While it's a fact the harvest figures for this year are not complete yet I thought I'd do some diggin around and see what I could find for my area Jefferson County...

Let's take a look at the buck harvest for the 6 years prior to antler restrictions  --

The average buck harvest per square mile of land in Jefferson County PRIOR to AR (1996-2002) was 5.5 bucks per square mile per year..

According to the latest figures I have the buck harvest per square mile SINCE AR here is 4.7 bucks...

That's less than ONE buck per year harvested per square mile.

I would have thought that the fact AR was to save 1.5 year old bucks that the harvest would have dropped more...

more bucks protected from harvest would automatically mean less bucks harvested... and at less than one per sqaure mile I can not see where all the whining is coming from...


     

I would expect the antlered harvest to drop significantly the first year of AR's then a little for years therafter.

That first year most of the herd was protected because it was comprised of mostly 1.5 year olds.  By the second year, most of those bucks were legal at 2.5 but now they became much more difficult to kill.

I would expect the average antlered kill to remain slightly below pre AR's because of the harder to kill with age factor.  As this goes on hopefully, and we become more adept at hunting older deer, that may level off at pre AR or maybe slightly above.

I hate it when I hear hunters talking about not seeing all the 8 points behind every tree that they were promised with AR's(not sure from who).  A 2.5 y/o buck is a much different animal than what we were used to hunting for a long time, myself included.  The bucks are there somewhere. This harvest per square mile points that out.

Just my opinion.  Time will tell. Give it ten years or so and the verdict should be in.  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-01-07 16:20:43 --

I can't understand why some just don't get what HR means. Less deer!

As far as AR, I see many more 8's in my area of 2F after AR started than before AR.

An eight used to be a big deal before AR, not as much any more...

Quote :

Penn wrote Did anyone else attend one of his pony shows?

I did.  You are right, he did waive those antlers around for us too.  He was pointing out what a typical 2.5 y/o and a typical 3.5 would look like.  

He never promised, at least at the one I attended, that most hunters would expect to see those 3.5 y/o running around everywhere.  I think that was his biggest mistate in the seminars he presented.  Many people came away from them envisioning that 3.5 y/o rack that he was holding.

While it is true that those deer are out there more so than ever before, you are priveledged to see one in the wild, especially when there is hunting pressure.  

I feel the same way.  The biggest  mistake Alt made was using larger antlers as a selling point for AR.  It was an easy way for him to get a lot more hunters on his side. When AR was all about buck to doe ratio balance with the side effect of larger racks.
 And as Buff said,  HR means less buck and doe. I'm kind of suprised that there is such a small difference in the buck kill.  I would have expected a smaller buck kill .dd

Penn wrote

Quote :

That is 656 disgruntled hunters than before AR.

What it should mean is that with less deer and ARs in place 656 hunters did not harvest a buck.... why does that equate to disgruntled....



What it shows me is that of those 656 some can see no enjoyment in deer hunting unless they harvest a buck...

I'm sure there were 656 trout anglers that did not catch trout on opening day too... but I don't think that made them disgruntled...

although I did hear some say that the PFBC did not stock the streams like in the past even though I know that was not the truth ..

too bad folks can't just enjoy the thrill of being out there in pursuit of game and not basing the whole experience on the number of game animals seen or harvested...


But then again I guess that just shows my age and my memories of the fun of hunting and fishing not based on the catch or kill factor and the NEED  to show off something I harvested to make the event a success

You are so right Penn....

But one of the points that I don't understand is some of those that are complaining just do not want to see OR understand the true goal of the deer management program.

They will not attend seminars on deer and deer habitat...no tours of any woods for them... no seeing the need to reduce the herd we had because of the "damamge" the large herd was doing.

Too many just want it EASY to kill deer and if that's not the case then it's all the PGC's fault... and they'll stand in lne to complain...


I will say that the number of "disgruntled" hunters at our sportsman's club is becoming less and less.
But of course I have benn working hard at trying to get them to see the "BIG PICTURE".

I get pleasure now when some tell me they are seeing "stuff" grow in their woods they did not see ever before...etc...

I gave out the 8 pamphlets the PGC has put together on the deer plan to almost all at the club (thanks to the PGC for sending me those pamphlets) and the folks have really enjoyed them.

Don't forget you can see/read them on the PGC's website..

Everyone should take some time and check them out in my opinion... some good reading there...

and as I have asked for before ---

shows the PGS is starting to share information with the hunters and others interested in the workings of that organization..

"Too many just want it EASY to kill deer and if that's not the case then it's all the PGC's fault... and they'll stand in lne to complain..."

Doc, don't agree with you here. I complain ... because I think the bird was overcooked. HR went further than what it had too. The forest has problems, but the deer were not the holy grail of an answer. Now, if I wanted to kill something ... well heck I could have shot many doe ... I would rather work and take buck. The facts are that across PA the chance of taking a buck are down 33%.  

I am also suspect of the PGC deer kill numbers. Seems in my circles more than ever turn their cards in. There was a day when everyone I knew got a deer and the areas I hunted - many were shot, now many go without and only a few are killed ... but the PGC says more are killed. Makes no sense to me.

Quote :

leadslonger wrote : but the PGC says more are killed. Makes no sense to me.

The way the PGC estimates the harvest has been proven to be statistically valid.  Many units have seen a significant increase in harvest over the past 5 or so years.  These units  add alot to the overall harvest even though some other units have seen a decrease during the same time period.

I have a degree in engineering and statistics ... so I understand what was signed off on and what was not. The method of estimating kill at the state level is valid.

My comments come from the county level. I stand by what I wrote ... less deer killed today in the areas I hunt ... but harvest stats do not show this ... it is not even close. somthing is and has been fishy here for some time.

I must admit I agree in part....

Not having the county figures available any more SUCKS......

I have 20+ years of GOOD stats and they are not worth anything anymore because I can not compare to current county harvest... not even by spliting 2F in half    

Although I do not believe the harvest for Jefferson has fallen off much...and that's based on meat processor and the WCOs checks and talking to local deer camp hunters... ....

The info is on the harvest report cards and SHOULD be made available.....

I have 32 years of info. It say that in the mid 70's most everyone who had a pemit shot a doe ... it was not uncommon to see 3 to six dozen deer the first day and groups of 30. We also shot a lot of buck and often would take 5 or six off each hill with 1 or 2 being very nice by todays standards.

Here is my hypothesis ... Back in the 70's ... most locals in places like elk county hunted from camps and processed their own deer. Many that came into the area processed their own deer ... Over time, as a percentage, more people now have a thrid party process. This has led to bad data for the PGC.

Here is how it works ... say in the 70's in elk county you have 100 hunters who kill deer ... half from elk county and half from outside. 80% of the locals process their own deer and 80% of the outsiders have it processed by a third party. Lets also say 60% of the outsiders send in their cards and 40% of the locals do ( I really believe that people who process their own meat send there cards in less often than those who have it processed outside). This means that the PGC by checking the processors will see ...10 local kills of which 4 cards were sent in and 40 outsider kills with 24 cards sent in ... from which they make a estimated kill for the county. Remember 28 cards from 50 processed deer checked.


Fast forward to late 1990's ... before HR. This same 100 kills now has a higher percentage of locals due to opportunities in their home ange ... rather than 50/50 lets say 60% locals and 40% outsiders. Also more locals are now having deer processed ... rather than 20% it is now 50%. Lets see what happens to what the wardens see.

Instead of the 50 deer at processors, now there are 65 deer as more locals are having deer processed. Also of the 65 processed 34 are reported ... which equates to a 10% drop in reporting and aybe a perception that more deer are harvested ...

In case you are not following the math ... heres the skinny ... few local people sent in card in the 70's ... the reporting rate was terrible ... lots of deer were killed compared to the 90's but for some reason ( i believe more people having third party processing )harvest went up .

In the area I hunt we are killing 10% of what we used to ...stats from PGC say otherwise ... i don't get it.

I also believe that all of the info on the report cards should be made available for review.

Leadslonger,

I may be wrong (someone correct me if I am) but didn't the PGC use actual report card returns as the harvest figures in the 70's and 80's?  If so, the actual deer harvest was way more than reported during those times.  Which could explain the seemingly high harvest reports of today as a comparison to the old numbers.

Quote :

In the area I hunt we are killing 10% of what we used to ......

Maybe the area (woods) you hunt is like many in the state (due to HR).... there are probably less deer (does) there to start with than in some of the years you mentioned ??

That would surely mean a reduction in the number harvested, right ??

But keep in mind there are areas in the state  (most parts of 2F for example) that the harvest is still HIGHER than the 20 year averages  before HR.

Plus you have to consider there are more "tags" being issued than back then and we are still harvesting more does....

That's why I can not understand the guys saying there are no deer left ???


How can you continue to harvest more but have less to hunt ?????

Granted the buck harvest is down but we all knew that would happen... when you start to protect those young (1.5) NOT SO SMART bucks and after another year of experience harvesting one ( a mature buck) is a WHOLE DIFFERENT ball game than it was in  the past...

The last month of so has been VERY entertaining at work...

the same guys that were bitching about no does and no bucks during rifle season are now all "wondering" where the deer were... because they are seeing them now that the season is over...

Including a BEAUTIFUL 14 pointer that everyone thought dissappeared during the summer... In fact "rumors" said he was poached...

But several folks have spoted him after the deer seasons closed in the same old places he has been for the past several years...


I had an interesting conversation this week-end with our local WCO.. He was talking about the lack of hunters this year.. NOT just deer hunters.....  less turkey hunters both Spring and Fall... less small game..ETC ETC....

In fact we talked about seeing less folks in the woods PERIOD !!!!

"Disgruntled" was not even mentioned as a reason either of us was hearing....


#1... work.. had to work to make ends meet, or working 6 days a week, less vacaction days used to go hunting

#2... No time -- "Kids" too busy with other projects

#3.. "Too old" and health reasons

#4...Gas prices

Quote :

leadslonger wrote : Over time, as a percentage, more people now have a thrid party process. This has led to bad data for the PGC.

Based on personal observation or opinion?  In my area of the state (2A/B) many more are cutting thier own deer than previous.  The average price down here is $60-65 dollars to start.  Plus, with the concurrent season, many processors stop taking deer by the end of the first day forcing many to cut thier own.

Quote :

Dr Trout wrote : I had an interesting conversation this week-end with our local WCO.. He was talking about the lack of hunters this year.. NOT just deer hunters.....  less turkey hunters both Spring and Fall... less small game..ETC ETC.... In fact we talked about seeing less folks in the woods PERIOD !!!!

Agree as well in the SW.  Maybe had to do with EHD in our area but every year it does seem less and less after the first day.

Late muzzleloader is a good example.  In years past, I could rely on slow steady pressure bumping the deer a little.  Now, very little forced movement.  

I know they are selling the tags but I guess the amount of time in the woods is decreasing substantially among many hunters.

I have to agree with dpms, I know many more today that cut up their own deer because of today's cost of butchering. Myself included.

These guys send in their harvest reports too.

dpms,

I believe you are correct ... looking at kill in 70's was at one point actual cards. There was also a fine for getting caught not sending them in. Often just a subscrïption to game news.

Also, I gave my observation on % taking their deer to processors. Back in the 70's this was unheard of. Then a few guys started up the businesses in the 80's and continue to today ... again this in in the small towns of 2F. No data or facts to support this.