bluebird2

I wonder when RSB is going to list the WMU's where the breeding rates decreased by more than 5%. That had to happen if breeding rates increased in most WMUs.

bawanajim

OK, I give in , whats the reason for your perceived decrease in breeding rates? As a concerned hunter wanting nothing but the best for our future hunters what changes would you recommend to change the direction ofthis drastic decline?

sproulman

blue-bird
i can tell you this FOR A FACT.

in clinton county i saw NO FAWNS this year.

now, i am interviewing as many hunters aS I CAN.

I DID HEAR THAT THE BUTCHER IN BEECH CREEK AREA SAID HE SAW A LOT OF BUTTON BUCKS BEING BROUGHT IN TO BUTCHER, A LOT .

SO, WESTERN CLINTON COUNTY AND SO.POTTER HAD VERY FEW FAWNS REPORTED.

this is also areas with most bear/coyotes too.

bawanajim

Confused

There sure is a lot of truth to those statements about small game.

sproulman

you know, i would like to say its HABITAT that is causing all this, it has effect, no doubt about it but when you see SGL252 in lycoming county, best habitat in world for deer and small game but you hardly see anything alive in there but HABITAT.

something is wrong with that picture

R.S.B.

Even though those southwest units still have the highest sample of does it still doesn’t negate the fact that the number being sampled in the entire southwest region of the state dropped by 91% during the year prior to antler restrictions to the more recent years.

The sample size in the big woods, traditionally lower breeding and reproduce rates, only declined by 50% during the same time period.

As I have repeatedly pointed out that does create a shift in the statewide data that makes it invalid for a before to after antler restrictions comparison. It does not however make the data invalid for the individual management unit.

Another factor that I suspect you have seen but refuse to post, as you cherry pick the bits and pieces of data you use in an effort to discredit the present program, is the coefficient of variation in the data based on sample size.

With the highway killed doe sample size we have had in recent years they have to combine three years of data to keep that coefficient of variation within the 13% that is acceptable for population modeling. Since there is close to a 13% variance with three combined years of data how do you suspect that affects the variances and reliability of the data you posted using the data in an annual format?

Here is a copy and paste from the annual report that makes reference to that point.


As I have repeatedly pointed out the data is too inconclusive, at this time, to arrive at any conclusions on the affects of antler restrictions. But, perhaps you can let us all in this big secret you think you have found in the annual report that you figure explains your perceived, (and I say perceived because it isn’t a given), decline in the adult doe breeding rates.

I will admit that even with a closer buck/doe ratio it could be possible to see a decline in the adult breeding rates if there is an increase in the juvenile breeding rates at the same time. That has been documented in the past and is an indication of simply not having enough bucks to get all of the cycling does bred. That is something that will be looked and evaluated when there is more time and data to make a well informed inference instead of just a guess.

R.S. Bodenhorn

sproulman

is anyone looking at reasons of few fawns in clinton/potter county that i am aware of.

i have fawns in my protected areas of my privateland but drive for next 10 miles, you will not see a fawn.

i did see 2 dead fawns in road near lock haven but western clinton county/potter south, nothing, no road kills or fawn sighting.

R.S.B.

I’ve already explained that several times too.

There doesn’t have to be a decline in any individual management unit to have a decline in the statewide result when there was such a HUGE shift in sample size between the best to worst breeding rates areas.

Besides there is a more then a 13% coefficient of variance when examining or evaluating less then three years of data in a data set. Therefore, looking at it in the one year intervals, for the statewide data as you are, there actually might not even be much of a decline in those statewide results.

You are simply grasping at straws and really have no facts that support your opinions or misguided agenda.

Try explaining to everyone how having a better buck/doe ratio and better habitat lead to declining breeding and reproductive rates.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

You are telling the truth. I posted the data that shows 2B 2C and 5C still had the highest number of doe checked. You said you were going to provide data to prove I was wrong so where is it? Maybe you should sit down with a pencil and paper and figure out just how it is possible to reduce the statewide average by 5 % without having reducing in some WMU's by over 5%.

The 13 % variance is not a factor since the 5% decline was based on 3 year averages for both the years with the high breeding rates as well as the low breeding rates in 2007.

Once again you have failed to provide a rational answer for the decreased breeding rates even though the answer is obvious to anyone that knows anything about breeding rates.
I'll give you one more chance to correct your mistakes and tell the truth before I spill the beans. Good luck.