bawanajim

Check mate.

BTBowhunter

yep, checkmate!

livbucks

The sampling methods were different, you've been told a hundred times!
Any fool would know that less DPSM and a closer B/D ratio WOULD NEVER harm herd health.
HOW COULD IT??
What is it with you??

You always find an angle to do your twistin'.
Why don't you approach things honestly, instead of plying your agenda?

bawanajim

Some one took their ball and went home.......................[]








Or so said the little[&:] bird...........................

bluebird2

And you don't have a clue what you are talking about since the sampling methods are not different.

But the facts are breeding rates did decline and there is an obvious answer why they did. I have even stated the reason previously , but your inherent bias prevented you PGC supporters from understanding it. The answer lies in the harvest data inthe 2007 AWR. See if you can find it.

bawanajim

Ok little W.C.O. wannabes set your P.G.C. issued secret decoder rings to
B - 12 and lets see who can find all of the clues first.[8D]

BTBowhunter

Wrong again Blueboy. The "reason" you stated is merely your opinion.Personal opinions are subject to the biases of that person. The fact that you've admitted to not being able to find more than three deer in an entire season when many of us have seen hundreds gives us a feel for the direction of your personal bias.

bluebird2

It may be my opinion but it is supported by PGC data and scientific fact. That is something you never did when presenting your opinions.

R.S.B.

Obviously your reading comprehension skills are as deficient as most of the other USP members and followers. I will point out your nonsense arguments and rebut them one at a time to make sure I don’t miss any.



Though I have pointed out the fact that the deer populations have been and are still being controlled by the environmental conditions that population control isn’t as much influenced predation, breeding or reproductive rates nearly as much as it is by the ability of the habitat combined with the winter snows in providing enough food for the bred doe to produce fawns that survive after they are born in the spring.

If the bred does don’t get enough winter and spring food to keep the fawns alive more then a day or two after they born it simply doesn’t matter if they had bred, how many fawns they carried or how many predators are waiting to catch them. They aren’t hard to catch if they are already dead because mom hadn’t had enough nourishment while she was carrying them for them to born weighing enough to survive when they are born.

Studies have shown that does will lose as many as 92.9% of their fawns from just nutritional factors when they didn’t have enough winter and spring food. We had two back to back winters in 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 in which deer were forced in to areas that didn’t have enough food to allow the does the amount of winter food they needed and that had a profound affect on fawn survival those two years.

That is how nature works. It simply doesn’t matter if a person like you or even a professional resource manager would like to change that fact, or if they elect not to acknowledge that fact, it still doesn’t change the fact that nature is in control. The only thing any of us can do is become smart enough to control the over winter deer populations within the balance of the available habitat so we get the best possible fawn recruitment rates while always recognizing nature is still going to create high and low cycles with those pre-season populations regardless of how many hunters have harvested.



The incorrect data you are talking about wasn’t incorrect data. The data was correct it was just that there was a shift in where the majority of that data was coming from between before and after antler restrictions. I have pointed that out repeatedly and I see that Bluebird just posted data that is going to help me show the shift once again. The fact is that those southwest units, where the breeding and reproductive rates were highest, were sampling more highway killed does per year, before antler restrictions, then they do now in the three years of Bluebird’s posted data. The traditionally lowest breeding and reproductive rates from the north central and northeast parts of the state have not had as much reduction in their sample size. That shift created a bias in the statewide data from before to after antler restrictions. But, once again that does not mean the data for the individual management units is incorrect or of any less value in the management of the individual units.

Anyone that can’t understand that is simply not capable of logical mathematical conclusion or perhaps too blinded by their own agenda to recognize the reality of the situation.



Many people really aren’t too sure the pre-season deer population in 2G had been increasing prior to herd reduction even though the estimated over winter deer density might have been based on the population model estimates. That is just one more good reason to use deer and habitat based management goals instead of just using the estimated population modeling.

In reality though it seems that the number of deer available to hunters in unit 2G probably hadn’t changed much in the previous twenty years even though hunters kept harvesting fewer does attempting to increase the deer population that way. It simply didn’t work though and that is what hunters, like you, refuse to understand or accept.

The evidence that the pre-season deer wasn’t increasing in 2G is supported in the buck harvests. If the deer numbers had been increasing the buck harvests should have increased but they didn’t. To show that result I will show the historic comparison of the buck harvests between counties that make up unit 2G and 2A, where the deer population actual was, and possibly still is, increasing.

Unit…………….83-87.………….88-92.…………93-97.………..98-02.……….03-07
2G………………3.82.……………4.02.…†¦â€¦â€¦.3.59.…………..3.88.………..1.65
2A………………2.66.……………3.57.…†¦â€¦â€¦.4.40.…………..5.23.………..4.29

The evidence indicates that in all probability the deer population in the counties that make up unit 2G has only been increasing and decreasing over the past couple of decades, or longer, based on the environmental conditions of the affect the mast crop and winter conditions of the various time period.


Meanwhile where the deer populations really were increasing the buck harvests also increased. Isn’t is interesting that even with antler restrictions unit 2A buck harvest are higher then they had been fifteen years ago?


Yes, I most certainly do believe we need to continue harvesting more deer in unit 2G and every other big woods unit.

The only way we are ever going to have more deer for the long term, instead of just during the periods of good mast crops combined with mild winters, is if we can get the habitat to recover enough to feed more deer in the wintering grounds habitats during those hard northern tier winters. The fastest way to obtain the improved wintering grounds habitat is with lower deer numbers.

The problem is that many of the best wintering grounds are in the remote, hard to access low lands of the river and creek bottoms where many hunters refuse to hunt. So, I have serious questions if hunters could reduce the deer populations in the areas that need it the most even if we went to unlimited antler less licenses. It would almost surely lead to over harvests in the easy access areas but even that would eventually be an improvement since those over harvested areas would soon develop into better habitat so the deer could at least have more food prior to the harsh winter conditions and years.

I simply don’t believe it is possible for hunters to over harvest a deer population where the deer have suitable habitat. The fact that hunters in the small wood lots around our most metropolitan areas have had unlimited antler less license for nearly two decades and still can’t control those deer populations without the aid of sharp shooters other at night helps to reinforce that belief.

The bottom line though will still be that the northern tier mountainous, poor soil areas will simply never have deer populations that are as productive as the southern areas of the state. That does not mean that the northern tier can’t have more deer then we have now if the deer are properly managed to live within the limits of their habitat. It most certainly doesn’t mean the better habitat and conditions of the southern areas can be seriously damaged to where they support fewer deer if we try to keep too many deer there, either.



Though that is certainly possible I don’t profess to be more knowledgeable about some things then the Biologists. I know I have more experience with some of thing as they have occurred in the big woods areas then many of them have though. That is why we, us deer cops as you seem to prefer calling us, have opportunities to inter-act with the Biologists. That way all of the various agency professionals that spend their time observing, collecting data and learning the affects of nature can all assist one another toward building a better deer management program for both today and the future.

That is the way it works best for all concernsincluding the future of our resources.



Yes! It always has been. The WCO has always been the front lines in educating the public about the various Game Commission programs. That is one of the reasons I choose that as my direction instead of just wildlife biology. I get to be involved in it nearly all function of the agency, though certainly some functions more then other.



Many hunters are extremely uneducated about deer management as well as many other functions of the agency and WCOs.

Youkeep taking great strides in proving that very point.



There is no question that a decade ago there were certainly more hunters that didn’t understand even the most basic concepts of sound deer or habitat management. We have made improvement in the education of the hunters though and that is probably way the majority do now support the steps that has lead to better management of the resources. Of course there still are many, and possibly always will be a few that just aren’t capable of developing logical conclusions toward sound deer management principles.

For those that can’t get it we will just have to move on with sound deer management without them understanding or supporting it. I will say though that the hunters that refuse to learn have proven that they can be very harmful to the best possible future for the deer, their habitat and even the future of hunting.



No, it is you who is wrong and more and more people are realizing that. I haven’t done any flip-flopping. The problem is pretty is you don’t grasp much of what I post because it doesn’t appear that you have the ability to understand even the most basic concepts of nature let alone scientific wildlife management.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

What you you like me to prove. Ask a rational question and I'll try to give you a rational answer.