PA hunting
#102
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
What you you like me to prove. Ask a rational question and I'll try to give you a rational answer.
What you you like me to prove. Ask a rational question and I'll try to give you a rational answer.
#103
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: 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.
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.
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.
#104
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: 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.
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.
#106
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: Confused
There sure is a lot of truth to those statements about small game.
There sure is a lot of truth to those statements about small game.
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
#107
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Table 2. Number of adult does examined and assessment of
deer health by WMU based on samples collected from 2005
to 2007, Pennsylvania.
WMU
n
Embryos per
adult female
Deer health
assessment
1A 78 1.50 AT TARGET
1B 61 1.69 ABOVE TARGET
2A 91 1.37 AT TARGET
2B 165 1.59 AT TARGET
2C 117 1.38 AT TARGET
2D 87 1.60 AT TARGET
2E 19 1.58 AT TARGET
2F 67 1.39 AT TARGET
2G 40 1.68 AT TARGET
3A 30 1.50 AT TARGET
3B 59 1.36 AT TARGET
3C 36 1.53 AT TARGET
3D 79 1.28 BELOW TARGET
4A 99 1.52 AT TARGET
4B 50 1.50 AT TARGET
4C 47 1.36 AT TARGET
4D 65 1.55 AT TARGET
4E 35 1.66 AT TARGET
5A 22 1.64 AT TARGET
5B 56 1.55 AT TARGET
5C 123 1.60 AT TARGET
5D 42 1.71 ABOVE TARGET
As you can see 2B ,2C and 5C still had the highest number of does checked and 2B and 5C each had more than 2F and 2G combined. So once again we see that PGC supporters have to reject the official PGC data in order to defend their opinions.
Table 2. Number of adult does examined and assessment of
deer health by WMU based on samples collected from 2005
to 2007, Pennsylvania.
WMU
n
Embryos per
adult female
Deer health
assessment
1A 78 1.50 AT TARGET
1B 61 1.69 ABOVE TARGET
2A 91 1.37 AT TARGET
2B 165 1.59 AT TARGET
2C 117 1.38 AT TARGET
2D 87 1.60 AT TARGET
2E 19 1.58 AT TARGET
2F 67 1.39 AT TARGET
2G 40 1.68 AT TARGET
3A 30 1.50 AT TARGET
3B 59 1.36 AT TARGET
3C 36 1.53 AT TARGET
3D 79 1.28 BELOW TARGET
4A 99 1.52 AT TARGET
4B 50 1.50 AT TARGET
4C 47 1.36 AT TARGET
4D 65 1.55 AT TARGET
4E 35 1.66 AT TARGET
5A 22 1.64 AT TARGET
5B 56 1.55 AT TARGET
5C 123 1.60 AT TARGET
5D 42 1.71 ABOVE TARGET
As you can see 2B ,2C and 5C still had the highest number of does checked and 2B and 5C each had more than 2F and 2G combined. So once again we see that PGC supporters have to reject the official PGC data in order to defend their opinions.
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.
Decision Rules Used to Determine Deer Health.--
1. Does 3-year estimate of embryos per adult female have a coefficient of variation (CV) of =13%a?
a – A coefficient of variation (CV) of approximately <13% is considered
sufficient for accurate population management (Skalski and Millspaugh 2002,
Skalski et al. 2005, Millspaugh et al. 2006). At this time, it typically requires
pooling of 3 years of data to achieve CVs of less than 13%.
1. Does 3-year estimate of embryos per adult female have a coefficient of variation (CV) of =13%a?
a – A coefficient of variation (CV) of approximately <13% is considered
sufficient for accurate population management (Skalski and Millspaugh 2002,
Skalski et al. 2005, Millspaugh et al. 2006). At this time, it typically requires
pooling of 3 years of data to achieve CVs of less than 13%.
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
#108
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: PA hunting
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.
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.
#109
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: PA hunting
ORIGINAL: 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.
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.
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
#110
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: PA hunting
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.
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.
Try explaining to everyone how having a better buck/doe ratio and better habitat lead to declining breeding and reproductive rates.