ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Surely you are not so simple as to not understand how the change in the number of fawns in annual antler less harvest also changes the percentage for all of those ages and the sex class of juvenile male and juvenile female. Any unbiased and logically thinking person would also realize that the number of juvenile deer in any annual harvest will be very dependant on the number of fawn in existence. Surely even the village idiot could figure out that during the years when the majority of the fawns died right after being born there would be fewer fawn in the fall harvest. I sort of figure that anyone of even average intelligence would also figure out that during those years when there were fewer fawns available to be harvested the adult does harvested would make a higher percentage of the total harvest. Come on man you aren’t that dense, or are you?
Of course I understand that and that is why I pointed it out to you, because it is obvious you don't understand it and that you are overly influenced by your personal observations in 2G.. The fact remains the number of over wintering doe determine the number of fawns in the herd ,but the ratio of fawns to adult females is relatively constant unless there is a significant decrease in breeding rates, which results in fewer fawns which changes the ratio of adults to fawns. So what happened , when the breeding rates began to decrease in 2005? The percentage of fawns in the harvest increased ,even though they represented a smaller percentage of the antlerless herd, and the harvest of adult doe decreased because there were fewer adult doe available to be harvested.
quote:
Don't you have that data? you just posted it for 2004.
In 2002 we harvested 197,183 adult doe and it dropped to 119,767 in 2007 which is a decrease of 39%. At the same time the antlerless allocation only dropped by around 15%. So it is obvious there were a lot fewer adult doe were available to be bred and produce fawns in 2007.
I suspect I do have the data, that is part of the reason I know how wrong you are. The other part is just common sense.
If you want the data call Harrisburg and ask them for it. Maybe the Attorney for the Uninformed Silly People can get it for you. I’m not obligated to sharing data with anyone trying to use it in a law suit against the Agency on their misguided mission.
I provided all the data that is needed to show how the harvest of adult doe decreased much more than the antlerless allocations ,which means there are a lot fewer adult doe available to be bred and produce fawns. That ,inturn, accounts for the decrease in breeding rates and productivity.
Using your argument you are then trying to convince people that because we have fewer adult does those does that are left will have a lower breeding and reproductive rate, per individual doe, then the does had when we had more does.
That is just plain goofy and one of the finest examples of pure nonsense a person could use as a reason for the decline in breeding and reproductive rates.
There is no doubt that having fewer adult does results in fewer fawns being born even with slightly changing breeding and reproductive rates, that is pretty much a no brainer. But, having fewer adult does most certainly doesn’t reduce the breeding or reproductive rates of the remaining adult does. What causes fewer fawns in the population is having fawns born under weight and dying within days of being born.
The variance in the number of fawns in the fall hunting season, due to how many survived after being born that year, is also causes the percentage change in Table 7 of the annual report. That too is a no brianer fro anyone who has the ability to see things with an unbiased eye and brain.
R.S. Bodenhorn