Tearing Down Pennsylvania’s Deer Population So It Can Be Rebuilt?
May 26, 2008
I read an article this morning in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about an area of Pennsylvania, Raystown Lake Recreation Area, that has been working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reduce an overblown whitetail deer population of about 60-80 per square mile down to something considered normal - perhaps 15ish per square mile.
If you are at all familiar with Pennsylvania deer hunting, you know a controversy has been brewing there for some time over the fish and wildlife’s efforts to reduce deer herds statewide. This in turn, has angered some hunters who have complained that now there aren’t enough deer left to hunt. Others are pleased with the results so far saying the deer they are seeing are bigger and healthier.
As we have heard time and again during the debate over the deer management system being employed, too many deer has resulted in a basic deforestation of the land, much of this the very necessary food needed to sustain deer populations. Landowners have complained that too many deer are destroying their forests.
This evidently is the same problem taking place in the Raystown Lake Recreation Area, so with the assistance of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, they went to work to reduce the deer numbers. It now appears that after about 10 years of work, the deer density in the area is around 15 per square mile. Jeff Krause, a wildlife biologist with the Corps, says that even though there are fewer deer, hunters are still taking a lot of deer.
I don’t have a problem with this and it sounds as if the forest is regenerating and the remaining deer are quite healthy. What puzzles me though are comments made about what the future looks like after the reduction.
The management plan for Raystown calls for sustaining the deer population at current levels - about 15 per square mile. Pennsylvania Game Commissioner Russ Schleiden of Centre County, told Jeff Krause at a meeting recently that with the regenerated habitat, it would mean it can support more deer in the future.
“I think what you’re saying is that once we get the herd to where it needs to be, and the habitat starts to recover, the deer herd will rebound, too. That’s something your data shows, and it’s something commissioners have been saying all along,”
Does anybody else find this statement a bit confusing? I don’t have all the details obviously but if the 10-year effort was to reduce the deer population to 15 per square mile, a number that many wildlife biologists would consider reasonable, in order to regrow the forest and sustain a healthier deer population, why are they looking to rebuild it?
Schleiden says that the Corps’ data supports the theory that reducing the herd allows the forest to regrow, which in turn provides better habitat for the deer. Now that the population density is reduced to 15 per square mile, the Corp is saying they will work to maintain that level yet, Schleiden is indicating the Commission should let the deer numbers increase again.
Not knowing Schleiden’s position on the current Pennsylvania deer management program, I could assume that what he is saying is that the program will not work because reducing numbers allows the forest to regenerate which in turn allows the population to flourish which brings us back to the same problem the state faced prior to implementation of the deer management plan.
If that’s true, isn’t that a bit like the same theory that animal rights groups use against the use of hunting as a management tool, one that reduces deer populations? They say that killing off deer causes them to reproduce more and therefore hunting is counterproductive.
I just find Schleiden’s comments confusing and I don’t understand the real point he is trying to make. Perhaps he’s referring to a very general “rebound” of the deer population statewide, which in turn will provide more hunting opportunities for hunters.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
Mr. Schleiden is regarded by most as being firmly on the “reduce deer populations bandwagon” and most likely one of the chief supporters in not one of the key architects of the PGC deer management program.
I do not personally know him and of course cannot speak for him, but it seems likely that he means that once the habitat has recovered from the severe over browsing that it should then be capable of supporting a larger number of deer than 15 per square mile. At one time the accepted figure was that woodlands could host 20 deer per square mile without being impacted. It seems likely that this is what he is referring to.
Of course you are right that if populations spiraled out of control once that they could easily do it again.
For the record I have heard a presentation by Mr. Krause and his assistants and saw the documentation which they presented, but it has been far enough in the past that I cannot quote anything said at the meeting.
I do recall that I was not totally convinced either way as to whether there were too many deer or not at Raystown and although I have seen the area, I have no on the ground experience there.
[...] week I wrote an article about how it appeared that Pennsylvania was tearing down its deer herd in order to build it back up [...]
[...] week I wrote an article about how it appeared that Pennsylvania was tearing down its deer herd in order to build it back up [...]
[...] week I wrote an article about how it appeared that Pennsylvania was tearing down its deer herd in order to build it back up [...]
They are tearing it down and keeping it down. Speaking of being able to hold more deer and actually allowing it to happen is a ploy to gain sportsmens acceptance.. Unfortunately for pgc at this point too many proven lies have been told and too many bridges burnt towards pgc/hunter relations for hunters to believe much more of their bull in regards to this farce plan, that has proven to be a complete failure.
Anyone who isnt hunting on highly privatized land in Pa, and says the hunting is good is absolutely nuts.
SChleiden was an ecoextremeist and thank god is on his way out, with an expired term. He is also taking along antideer queen roxanne pallone whose term is also up.
Bad news is, another idiot is being prepped for the position. Same antideer attitude and cut from the same ecoextremist cloth. They are determined to continue the grip on the majority of our game commission board.
Pa hunting is going down the toilet fast, and its all political nonsense causing it.
Planned deer hunt at Pennsylvania park outrages animal rights groups
Administrators at the park say the hunt of 80% of the herd is necessary to ensure the forest’s survival,
Wednesday 18 February 2009
When drivers approach Pennsylvania’s Valley Forge National Historical Park from the south, they’re often greeted by hordes of attentive, long-eared hosts: Deer.
The animals don’t run from the noise of car engines. They don’t bolt at the prospect of human contact. They stand and stare. Soon those sentries may be gone.
This is no exaggeration! I live just on the outskirts of the Park. This whole area is a major Petting Zoo!
Technically, park administrators are considering four plans to manage deer, with options ranging from doing nothing to killing most of the herd. But they’ve already identified sharp-shooting as the best alternative.
Angry animal-rights activists insist that shooting the deer is unnecessary, unethical, and dangerous to nearby residents.
“Free-living animals can control their numbers, and they do control their numbers,” said Lee Hall of Devon, Pennsylvania, legal director of the international advocacy group Friends of Animals. “The best way to enable them to do this is to respect how they are, and where they are, because nature works.”
From 1997 to 2007, the herd grew from 772 to 1,023, peaking at 1,398 in 2003, according to a park environmental-impact study. The 2007 total was 193 deer per 2 sq km (1 square mile), which administrators say exceeds scientific recommendations for forest regeneration.
Already lost, Heister said, is what biologists call the forest understory, the saplings and small ground plants. If the situation continued unaltered over generations, what is now forest would become meadow.
Heister said the large number of deer raised the risk of chronic wasting disease in Valley Forge. The park study repeatedly cites the threat of the disease, a contagious neurological illness that kills deer and elk.
But there has never been a case of it in Pennsylvania. Infected herds were identified in West Virginia and New York four years ago. Park officials also note that there are, on average, 86 collisions between cars and deer in the park each year. More accidents occur on the park outskirts, and all are potentially deadly to drivers.
Hall, of the Friends of Animals, said the solution was to reduce speed limits, install asphalt speed bumps, and find other ways to restrain drivers, who often use park roads as shortcuts.