ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Meanwhile every since place in this state where deer harvests have been continuously reduced for that ten, fifteen and twenty year time period the deer populations have failed to increase and instead further declined over the long term. Even though the deer numbers in the under harvest areas have gone through short bursts of increase, when environmental conditions were favorable, in all cases both their habitat and their populations declined over the long term.
That is what RSB posted and I posted the data from the PGC that shows what he said was a flat out lie. The reason the population declined in 2G is obviously due to the increased doe harvests which resulted in harvests that exceeded recruitment. RSB continues to lie and you chose to defend him so what does that make you?
You repeatedly form your own conclusions from the findings of the professionals and then behave like you have "proven" the conclusions of those very professionals wrong. Hence your infamously absurd claim that Dr Kroll doesnt understand his own research.
kroll's conclusion that culling 1.5 buck was ineffective was right. His conclusion that there are no inferior buck and that there is no difference between 1,5 spikes and 1.5 Ys was wrong. His research may be appropriate for a QDMA lease but it doesn't apply to PA.
First of all the data you posted only covers the period of five years of ideal environmental conditions between 1996 and 2001. As I already pointed out short periods of increase during ideal environmental conditions is possible even with low harvests. But, also as I pointed out those increased populations don’t last once the ideal environmental conditions aren’t there for a year or two.
The other problem with you using the estimated over winter deer densities has been pointed out to you time and again as well. Those are the least reliable estimated numbers available since they are the last estimated number derived from calculating several other estimated numbers.
Therefore, every percentage that each previous estimate is off is compounded in the amount of error in those estimated over winter deer densities. That is the very reason they are no longer released to the public and only used minimally in the total deer management equations of today.
Now to further prove my point of how every unit that has reduced their antler less harvests over the past fifteen years still has declining deer populations and harvests I will post those units and their harvest history.
The pre WMU harvest history is based on the harvests of counties that made up the WMU of today and compared to the harvest of those WMUs during more recent years since 2003. Since antler restrictions occurred during this historic period only antler less deer harvests are being used in this comparison.
Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2G……………5.48.………………..4.66.… ………………..2.35.……………………. 2.21
3A……………6.52.………………..6.08.… ………………..6.07.……………………. 4.97
3C……………6.22.………………..6.11.… ………………..5.49.……………………. 3.38
4D……………5.25.………………..4.90.… ………………..4.03.……………………. 3.39
Now let’s compare the same data for the units that have had unlimited antler less harvests where hunters could get as many license as they wanted and harvest as many antler less deer as they wanted over the past twenty years.
Unit…………88-92(counties)…..98-02(counties)……….03-07(WMU)……………2008(WMU)
2B……………4.98.………………..8.39.… ………………..10.70.…………………..1 1.23
5C……………3.69.………………..5.84.… …………………7.94.…………………… 9.31
5D……………2.69.………………..5.30.… …………………5.27.…………………… 5.39
When looking at this data remember that the harvests are by square miles of land mass, including the city streets and buildings. The top units have very little developed area while the bottom three units include the cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
Now after seeing the deer harvest facts, one group of four WMU where deer harvests have been reduced with lower allocations verse another group of three units (the second ones) where they have had unlimited harvests, which area obviously has the management style that results in increasing deer numbers?
I simply can’t understand why anyone that really cares about the future of hunting and having the best possible deer numbers for the future would refuse to acknowledge how deer management has worked much better where the habitat is protected with high deer harvests then it works where deer are protected in the mistaken notion that harvesting fewer will result in more. If that could work it would surely have happened in the past twenty years, but exactly the opposite has happened and all of those units now have even fewer deer then they had twenty years ago even though the harvests have been reduced and then reduced even more.
When will hunters learn the things that the professional managers already know? If they refuse to learn will they ever at least stop fighting the facts the deer provide and just allow those professionals to do their jobs of providing the best deer management possible? Or, are the hunters going to continue listening to the people that so obviously have no idea what has really been happening with deer populations or why?
R.S. Bodenhorn