bawanajim

What other form of wildlife is managed so that 80% of every year classthe male of the speciesis the targeted goal.

bluebird2

There has been no documented adverse effects from over 50 years of harvesting 80% of the adult male population of deer.

BTBowhunter

That is simply not true. You have made that claim repeatedly without any supporting documentation.

Certainly any PA hunter can recognize that our BD ratio was out of line before AR/HR Recent harvests under HR have produced doe kills at a rate approaching 2-1 over buck harvests. We're in line now with our BD because of the emphasis on doe kills over the past few years.

If we had been in line before, bucks would outnumber does now by a wide margin. Of course, with you seeing only three deer this season, I guess your personal observations could indicate otherwise.

bawanajim

So the lack of documentation legitimizes an activity thats been unchecked for resulting detrimental effects.

bluebird2

Once again you are flat out wrong and are totally misrepresenting what I posted in the past. If you will recall I posted the actula herd estimates for 2001 which showed a B/d of 1:2.1 which is what QDM recommends for a heavily hunted herd. i asle provided a link to data that shows even back in 1984 our B/D ratio was just fine.
That is just plain silly and makes absolutely no sense.

bluebird2

The evidence that there was no detrimental effects is confirmed by the past high breeding rates, the 5% decrease in current breeding rates and the claims about all the big buck being harvested which are based on the gene pool formed over the past 50 years.

bawanajim

Since we have no idea how many deer we had ,or now have,the percentage of gain or loss in any studies has no actual scientific value.
I know facts to you are variables,but to those who know the difference in statistical values and true values understands that you can't pick and choose when and what numbers you use to calculateyour base conclusion on.

A/R's were needed to protect a higher number of the bucks from a herd that as a wholereduced as plannedby an unknown percentage.

And as an end results the older age class of bucks that have been protected by A/R are giving hunters a greater opportunity at a trophy class buck from a much smaller herd.As Planned.

I know you understand this, though you disagree with the program the facts don't lie.
Do I think H/R has go to far? Yes, as most do. Are lynchings called for? No just some needed adjustments and more hunters with knowledge, not propaganda.

bluebird2

The PGC estimates the herd every year just like they did in the past ,since that is the only way they can come up with their estimated changes in the deer density.

There was never a biological need to protect more bucks with ARs. It was implemented in order to get hunters to shoot more doe and that is the only phase of ARs that worked.

bawanajim

Your opinions are no more than that,while hiding anomalously behind a computer screen belittling noted wildlife biologist your opinions sway few. We know who DR Roxenberry and Dr Alt and several other noted wildlife managers are in real life, you on the other handgive no more substance or credence to these discussions than one of the women in the slim fast commercials, which whom you very much could be.

Further more your lack of any kind of apology foryour uncalled for personal attacks leads me to believe that you are morelike Ozthan any of us previously believed. A little man behind a big screen.

bluebird2

My opinions are support by the facts while Alt's opinions were refuted by the facts. Dr. R. is different story ,since he inherited the mess Alt created and now has to figure out a way to correct Alt's mistakes without loosing more credibility.