I didn't attempt to come up with what really happened and I did not represent it as such. I simply provided an example to demonstrate the effects of reducing the sampling size in the best breeding areas while keeping the sample size in other areas the same. I simply proved that if breeding rates increased or remained stable in most of the WMUs ,then it is mathematically impossible for breeding rates to decrease by 5% due to a shift in sample size. But, if you think my example is flawed, please feel free to provide your own example which will prove that I am wrong.
You didn’t prove anything other then how desperate you were to promote your misguided agenda.
I’ve provided the correct answer at least a dozen times already, you just don’t like the answer.
But, here is something else for everyone to think about. Perhaps it was the years with the 93% breeding rates that were out of the normal. Here are the statewide breeding rates for the adult does since 1992.
Year………………. Adult breeding rate
1992.………………….90 %
1993.………………….91
1994.………………….89
1995.………………….90
1996.………………….88
1997.………………….89
1998.………………….91
1999.………………….89
2000.………………….93
2001.………………….93
2002.………………….93
2003.………………….93
2004.………………….91
2005.………………….92
2006.………………….89
2007.………………….88
So, no matter who is right or wrong everyone can see that the adult doe breeding rates over the past fewer years have been very much in line with the historical adult doe breeding rates. Therefore, there is no reason for any concern unless someone thinks we need to do more to have a closer buck/doe ratio. Should that be the case do you think we should keep even more bucks, harvest more does or a combination of the two?
If you believe that to be true ,then please provide a rational explanation for the 5% decline in statewide breeding rates, since I proved it was not due to a change in sample size and location. Also, please provide an explanation why herd health is based on the productivity of 2.5+ doe?
I have done that time and again.
As for does 2 ½ and older being used to determine herd health this is just one more place in which you are behind the times. Herd health is now using adult does of all ages instead of placing higher emphases to the 2.5 and older does.
The measure is now set at 1.50 embryos per adult doe. A secondary measure is the percentage of juvenile does being bred.
You can read more about it in this link:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/2008_deer_mgmt.pdf
And ,most of all please tell us all how we reduced the herd if we didn't kill a lot more adult doe? We sure didn't kill more buck and we didn't kill more fawns than were recruited, so what group of deer did we harvest to reduce the herd?
That is easy. We harvested more deer of the various ages then what were replaced in fawn recruitment. Anytime total deer mortality is higher then what were born and survived into the next fall the deer population has been reduced. That total mortality is a combination of factors but there is no doubt that hunters harvested more deer during the years prior to the harsh winters of 2002 through 2004. There is also no doubt that the fawn recruitment was much lower then normal following those harsh winter years. Therefore, the combination of higher harvests and lower fawn recruitment result in fewer deer in most areas.
The areas that were the most affected were the areas where hunters have long demanded that the deer harvests be held low to accommodate the hunters wanting to see a lot of deer while hunting. Those areas ended up with damaged habitat that couldn’t sustain the number of deer we were trying to carry through bad winters. The areas that hadn’t made that mistake still have the state’s highest deer numbers today even though they continue to harvest as many deer as the hunters can find and want to harvest.
The real answer to your question is mostly that hunters didn’t reduce the herd in most areas but the environmental conditions sure did.
R.S. Bodenhorn