ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania stacks up well in national deer stats |

Pennsylvania stacks up well in national deer stats

Bob Frye | Everybody Adventures
Deer hunters in Pennsylvania took more bucks in 2017-18 than they did the year before, and the second most since 2002, according to Game Commission estimates.

Did you get your deer?

That’s often the first question hunters ask one another at the close of another season.

Last season, the answer for many — at least more than usual — was yes.

According to Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates, hunters killed 367,159 deer in the 2017-18 seasons. That was 9 percent more than the year prior, when they killed 333,254.

The buck harvest increased by an even greater rate, or 10 percent. Hunters killed 163,750 rack-carrying deer in 2017-18, compared to 149,460 the season prior.

Just more than one of every five deer hunters killed a buck last year, the commission reported.

That buck harvest was pretty significant in another way, too. It was the second-highest since antler restrictions were put in place in 2002.

The only year better was that first year, when hunters took 165,416 bucks.

Many of the deer were really nice, too, said Bryan Burhans, executive director of the commission.

“Huge bucks are being taken everywhere,” he said.

As for the doe kill, hunters took an estimated 203,409 in 2017-18. That was up 11 percent compared to 2016-17. In that season, hunters killed 183,794.

About 64 percent of the antlerless deer harvest was adult females; button-bucks comprised 19 percent, and doe fawns made up 17 percent.

It wasn’t just in one area of the state where hunters did well, either. The good fortune was spread around pretty evenly.

In only three of 23 wildlife management units did the deer kill decrease, the commission said.

Pennsylvania’s deer hunting is on a bit of a roll, in fact, to hear one organization tell it.

The Quality Deer Management Association, or QDMA, each year releases a “Whitetail Report.” It’s billed as “an annual report on the status of the white-tailed deer, the foundation of the hunting industry in North America.”

Its 2018 version puts Pennsylvania deer hunting in a pretty good light.

The report comes out prior to most states releasing their more recent harvest totals. So its finding is based on 2016-17 hunting seasons.

But according to the report, Pennsylvania lead — as it usually does — 13 states across the Northeast in buck kill.

What’s more, it ranked fourth in the nation in total buck kill in 2016-17, and second in bucks killed per square mile.

“In fact, we’re just three-tenths of a deer from being No. 1 in the nation,” Burhans said.

Pennsylvania produced 3.3 bucks per square mile in 2016-17. Michigan produced 3.5.

The national average was 1.6.

According to QDMA, Pennsylvania also ranked third in the nation for total doe harvest. It ranked third for does killed per square mile.

Of course, deer management is — far and away — the most controversial aspect of wildlife management in Pennsylvania. And some don’t believe the commission’s harvest estimates.

But scientists largely do.

Recently, researchers from Simon Fraser University collaborated with colleagues from around the nation on a project looking at wildlife management programs across North America. They rated them on four factors: measurable objectives, quantitative evidence, transparency and independent scientific review.

They looked at the management plans for 667 species across 62 states and Canadian provinces.

Most didn’t fare well.

“Our results provide limited support for the assumption that wildlife management in North America is guided by science,” researchers said.

The commission’s deer management program was an exception. It tied for first place among deer management programs continent-wide.

“These findings further recognize the quality of our agency’s wildlife biologists. And the effectiveness of our deer management program translates to great deer hunting,” Burhans said.

Archers especially took advantage of the whitetails out there.

Continuing what has become a long-term trend, they accounted for a large and growing percentage of the state’s deer harvest.

They killed 118,110 deer — 62,830 bucks and 55,280 antlerless deer — with either bows or crossbows. That’s about a third of the total take.

But muzzleloader hunters did well, too. They harvested 23,490 deer, including 1,310 bucks.

Both the archery and muzzleloader takes were up over the prior year.

Bob Frye is the editor. Reach him at 412-216-0193 or [email protected] See other stories, blogs, videos and more at

Article by Bob Frye, Everybody Adventures,

Copyright © 535media, LLC

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.