ORIGINAL: bluebird2
You are beginning to sound more like a died in the wool USP supporter every day. Whether you realize it or not ,you just told everyone that the PGC basically has no idea how many fawns are recruited each year,which means they would have no idea how many antlerless tags are needed to reduce the herd or keep it stable. Isn't that exactly what the USP is claiming?
I, on the other hand, believe the PGC has enough data that has been accumulated over many years, to make estimates of recruitment rate that are sufficient enough to allow them to manage the herd and allocate antlerless each year. But , the problem is they are still managing the herd based only on the carrying capacity of forested habitat,which means they are managing the herd at considerably less than the true MSY carrying capacity of all of the habitat.
Isn't it ironic that I have to defend the PGC from misinformation from one of it's own employees.
First off you can rest assured that there is nothing about the USP position that I support nor is anything I said supporting the misguided agenda of the USP.
Unlike you and the other USP supporters I know full well that wildlife management is not an exact science when it comes to estimated numbers. I and every other knowledgeable person also know that professional wildlife management is and always has been a matter of catching up with what has already happened as far a changes in populations.
That is management of trying to catch up with the past is true in every state that manages deer populations. Some states have an easier time doing that because they have less variance in their annual recruitment rates and deer harvests. Some states don’t have the winter variables to contend with and other states always have winter controlling factors affecting their deer populations. Both of those cases make it easier to predict the annual fawn recruitment rates.
States like Pennsylvania that are located where winter conditions change from year to year always have and always will have more nature induced variables that affect annual fawn recruitment rates. Nothing is ever going to change that fact and we have to live with it, like it or not.
Fawn recruitment in some parts of Pennsylvania is more predictable on an annual bases becausesome areas stillhave suitable habitat.In other areas though the fawn recruitment is almost entirely controlled by the environmental conditions of the year because the habitat has been so seriously damaged by years of deer populations that were too far out of balance with the habitat. That we could probably change if people like you would allow it to change.
As far as having a better handle on the annual fawn recruitment, there is no doubt we would like to have a better handle on that estimate. But, it is you and your USP buddies that have been and still are standing in the way of having better fawn recruitment data. In fact it is you, people like you and the USP that have been standing in the way and actually preventing better deer management for the past couple of decades.
Your kind have proudly stood against the State Legislature providing the funding that would be needed to develop and implement the deer research programs and projects that would lead to the answers needed for better management and then you yammer around when we don’t have better data. Well if you want the best possible deer management, just get your goons out of the way and stop fighting everything that results in having better management.
When you want to see the problem look in the mirror, or drag out a group photo of you with your USP buddies, and you will be see where the problem of not having the best possible data comes from.
R.S.Bodenhorn