Too Many Deer
- Thread starter MA VT Flatlander
- Start date
bowhunternw
5 year old buck +
I think most people would say that the numbers we had 10 years ago were not sustainable, but a number between what we have now and the number we had then would be perfect. Which is where I believe we are headed.
I am much more concerned about the loss of habitat from human destruction, than from deer.
D
dipper
Guest
I've been telling the dnr haters the same thing for over a year, but I also wish them luck.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
I HAVE to comment on this one. The pic the report showed on deer in Pa. was from Valley Forge National Park ( as noted below the picture ). That's near my location - 30miles +
or -. That area can not be hunted and the surrounding areas are developed w/ housing, shopping centers, restaurants, large land tract businesses, etc. To use that area as an example of Pa.'s deer " overpopulation problem " is an outright lie and a blatant misrepresentation that does the public a great disservice. Valley Forge National Historic Park IS loaded with deer. But it's because it cannot be hunted and it's the only sizeable piece of greenery in the whole area that hasn't been " developed " by ever-brilliant humans.
You won't see a set of pix or a walking video of the northern " big woods " counties of Pa. that claim to have huge populations of deer. Because big deer numbers don't exist there anymore. I've walked the northern woods all my life, more than 98% of any agency personnel, and claims of deer overpopulation are BS. Some sections of the S.E. and S.W. parts of the state do have pockets of larger numbers, but to paint the whole state as having too many deer is crap. CRAP. Walk around on snow cover here in the mountains and see how long / far you have to walk to find deer tracks in any number or at all.
The stunt ( that's what it is, a stunt ) using Valley Forge as an example of deer overpopulation is like showing men the Victoria's Secret catalog / fashion show and proclaiming " this is what all women look like. " Absolutely ridiculous.
or -. That area can not be hunted and the surrounding areas are developed w/ housing, shopping centers, restaurants, large land tract businesses, etc. To use that area as an example of Pa.'s deer " overpopulation problem " is an outright lie and a blatant misrepresentation that does the public a great disservice. Valley Forge National Historic Park IS loaded with deer. But it's because it cannot be hunted and it's the only sizeable piece of greenery in the whole area that hasn't been " developed " by ever-brilliant humans.
You won't see a set of pix or a walking video of the northern " big woods " counties of Pa. that claim to have huge populations of deer. Because big deer numbers don't exist there anymore. I've walked the northern woods all my life, more than 98% of any agency personnel, and claims of deer overpopulation are BS. Some sections of the S.E. and S.W. parts of the state do have pockets of larger numbers, but to paint the whole state as having too many deer is crap. CRAP. Walk around on snow cover here in the mountains and see how long / far you have to walk to find deer tracks in any number or at all.
The stunt ( that's what it is, a stunt ) using Valley Forge as an example of deer overpopulation is like showing men the Victoria's Secret catalog / fashion show and proclaiming " this is what all women look like. " Absolutely ridiculous.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
There is definitive evidence piling up that the deer reductions are coming at the hands of the forestry people, as this article and many others clearly show. More so than ag or insurance interests, I believe. They all have a hand in it of course, or at least that is what the DNR wildlife managers/foresters would like us to think, as it takes the "heat" off the responsible party and "spreads the love(hate)", so to speak. As deer hunters, it is starting to look more and more like the only alternative is that we must start harvesting an adequate amount of does in those places that have an overpopulation, so those areas that have no deer can be allowed to grow their herd to an enjoyable, huntable population density. As long as private landowners choose not to shoot does, my fear is that there is no hope whatsoever for growing the herd on public lands that have been shot out. I still see a handful of deer on public ground occasionally, before the season starts, but after opening day they leave for private property and do not come off until after dark or more likely after the season is over. These deer hole-up on private acreages and wait out the orange army, only to return to the public lands after the season closes. These deer will continue to browse any and all preferred plants on those public lands throughout the remainder of the winter, and throughout the following year, thus furthering the foresters argument for less deer, even though many of the surrounding private landowners have an ample population, especially while the orange army is marching about. It is next to impossible to make private landowners harvest does if they choose not to, especially without Earn-A-Buck. Besides the fact that they should not have to concern themselves with what is going on "across the fence", as many could care less, even if it is to the detriment of the herd and hunting in general. I fear we are between a rock and a hard place on this, and as we move forward, even private landowners will feel the far reaching effects of herd reductions in the end, as many of the MN guys can surely attest to this fact already.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Depends on how far back you look I think. If you go back to the thick of the market hunting days, they would have been all for as much game as possible being on the landscape for obvious reasons. Other time periods, I think it would be much like you say. Guys like Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold would be confused as to what was going on with present day hunting and management on a macro level. I do think they would be impressed that so many people are becoming better stewards of the resource on a micro level though.
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Whip - The situation you describe is pretty much what has shaped up here in Pa. Public land has gotten hammered and is, in many places, " shot out." Not ALL places, but many. Years ago, up until about early to mid - 90's, there was a mass migration of deer hunters starting the Friday after Thanksgiving every year from the southern counties to the northern " big woods " counties. ( The Monday after Thanksgiving has been the start of the rifle season ). Highways would get backed-up, hotels / motels would fill up, bars, restaurants, sporting goods stores, grocery stores were all booming because of this migration. No more. The highways look the same as they do on any other day of the year now. Hotel / motel owners moan about the small - or non-existent - number of hunters that they depended on to carry their business from yr. to yr.
Now, you almost have to belong to a hunting club with ample ground to police yourselves & the herd if you want good hunting. That is not to say deer can't be killed on public land, but it's nowhere NEAR like it used to be. Here, it seems like the camps with the biggest acreages ( I'm talking 5000 to 8000 acres ) are the " incubators " for local deer populations. If it weren't for the larger-acreage honey-holes, I fear the situation might even be worse as far as numbers go. Those big camps don't " harrow every square inch " of their land to get every deer. Thank God. I've mentioned on other threads here that some of the local camps where I hunt have talked / cooperated by not hammering does like the state was selling tags to do. I know there are differing opinions on shooting does, but the state over-did it here, to the point you could walk around / hunt all day and not see a track in the snow. They didn't manage by locality, but on a state-wide basis.
The net effect of this mess is that we don't have NEAR the number of young hunters starting to hunt now. Or if they try it for a year or two, and don't see anything after sitting out in the cold all day, they give it up. Now the Pa. Game Commission is in the self-inflicted predicament of begging hunters to start youngsters and " mentor " them into the ranks of hunters to continue the hunting tradition here. There are campaigns now to specifically recruit young hunters. ( not just in Pa. I might add !! ) Being overzealous - and in my opinion over-pressured by $$$ interests - on reducing deer numbers has drilled holes in their own boat. ( the PGC ) Now they're scrambling to avoid sinking the boat. If they can't keep hunter numbers up ( license / tag sales fund the agency ), they face merging with the Fish Commission, reducing staff, or having to come up with some other form of funding. The Pa. taxpayers DO NOT fund the PGC. Hunters do. But that may have to change - and we all know how new taxes go over.
I wish that these state agencies would plant food plots / strips to take some pressure off the timber regeneration process. Pa. has implemented fencing deer out of areas recently cut to give the seedlings a chance to get established with good success. Once the trees get big enough, the fence is taken down and the trees are allowed to self-thin. Those fenced areas end up being thick with regen. Nobody denies deer browse young trees, but if this kind of TSI cutting is done and fences are put up on a rotational basis, I believe forests and deer can both prosper. But it MUST be done on a local level. No state can paint with a broad brush for a " one-size-fits-all " solution.
Now, you almost have to belong to a hunting club with ample ground to police yourselves & the herd if you want good hunting. That is not to say deer can't be killed on public land, but it's nowhere NEAR like it used to be. Here, it seems like the camps with the biggest acreages ( I'm talking 5000 to 8000 acres ) are the " incubators " for local deer populations. If it weren't for the larger-acreage honey-holes, I fear the situation might even be worse as far as numbers go. Those big camps don't " harrow every square inch " of their land to get every deer. Thank God. I've mentioned on other threads here that some of the local camps where I hunt have talked / cooperated by not hammering does like the state was selling tags to do. I know there are differing opinions on shooting does, but the state over-did it here, to the point you could walk around / hunt all day and not see a track in the snow. They didn't manage by locality, but on a state-wide basis.
The net effect of this mess is that we don't have NEAR the number of young hunters starting to hunt now. Or if they try it for a year or two, and don't see anything after sitting out in the cold all day, they give it up. Now the Pa. Game Commission is in the self-inflicted predicament of begging hunters to start youngsters and " mentor " them into the ranks of hunters to continue the hunting tradition here. There are campaigns now to specifically recruit young hunters. ( not just in Pa. I might add !! ) Being overzealous - and in my opinion over-pressured by $$$ interests - on reducing deer numbers has drilled holes in their own boat. ( the PGC ) Now they're scrambling to avoid sinking the boat. If they can't keep hunter numbers up ( license / tag sales fund the agency ), they face merging with the Fish Commission, reducing staff, or having to come up with some other form of funding. The Pa. taxpayers DO NOT fund the PGC. Hunters do. But that may have to change - and we all know how new taxes go over.
I wish that these state agencies would plant food plots / strips to take some pressure off the timber regeneration process. Pa. has implemented fencing deer out of areas recently cut to give the seedlings a chance to get established with good success. Once the trees get big enough, the fence is taken down and the trees are allowed to self-thin. Those fenced areas end up being thick with regen. Nobody denies deer browse young trees, but if this kind of TSI cutting is done and fences are put up on a rotational basis, I believe forests and deer can both prosper. But it MUST be done on a local level. No state can paint with a broad brush for a " one-size-fits-all " solution.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
We have no such places in WI(or only a handful that I have ever heard of), places that size are all public land, or private lands in the Managed Forest Program which allow public hunting. "Large" acreage here is a 160 acres. We do not see any type of reprieve like that on our large acreages. I have inquired about food plots and such on public land for years and it is always the same old story, "We could never get that to fly on state land that has multiple user groups, no one wants to visit a state forest and see a farm field or a cutover area full of nasty tangled briars." Even when my family had our own land, I would have gladly pitched in to help get stuff like this established, but the DNR will have none of it, save a few small turkey plantings on low use areas. All states are now scrambling to recruit new hunters, some are going so far as to ask you to take gramps out in his Hoveround and prop his rifle up on his walker so he can use it as a shooting rest, just to get more hunters in the field.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
Gotcha! I would agree with that j-bird. My grandfathers and uncles that I grew up hunting with would be very disgruntled if they were alive to hunt today. Those guys hunted the same areas I hunt in now since the 1950's. They would mostly be disappointed with the DNR's, and also with the "need" for some guys to harvest as many deer as they can in a season.
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
I took my handle of chickenlittle after getting exasperated by the HR/AR wars on huntingpa forums. If Gary Alt set out to kill all the deer in PA...he failed and the sky didn't fall. Hunting will not be like it was in the old days. People have other things to do.
I am not satisfied with the deer hunting on my family farm in Columbia County, PA. Not because there are no deer but because they are not where I can hunt them. Spotlighting tells me there are probably too many deer. My habitat plan is to get deer to where I can harvest them.
SGL219 in Bradford Co is the closest to my home. I often hunt it during flintlock. The deer won't run you over but there were deer there after Christmas. It is not easy to harvest one hunting by yourself though since there is plenty of cover and food.
Maybe there are PA SGLs that have no deer but I have my doubts.
I am not satisfied with the deer hunting on my family farm in Columbia County, PA. Not because there are no deer but because they are not where I can hunt them. Spotlighting tells me there are probably too many deer. My habitat plan is to get deer to where I can harvest them.
SGL219 in Bradford Co is the closest to my home. I often hunt it during flintlock. The deer won't run you over but there were deer there after Christmas. It is not easy to harvest one hunting by yourself though since there is plenty of cover and food.
Maybe there are PA SGLs that have no deer but I have my doubts.
wiscwhip
5 year old buck +
I don't think he set out to kill them all, he did however set out to make sure it would be next to impossible to have a deer herd like what you had in the "old days". You are quite right in that those days will never be seen again, the forestry folks and DNR's will do whatever they have to do to keep it from happening again. In WI they are threatening to have whole seasons of antlerless only harvests with no bucks allowed if the population gets to high again, to scare folks into not wanting as many deer. The question is, do people really "have other things to do" or did they just "find other things to do" because the hunting got so bad?
chickenlittle
5 year old buck +
People have plenty of motivations for hunting or not. As a society, we continue moving away from hunting, farming, and outdoor heritage. so the base is smaller. Among those that want to hunt or would hunt, some give it up because they think it is too difficult to harvest a deer because deer populations are too small to justify the effort. Life changes. Life goes on.
Yours seems like a very small snapshot view of the situation in PA. There will always be a portion of the less dedicated that are willing to take the "It is what it is" stance on outdoor issues. I personally believe that mismanagement and poor practices with faulty data needs to be brought to light and corrections made. The deer population needs to be managed according to sound data and regulated according to the carrying capacity of the environment for the enjoyment of all who wish to enjoy them. Like it or not, that is what we pay them to do and in MN they are failing. It is not hard for me to believe that the PGC is struggling too. The old models and practices need to be thrown out, and they must learn to do their job well in an ever changing world like the rest of us.
Last edited:
Bowsnbucks
5 year old buck +
Satchmo - "according to the carrying capacity of the environment. " ^^^ That's where they get people. For 50 years the deer herd here was plentiful and trees still grew and the sky didn't fall either. But suddenly, one day the proclamation was issued that we had way too many deer. Strange how this coincided with the sharp rise in hardwood prices, particularly oak and cherry. Truckloads of big oak & cherry logs were rolling down the highways everywhere here. Much like oil & gas companies, big developers, & corporations find ways / people to condemn properties & land for them that they want, ( which is about to happen here in Pa. over a gas pipeline ), the deer after all those years became public enemy #1.
What a cynical view, huh??? Chalk it up to almost 60 yrs. of observing what happens in REALITY. It's called being real. To think that the motivating factor was " the good stewardship of the forest for future generations " and that it's sudden appearance & timing with rising hardwood prices is purely coincidental - is to be a lucky buyer for this bridge I have for sale. Come on folks - do any of us think that this sudden " forest catastrophe " happened in so many states, with so many unique habitats, and different climates - all at the same period in time ??? There is no PROFIT in deer hunting !!! License sale $ go to an agency for it's operations, not strictly into wardens' pockets. If some corporation or entity could make a profit from the KILLING of a deer - trust me - there would be deer farms to stock them. ( Look at the pay - to - shoot " hunting properties and ranches. Who can afford to pay 5000 - 10,000 to shoot a big buck ??? ) But the " crop(s) " involved are timber and agri-products.
Someone is sure to say it - but I'm NOT against farming and use of timber. But with today's push to have MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY in every endeavor, deer slow the process of renewing the timber crop. Unlike corn, beans, etc., mature, timber-size trees take 80+ years or more to become worthwhile harvesting. So in order to achieve MAX efficiency, deer have to go. I don't like the BS of hearing state agencies say " we're looking out for the forest for future generations. " Business pre$$ure is put on the agencies to look for PROFITS TODAY. If altruism toward the environment and wildlife generated $$$, we'd be living in the Garden Of Eden - paradise.
I have to say to Chickenlittle - where you hunt in Columbia Co., Pa. there's a lot of ag. there, so the deer have things a little easier than up in the mountains where ag is non-existant. So I would expect you'd have more deer there.
What a cynical view, huh??? Chalk it up to almost 60 yrs. of observing what happens in REALITY. It's called being real. To think that the motivating factor was " the good stewardship of the forest for future generations " and that it's sudden appearance & timing with rising hardwood prices is purely coincidental - is to be a lucky buyer for this bridge I have for sale. Come on folks - do any of us think that this sudden " forest catastrophe " happened in so many states, with so many unique habitats, and different climates - all at the same period in time ??? There is no PROFIT in deer hunting !!! License sale $ go to an agency for it's operations, not strictly into wardens' pockets. If some corporation or entity could make a profit from the KILLING of a deer - trust me - there would be deer farms to stock them. ( Look at the pay - to - shoot " hunting properties and ranches. Who can afford to pay 5000 - 10,000 to shoot a big buck ??? ) But the " crop(s) " involved are timber and agri-products.
Someone is sure to say it - but I'm NOT against farming and use of timber. But with today's push to have MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY in every endeavor, deer slow the process of renewing the timber crop. Unlike corn, beans, etc., mature, timber-size trees take 80+ years or more to become worthwhile harvesting. So in order to achieve MAX efficiency, deer have to go. I don't like the BS of hearing state agencies say " we're looking out for the forest for future generations. " Business pre$$ure is put on the agencies to look for PROFITS TODAY. If altruism toward the environment and wildlife generated $$$, we'd be living in the Garden Of Eden - paradise.
I have to say to Chickenlittle - where you hunt in Columbia Co., Pa. there's a lot of ag. there, so the deer have things a little easier than up in the mountains where ag is non-existant. So I would expect you'd have more deer there.
Last edited:
West Branch
5 year old buck +
I don't know about working under him but Marrett and Gino both worked in Pennsylvania:
http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2013/10/09/dnr-farmland-wildlife-research-staff-in-madelia-minn/
sandbur
5 year old buck +
What is LC's background? I tried to find it, also.
I thought maybe the guys from Pennsylvania would remember somethings.
