ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Here is a quote from the 2007 AWR.
Deer Population Trends
We used multiple methods to monitor deer population trends including a modified sex-age-kill
(SAK) model (Eberhardt 1960, Creed et al. 1984, Skalski and Millspaugh 2002), antlerless hunter
success index (i.e., estimated antlerless harvest divided by the number of antlerless licenses), and an
antlered harvest index (i.e., estimated antlered harvest for a WMU).
We modified the standard SAK model to account for Pennsylvania’s antler restrictions to
monitor deer population trends. Modifications involve estimation of 1.5-year-old and 2.5-year-old and
older male populations. Population trend monitoring relies on research data from Pennsylvania (e.g.,
Long et al. 2005), harvest estimates, and deer aging data. Population monitoring began with adult males
(males 1.5 years of age and older) and progressed to females and fawns.
The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from harvest
estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and older were
estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old
males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate
harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt population of 1.5-year-old males
in the preceding year using current year population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from
1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate
of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the pre-hunt population and
estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year population of 1.5-year-old males was determined
using a 3-year running average of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years.
Following determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of
female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002).
Based on that info ,it is obvious that the PGC is still using population estimates and DD goals to allocate antlerless allocations.
Interesting how you now present as credible, a method that you previously condemned because it now happens to fit your agenda.