I wish they would re-introduce bison/buffalo too. :)
Roy
Printable View
I wish they would re-introduce bison/buffalo too. :)
Roy
So in PA you have to buy a license for each deer? In the part of Tennessee where I live, one big game license was good for (potentially) 42 deer last season. To top it off, the state would provide a free test for CWD if you wanted. We have a bit of an overpopulation problem with our deer herd down here. I live in Nashville and could easily fill my freezer with deer from my yard.
Ed
I'm with Ed on this one. I live just east of Atlanta and I can hardly grow anything in my yard because the deer eat everything, including the "deer resistant" plants. I could probably shoot 3 or 4 every evening off of my front yard alone.
We have loads of coyotes as well, even in downtown Atlanta where they hang around dumpsters. There are also a couple of black bears that find their way into North Atlanta every spring as well. They are almost always young males that have been chased out of the territory of larger males in the north Georgia mountains and followed the river down into Atlanta where they end up at strip malls looking for food. Late last winter there way word of a big cat hunting in Douglas county just west of Atlanta where it had killed and partially eaten a large horse and a full grown cow. They suspected an African Lion, but I never heard of it being captured or killed.
Having worked for Fish and Game when I got out of college, I suspect that if any Fish and Game department released large predators in a state the word would get out pretty quickly.
Jim Smith
Hunter greed yes... But not the licence buying public who buy extra's... The probelem is more deeply rooted than that and VERY widely spread and not at all limited to PA... As it's very much here in CNY too!! The reported kill will never match the actual kill as most do not return their cards... Not to mention the thousands taken annually illeagly.... many many more than most believe are taken without a tag...
I'll agree with that. But I do find that the person who buys more than one license has to ask themselves why are they doing that??? If you're hunting in an area that you actually see the numbers of deer dropping off and you still buy an extra license, are you not part of the problem and not part of the solution???
As far as the illegal deer being taken, oh yes. Saw that with my own eyes. Even to the point of the opening day. Saw 2 guys with 3 deer and not one tagged. Told them to tag the deer or face getting reported. They fumbled around but didn't do it. I told them I was going to report them and I did. By the time the PGC stopped in to check on it, it was several hours later at night. Didn't have but a description of the offenders,as I couldn't see a licence. Never did catch them. All on state land. This is common too in the remote parts of the state. But the PGC knows this takes place.....So why issue more tags if they know more deer are getting killed than tags issued and return???????
PGC states that each WMU can only hold so many deer per square mile. So even with illegal killings, tags not turned in,etc. Many counties still have several thousand licenses for sale to keep the deer--"in check"...yea
EdD--Yes we buy 1 licence per deer. More tages sold, more money from the feds.
Heritage Angler--yes, you have deer running around between houses and don't think the state doesn't count them as nuisance complaints. That gives them the numbers they need to ask for more licenses to be sold. Thats why you see no deer out of town. No deer are there!!!! All been shot off.
OK I'm getting off track on the original thread talking about cougars..sorry,
Randy
I'm sure the cougars in Pa are somewhat the same as the cougars in NY. Nearly everyone has seen one or knows someone who has seen/shot one, knows the PGC or the NYSDEC released them to control the deer herd, and on and on...as many have said, and as someone also has said, in most cases everyone is well meaning but 99.9% of these stories are FALSE. I've had people tell me they saw it with their own eyes, someone they know and believe has a pic posted on the internet, you go look at the pic, then google "Cougar Pics" and usually within 10 minutes you can find the absolute SAME picture some place else and trace it to a western state.
No one in NY has killed one, with a weapon or a vehicle, taken a photo that can be documented of any tracks or droppings, or has any other concrete actual evidence of any kind. It may be the same in Pa. although Pa. certainly has more areas of extensive REMOTE mature forest that possible could harbor a small population of these animals. NY has the Adirondacks but even there no one has produced documented evidence of their existence. I believe there are valid reasons for this..#1 Even mature forests are not the favored habitat for cats. Western habitat with higher elevations, rocks/cliffs, high mountains interspersed with some timber, meadows etc. is the preferred range.#2 Cats are reclusive creatures by nature and the human population in NY and probably Pa are way too high even in remote areas for cats to be comfortable even if the habitat was to their liking. I know about the stories of cats traveling down to LA and taking dogs/cats/kids, etc...these are almost always rogue singular individuals who are either aged/injured and not able to compete for food in their natural habitat.
Deer......everyone is always looking for a reason why they have fewer, and that is why the belief in the cat/cougar stories. As Bigdady stated in most cases look in the mirror and there's the reason for less deer....we shot 'em! Let me say this, however, where the habitat is good, a lot of cropland, small mast bearing woodlots, plenty of water, etc, those deer will come back quickly, when DEC/PGC cut back on permits used to control those areas. Also as Heritage is alluding to in many more urban areas, where deer can find preferred food, and no hunting is allowed deer are overpopulated and to some extent deer do travel out of these areas and repopulate other ares as the habitat allows. On the other hand, mature old growth heavily forested areas are not able to support big populations of deer. 6-10 deer per square mile is a normal population in that type of environment. You can have higher populations if you have restrictive harvesting in these areas (ie not shooting does), but once you start more intense managing (ie nuisance licenses, etc) that population, once severely reduced either by some natural reason such as starvation or disease, or by intense harvesting, it will tend to only carry what is natural for that type of habitat to carry.
NY has had intense harvesting and nuisance permits longer than Pa has been doing it, 12-13 years now. I was leary what it would do to the deer population in NY. For the most part it is pretty much the same as Pa. Where the habitat is marginal deer populations are down and will probably not comeback without more restrictive management, but if the habitat can't support more deer why try to build population if the deer will be forced to overbrowse, breed smaller fawns, grow smalller racks, be disease prone etc.?
Where habitat is good the deer take a beating every year, but seem to be holding there own population wise and as Bigdady and Heritage pointed out its due to alot of posted property hunters can't get on, overcrowding of the available public land, etc. In alot of cases again as Heritage pointed out, hunters see less deer on the land they hunt, because it is overhunted, not because the deer population is low, they have simply moved to a more protected area until the heat is off and then they move right back in. I've seen that exact scenario take place here on 800 acres of stateland near me. By the 2nd or 3rd day of season you will see very few deer there, but late in the season or just after there are often nearly as many there as always.
Anyway sorry to start rambling, my .02.
My money is on you for this one!;)
Randy - That shooting accident happened in Lehigh County, and I live in Northampton County.:razz:
It was, however, less than a 10 minute drive from my house. At the time, there was a big push to have that area put under shotgun only regs, to help prevent such an accident from happening again. It was really a freak accident - the girl was sitting in her car about a mile away from where the shot was taken, and I'm pretty sure the guy was deer hunting.
Keep wizard away from trees and we got nothing to worry about.....This year he backed out in front of me with his van near Cammal. Was the same unfortunute sight of the bird killing location that met his demise with my grill. ...So you know how fast I was driving....
Anyway, ED...The shot was a considerable distance away but the guy was hunting woodchucks...legally. An errant shot is what hit her but as you stated, she was a loooong way away. The family sued the owner of the property, who was at work at the time of the shooting, and held him liable for allowing the hunter to be on his property. Terrible judge, terrible atttorney, whatever the case. This was a travisty of justice.
Not hijcking the thread...but this is the same area that a suit took place involving the PA fish & boat, landowner and the defendant over the right to wade in a stream and fish in a navigable waterway..... Some judge found the guy guilty and the Fish & boat assisted in helping the guy fight it...The defendant won but it just goes to show you the courts are not always right. This was a case before the Donny Beaver story on the Juniata.
Randy
No wonder you Skukes don't see any deer - you're lookin' down a hole! Check back on the records - he was huntin' deer (or was that wabbits?).:D
From the Allentown Morning Call:
Sep. 19--A recent Lehigh County civil jury decision has landowners, hunters and state game management officials concerned. On Sept. 8, jurors found a North Whitehall Township orchard owner partially liable for the injuries Casey Burns suffered when she was struck in the head by a bullet fired by a deer hunter on the property. The verdict is already prompting landowners to deny sportsmen the right to hunt on their land. The jury found the hunter, Craig T. Wetzel, 90 percent liable in the 2004 accident. It held the property owner, Daniel W. Haas, 10 percent liable. Mr. Wetzel had earlier pleaded guilty to hunting violations, paid $5,500 in fines and restitution, received six....