Too Many Deer

[chickenlittle]

Yours seems like a very small snapshot view of the situation in PA.

Fair enough. In the places I hunt, I think there are enough deer to make it worth my time. I'm sure I could walk into the nearest bars and find someone who'll tell me how awful the deer hunting and how the PGC is out to ruin everything and that is why his buddy just saw a cougar. Probably tell me their property taxes are way too high, the school board ought to be fired, they don't like the coach, and probably a few other things they think I should know.

BnB, there is some ag where I hunt in Columbia County but not at lot. Certainly not as much as 30 years ago. Fewer than half of the nearby farms are still in use.

I wish you folks good luck in figuring out your deer plans.

 

[bat man]

I have been trying to track down who worked under Alt and might have migrated to Minnesota. The situations sound familiar and I remember reading some things in the past.

did some of Minnesota's head deer managers work under Alt?

Grund and Cornicelli both worked under Alt. Leslie worked as an admin assistant for SFI (Sustained Forests) in MN in 2006

I have found articles certified forest related that claim hardwood regeneration to meet code means 10 dpsm.

 

[sandbur]

Grund and Cornicelli both worked under Alt. Leslie worked as an admin assistant for SFI (Sustained Forests) in MN in 2006

I have found articles certified forest related that claim hardwood regeneration to meet code means 10 dpsm.

Gino worked on some projects at reducing car-vehicle collisions and spent time in Pennsylvania according to WB's link.

I really think we need a very strong voice for the hunter in Minnesota. Keep up the pace, Brooks. One week for election results.

 

[shawnv]

Is that 10dpsm overwinter or after fawning season?

 

[j-bird]

Am I the only one that sees the DNR wanting hunters to make changes in their expectations and thinking, yet they themselves seem to want to continue the ways of old?

 

[dipper]

Is that 10dpsm overwinter or after fawning season?

Could be. Depends on how much habitat there is. I know little about Minnesota, but I do know a lot of it is wide open ag, with little deer habitat. If there is only 40 solid acres of habitat in that square mile, 10 deer might be too many. If 20 of those acres is grass, and only 20 woods, I think you will have overbrowsing issues.
I'm sure my response will be popular :)

 

[j-bird]

Dipper - you described 95% of my entire county! There are many places where you can see across the entire square mile - because it'all flat corn and bean field! We have mile, after mile of this sort of thing.

Sometimes I think people forget that the DPSM calculation is # of deer per square mile of HABITAT. If I recall only the first 300'of ag filed adjacent to actual deer habitat is included in that calculation.

You are correct in that the type of habitat makes a difference as well.

 

[bat man]

A study of hardwood forest development under four deer densities (10, 20, 38, and 64/mi2) by the U.S. Forest Service in Allegheny Northern Hardwoods of Pennsylvania indicated that when a deer population exceeds 20 deer/mi2 negative impacts to vegetation in a landscape will likely occur (Horsley, et. al., 2003). At population of 10 deer/mi2, adequate hardwood regeneration became established in clear cuts.

This is 10 dpsm of deer habitat.

Adequate regen is a criteria of certified forests. From what I have read its overwinter dpsm.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I'm not much help on the folks that worked in Pa. ( and now may be elsewhere ) other than Alt. Alt spent most of his research years / career studying bears in Pa. He was THE MAN when it came to bears info. I think the PGC saw the public's enthusiasm for him on building bear numbers ( which at that time was a popular idea ), and then they capitalized on his popularity by putting him in charge of the deer program. LOVE AFFAIR OVER. We didn't hear about his subordinates in the news, but got lots of publicity about Alt himself and he supplied lots of videos showing field work with bears. The credibility with bears didn't transfer to deer.

I don't think hunters expect to have 50 - 60 dpsm, but in certain areas of Pa. - and other states - agencies went too far with reductions. The early zeal to reduce numbers got out of hand and was NOT done on a local basis. Combine the zeal with an increase in doe tag $$$ coming in an you get the perfect storm. ( let's not forget the big increase in coyote numbers / fawn predation either ). But the big drop in deer numbers - mainly in the northern tier of Pa. - backfired to some degree. Doe tag sales declined, or folks would buy them and tear them up, and hunting camps started to restrict the number of does they shot voluntarily.

There are those who say " there are deer where I hunt - I see deer. I don't have trouble finding some deer. " That may be true of the area THEY hunt, but it's not the same everywhere, especially in the northern mountain " big woods " counties.

 

[West Branch]

Could be. Depends on how much habitat there is. I know little about Minnesota, but I do know a lot of it is wide open ag, with little deer habitat. If there is only 40 solid acres of habitat in that square mile, 10 deer might be too many. If 20 of those acres is grass, and only 20 woods, I think you will have overbrowsing issues.
I'm sure my response will be popular :)

I think most MN guys on here would agree with you about those areas. In the wide open farm country of southern, southwest, and far west MN a lot of areas already have <5 DPSM and they average less than <5 hunters per sq mile.

The areas we are concerned about are central, east central, north central, and west central MN. The permit area that Sandbur is in has about 51% agriculture per the MN DNR, which is probably around the highest % ag for most of central MN. The DNR aerial survey in his area showed 7 DPSM. I think Sandbur and many others in that area would be happy with goals around 15 DPSM. Other parts of central MN we would be happier with 20-25 DPSM. I don't think any of us want the high DPSM and problems that come with it that you have in your local area.

 

[sandbur]

I think most MN guys on here would agree with you about those areas. In the wide open farm country of southern, southwest, and far west MN a lot of areas already have <5 DPSM and they average less than <5 hunters per sq mile.

The areas we are concerned about are central, east central, north central, and west central MN. The permit area that Sandbur is in has about 51% agriculture per the MN DNR, which is probably around the highest % ag for most of central MN. The DNR aerial survey in his area showed 7 DPSM. I think Sandbur and many others in that area would be happy with goals around 15 DPSM. Other parts of central MN we would be happier with 20-25 DPSM. I don't think any of us want the high DPSM and problems that come with it that you have in your local area.

You've got that pegged exactly for what would be acceptable for many of us. That would be an actual prefawn population of 15 dpsm. Now they estimate us at 12 and the aerial count shows 7. Even an actual 12 would be OK.

I have hunted northwoods areas with prefawn populations of 20-25 dpsm and have had very enjoyable hunts.

For those NOT from MN, our population estimates are per square mile with larger bodies of water like Mille Lacs lake removed from the counts. It is not based on habitat acres, but actual acres.


I saw my first deer in the daylight since the Nov. firearms season. There were 3 fawns and a doe in my corn foodplot. I feel there are about 4 fawns and a doe as the entire population of 3 or 4 sections of land. Probably 60% of those 3 sections are ag.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Bur - What is a section? Is that a unit of measurement up there? Never heard it used here. Do farms there use tree rows to cut down soil erosion from wind any more?

 

[West Branch]

Bur - What is a section? Is that a unit of measurement up there? Never heard it used here. Do farms there use tree rows to cut down soil erosion from wind any more?

A section is 640 acres or a sq mile. Odd that you haven't heard of it, I thought it was a somewhat normal land surveying measurement. A township is usually 36 sections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(United_States_land_surveying)

 

[phil@thesidehill]

A section is 640 acres or a sq mile. Odd that you haven't heard of it, I thought it was a somewhat normal land surveying measurement. A township is usually 36 sections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(United_States_land_surveying)

I think that term is mainly in use in the midwest where the pattern of early settlement divided things up into nice squares. In the Northeast settlement was mainly patterned on waterways and valleys/ridges and didnt have much need or use for perfect lines.

 

[wiscwhip]

True phil, almost all of the original 13 colonies were surveyed under the English "metes and bounds" method. North 50 paces past the big rock, then east 72 paces to the middle of the stream, then south 47 paces to the large oak tree, then west to the point of origin. I much prefer the Section, Quarter Section, Quarter-Quarter Section method. Rocks move and trees die and fall over, stream beds even change shape from time to time.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

Where i live in NE PA can very much be defined as the Northern Tier/Big Woods/Mountains. However my county/area has both big woods mountains and agricultural areas. The deer densities in those two habitat scenarios are polar opposites. It also is an accurate assessment to point out that the majority of the state owned land falls into the Big Woods/Mountains category. The Big Woods/Mountains used to have more deer than they do now...but i wouldn't say that they were over run with deer. The PGC used to manage for the largest number of deer. A 2-3 day doe rifle antlerless seasons separate from buck season, far fewer number of doe tags. Any buck with a 3" spike was legal. The harvest pressure was intensely focused on bucks and it was not focused on does. Therefore you had higher deer numbers in general, but the buck to doe ratio was pretty skewed. Then along came APR's and liberalized doe harvest....whatever the motivation for it aside. We had several years of does getting pounded hard all over the state...in some areas it was needed but in other areas it wasnt a good thing. To me the problem is how the doe tags were allocated at the WMU level, which WMU's are pretty much arbitrary lines on the maps using highways and rivers and county lines as boundaries....not habitat types. In my WMU you can have very high DPSM's and very low DPSM's within several miles of each other. It just so happens that the majority of the low DPSM areas are public land that consists of "Big Woods".

Chickenlittle happens to hunt just south of me and just north of me. parts of Both Columbia and Bradford Counties are in the same WMU as me. Some parts of northern Columbia have pretty solid DPSM's for sure...and so do some parts of Bradford County. SGL's 13, 57, and 66 combined with Ricketts Glenn State Park make up about 127,000 acres of public land in southern Sullivan county near the Columbia County line. That area is pretty much all Big Woods....and deer densities are way down. I used to belong to a QDMA branch and we did all our work on SGL 13...its big and rugged there are pockets of deer but you have to be able to get to them. Most locals and camps that hunt those tracts have stopped shooting does over the last few years and the PGC took out the concurrent antlered/antlerless rifle season for the first 5 days and has lowered the doe tag allocation for 3B so I'm curious to see how the deer numbers will look in those areas in the next few years.

 

[phil@thesidehill]

True phil, almost all of the original 13 colonies were surveyed under the English "metes and bounds" method. North 50 paces past the big rock, then east 72 paces to the middle of the stream, then south 47 paces to the large oak tree, then west to the point of origin. I much prefer the Section, Quarter Section, Quarter-Quarter Section method. Rocks move and trees die and fall over, stream beds even change shape from time to time.

you should read the deed on my property....lots of 'whenceforths'.

 

[wiscwhip]

Nice!^^^

 

[phil@thesidehill]

I've also wondered to what extent were/are Alt and his underlings the culprits? To me it seems more likely that they are just yes men/pawns/scape goats. They did the heavy lifting and leg work, but on whose orders and under whose direction. I can't buy that they are/were rogues who devised this plan to decimate deer herds for the profit lines of somebody/something else with little to gain for themselves. Alt did many great things while he was with the PGC...things that made a difference for sportsman and wildlife so why then would he just decide to do the complete opposite?

If these conspiracies are to hold up to scrutiny it has to be about something bigger, deeper, darker, and with a lot more money than the PGC or any of its employees. This forest certification cabal seems a likely candidate.

 

[sandbur]

A section is 640 acres or a sq mile. Odd that you haven't heard of it, I thought it was a somewhat normal land surveying measurement. A township is usually 36 sections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(United_States_land_surveying)

I worked with a land surveyor in my college days. We could find some original bearing trees form the 1800's. Bearing trees were used to triangulate section corners. the old notes form the orignal survey might say an eight inch white pine. we would occasionally find a 2 foot white pine with a cat face. If on public ground we could take a brush hook to it and carve away the overgrown bark. There would be the original carving with an X where we would take our measurement for locating the section corner. the old notes gave a good description of the forest since bearing trees indicated tree type and size.