Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
02-09-2009, 12:59 PM
#51
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
You're kiddin me muzz. You mean to tell me that you don't agree with what RSB has been preaching continually lately,that Pa is one of the very best deer hunting states in the country?? (LOL)
Boy sure wish I didnt have commitments family and friends so affixed to this S-T-A-N-K-Y (LOL) deer state. Man what Id give to be from a GOOD deer hunting state.
Boy sure wish I didnt have commitments family and friends so affixed to this S-T-A-N-K-Y (LOL) deer state. Man what Id give to be from a GOOD deer hunting state.
02-09-2009, 01:37 PM
#52
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
What they found was that some years, especially following poor mast crop or hard winter years, that as many as 33% of all of the button bucks checked during the antler less deer harvests were actually 1 ½ year old bucks that didn’t have legal spikes. I too checked hundreds of 1 ½ year old bucks harvested as antler less deer during those years that had a button that was less then a couple inches long though they were often as large in diameter as my finger. Even on a mild winter year as many as 20% of the button buck were 1 ½ years old back in those days.
02-09-2009, 01:46 PM
#53
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
ORIGINAL: 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.
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.
Excellent post Jim!
I just a few lines you have captured te essence of Bluebirds distortion techniques and at the same time summed up fairly accurate thumbnail assessment of how thetrue majority of hunters really feel.
02-09-2009, 01:53 PM
#54
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
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.
02-09-2009, 01:57 PM
#55
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
The only thing I disagree with about how majority feel,is how important it is that those "needed adjustments" occur. Seems a couple are content as is, although they might like something elseto bedone...Just not adament about it. I believe the huge majority would DEMAND or strongly desirethat those changesoccurand are not happy to shrug it off if they dont..
I also see no suggestions as to how we insure those "needed adjustments" occur if pgc remains headstrong and flatly refuses. Many have gone the legislative route, though a couple of you disagree, so what is the solution if not the legislative route.
And I definately do not believe the huge majority are happy to accept NOTHING.
I also see no suggestions as to how we insure those "needed adjustments" occur if pgc remains headstrong and flatly refuses. Many have gone the legislative route, though a couple of you disagree, so what is the solution if not the legislative route.
And I definately do not believe the huge majority are happy to accept NOTHING.
02-09-2009, 02:17 PM
#56
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
Here is a quote from the 2007 AWR.
Based on that info ,it is obvious that the PGC is still using population estimates and DD goals to allocate antlerless allocations.
Deer Population Trends
We used multiple methods to monitor deer population trends including a modified sex-age-kill
(SAK) model (Eberhardt 1960, Creed et al. 1984, Skalski and Millspaugh 2002), antlerless hunter
success index (i.e., estimated antlerless harvest divided by the number of antlerless licenses), and an
antlered harvest index (i.e., estimated antlered harvest for a WMU).
We modified the standard SAK model to account for Pennsylvania’s antler restrictions to
monitor deer population trends. Modifications involve estimation of 1.5-year-old and 2.5-year-old and
older male populations. Population trend monitoring relies on research data from Pennsylvania (e.g.,
Long et al. 2005), harvest estimates, and deer aging data. Population monitoring began with adult males
(males 1.5 years of age and older) and progressed to females and fawns.
The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from harvest
estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and older were
estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old
males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate
harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt population of 1.5-year-old males
in the preceding year using current year population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from
1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate
of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the pre-hunt population and
estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year population of 1.5-year-old males was determined
using a 3-year running average of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years.
Following determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of
female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002).
We used multiple methods to monitor deer population trends including a modified sex-age-kill
(SAK) model (Eberhardt 1960, Creed et al. 1984, Skalski and Millspaugh 2002), antlerless hunter
success index (i.e., estimated antlerless harvest divided by the number of antlerless licenses), and an
antlered harvest index (i.e., estimated antlered harvest for a WMU).
We modified the standard SAK model to account for Pennsylvania’s antler restrictions to
monitor deer population trends. Modifications involve estimation of 1.5-year-old and 2.5-year-old and
older male populations. Population trend monitoring relies on research data from Pennsylvania (e.g.,
Long et al. 2005), harvest estimates, and deer aging data. Population monitoring began with adult males
(males 1.5 years of age and older) and progressed to females and fawns.
The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from harvest
estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and older were
estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old
males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate
harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt population of 1.5-year-old males
in the preceding year using current year population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from
1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate
of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the pre-hunt population and
estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year population of 1.5-year-old males was determined
using a 3-year running average of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years.
Following determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of
female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002).
02-09-2009, 02:20 PM
#57
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Here is a quote from the 2007 AWR.
Based on that info ,it is obvious that the PGC is still using population estimates and DD goals to allocate antlerless allocations.
Here is a quote from the 2007 AWR.
Deer Population Trends
We used multiple methods to monitor deer population trends including a modified sex-age-kill
(SAK) model (Eberhardt 1960, Creed et al. 1984, Skalski and Millspaugh 2002), antlerless hunter
success index (i.e., estimated antlerless harvest divided by the number of antlerless licenses), and an
antlered harvest index (i.e., estimated antlered harvest for a WMU).
We modified the standard SAK model to account for Pennsylvania’s antler restrictions to
monitor deer population trends. Modifications involve estimation of 1.5-year-old and 2.5-year-old and
older male populations. Population trend monitoring relies on research data from Pennsylvania (e.g.,
Long et al. 2005), harvest estimates, and deer aging data. Population monitoring began with adult males
(males 1.5 years of age and older) and progressed to females and fawns.
The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from harvest
estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and older were
estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old
males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate
harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt population of 1.5-year-old males
in the preceding year using current year population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from
1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate
of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the pre-hunt population and
estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year population of 1.5-year-old males was determined
using a 3-year running average of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years.
Following determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of
female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002).
We used multiple methods to monitor deer population trends including a modified sex-age-kill
(SAK) model (Eberhardt 1960, Creed et al. 1984, Skalski and Millspaugh 2002), antlerless hunter
success index (i.e., estimated antlerless harvest divided by the number of antlerless licenses), and an
antlered harvest index (i.e., estimated antlered harvest for a WMU).
We modified the standard SAK model to account for Pennsylvania’s antler restrictions to
monitor deer population trends. Modifications involve estimation of 1.5-year-old and 2.5-year-old and
older male populations. Population trend monitoring relies on research data from Pennsylvania (e.g.,
Long et al. 2005), harvest estimates, and deer aging data. Population monitoring began with adult males
(males 1.5 years of age and older) and progressed to females and fawns.
The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from harvest
estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and older were
estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old
males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate
harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt population of 1.5-year-old males
in the preceding year using current year population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from
1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate
of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the pre-hunt population and
estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year population of 1.5-year-old males was determined
using a 3-year running average of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years.
Following determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of
female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002).
Interesting how you now present as credible, a method that you previously condemned because it now happens to fit your agenda.
02-09-2009, 02:31 PM
#59
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
Wrong again sport. I never condemned their harvest estimates or population estimates. Instead I have consistently defended the PGC harvest data and population estimates as being as good as they could be. I have found over and over again where the PGC admitted the harvest results were not what they had predicted and i have found no evidence that they have manipulated the harvest data to support their position.
02-09-2009, 06:03 PM
#60
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Wrong again sport. I never condemned their harvest estimates or population estimates. Instead I have consistently defended the PGC harvest data and population estimates as being as good as they could be. I have found over and over again where the PGC admitted the harvest results were not what they had predicted and i have found no evidence that they have manipulated the harvest data to support their position.
Wrong again sport. I never condemned their harvest estimates or population estimates. Instead I have consistently defended the PGC harvest data and population estimates as being as good as they could be. I have found over and over again where the PGC admitted the harvest results were not what they had predicted and i have found no evidence that they have manipulated the harvest data to support their position.
OK whatever you say
. I'm sure the PGC will be glad to hear it