ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Their money. Their lawsuit. Their right. Their call. There is VERY strong evidence of their claims of insufficient breeding data to support the extremes of the program. Anyone can see that easily by glancing for one moment at the annual reports. Its rediculous. I just don't think they will be granted exactly what they are seeking based on that.
What doesn't make any sense to me is why the PGC switched from deer density goals that were established based on 20 years of research and 20 years of field data, to a system based on the number of embryos/doe when they knew that the sample sizes were too small to yield statistically valid data on a yearly basis.Now ,the PGC makes yearly decisions on antlerless allocations based on 3 year averages rather than year to year data. Therefore, they can't adjust allocations due to reduced recruitment due to a severe harvest or higher than expected antlerless harvest. That is unless they are really managing the herd based on the actual deer density rather than on breeding rates and forest regeneration.
We know you don’t understand it. You never have and most likely never will, but I will explain it for those that might be interested in the answer.
The reason the deer density numbers are no longer the largest force in deer management was because they were estimated numbers that had way to much variability in their degree of accuracy. They had such a low reliability because they were estimated numbers that came from the end result of using many other estimated numbers to reach that bottom line estimate.
By using scientific results provided by real deer and real food supplies you are using reality instead of estimates, guesses and theories.
Yes, everyone wishes the samples sizes were large enough to use each individual years of data for making management decisions but that isn’t reality either, so they use three year averages to at least be able to work with the actual trends that the deer and their food prove are reality.
But, neither your comment or my answer, in response, have anything to do with the topic so why are you going in that direction yet again?
R.S. Bodenhorn
rsb,if i read right clinton county is to be around 12 dpsm.
we placed our feeders in about a 2 mile area,so our feeders are about 1 feeder per 2 fpsm or 1 feeder in 2 miles or so.
i was out today and by look of tracks it is 4 deer per feeder.
so about 4 deer in 2 miles at feeder.
i checked about 6 feeders.
i saw 3 deer at 1 feeder.
so, thats about what i saw in my area around 3 to 4 deer in archery to gun season.
we are no way close to 12 dpsm.
i checked our best area for deer.
from bottom to top which is 4.6 miles, i countedabout 8 deer tracks.
this is only water and best feed in area along this road and is low land area where the deer go to yard up etc...
so, i figure its same, about 2 deerdpsm.
i would WELCOME a FLIR now to prove what i am seeing but why waste money.
tracks tell a lot.
most of others , we filled feeders on sat said the most they see at feeder is 3 deer.
boy, they are tearing feeders apart this winter.
i spent 50 dollars myself buying alfalfa on sat to place at feeders.
i used to get that for 3 dollars a bale, now its over 5 dollars a bale.
