ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
You are telling the truth. I posted the data that shows 2B 2C and 5C still had the highest number of doe checked. You said you were going to provide data to prove I was wrong so where is it? Maybe you should sit down with a pencil and paper and figure out just how it is possible to reduce the statewide average by 5 % without having reducing in some WMU's by over 5%.
First o f all I am pleased that finally admitted I was the one telling the truth. Oh, I’ll bet you want to call that a typo though don’t you?
It is you who is extremely confused or perhaps just simply being deceitful by misrepresenting the facts.
First of all I don’t need a paper and pencil to know that it is very possible that none of the units would have to experience a decline in the breeding rates for the statewide data to show a perceptive 5% decline following the shift in sample sizes within the traditional high to low breeding areas.
The 13 % variance is not a factor since the 5% decline was based on 3 year averages for both the years with the high breeding rates as well as the low breeding rates in 2007.
seems that you either don’t know when the shift in data occurred or when the use of 3 year averages began or more likely that you were just hoping no one would catch you in yet another con-job.
The use of three years averages just started while the major shift in sample locations occurred between 2001 and 2003. That was well before the use of the three year averages you used in your post.
Try again because that flim-flam tactic isn’t working.
Once again you have failed to provide a rational answer for the decreased breeding rates even though the answer is obvious to anyone that knows anything about breeding rates.
It seem that the more logical unbiased readers disagree with your opinion on that too.
I'll give you one more chance to correct your mistakes and tell the truth before I spill the beans. Good luck.
I don’t figure you have any beans to spill though I certainly don’t doubt you will come up some other twisted misrepresentations of the facts and reality.
If you have any beans to spill go for it.
Unlike many who support the plan, I never questioned the breeding rate data, productivity or harvest data. I have yet to find a case where there is a rational reason for questioning that data or any indication they manipulated the data. However, they may present the data in a way that makes them look good or they may misrepresent what the data shows. Instead they reported that breeding rates and productivity decreased when they were predicted to increase. they reported that the 2.5 buck harvest in 2007 was less than in 2002 even though Alt claimed ARs would double the number of 2.5+ buck. They also admitted that only 2% of the buck harvested were 3.5 buck even though they tried to disguise it.
Where did you get the idea that only 2% of the bucks harvested were 3 ½ years old? I don’t think anything has been released yet on the 2007 harvest aging results unless I have missed it but in any event I doubt the number of older bucks declined from 26% to just 2% in one year.
Here are the correct percentages for the 2006 harvest based on the data from the 2007 report.
Results of cementum annuli age analysis of adult males from the 2006 firearms season showed that most adult males were 2.5-years-old (71%). Twenty-one percent were 3.5-years-old, 5% were 4.5-years-old, and the remaining 3% were 5.5-years-old or older.
I suspect that you made an honest mistake though this time, surely you really aren’t that deceptive are you?
i provided the results from Miss. , the Harris study , the Harmel study and PGC data to support my position. You and RSB present your misguided opinions that are not supported by fact.
There simply is no way to discredit the fact that harvest data statewide showed that rack sizes of 2.5+ buck decreased in Miss. kroll questioned the implications of the decrease ,but he didn't refute the results.
We’ve been down this road before too.
Even though the entire Mississippi antler study is questioned by many in the world of professional deer managers even if they did have a decline in statewide antler growth it would still be immaterial to what we do in Pennsylvania. You see in Mississippi they harvest their bucks before the breeding season while in Pennsylvania we wait until all of the bucks have had the opportunity to breed before we harvest them.
You probably have been hoping that I wouldn’t expose that fact though weren’t you?
R.S. Bodnehorn