rem700man

Cornelius08

Thanks for pointing out more pgc lies RSB. The herd had been reduced by 50% ow in the wmu 2A since its all time high until supposedly that all changed a few years ago andAccording to the game commission the goal for 2A has been supposedly to stabilize the herd, not reduce it since 2004. Your table clearly shows that the harvest simply cannot allow that to be true as it has continued to grow thanks to increasing tags by 10000 from 2004 and the harvest rose accordingly as shown in your chart. Can you say b.s.?


Unit………………83-87.…………..88-92.………….93-97.…………….98-02.…………….03-07(WMU)
1A………………..3.11.……………4.96.… …………5.93.………………7.18.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦7.65
2A………………..3.34.……………5.67.… …………6.85.………………8.14.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦9.49
2B………………..2.73.……………4.98.… …………6.57.………………8.39.………⠀¦â€¦..10.70
2D………………..4.70.……………6.14.… …………6.97.………………8.26.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦8.53
3B………………..3.68.……………5.36.… …………4.78.………………5.15.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦6.07
4C………………..3.31.……………4.77.… …………4.89.………………5.53.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦5.94
4E………………..3.27.……………4.74.… …………4.39.………………4.94.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦5.68
5A………………..1.94.……………3.54.… …………3.53.………………4.20.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦4.42
5B………………..2.23.……………3.51.… …………3.96.………………4.71.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦4.84
5C………………..2.12.……………3.69.… …………5.08.………………5.84.………⠀¦â€¦â€¦7.94

You cannot tell me or any other rational individual that 8.14 or lesshad REDUCED the herd, yet now 9.49 is only stabilizing it.

bluebird2

Apparently RSB is busy digging his hole even deeper. He was half way to China on Monday and he wants to get to China by the end of the concurrent season. I find it extremely ironic that the worst managed WMUs are producing the highest harvest and the best managed WMUs like 2G are producing the lowest deer harvests.

On the other hand , he may be working on 10 year averages to cover up the effects of the antlerless harvests.

RSB

Ok, so you figure, by using your yearly harvest data, that hunters harvesting half as many antler less deer in Elk County for nearly a decade means that hunters couldn’t harvest as many for as they did back in the eighties for even two year without causing the deer numbers to plummet for the next five years? That is interesting to say the least. It is very incorrect but interesting none the less. It sure doesn’t make even a lick of sense though unless there was something other then hunters reducing the deer numbers through all of those years when hunters weren’t harvesting but half as many as they had been for years before.

What do you suppose happened to all of those deer the hunters weren’t harvesting for all of those years when hunters were only harvesting half as many as they had been before? You don’t figure aliens where stealing the deer hunters didn’t harvest or that they were migrating from Elk to Allegheny or Greene County do you? Or, do you believe those deer are still hiding here somewhere in Elk County and the hunters just can’t see them?

The fact is the hunters didn’t harvest them when they reduced the antler less harvests to only half of what the harvests once were and the deer are now gone; so where did they go since your harvest results for Elk County clearly show the hunters didn’t harvest them? You don’t seem to think the environmental conditions result in reduced deer recruitment and naturally declining deer populations so explain why the deer numbers didn’t explode with nearly a decade of greatly reduced doe harvests here in Elk County.

Just keep on posting your nonsense it is getting easier for the reasonable people to see how far off base you are with your misguided agenda every day.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Cornelius08

"Apparently RSB is busy digging his hole even deeper. He was half way to China on Monday"

TheChinese are generally an educated society as far as math and such, so I dont think they would buy iteither.When 2A's higher deer densities/numbers according to pgc annual reports weremuch higher between1998 and 2002 than the 03-07 group of years,but our harvest thanks too many more doe tags isFAR higher from 03-07 than it was from 1998-2002....As shown on RSB's fine chart....It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out pgcs claim of stabilization after 2004 is as bogus as it gets.

Do you think "reasonable people" will be able to understand THAT Rsb?

bluebird2

That is just about as dumb as it gets on the MB. The deer hunters weren't harvesting those deer, because they weren't there to be harvested, because the previous harvests reduced the OWDD and recruitment.
Because the reduced harvest still equaled or exceeded recruitment. Furthermore, by asking that question , you have just proved to everyone you don't even have the most elementary understanding of herd dynamics and deer management.

BTW, I accept your apology for misleading readers regarding when the high antlerless harvests occurred.

Coalcracker

Perhaps it will require quoting Grundsow from that PGC site. Grundsow supports AR & HR and took RSB to task for trying to blame the habitat for everything.

cnyguy

Why was recruitment low??? Maybe habitat was able to support few deer. You only have to look at the inner Adirondack Mountains to see how herd dynamics work. Big mature woods, lots of oak/beech/maple, mix evergreens, and fairly low pressure. Overall, low deer population /sq mi. Many 3.5-5.5 bucks killed up there every year. Nice 8-10 pointers. Most score well below B&C criteria. I'll do my hunting around agricultural land any day for numbers and size. If AR's and not killing does is the answer, why does Ohio kill more 140 pt. bucks in a single county then the entire states of PA and NY put together. Ohio has no AR's and liberal doe seasons. The only AR's you need to practice start with your own trigger finger.

bluebird2

That only makes sense if breeding rates and recruitment were low when the deer densities were higher. But breeding rates and recruitment were good before the herd was reduced and didn't improve after the herd was reduced. Therefore, the low number of fawns recruited was directly related to the decrease in over wintering doe and not due to poor habitat.

cnyguy

Could just mean population and habitat reached a balance. The number of fawns per doe tells you more about habitat than does with fawns. In such a small sample size (# of yrs) there could be multiple factors, not just total does killed.

I've seen major changes in habitat in the last 10 yrs where I hunt. Corn and alfalfa fields have turned to golden rod. This was good during the mid to late 90s, but by 2002-2003 it started to make an impact on the overall deer population. We had some brutal winters from 92-98, but the deer population was as high as ever. The 90s still had a good blend of ag and wild secession. But, most of the ag went completely away 2002-2005. Guess what, 5-10 yrs ago it wasn't uncommon to see 6-8 different bucks (with a couple 2.5-3.5 yo mixed in) and 12-15 does during a bow season, now I literally see half as many. Multiply this by 3 or 4 different properties I hunt. That was a lot of deer.Most of the does had twins or triplets 10 yrs ago, now I see 1.5-2.5 yo does that are just wondering around without fawns. The does that do have fawns only have one. What changed? They aren't killing that many more does in my area. They aren't giving the does abortions. They have simply fallen back to the caring capacity. This can happen quicker than you think.

Again, if doe kill is the only factor, why does the deer population continue to flurish in Ohio(liberal doe kill), and why aren't the Adirondacks (almost no does killed) crawling with deer? My brother lives in Ohio on 80 acres, has killed over 15 does the last 3 years, and his overall doe population is increasing. His has a perfect blend of ag and natural habitat. He and his neighbors can't kill enough does. Almost all of the does have twins and triplets in the spring.