This subject came up in another thread... and I am not having alot of luck finding the study results and I have to go to work..... but I did find this page that tells of some of the studies done....


Please post links to any study results you may find...

Please keep them to Pennsylvania studies..

THANKS

http://paimpact.cas.psu.edu/agr15.html

ALL RIGHT...found one..

Hunter movement study....

http://www.aginfo.psu.edu/psa/sf2005/Hunter.html

I can see I have a lot of reading to do. Only 187 deer "research projects" on the PGC web site. Now to figure out which ones are pertinent to the proposed changes...

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/pgc?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=deer+%22research+projects%22&btnG=Search

PA Bureau of Forestry

Finally found some reports and info related to studies that support some of the PGC decisions. About two thirds of the way down the page is an area called Wild life management reports.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/browse.asp?a=491&bc=0&c=69956&pgcNav=|

I'm not sure what you are looking for, but here is an excerpt from the deer management booklets recently made available from PGC.
This was emailed to me and also posted on another message board, I don't have the direct link handy.

"In 2001, and with the support of a majority of hunters, the Game Commission adopted the more practical two-week concurrent season and has witnessed a significant benefit from that decision. Hunters have more time and flexibility in when they hunt, and weather plays less of a role in antlerless deer harvests. Today, deer managers can better predict the effect of the antlerless hunting season and reduce the risk of over or under harvests of antlerless deer.

Although some hunters say longer seasons have led to the over harvest of antlerless deer, the bottom line is that the number of licenses sold, not season length, controls the size of our antlerless deer harvest. For example, in 2005-06, the antlerless allocation was reduced 15 percent, and the antlerless harvest declined 18 percent. In 2006-07, the antlerless allocation was reduced 2 percent, and the antlerless harvest declined 3 percent. Any risk of over harvesting antlerless deer is limited by the antlerless allocation and not influenced by the two-week concurrent firearms season.

We recognize that not every hunter likes the concurrent season. Just as in 2001 when the Game Commission started the concurrent season without unanimous hunter support, the reasons for a concurrent season, such as more time for hunters to hunt and reduced impact of weather on antlerless harvests, remain valid. As stewards of wildlife populations throughout the Commonwealth, the Game Commission has a responsibility to consider carefully those things that affect our ability to control deer populations and to lessen their impacts on people, other wildlife and the deer population itself. A concurrent season provides hunters more time to hunt and is a more effective way to manage Pennsylvania’s white-tailed deer populations."

Tks Bowbum,

Just looking for the reports/studies that are driving the decisions being made by the PGC. Not that I agree/disagree with the decision - I would like to be assured that the PGC is using facts and not opinions or squeaky wheel whiners with an agenda. Therefore, it sure would be helpful if they would reference the supporting reports/studies for their decisions.

Observer, this proposal -- delayed doe season, is the strangest presentation I've ever seen.

The foundation expressed for offering it defines --- "vague" and "illusiveness"

Here are some buzz phrases to do with this proposal:

1. "Think outside the box."
This, ironically, being offered in support of a proposal that goes backward to the direction of "the old, abandoned split season, system."

2. 'It will give us a chance to gather more information."
But yet, by the 2008 PGC deer booklet they herald the current systems effectiveness to managing the herd.
And yeah -- what information are you short on?

3. "We feel totally confident that management goals can be met in using these proposed methods."
This offset by --- "it's only a survey and can be aborted at any time if we feel that it isn't working."
Duh -- we are confident, but we can scrap the idea if it don't work.

4. "It gives us another tool to manage."
Kind of a silly thing to say isn't it? "Another tool --- when ya got tools hanging out of both back pockets that you just heralded in the 2008 deer booklet, as a supreme way to manage!
And oh, by the way -- what tool is missing?

5. "this is a study and it does not change the goals or objectives of the program."
Offset by; "In a social atmosphere of significant numbers of hunters wanting more deer, this can be accomplished, with no, or little change to net doe-license revenue, by having fewer doe days with as many or more permits made available."

Ahem, ahem and ahem!
______________________________________________________________

We got folks complaining about, (specifically 2G), not getting drawn for doe licenses.
We got folks complaining about, (primarilly 2G - but other areas as well), not seeing enough deer.

Now, there is a shortage of deer but -- also a shortage of doe licenses available!

How do you do both --- create more deer  with --- issuing more licenses?

Simple -- you place blockades in the way of a signidfcant number of hunters so that it is tough for them to get to the doe.
And you do it in the way that failed to adequately reduce numbers in the past --- you put doe season "after" hunters have been in the woods shooting at bucks.

Don't forget, we also have House Game and Fisheries Committee members who have flatly stated there will be no license fee increase until PGC provides more deer to unhappy hunters.

Well it looks like you have come up with as much concrete info as I have. Still nothing that would indicate these changes are being driven by other than the opinions of squeaky wheel whiners with an agenda.