ORIGINAL: bluebird2
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.
I understand the plan good enough so that my predictions regarding buck harvests, breeding rates and total harvests were dead on,while yours were dead wrong.
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
Guess what sport, the PGC is still using the same estimated numbers that they used in the past to establish antlerless allocations. Every year they estimate the change the deer populations and in order to calculate that change they have to know the estimated populations for the two years involved.
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?
The topic is the delay in the audit and the audit would address the very issues we are discussing.
No one ever said they didn’t still use population estimates in the deer allocation modeling. They always have and mostly always will have population estimates for each unit. Otherwise there would be no need to even collect harvest data and I assure you there is no likelihood of not collecting and using that data in the future just as has occurred in the past.
But, estimated deer densities is not the gage used in determining the herd or forest health parameters that determine if the population should be held stable, reduced or if it is even possible for it to increase.
So as I already pointed out you don’t understand, never have and most likely never will.
R.S. Bodenhorn