bowtruck

screamin steel just because one works hard and owns land doesnt mean
they shouldnt have a opioion and voice on deer and deer managment
as far as your comments have killed buck before ar after ar with a recurve and a compound
I come back when i want and wont take grammer lessons

Some speak of more civil discussion then steel post that hmmm civil

R.S.B.

First of all I will agree that based on the most recent annual report it doesn’t appear likely that adult doe breeding rates in some parts of the state are not increasing though I am not so sure a slight annual or even a few years of decline is anything of concern or at all unusual.

For one thing the statewide sample size is much lower during the past five or six years then it had ever been in the past. That alone can make a huge change the data simply because of the margin of error that comes with a smaller sample size. It presently takes three years of breeding rate data to keep a coefficient of variation of plus or minus 13%. For that reason alone a couple percentage of change in the annual adult doe breeding rates might very well be nothing more then a error or the annual sample.

Before I get into what this years report tell me about the various units I want to show everyone those adult doe breeding rates over a longer time period and in five year averages.

Time period………adult doe breeding rates
83-87.…………………91 %
88-92.…………………91 %
93-97.…………………90 %
98-02.…………………91 %
03-07.…………………91 %


If you do it in three year averages the results are pretty much the same.

Time period………adult doe breeding rates
81-83.…………………91 %
84-86.…………………91 %
87-89.…………………92 %
90-92.…………………91 %
93-95.…………………90 %
96-98.…………………90 %
99-01.…………………91 %
02-04.…………………92 %
05-07.…………………90 %

As you can see there have been variations of the adult doe breeding rates all through the past though they have also generally stayed pretty stable without major variance and that trend continues yet today. I don’t see a reason for concern though I do see a reason to keep a watchful eye on the rates in the future just as they have in the past.

Now for the part I find most interesting and perhaps most concerning. It is also the part you probably aren’t going to like.

Deer management objectives for every individual unit are based on two separate, yet somewhat connected, indicators of the ability or need for of the deer to exist in either higher or lower numbers then presently occur.

One of those indicators is the health of the deer herd. The deer in each of the units provides that answer with the adult doe reproductive rate. If that adult doe rate is over 1.50 then it is presumed the herd is within a tolerable limit with its habitat. Mind you that is not really great but within a range that is acceptable.

The other indicator used in determining the ability of the unit to sustain, increase or decrease the deer population comes from an evaluation of the habitat, which is really a measure of the year round deer food supply. That is done by scientifically measuring the amount of regeneration of various tree species that can be eaten by deer within habitat plots. There are five sets of plots in each unit and each set will get evaluated once every five years. If that habitat value drops below 50 % regeneration then that is an indication the habitat is not good and probably not able to support more deer and very likely can’t even sustain the present deer numbers long term. That is also when deer populations are likely to start reducing their own numbers with reduced fawn recruitment rates.

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
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 %
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34

Unit 5D is not included since there isn’t enough habitat data available to place it in the results.

I think this sort of places the units in the order of concern for their ability to continue to sustain the present deer populations. The further down the list the more concern in general terms.

I think some of the units might be higher on the list then they really should be though. I think some units, like 2G and I am sure others, are probably higher then they should be because of their reproductive rate score actually being higher then it truly is. That higher reproductive score probably comes from the location of the highway samples. The majority of the deer being sampled are coming from highway kills and mostly around the most fertile soil and farm lands. The mountainous, poor soil and habitat areas also have very few roads so the sample in those worst of habitats is low to no existent. That of course results in an inflated reproductive score for some of the units.

So, based on the scientifically collected data, provided by the deer and their food supply, it appears unit 2A might very well need even more deer harvested before the habitat gets degraded to the point it simply can’t support the deer population it already has.

I know that isn’t what you wanted to hear of believe but you at least need to look at it objectively and see what the scientific data is telling the professionals. Though you don’t want to believe it, the wildlife management professionals really are doing what the evidence says is best for the each unit to be able to support good deer populations for not only today but for the long term future as well.

If you look at the past habitat surveys for unit 2A you will see that the habitat has been declining a bit more each year. In the past three years it has declined from 61% in 2005, to 58% in 2006 and now down to 46% in 2005. That is reason for concern. Then when you combine that with the fact that the deer health has been below that 1.50 satisfactory reproductive level two out of the past three years (1.45 in 2005, 1.53 in 2006 and now 1.37 in 2007) it isn’t looking good for the future in your unit unless the deer herd is brought into a closer balance with the existing year round food supplies.

Give it some serious though as to what happens when the deer herd damage their long term food supply and what it will mean to the future deer hunting in your area. It isn’t a good thing when that happens. I have seen the results of it right here in this part of the state. If you to see your future after carrying too many deer for too long, drive up here and look around and then decide if what slightly fewer deer then you have now or if you want more deer now and then what this part of the state has ten, twenty or thirty years from now.

Now see if you can come back and discuss those thoughts without just shouting or calling them lies. I am certainly willing to listen to what you have to say, and discuss your thoughts too as long as you can say it in an objective and respectful manner.

Oh, and I almost forgot to add. Yes, I did win my court case today and it was in deed a poacher.

Unfortunately, I only had enough evidence to convict him of one deer even though I am pretty sure there were several more then just one he was involved in. Besides the conviction I am also pleased to report that the Judge ordered him to pay the DNA lab fees I used to help convict him. I had him in possession of one set of antlers in closed season but when I finally did get him the dead bucks without heads stopped showing up in that area. I would love to know just how many of them he had killed.

R.S. Bodenhorn

BTBowhunter

Thanks RSB and kudos for nailing the poacher!

Does the age of the does being sampled get recorded and if so do you have that data?Could there be any validity to the theory that a higher percentage of pregnant fawns or even younger adult does in the samples could be contributing to the lower pregnancy rates?

Cornelius08

Rsb, I had a long reply and this fine site made me lose it ARGH!!! So I'll try and quickly hit my points.

I dont agree with grouping 5 year together when all it does is hide the trend of decline for doe percentage. It might be ok to do when comparing other data for other purposes, but the decline only began 4 years ago, and its a clear trend. A trend hidden by very highyear before the decline of 93% which interestingly had also been that high for a few years prior to the decline despite being the highest herd levels.

As for 2A, you have some mistakes which may make you come to the conclusion you did. I know there was alot of nonsense to sort through and alot to address, so its understandable I guess. But the trend for the regeneration was not one of decline.

Accoring to the 05 report which had it data collected from 2001 to 2004, (2As highest herd size while regen studies have been conducted) showed us at 58% regeneration.

The 2006 report had us at 61% regeneration (data from 2001-2005) You had the two years mixed up. I have the reports right here in front of me in print.

And now, that we are even lower herd density according to the herd density chart on the report, Im supposed to believe we all at once have nose dived 15% in one year into poor?? When we were just the year before WELL up into fair at 61% and nosedived to 46??

I think you missed the part about the changes in how the regen. is assessed. Its explained somewhat, and states on the report that the data cannot be compared to previous regeneration on previous reports due to changes in method. I find that more than a little hard to swallow.

Also as to the 1.37 fawn per doe in 2A, it is listed as "on target" not below target level. So shouldnt be a factor at all. But is noteworthy that the wmu is following the overall state trend of lower embryo count the more the herd has been reduced. It went from 1.45 in the 06-07 report down to 1.37 in the 07-08.

BTW, congrats on the case, great job! We could use you around here.

Cornelius08

Btw, just to show how greatly year groupings can vary, as to how exactly they are broken up, I could show the table on page 12 of the annual report adult doe pregnancy chart which shows 8 total years, as the most recent 4 years grouped, as compared to the first 4. The results show 93% pregnancy rate for the first 4. and only 90% average for the last 4.

But more importantly, the "trend" when analyzing the entire list year by yearis worse, since it shows the steady decline to a total of 5% in just 4 years.

Screamin Steel

I have no problem with anyone who works hard and owns land, but deer mgt in PA affects you about as much as Oprah is affected by what you had for dinner last night. You and you alone have the liberty of setting your own management policies. So other than morbid curiosity, what brings you to this board? How can you really say whether you agree or disagree with the state's deer plan when you are so unaffected by it? It's like someone who is tax exempt complaining about paying taxes. As for civil discussion...well, just read back through the last few pages when you joined this topic and started and then continued with nothing constructive other than name calling and insults. Just a taste of your own medicine, sport. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

Screamin Steel

RSB, congrats on a fine job once again hanging up the gun of another low life poacher. Keep up the good work!

bluebird2

Forest health is not a scientific measure of the year round food supply as you claim and it in no way an accurate measure of the carrying capacity of the habitat. The surveys do not measure the amount of regeneration of various tree species that can be eaten by deer within habitat plots, it measures the regeneration of trees that are capable of replacing the existing canopy species. Therefore, forest health ,as determined by the PGC is not a measure of the health of the habitat or the habitats ability support a given deer density over the long term.

An example of this would be 5C with only 23% regeneration but a reproductive rate of 1.6 embryos/doe compared to 4C with 60% regeneration but only 1.36 embryos/doe. Since 5C is comprised of mixed farm land and wood lots it can support a much higher deer density than 2G and 2G which are 90% forested. But that high deer density will often result in over browsing of the small survey plots used to determine forest health.

R.S.B.

The age of the does being sampled gets separated into three groups, (yearling, two year old and three years and older). In the past wildlife management used all three age groups in the deer health index but due to the declining sample size it had reached the point where the data sample size was not large enough to fall within that 13% coefficient of variance required to meet the minimum confidence level. For that reason all adults does (two years and older) are now grouped together to increase the sample size and bring it back to being within the required confidence level for making a more accurate herd health determination. Of course the standards used for the combination of the two age groups had to be amended to account for that change.

Yes, a change in the number of younger does in the sample size can have an effect on the statewide adult breeding rates. It shouldn’t have an effect though if the herd health were suitable in all areas and if the buck/doe ratio were correct in all areas. Since the only data being used for that adult breeding rate data is for adult does they should all be mature enough to be bred unless the habitat they are living in is poor or unless there simply weren’t enough bucks available in that area to get all of the cycling females bred.

I have long suspected, though can’t presently prove, that as more of the juvenile does reach breeding weight in an area it sets up a situation where perhaps more of the adult does don’t get bred, or at least not during their first cycle as they should.

Bucks simply don’t care if the cycling doe is an adult or a juvenile doe, they will spend their time trailing and hanging out near her until she is bred and that might be for a couple of days or more. If you have an increased number of juvenile does reaching breeding weight during any year that could, theoretically at least, result in fewer of the adult does in the same area getting bred.

That might not be a real serious problem though it could potentially cause a decline in the fawn recruitment rates for that area since typically fawns born to younger does do have a lower survival rate. But, even that might not be a major concern. Now that we have statewide antler restrictions it seems logical that any place that has a buck/doe ratio that far out of balance that adult does aren’t getting bred it is probably a problem of having too many does instead of not having enough bucks. Keep in mind now that the total deer population for the area needs to be in balance with the habitat, so adding more bucks simply to improve the breeding rate might be counter productive if you exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat.

But, in conclusion yes the decline in the adult doe breeding rates might be partly due to younger does being bred. But, once again nearly all adult does should be bred where they live in the correct habitat and buck/doe ratio balance.

Presently I see no significant concerns with the statewide breeding rates, though there certainly is still room for improvement. I am also confident we will see improvements as more information becomes available from the ever continuing research and data collection.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Screamin Steel

AND...by altering the criteria by which they have judged forest health and regeneration for the last six years, they have stet the stage for continued herd reduction throughout much of the state. When a WMU that had been reduced, and then given a status of fair or good regeneration has suddenly been declared poor, it only stands to reason what we can expect for future antlerless allocations. Reminds me of a company that sets performance incentive standards, and then raises themduring the last quarterof the fiscal year to avoid paying out. It's as crooked as it is scandalous. Clearly, an honest and comprehensive audit would find fault with such a practice.