RSB

Wesaw fewer fawns because they died shortly after they were born. That might be an unproven theory in your eyes, but based on facts provided by the real deer within the unit we are talking about. Therefore, I suspect it is a pretty realistic theory.

You are wrong about the breeding rates not improving in the unit too. That has always been one of your flim-flam tactics too. You keep trying to use statewide data and apply it to all areas of the state, that is just plain wrong and even you know that. Maybe that is why the USP is so far out in left field too, they use too much of your twisted data and thinking in their arguments and law suits.

Quote:

Actually,the PGC is still calculating the DPSM estimates based harvest estimates and that is what they use to establish antlerless allocations. They only use forest health to establish the effects of reducing the herd. If that wasn't true they would still be trying to reduce the herd even more in 2F and 2G where the forest health is rated poor.

You are full of crap. Estimated deer densities are not released to the public or used for ANY management decisions.

Quote:

The PGC specifically stated that the doe study harvest results did not represent the harvest rate of the rest of the WMU. They are also claiming the low harvest rates are keeping the herd stable in 2G so it is quite likely there are only 12 PSDPSM in 2G.

No of course they can’t say that the harvest results from the doe mortality study can be used as a representation of harvests in the entire unit. The reason being is we simply don’t have factual data on the percentage of does being harvested in an place other then where that has been studies. That means the harvest might be higher and that the harvest might be lower in the other areas of the unit then they are in the study area. Research that will answer those questions are being organized as we type these pages though.

Your speculative deer numbers for unit 2G are very laughable though for those that actually have been to the unit in recent times though there might be a few totally habitat depressed areas with populations that low.

Quote:

You did not answer my question regarding what the antlered /antlerless harvest ratio is needed to keep the herd stable. It is obvious that the harvest has to equal recruitment , but that doesn't tell you what the antlered to antlerless ratio should be.

Nope and I am not going to play any of your numbers games either since you are one of the ones using numbers in an effort to build laws suits for the USP.

The USP needs to do their own research and come up with their own numbers if they want to file law suits. You are on your own for coming up with the right numbers.

R.S.Bodenhorn

RSB

There you go. That goofy response and line of thinking is the very reason you and the USP don’t have a clue about what influences deer populations or sound deer management principles.

Forest health is the deer food even if some people don’t understand how it works in the natural world or deer management objectives and realities.

Winter kill of adult deer is not the important, or limiting, factor in deer populations. The limiting factor is when you don’t recruit a reasonable fawn crop following a hard winter. Without surviving fawns you are out of the deer business. Those fawns that don’t survive because mom didn’t have enough food through the winter and spring are winter mortality just the same as if buzzards were out there feeding on them in the spring.

You are absolutely full of crap about states not managing for extreme winters too. Any state that doesn’t is not managing their deer or their harvests. That is pretty much what Pennsylvania was doing during those years we cut the allocations back in the late 1990’s. We got away with it for several years only because we had a run of good mast crops and mild winters for about six consecutive years. But, it didn’t last and we got caught with way to many deer for the environmental conditions with those couple of hard winters a few years ago. We started harvesting more deer but it was already too little too late to avoid the natural herd reduction that results of having too many deer for too long.

It just doesn’t matter how good the habitat is on the ridges and plateaus during those hard winters. The only habitat that matters then is what is in the wintering grounds. The habitat on the ridges and plateaus is just as inaccessible to the deer when there is deep snow as if it were on the moon. Nor does it matter how much food the deer have in the good habitat before the winter, if those winter grounds will not support the entire deer population for those two or three harsh winter months those deer that don’t get enough food die and the others stop sending nutrients to the fawns they are carrying to keep from dying.

Those are facts that you and the USP just refuse to accept. Probably because you don’t want to accept the facts. But sticking your head and sand doesn’t change the facts, it only limits your knowledge of the facts that already surround you.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

Here is a quote from the 2006-2007 AWR .
"Population changes (λs) for most WMUs exceeded 1.00 from 2005 to 2006 based
on preliminary population estimates for 2006 (Table 8). Increases in some WMUs
from 2005 to 2006 likely resulted from an increase in antlered deer harvest.
Whether this increase is due to higher deer populations or change in antlered
harvest rate is not known at this time. Following the 2007-08 hunting seasons,
antlered deer harvest datassessment can be made. "
And here is what you have to say about population estimates.
Now who is telling the truth?
I know the answer to the question , but i wanted to see if you knew the answer and obviously you don't. But, I wasn't disappointed since no one associated with the PGC seems to know the answer.
So if I am so wrong, why didn't fawn breeding rates increase to around 40% like in 5C ,where the forest health is also rated poor and where we have almost 3 times as many DPSM as in 2G?

Cornelius08

RSB, your view are "extreme" to say the least. The only thing your post lacks is a "grim reaper" icon standing in the background and some grim background music. And thats even AFTER our extreme reduction!! I dont know how we ever had deer survive a day when we had 1.5 mil.(LOL)

Pgc's data disagrees with about 90% of what you say. Perhaps you should use PGcs new "ask the biologist" feature, read some of the more recent annual reports...Then get back to us. My guess is you will feel quite foolish once you read the actual data then reread what much of what you've posted.

The herd slaughter was initiated thanks to STRONG input from a few extreme anti-deer outside interests. Its pretty rough to support a plan when pgc's OWN DATA doesnt support it. I used to think perhaps most of pgcs data was 90% made up. I found I was mistaken. If they were to lie about the numbers etc. Theyd certainly have done a good enough job to at least SUPPORT THE PROGRAM and the predictions and promises they'd made since day one. SInce thats not the case, I guess they are either telling the truth about much of the data, or just not very good at messaging it.(LOL)

Cornelius08

Bluebird, ive seen so many contradictions stated by pgc and their data contridicting other data, Im sure a person could writea very thick book on the topic. Im sure it would be a more beneficial book than the umpteen different pamphlets pgc printed, all basically saying the same thing - Deer bad. OUr money at work for us!(LOL) And they want MORE?

bluebird2

I would be happy if we could just get a few outdoor writers across the state to point out the contradictions and how the plan has failed to produce the predicted results. Unfortunately, few if any writers will challenge the PGC ,so the vast majority of hunters have no idea how badly the plan has failed.

RSB

The “grim reaper” of deer populations (harsh winter affects without supporting food conditions) already came to Pennsylvania. That is what has all of you USP people so twisted up in the first place.

But, guess what it was you USP members and supporters that caused it in the first place. And if you have your way it will be even worse in the future.

No the PGC professionals don’t disagree with what I have to say or post, either. Nor do I have to go on line and post on the “ask the biologist.” I have a direct line to them where I can talk face to face with them on a regular bases or call them on the phone when I need to ask a question. In fact I was just at a meeting with them a few weeks ago that totally dedicated to deer management and the related data.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

The grim reaper came to PA in 1978 when a severe ice storm prevented the deer from reaching the available food supply. The deer survived the severe winter in 1993 with much less winterkill ,even though there were record snowfalls, 90 days of continuous snow cover and record cold temperatures, even though we had a lot more deer in 1993 than we did in 2003 or 2004.

RSB

Actually your comment and post is just your twisted lack of understanding about how the deer estimated numbers are and aren’t used in the management program.

You think you know a lot more about the numbers then you do. We will wait to see what the court says about you and your goofy numbers and ideas.

If you really knew what was going on or had the ability to think things through to a logical conclusion you would be able to figure out that there is a major difference between a unit like 2G that is 90% forested with only 7.6% agricultural being compared to a unit like 5C that is 44.5% forested and 43.9% agricultural.

Now wouldn’t a person capable of using logic sort of think that the forest regeneration evaluation would be less influential where there is a good mix of agricultural land in the over all picture?

I suppose that too is an example of the UPS mixed up and twisted thought processes.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

You are entitled to your opinion and you are also entitled to be wrong. the PGC clearly states that they use the SAK model modified for the effects of ARs to estimate the populations in each WMU and they posted that data for 2004 and 2005. Now they are hiding that data and are only publishing the percent change in the population which requires they know the population for the two years they are comparing.



And wouldn't one think the PGC experts would recognize that fact also, instead of applying the same standards to the areas with the best soils and best habitat compared to areas like 2F and 2G with the worst soils and poorest habitat.

Why do you waste so much time talking about the USP when the PGC will have no problem refuting their extreme claims about the effects of HR and predators? Also, I doubt they have anything to challenge the PGC's harvest estimates or their population estimates. Personally ,I would think the PGC has more to fear from a truly independent audit than from the USP..