07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
04-08-2009, 03:02 PM
#111
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
RSB.
I'm not going to argue the science that has changed the methodology for evaluating regen without enough info to do it intelligently. I've always been on the side of letting thye professionals do their job but I also feel a need to understand what it is they do to the extent possible.
I know a decent amount of 2F. I think the parts I know well are probably among some of the best habitat in that WMU but the change in the regen rate there has me baffled when I'm now seeing much better regen where I hunt. The deer numbers are good, fewer than years ago but that is an improvement IMHO.I find it puzzling the forest health rating is so low where I've seen such a marked improvement in both the deer and the forest regen. Either the sample areas are far from where I frequent or I'm missing something big time. I'm not condemning or arguing the new practice, just looking to get a handle on it.
I think attending a deer tour just went way up on my priorities list for this year. Do you have the dates and locations for the deer tours this year or a link for that information?
I'm not going to argue the science that has changed the methodology for evaluating regen without enough info to do it intelligently. I've always been on the side of letting thye professionals do their job but I also feel a need to understand what it is they do to the extent possible.
I know a decent amount of 2F. I think the parts I know well are probably among some of the best habitat in that WMU but the change in the regen rate there has me baffled when I'm now seeing much better regen where I hunt. The deer numbers are good, fewer than years ago but that is an improvement IMHO.I find it puzzling the forest health rating is so low where I've seen such a marked improvement in both the deer and the forest regen. Either the sample areas are far from where I frequent or I'm missing something big time. I'm not condemning or arguing the new practice, just looking to get a handle on it.
I think attending a deer tour just went way up on my priorities list for this year. Do you have the dates and locations for the deer tours this year or a link for that information?
04-08-2009, 03:21 PM
#112
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
"slow decline and few studys to back it here "
Yeah.Continued slow decline. What has the goal been for the wmu last few years? Reduction? Increase? Stabilization? I havent looked into.
Yeah.Continued slow decline. What has the goal been for the wmu last few years? Reduction? Increase? Stabilization? I havent looked into.
04-08-2009, 03:27 PM
#113
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
BTB, Im sure RSB will give his thoughts when he comes along, but I can help with one thing you mentioned....the new practice hasnt caused 2F to decline. It did not effect all wmus equally, though 12 wmus the majority, did decline. As for 2F There has been a 2% increase in regeneration according to the 07/08 report compared to the 06/07 report, but the wmu is still rated at poor at 34%.
04-08-2009, 05:42 PM
#114
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
My bad.
I printed that dang thing when it came out and it got wet and I tossed it. I need to reprint it so I can refer back to it when discussing it there. I hate reading anythingthal long online becuse I often need to flip back and forth and it's a pain doing that with a PDF file online.
I printed that dang thing when it came out and it got wet and I tossed it. I need to reprint it so I can refer back to it when discussing it there. I hate reading anythingthal long online becuse I often need to flip back and forth and it's a pain doing that with a PDF file online.
04-09-2009, 04:09 AM
#115
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
To make it easier to see the wide variation between reproductive rates, regeneration and deer density, I added the the PS deer density for 2005 to the data RSB provided. I used the 2005 data sincethat was the last year the PGC provided the PS deer density estimates.
Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.
Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22
Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.
Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.
Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22
Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.
04-09-2009, 06:59 AM
#117
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
To make it easier to see the wide variation between reproductive rates, regeneration and deer density, I added the the PS deer density for 2005 to the data RSB provided. I used the 2005 data sincethat was the last year the PGC provided the PS deer density estimates.
Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.
Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22
Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.
To make it easier to see the wide variation between reproductive rates, regeneration and deer density, I added the the PS deer density for 2005 to the data RSB provided. I used the 2005 data sincethat was the last year the PGC provided the PS deer density estimates.
Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.
Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22
Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.
04-09-2009, 07:15 AM
#118
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
2A has been made a bad joke. You DO NOT have a 15% decline in one year when there are both far less deer than previous AND previously the regneration was on a IMPROVING trend, not declining. It absolutely had NOTHING to do with "FURTHER" deer damage as compared to the previous report. It had EVERYTHING to do with new considerations being used in the evaluation.
No where in this state will EVER be permitted "normal" deer densities under current guidelines. IF you have 'x' amount of deer, they are gonna eat"y' amount of browse. If you have 'y' amount of browse consumed, yet still getting adequate regeneration, it should be a 100-% nonissue. Yet when its now all of a sudden said that 'y' amount of browsing is no longer tolerable, I think it safe to assume any time in the future that we have close to 'x' number of deer, it will be reduced despite how much regeneration is occurring, because...Once again, they will be consuming 'y' amount of browse!!
When 'x' number of deer is very modest to begin with, ishalf what it used to be when double 'y' was being consumed...and regeneration had still be acceptable....and this in the best part of the state...and you factor in all the other "facts" spoken of. Then pgcs decision "z" is equal to b+s!
2Awas screwed. Plain and simple. Econut agenda at work.There is absolutely no other explanation. The deer sham plan is at work. There was plenty of regeneration occurring atWELL over acceptable levels at61%. And now thanks toa rediculous change that takes into account 100% nonsensical factor changes the rating to rock bottom?? BS!...And this is not picking on poor little pgc its very obvious foranyone with 2 eyes to see, who isnt too biased to admit it.And its pretty obvious that pgc is headed to ungodly deer numbers statewide for the bio-nut agenda, and its also clear they'll do whatever it takes no matter what the data says Just change the rules as needed.
No where in this state will EVER be permitted "normal" deer densities under current guidelines. IF you have 'x' amount of deer, they are gonna eat"y' amount of browse. If you have 'y' amount of browse consumed, yet still getting adequate regeneration, it should be a 100-% nonissue. Yet when its now all of a sudden said that 'y' amount of browsing is no longer tolerable, I think it safe to assume any time in the future that we have close to 'x' number of deer, it will be reduced despite how much regeneration is occurring, because...Once again, they will be consuming 'y' amount of browse!!
When 'x' number of deer is very modest to begin with, ishalf what it used to be when double 'y' was being consumed...and regeneration had still be acceptable....and this in the best part of the state...and you factor in all the other "facts" spoken of. Then pgcs decision "z" is equal to b+s!
2Awas screwed. Plain and simple. Econut agenda at work.There is absolutely no other explanation. The deer sham plan is at work. There was plenty of regeneration occurring atWELL over acceptable levels at61%. And now thanks toa rediculous change that takes into account 100% nonsensical factor changes the rating to rock bottom?? BS!...And this is not picking on poor little pgc its very obvious foranyone with 2 eyes to see, who isnt too biased to admit it.And its pretty obvious that pgc is headed to ungodly deer numbers statewide for the bio-nut agenda, and its also clear they'll do whatever it takes no matter what the data says Just change the rules as needed.
04-09-2009, 07:19 AM
#119
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
ORIGINAL: DougE
Yep,once the habitat get's stressed to the point it is in many areas,it takes far less deer to continue to impact it.In these areas,hunters will be forced to deal with alot less deer forlong periods of time.It makes sense to me if we fix the problem before it becomes a problem like it did in 2G.
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
To make it easier to see the wide variation between reproductive rates, regeneration and deer density, I added the the PS deer density for 2005 to the data RSB provided. I used the 2005 data sincethat was the last year the PGC provided the PS deer density estimates.
Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.
Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22
Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.
To make it easier to see the wide variation between reproductive rates, regeneration and deer density, I added the the PS deer density for 2005 to the data RSB provided. I used the 2005 data sincethat was the last year the PGC provided the PS deer density estimates.
Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.
Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22
Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.
04-09-2009, 07:26 AM
#120
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
THose idiots are doing EXACTLY whatever the hell they want! The plan was extreme from its inception, and now its just morphing into a complete abomination! LOL.
PGC obviously is becoming MUCH more brash and not at all concerned with sticking to "science" or listening at ALL to hunters. I guess they have gotten out of the audit for awhile if not permanently, thanks to latest development in regards to that, might be getting a fee increase due to dirty dealings on the crossbow issue + ridiculoius new 4 wmus season structure + audit complications, and the usp lawsuit seemingly isnt going anywhere...
It seems they dont have a care in the world, and know now that they have even less to answer to, and their is no recourse to the hunters.
PGC obviously is becoming MUCH more brash and not at all concerned with sticking to "science" or listening at ALL to hunters. I guess they have gotten out of the audit for awhile if not permanently, thanks to latest development in regards to that, might be getting a fee increase due to dirty dealings on the crossbow issue + ridiculoius new 4 wmus season structure + audit complications, and the usp lawsuit seemingly isnt going anywhere...
It seems they dont have a care in the world, and know now that they have even less to answer to, and their is no recourse to the hunters.