ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Table 2. Number of adult does examined and assessment of
deer health by WMU based on samples collected from 2005
to 2007, Pennsylvania.
WMU
n
Embryos per
adult female
Deer health
assessment
1A 78 1.50 AT TARGET
1B 61 1.69 ABOVE TARGET
2A 91 1.37 AT TARGET
2B 165 1.59 AT TARGET
2C 117 1.38 AT TARGET
2D 87 1.60 AT TARGET
2E 19 1.58 AT TARGET
2F 67 1.39 AT TARGET
2G 40 1.68 AT TARGET
3A 30 1.50 AT TARGET
3B 59 1.36 AT TARGET
3C 36 1.53 AT TARGET
3D 79 1.28 BELOW TARGET
4A 99 1.52 AT TARGET
4B 50 1.50 AT TARGET
4C 47 1.36 AT TARGET
4D 65 1.55 AT TARGET
4E 35 1.66 AT TARGET
5A 22 1.64 AT TARGET
5B 56 1.55 AT TARGET
5C 123 1.60 AT TARGET
5D 42 1.71 ABOVE TARGET
As you can see 2B ,2C and 5C still had the highest number of does checked and 2B and 5C each had more than 2F and 2G combined. So once again we see that PGC supporters have to reject the official PGC data in order to defend their opinions.
Even though those southwest units still have the highest sample of does it still doesn’t negate the fact that the number being sampled in the entire southwest region of the state dropped by 91% during the year prior to antler restrictions to the more recent years.
The sample size in the big woods, traditionally lower breeding and reproduce rates, only declined by 50% during the same time period.
As I have repeatedly pointed out that does create a shift in the statewide data that makes it invalid for a before to after antler restrictions comparison. It does not however make the data invalid for the individual management unit.
Another factor that I suspect you have seen but refuse to post, as you cherry pick the bits and pieces of data you use in an effort to discredit the present program, is the coefficient of variation in the data based on sample size.
With the highway killed doe sample size we have had in recent years they have to combine three years of data to keep that coefficient of variation within the 13% that is acceptable for population modeling. Since there is close to a 13% variance with three combined years of data how do you suspect that affects the variances and reliability of the data you posted using the data in an annual format?
Here is a copy and paste from the annual report that makes reference to that point.
Decision Rules Used to Determine Deer Health.--
1. Does 3-year estimate of embryos per adult female have a coefficient of variation (CV) of =13%a?
a – A coefficient of variation (CV) of approximately <13% is considered
sufficient for accurate population management (Skalski and Millspaugh 2002,
Skalski et al. 2005, Millspaugh et al. 2006). At this time, it typically requires
pooling of 3 years of data to achieve CVs of less than 13%.
As I have repeatedly pointed out the data is too inconclusive, at this time, to arrive at any conclusions on the affects of antler restrictions. But, perhaps you can let us all in this big secret you think you have found in the annual report that you figure explains your perceived, (and I say perceived because it isn’t a given), decline in the adult doe breeding rates.
I will admit that even with a closer buck/doe ratio it could be possible to see a decline in the adult breeding rates if there is an increase in the juvenile breeding rates at the same time. That has been documented in the past and is an indication of simply not having enough bucks to get all of the cycling does bred. That is something that will be looked and evaluated when there is more time and data to make a well informed inference instead of just a guess.
R.S. Bodenhorn