Pennsylvania Hunters Harvest 335,830 in 2008-09 Season

[Ben Sobieck]

Source: The Outdoor Wire

HARRISBURG - The Pennsylvania Game Commission today reported that hunters harvested an estimated 335,850 deer in the state's 2008-09 seasons. That's up four percent from the previous seasons' harvest of 323,070.

Hunters took 122,410 antlered deer in the 2008-09 seasons, up from the previous license year's harvest of 109,200. Also, hunters harvested 213,440 antlerless deer in 2008-09, which is almost the same as the 213,870 antlerless deer taken in 2007-08.

Continue reading here

[Everyday Hunter]

If my quick count is correct, the antlered deer harvest was up in 17 of the 22 WMUs, and down in only 5. We had very poor weather on opening day of gun season in 2007, which caused many people to predict a "banner harvest" in 2008. These numbers suggest they were right. The antler harvest totaled 13,210 higher in 2008, a 12% increase.

Steve

[dtrain56]

I would not call that a banner harvest....but also i question the integrity of the information....PA has a terrible system for estimating deer harvest numbers

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: dtrain56

I would not call that a banner harvest....but also i question the integrity of the information....PA has a terrible system for estimating deer harvest numbers

You're not alone. Lots of people think it's a terrible system, me included. But I see accuracy and integrity as two separate issues. It's hard to see how it could be called accurate, but I think the integrity of the data is intact. At least on a comparative basis, the system remains the same from year to year, so year-to-year comparisons should be valid.

I think they should be able to come up with a way to count every deer.

BTW, if a 12% increase is not a banner harvest under the new system, I don't know what is. I can't think of anything in which a 12% increase wouldn't be considered a banner year.

Steve

[dtrain56]

banner..after one of the lowest buck harvests in history...
 
 
and I question the integrity becuse do we actually know if their is an increase or is that what the PGC "estimated"..could be a little propaganda there

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: dtrain56

banner..after one of the lowest buck harvests in history...

and I question the integrity becuse do we actually know if their is an increase or is that what the PGC "estimated"..could be a little propaganda there

Valid questions on both points. Here's the way I see it...

We can't compare current harvest rates under AR to harvest rates under previous regulations -- all AR harvest statistics are lower than pre AR. Yes, the term "banner" probably means different things to different people. It's not in any way an objective assessment of the harvest, so any argument about using the terms is a subjective one. But, comparing AR harvests to AR harvests, it's not unfair in layman's terms to call 2008 a banner year.

Yes, I do think we actually know if we're having increases or decreases. By "estimate," the PGC doesn't mean "guess." The statistics are based on a formula that factors in (among other things) the number of report cards received and surveys at deer processors that tell the PGC what percentage of report cards were actually sent in. One thing that can skew that is that there is no way to know how many hunters decide to move away from using a processor to the D-I-Y alternative. It's possible that, during an economic downturn, more hunters will begin to butcher their deer themselves. There are definitely more resources in books, videos and magazine articles that encourage home processing, so that is something the PGC needs to keep an ear to the ground on.

It's one thing to suspect that the numbers are not accurate, and no one says that coming up with the harvest numbers is an exact science. It's not like saying your W2 form is accurate -- that's counting actual dollars. But it's another thing to point out why the harvest numbers are not reliable. I haven't heard anyone give a reason why they are not reliable, and until they come up with a way to count actual deer, the numbers are a useful tool.

Steve

[NWPAHunter]

What bothers me most about this whole ESTIMATE thing is the numbers they seem to pull out of midair. On the PGC website it states that the yearling buck harvest was around 52%....Of the 127,000 buck killed..I find that a bit hard to swallow for 2 reasons...
1. AR was intended to let the yearlings grow another year, do we really have that many AR legal buck at yearling age?? If we do I suggest that we go to 4 pts to a side statewide....
2. When the PGC only checked a little over 26,000 deer this season how do that figure that 52% of that harvest are yearlings.
 
They may say that of the 12,000 buck that were physically inspected 52% were yearling...So that let that number stand for the entire buck harvest of 127,000...C'mon people we ned a better system.....
 
 

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: NWPAHunter

What bothers me most about this whole ESTIMATE thing is the numbers they seem to pull out of midair. On the PGC website it states that the yearling buck harvest was around 52%....Of the 127,000 buck killed..I find that a bit hard to swallow for 2 reasons...
1. AR was intended to let the yearlings grow another year, do we really have that many AR legal buck at yearling age?? If we do I suggest that we go to 4 pts to a side statewide....
2. When the PGC only checked a little over 26,000 deer this season how do that figure that 52% of that harvest are yearlings.

They may say that of the 12,000 buck that were physically inspected 52% were yearling...So that let that number stand for the entire buck harvest of 127,000...C'mon people we ned a better system.....

1. The numbers aren't actually pulled out of midair, but lots of people would agree with you that we should go to 4 points statewide. I wish we could go to a plan where the outside spread has to at least match the outside of the ears because points are actually irrelevant to the age of the deer. The problem is that there are advantages to using a standard that everyone can easily use, and that happens to be counting points.
2. It's not quite as simple as just extrapolating the percentage from the actual number of deer physically checked. The percentage varies with the WMU. There are probably other variables, too. I agree that a system that allows 52% of the yearling bucks to be harvested needs improvement.
3. Yes, we need a better system. I hope that someday the PGC devises a system that includes every deer taken.

Steve

[dtrain56]

One thing that can skew that is that there is no way to know how many hunters decide to move away from using a processor to the D-I-Y alternative. It's possible that, during an economic downturn, more hunters will begin to butcher their deer themselves.

 
here is one reason.why their estimate is not accurate...
 
there are to many variables..each year i am sure the  % of report cards varies greatly..so if you base your harvests on report cards sent in then ????
 
there are some great points being made here..maybe they should be sent to the PGC...
 
in all the estimate needs to be improved...yeh they try to use some fancy math to figure the actual deer harvest but a lot of states seem to have better recording methods...
 
also 52% 1.5 year old deer being killed is about the norm( if accurate)..and belive it or not there are a lot of bucks that have 3 pts on one side @ the 1.5 yr old stage....still like to see four point on one side but that is me being selfish cause i only take deer with four points on a side...
 
 
 

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: dtrain56

there are to many variables..each year i am sure the  % of report cards varies greatly..so if you base your harvests on report cards sent in then ????

They do not use a fixed percentage from year to year. Both the number of cards that get sent in and the number of deer at the processors will vary from year to year, and both of these numbers are easy to acquire on each year. What they don't know (at least one thing they don't know) is the number of people who process their deer at home and what percentage of them send in their report cards. I think they might be making the assumption that the percentage of home processors who send in their report cards is the same as the percentage of hunters who use commercial processors. That seems to me to be a fairly big assumption.

We're back to the idea that they need an actual number.

Steve