After telling us that the herd has been increasing for the past 5 years the PGC now tells us the new computer model was so flawed they are abandoning it after just two years and are going back to the old method of computing populations based on harvests.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations uncovered in the model used from 2002-04 preclude the agency from continuing its use. The agency is now using hunter success to monitor trends in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) deer populations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. R. also stated that the 2005 anterless allocations were on the conserative side. Howver, I don't see how they could be considered to be conservative when they admit they don't know how many deer we have . Furthermore , in 2001 ,when we had more OWD than we do now, the anterless allocation was only 780K and we harvested 283 K anterless, only 1K less than in 2004 with 1 M anterless tags..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thaught this was a good post, some of us do not belong to the Hunting pa. site. lost horn
I'm afraid you misunderstood again. You should try to provide links so people don't have to rely on your interpretations. Many may not be aware the PGC raped, plundered and pillaged your village as a boy and so you're prone to assume the worst of them.
They are going to a new system. I'm glad they keep working to improve their systems. You'll also note that many states use the program recently discarded in favor of an improved one.
Although deer population densities will be part of the new deer management program, a determination of whether deer populations are at healthy levels should not be based on deer numbers alone. It also should involve an assessment of factors related to deer herd health, habitat health and deer-human interactions.
When they established the current 22 WMU's the PGC said they were so large because they didn't have the data or the resources to manage smaller units. Does anyone know where they are going to get the staffing and the data to monitor all those factors on a yearly basis over 45,000 SM's of the state ?
Once again...yet another dead horse being beaten to a pulp. I love how a thread gets locked so we just copy and paste it too a new thread as if it's a completely new revelation.
__________________ Last edited by CalHunter; 08-10-2009 at 01:21 PM. Reason: Inappropriate--called a mbr "douchebag"
I concur with T
When I stood up with the GC and the deer program on these boards, some called me a blind Alty. I said all along that the program is a constantly evolving one and is prone to adjustment. The anti Alty guys said I was blind and manipulated by Alt. They said that the GC would never again listen to hunter's concerns and was in the pockets of special interests. Low and behold, adjustments have been made. Maybe I was just dreaming now too. Now that changes are being made, these same guys are lambasting the GC once again. Some people like to find fault with everything , or at least, complain about ANYTHING.
What ever the game is here - We're not going to play. If you would like to further discuss this topic you need to rename it and do not cut and paste the same post from here or the Hunting PA forum.
If any further topics head in the same direction as all similar topics,it will be removed or locked. Please DO NOT POST subject matter that we all have read in numerous other posts for weeks/months on end.
Amazing
