Deer Baiting Eliminated In Southeastern PA Counties

[scotman]

Put it this way Steve there has been plenty of studies done on deer migration. We have learned they have separate home ranges overlapping other family and bachelor groups. When their is not enough habitat to sustain x amount of deer the deer are then forced outside of the groups to find "greener pastures". Their are many other factors that occur that cause this force some speculate it is a safeguard against interbreeding. These deer that are forced outside of the groups will go somewhere whether it be an overlapping range or a whole new area altogether. In the case with deer within the city limits those forced deer are the by product of lack of proper deer management 5-10 miles outside city limits. This is were the deer management needs to occur not within the city itself but where the problem originates from which is outside city limits.

Let me make it clear I am talking long term. Ofcourse we have to resort to the practical means in the mean time with the population that has its homeranges overlapping the city limits but long term you need to get to the root of the problem and that is not within the city itself. The problem is occurring in the suburbs and beyond were it is practical to plant crops and trees that will improve the habitat and keep the deer were they are supposed to be. This is were tags need to be doubled and triples in till you do get the problem under control. This is were the hunters can actually do something about it.

Why not a tax incentive if a land owner opens their land up that allows x amount of hunters access for that year? You are simply spending the money on highly qualified biologist but your saying it is inconceivable to pass on the savings to qualifying land owners? Put it this way either way you will be spending money on the problem, tax incentive equals money, salaries equal money and sharpshooters equal money. My solution is long term. Lets not over complicate this it is not rocket science.

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: scotman

Not sure, but maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I think it is a safe bet that any habitat improvement needs to be done on the border of were the problem is occurring. That would be not in the city itself but on the outskirts of the city were the problem originated from. Here around Buffalo just a scant 5 miles outside the city limits the tracts of land start getting larger is not the PA cities the same way?

Southeastern Pennsylvania is the classic "urban sprawl," much different from suburban Buffalo. Political boundaries between cities are indistinguishable -- there is no undeveloped area between jurisdictions.

Steve

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: Everyday Hunter

ORIGINAL: scotman

Not sure, but maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I think it is a safe bet that any habitat improvement needs to be done on the border of were the problem is occurring. That would be not in the city itself but on the outskirts of the city were the problem originated from. Here around Buffalo just a scant 5 miles outside the city limits the tracts of land start getting larger is not the PA cities the same way?

Southeastern Pennsylvania is the classic "urban sprawl," much different from suburban Buffalo. Political boundaries between cities are indistinguishable -- there are virtually no undeveloped areas between jurisdictions that big enough to contain the deer.

Steve

[MRHunter]

Great back and forth Scotma and Everyday Hunter,

I work, and recently started hunting in the southeast PA area that we are talking about. I live just on the edge of this area. I do most of my hunting in Central PA (Turkey/Deer)

Scotman - I do not believe you realize how large of an area 'Everyday Hunter' is talking about. If you look on a map at the city of Philadelphia. Now look at a satellite map of the area (map.google.com) in a 40-50 mile radius. This is a large area of suburban sprawl. There is nothing but housing developments, shopping centers, industrial parks. All have there own buffer areas. And the deer love these areas. There is food there as well as the housing development flower and vegetable gardens. There are no reasons for these deer to leave. No predators. Not enough hunters. Most of these places you would only want to hunt with a bow or risk a stray shotgun slug going across someones back yard or worse into their home. The property owners (for the most part) do not want hunters around. But, yet are the first to complain about the deer damage. There will be over 121,000+ doe licenses made available to hunters who want to hunt in this area (if you can find a place to hunt). Everywhere else in PA the doe licenses have be reduced.

Everyday Hunter - You have been correct about the problem. During the RUT, these deer start crossing 4 lane highways. There are many a "deer burger" pile on the roads in this area during the Fall. Not to mention the vehicle damage and sometimes personal injury. There have been several times over the years in the Spring were I have seen a doe recently hit by a car and her fawn still alive by the side of the highway.

I think the only real way to deal with this problem is for the local hunters and property owners (private land owners, housing development associations, industrial park land owners, etc..) to come together and work on this problem. There would need to be a real incentive to these property owners to allow hunters onto their properties. Plus, there would need to be incentive for hunters to hunt in these suburban sprawl areas. I am used to hunting State Forest, State Game Land. It is very different to be hunting areas in plan site of the surrounding house developments and urban centers.

[Everyday Hunter]

Exactly, MR...
And the only reason baiting was tried was on the hope that by locating bait in a huntable area, the deer would be drawn out of unhuntable areas. The PGC never said this would be a solution, but that it was worth trying on a test basis.

But, since plenty of food was available in unhuntable areas, baiting could not work. Food is not in short supply for these deer. Manicured lawns, flowering crabapple trees, veggie gardens, flower borders -- food is available for these deer with every step. In fact, the deer really don't lack anything -- they have plenty of food and plenty of sanctuary where they are safe. Safety zones literally overlap.

Part of the problem is that the people don't want deer feeding on their expensive shrubbery, but hey -- they wouldn't want one of these big brown eyed animals to die at the hands of a redneck hunter. Cultures are clashing here.

I haven't heard yet what the PGC will authorize next, but I think it's safe to say it won't be sharpshooters in helicopters.

Steve

[scotman]

The deer overbrowsed what little habitat they have.

Im going on what you stated Steve that is why i was addressing poor habitat. So where did the deer over browse what little habitat they had?

But, since plenty of food was available in unhuntable areas, baiting could not work. Food is not in short supply for these deer. Manicured lawns, flowering crabapple trees, veggie gardens, flower borders -- food is available for these deer with every step. In fact, the deer really don't lack anything -- they have plenty of food and plenty of sanctuary where they are safe. Safety zones literally overlap.

Are you talking about the same area? From the conflicting information your giving me I am thinking you are not.

I used to live in Philly for quite sometime I know the area fairly well. That is where I went to college in Valley Forge as well. Urban sprawl is correct but then again I am talking about the the outskirts of the city. No matter how large the city or urban development incentives would work. Not only would they increase the habitat around the urban city but they would create jobs in the area as well. If you look at the successes of QDM you will soon find out deer will travel a distance for preferred food sources. By increasing the preferred food sources outside of the urban city it will keep the deer out of peoples back lawns. Sure their is no set in stone answer for the problem. I am quite sure it will take a number of ideas to solve the problem but we should not just dismiss a solution if it does not sound good.

The number one concern for me is the road of contraceptives to control the population. I am totally against this type of deer management when we have hunters spending their hard earned dollar on licenses every year.

As for the helicopters and sharp shooters they did just that in the Buffalo area so it is not some far fetched exaggeration to a"fix". These forms of deer extermination are being used to control the population in and around cities.

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: scotman

The deer overbrowsed what little habitat they have.

Im going on what you stated Steve that is why i was addressing poor habitat. So where did the deer over browse what little habitat they had?

That was a reference to the buffer areas or shelterbelts where the deer retreat in the daytime. It might be "woods," but it hasn't been healthy habitat for a long time. All it serves for is bedding areas.

ORIGINAL: scotman

But, since plenty of food was available in unhuntable areas, baiting could not work. Food is not in short supply for these deer. Manicured lawns, flowering crabapple trees, veggie gardens, flower borders -- food is available for these deer with every step. In fact, the deer really don't lack anything -- they have plenty of food and plenty of sanctuary where they are safe. Safety zones literally overlap.

Are you talking about the same area? From the conflicting information your giving me I am thinking you are not.

The same general areas, but not the same specific areas. The deer bed in the shelter belts (often low-lying areas that get the run-off from the housing developments and industrial parks), and during the night they walk a hundred yards to feed in people's yards. Buffer areas offer no food, but people's yards do, so -- it's true (though far from ideal) that they have all the food and shelter they need. I don't see the conflicting information. The deer bed in relative seclusion in the daytime, and feed around the houses in the night. The baiting test was to see if the deer could be pulled away from the yards. Obviously they couldn't.

ORIGINAL: scotman

I used to live in Philly for quite sometime I know the area fairly well. That is where I went to college in Valley Forge as well. Urban sprawl is correct but then again I am talking about the the outskirts of the city. No matter how large the city or urban development incentives would work. Not only would they increase the habitat around the urban city but they would create jobs in the area as well. If you look at the successes of QDM you will soon find out deer will travel a distance for preferred food sources. By increasing the preferred food sources outside of the urban city it will keep the deer out of peoples back lawns. Sure their is no set in stone answer for the problem. I am quite sure it will take a number of ideas to solve the problem but we should not just dismiss a solution if it does not sound good.

The number one concern for me is the road of contraceptives to control the population. I am totally against this type of deer management when we have hunters spending their hard earned dollar on licenses every year.

As for the helicopters and sharp shooters they did just that in the Buffalo area so it is not some far fetched exaggeration to a"fix". These forms of deer extermination are being used to control the population in and around cities.

I do not know what efforts the Game Commission has made to test the solution you suggest. It has a lot against it because so many municipalities, neighborhood associations, and other organizations would have to be on board, but I see no reason for it not to be on the table. I don't know whether it has been, but I do know that sometimes people are too close to a situation to see an obvious solution, and it would be easy for you to make any suggestion you like. I can give you an email address if you want to let them know what you think.

It does seem to me that the areas where baited hunting was permitted would be the obvious areas to plant preferred foods for habitat improvement -- if they can also create bedding areas for the deer to use as well. But it also seems to me that the deer in these small areas will not tolerate too much crowding, so it might take some pressure off the people's yards, but not all. Plus (and maybe more importantly), any habitat improvement program would have to offer preferred food to the deer year 'round. That's not always easy to do when one landowner is running his own private QDM program.

I've never heard of airborne sharpshooters for controlling deer populations, but knowing the area we're talking about I can't imagine it even being considered in a place like we're talking about.

I'm just as concerned as you are about contraceptives for deer population control. It doesn't seem humane to me on a couple of levels.

Steve

[scotman]

The framework is already there for instance a farm they get tax breaks for owning and maintaining farmland. If you loosen the current restrictions to include property owners planting crops on smaller parcels it would give enough incentive for small land owners to save money on their property taxes by investing in crops and trees each year instead of them just sitting on the land they already have. The land owner would purchase the seed just like a regular farmer does.

The finance end of it would have to take into account the amount of money currently being spent on the problem. The solution would involve estimating what type of tax breaks and how much. Those numbers would be offset by an estimate on how many expected jobs would be created. More seed and tree sales, more fertilizer sales, small farm equipment sales and ect all equates to new jobs being created.

Yes I would be interested in that email if you have it Steve.

[Everyday Hunter]

I'm not sure the framework is actually in place. I'm guessing here, but the farmers in PA have a strong lobby so I'd bet that state legislation was passed to put the tax abatement program for farmland in place. It would probably have to be additional legislation to offer tax incentives for homeowners to help in a similar way. And, since there is no organization that puts the interests of these homeowners before the statehouse, the task is bigger here. I hate to put it this way, but homeowners have no special interest lobby.

I might be wrong on a couple of points regarding what I just said, but in any event I doubt it's a simple matter of following the precedent of the farm/wildlife program.

The general comment/suggestion email for the Pennsylvania Game Commission is [color="#0000ff"]pgccomments@state.pa.us[/color]. If you want a personal address, I'll PM you with a couple of them.

Steve

[scotman]

Although they have no lobby power their is interest in trying to find a fix that is how the original test program was funded. So that tells me the city of Philly is looking to spend money on ideas to fix the issue at hand. Property taxes get paid locally so you would have to draw up a plan and petition the city. Although current farms have Federal funding I am not talking Federal but I am talking local were property taxes are lower for farmers. Thanks for the contact information.