber, such as large companies like Home Depot that there is ample regeneration of the same type of timber harvested they lose their certification and customers. In many timber areas only small cuts are feasible due to the invironmental conditions, (large clear cuts, which encourage regeneration are not always feasible). Therefore these areas are left unharvested, which makes for poor wildlife habitat. 

Only if there was control of deer numbers would these timber outfits take the chance of a smaller cut. Then regeneration of the proper tree types would be assured. This is another reason timber companies are gravitating toward hunting leases. They then would enforce proper deer management upon their leasees. 

There is a lot more to this and it would benifit all of us if we tried to understand the big picture, (not just our small, not enough deer world).

This also applies to those who think if it isn't a natural invironment (no timber management, no food plots etc) it isn't right. We lose 50% of our fawns in the harsher areas of the UP at birth and 50% of these remaining fawms are lost the following winter and this is in an average year. It has been proven without a doubt that you can greatly alter this fawn lose (recruitment) with properly designed and located food plots. Improvements of 50% is very doable with a good supplemently forage program and I do not mean feeding corn or pellets. With that type of (if it isn't natural it isn't right) thinking we would not be exchanging views on this site, nor have our ills cured, nor feed our billions, nor fly ,nor sail, nor drive an automobile. If this narrow view was our way of life we would still have a life expectancy of 35 years and be ruled by kings. I prefer to not be a peasant, but be free to learn and expand lifes experiences.

Good post Bob!


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"This exchange of deer management practices in PA. is healthy and in the long run will benifit the resources even with the input of chronic naysayers who have a narrow view for success. Speaking of resources arn't trees a major part of our resources. "

There is not one bit of evidence that the change in deer management will benefit the resurce in any way. Prior to the change 90% of our adult doe were being bred and we had a 1:2 B/D . Due to herd reduction fewer BB are being recruited and we are harvesting a higher percenatge of our buck as BB. None of the predictions of the so called experts have come true ,but the predictions of the naysayers have in fact been proven to be true.

No QDM manager in PA would manage the herd at 12 DPSM which is the state average and no deer manager in his right mind would reduce the herd to 5 or 6 DPSM in the areas with the best habitat. If the current plan succeeds in reducing the herd to the current goals ,it will be one of the worst cases of mismanagement in the country.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

the place - and - guess what? - We all still disagree on what has been going on in PA - I'm shocked - :yikes: but not suprised  


Let's put it to rest for a bit - and get back to Michigan's ills if you will 

ferg....


----------

