Recommendations for Pennsylvania's Deer Management Program and The 2010 Deer Hunting Season March 7, 2010 Prepared for The Pennsylvania Game Commission Board of Commissioners By John Eveland
RECOMMENDATIONS I. CONCURRENT SEASON A. ACTION: End it. Resume a two-week buck-only season followed by a three-day antlerless season. 1. The separate-sex deer hunting season is a successful time-tested scientific "optimum sustained yield" management technique. 2. Permitting sportsmen to hunt both sexes concurrently with two tags available to them creates an opportunity for a significant illegal and unreported antlerless harvest. 3. Until deer density is increased in some WMUs, fewer shots during a two-week buck-only season could result in increased, albeit temporary, hunter dissatisfaction regarding the low density of deer. II. ANTLER RESTRICTION A. ACTION: End it. Return to antlered deer with a 3"- minimum spike. 1. This action should increase the number of available legal buck and, thus, the buck harvest by 30-50%. 2. It will prevent the "shoot-first/count-later" approach by hunters that may currently result in a significant illegal harvest of yearling buck, and thus a waste of the resource. 3. There will be a decrease in the number of older and bigger buck in the population. 4. If intensive habitat manipulation is implemented as recommended (see III), such habitat enhancement will increase both vegetative and wildlife productivity, create a "healthier" forest ecosystem, increase carrying capacity for deer (as well as for many non-game species), and hence mitigate the effects incurred from eliminating antler restrictions by producing more, healthier, and larger yearling buck. III. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT A. ACTION: Announce a plan to enhance habitat on public lands for both game and non-game species. 1. Announcing such a plan will mitigate any concerns regarding the future effects of higher deer density on forest regeneration. 2. As Forest Management Units (FMUs) are created: Food and cover will be greatly improved throughout the forest, especially improving winter carry-over.
Ecosystem diversity will increase regarding forest stand type, vegetative biodiversity of both woody and herbaceous plants, and non-game species of birds (especially perching birds) and mammals. Carrying capacity for deer will dramatically increase. Carrying capacity for many other species of game animals, especially grouse, will dramatically increase. Carrying capacity for non-game animals (both birds (including ovenbirds ) and mammals as well as herptiles) will dramatically increase. 3. Regarding grouse, this FMU plan should rapidly return healthy populations to areas of the state where their numbers have dramatically declined or disappeared. 4. FMU habitat enhancement should significantly improve the health of deer, as might be representative of embryo-count surveys. 5. FMU habitat enhancement should significantly improve the health of the forest. 6. FMU habitat enhancement should significantly increase the health, body growth, antler growth, and density (number) of buck. 7. The current system of creating and maintaining food plots on public lands should be curtailed. IV. DMAP A. ACTION: End the "indiscriminate" use of DMAP. 1. Require detailed plans with adequate justification before approval of DMAP. 2. Define three parameters for approval: a. Requests based on Social Criteria b. Requests based on Biological Criteria c. Requests based on Commercial Criteria V. URBAN DEER MANAGEMENT A. ACTION: Announce increased concern over developing an effective deer management plan for urban areas. 1. Maintain current harvest methods (antlerless allocations and seasons) for urban areas. 2. Continue investigation of alternative methods for controlling deer density in urban WMUs. VI. DEER DENSITY AND CARRYING CAPACITY A. ACTION: Announce plans to determine the actual density of deer per square mile and thus the real number of deer comprising the population within each WMU.
1. This action will satisfy sportsmen who believe that determining real numbers of deer are vital to effective deer management. It is, in fact, true, and represents the basis of a scientific management plan. 2. Deer density per square mile within WMUs should be used to determine the size of the herd. 3. The carrying capacity (in deer per square mile) of each WMU should be investigated and determined, representing the maximum density of deer that can be maintained in each WMU. From this maximum carrying capacity a lower optimum carrying capacity should be calculated, and future allocations of anterless permits should be annually adjusted toward maintaining this optimum density of deer per WMU. VII. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS A. ACTION: Reassess the WMU concept. 1. Do not micromanage WMUs based solely on biological criteria. Social criteria, especially hunter satisfaction and ease-of-understanding, should be a principal concern. 2. WMUs should be reassessed as to size, number, and geographic configuration. 3. Compromise should be made to follow county boundaries where possible, thus making the system more hunter-friendly, increasing hunter satisfaction, and enhancing understanding and compliance by hunters. VIII. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY A. ACTION: Define PGC's wildlife management philosophy. 1. Regarding Game Management: The PGC shall manage game animals within the Commonwealth according to an "optimum sustained yield" philosophy. Sustained yield, herein, is defined as the continued production of game animals for recreation use by sportsmen that is achievable over an indefinite period of time without undue impairment to the forest and natural resources. Whereas the classic maximum sustained yield of game animals produced the greatest number of harvestable animals that were allowed while maintaining a sustainable supply over time ( thus possibly reaching or approaching the calculated carrying capacity of the land), optimum sustained yield considers the effects of other herbivores, the needs of nongame species, and the overall health of the forest ecosystem. Thus, the density of deer in maintaining an optimum sustained yield will be lower than traditional goals of maximum sustained yield. The forest will, therefore, be maintained in healthy balance, while providing an adequate harvest of deer for sportsmen. 2. Regarding Non-Game Management: The PGC shall manage non-game birds and mammals toward the overall health and balance of the forest and in the best interest of all citizens of the Commonwealth according to an "ecosystem management"
philosophy. Efforts will be directed toward the maximization of non-game species diversity and the optimization of specific non-game population densities. 3. Regarding Forest Management: The PGC shall manage public lands toward assuring forest health and diversity according to a "multiple use" philosophy. A silvicultural rotation will be maintained toward the continuous sustained yield of lumber and forest products. Portions of the forest will be removed from normal forest rotational cycles to mature as "old growth" forests. The remainder of the forest ecosystem will be manipulated toward enhancing the carrying capacity and diversity of wildlife. Note that the considerations toward determining the health of the forest should be: (a) sustainability the ability of the forest to restock and sustain itself, (b) diversity determined to be the number and type of plant and animal species that can be maintained under practical conditions, and (c) productivity not simply the desire to maximize forest understory density through the reduction of the principal forest herbivore, but toward maintaining the long-term balance of the ecosystem and its food chain. IX. GOAL OF THE PGC's DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A. ACTION: Eliminate the three (or five) current goals of the deer management program and replace them with the following goal. Considering the above-defined wildlife management philosophies of the PGC, the goal of the deer management program shall be: To provide the optimum sustained yield of deer for sport hunting. Toward accomplishing this goal, the following criteria shall be met: forest habitat will be maintained at a sufficient level of productivity that will permit the designed maximum annual harvest with minimum winter starvation (i.e. while maintaining a healthy forest and healthy deer herd). habitat shall be manipulated toward increasing carrying capacity for deer as well as for other wildlife species, toward enhancing wildlife diversity, and toward increasing the overall health and productivity of the forest. X. ANTLERLESS DEER SEASON A. ACTION: End concurrent season, establish consistency in the duration of the season (number of days), and alter the annual allocation of antlerless licenses to adjust the size of the herd. 1. Create a separate antlerless season that is in addition to and following the two-week buck season. 2. Return the duration of the antlerless season to a socially acceptable number and configuration of days:
a. Maintain the season at three days following the annual buck season. b. Choose the first Monday and Tuesday following the buck season toward accommodating hunters with camps, and add the following Saturday as a third day that considers youth hunters who may find it difficult to take off school on weekdays. 3. The annual adjustment of the deer population, therefore, will not be a factor of the duration of the doe season, but will use only one tool to adjust the deer population the allocated numbers of doe permits per WMU. 4. The annual impact of anterless allocations upon herd density should be closely monitored and determined in real numbers, not simply as a trend. XI. ANTLERLESS LICENSE ALLOCATIONS FOR 2010 A. ACTION: Reduce antlerless allocations for 2010 and monitor the results. 1. Recommended 2010 antlerless license allocations are listed based on trends in PGCreported data from 2002-2008. Parameters used per WMU to estimate projected 2010 antlerless allocations were: deer density estimates. antlered harvest per square mile. antlerless harvests. PGC population objectives. antlerless license allocations. human social considerations regarding each WMU. 2. The 2010 season should establish as many "fixed" parameters as possible if a new deer management philosophy is implemented a change from the current ecosystem management plan to a new optimum sustained yield objective. Toward maximizing the accuracy in meeting target population goals, ideally the number of allocated antlerless licenses would be the only variable that needs to be adjusted from year to year. 3. Based upon the qualitative metrics and highly variable efficacy of PGC's data, their system for deer population estimates, harvest calculations, and antlerless permit allocations appears to be more of an art than a science.
RECOMMENDED ANTLERLESS LICENSE ALLOCATIONS FOR 2010 2010 RECOMMENDATION PGC 2008 Approximate 2010 2009 Antlerless Population Change to Antlerless WMU Allocation Objective 2009 Allocation Allocation 1A 42,000 Stable -.25 32,000 1B 30,000 Stable -.10 27,000 2A 55,000 Stable -.20 44,000 2B 68,000 Decrease 0 68,000 2C 49,000 Stable -.20 40,000 2D 56,000 Stable -.20 44,000 2E 21,000 Stable -.25 16,000 2F 28,000 Stable -.30 20,000 2G 26,000 Stable -1.00 0 3A 26,000 Stable -.30 18,000 3B 43,000 Stable -.40 25,000 3C 27,000 Stable -.25 20,000 3D 37,000 Stable -.40 22,000 4A 29,000 Stable -.20 23,000 4B 23,000 Increase -.50 12,000 4C 35,000 Stable -.30 24,000 4D 40,000 Stable -.50 20,000 4E 30,000 Increase -.50 15,000 5A 19,000 Increase -.50 10,000 5B 51,000 Stable -.15 43,000 5C 113,000 Decrease -.15 96,000 5D 22,000 Unknown 0 22,000 Total 870,000 -.26 641,000
XII. RESEARCH AND MONITORING A. ACTION: The PGC should conduct, but not be limited to, the following research and monitoring programs. B. CONSIDERATIONS: 1. To maximize the scientific efficacy of deer management, a field research and monitoring programs should be established: a. To determine fawn production and survival to the fall hunting season. b. To determine per WMU the population density, age composition, and gender composition of the deer herd both pre-hunting season (late summer) and post-hunting season (mid-winter). c. To determine the extent of winter mortality. d. To assess the status of forest habitat (biomass productivity) and trends in the capacity of the forest to regenerate as well as to restock itself. 2. Indicators of change: a. Grouse populations should be monitored to establish baseline densities prior to habitat enhancement, and continued post-fmu implementation to monitor trends in the grouse population. b. A non-game animal (such as the ovenbird) should be monitored pre- and post-habitat enhancement as an indicator of population trends for non-game species, especially ground-dwelling animals and low-level nesting birds.