I dont agree with grouping 5 year together when all it does is hide the trend of decline for doe percentage. It might be ok to do when comparing other data for other purposes, but the decline only began 4 years ago, and its a clear trend. A trend hidden by very high year before the decline of 93% which interestingly had also been that high for a few years prior to the decline despite being the highest herd levels.
Putting data into three to five year averages is done for a couple of reasons.
One reason data is frequently grouped into three or more years is to increase the sample size so there is enough data to meet the minimum coefficient or variance required to have confidence in the data. That is the reason they use three years of data in the published reproductive results. Everyone wishes there were more data but there isn’t and short of going out and simply killing doe to get it we might never have enough data to move away from using multiple years when making management decisions.
The other reason for combining years is to remove biased variables that could influence making poor management decisions based on a single year of influence from something that was far from normal. One year doesn’t show trends, single years frequently just show variables. So, for that reason it really does result in better long term management and fewer management mistakes when you use three to five year trends before making anything more then minor annual management adjustments.
There can also be some problems though with just using averages. One of those problems can be that unless you also monitor the annual data it would prolong the detection of a problem in a the management direction and objectives. That is why the Game Commission uses both annual and three to five year trend data when evaluating and making management decisions. It truly is the best way to manage for the best possible future and the professionals really are keeping a watchful eye on all of the indicators in every unit. Unfortunately sometimes they have to wait to long to make adjustments to make sure they aren’t just addressing a variable instead of a trend. That is why wildlife management is always, and always will be, a problem of catching up with what has happened in the past instead of being able to manage for what is happening right now or is going to happen in the future.
As for 2A, you have some mistakes which may make you come to the conclusion you did. I know there was alot of nonsense to sort through and alot to address, so its understandable I guess. But the trend for the regeneration was not one of decline.
Accoring to the 05 report which had it data collected from 2001 to 2004, (2As highest herd size while regen studies have been conducted) showed us at 58% regeneration.
The 2006 report had us at 61% regeneration (data from 2001-2005) You had the two years mixed up. I have the reports right here in front of me in print.
I don’t know for sure but it is possible that I had the data for the years reversed. Instead of going back and looking it up I’ll just take your word for it having been reversed. It really doesn’t matter one way or the other though. What matters is what the habitat shows now because that is what determines the unit’s ability to support more or fewer deer for the future.
And now, that we are even lower herd density according to the herd density chart on the report, Im supposed to believe we all at once have nose dived 15% in one year into poor?? When we were just the year before WELL up into fair at 61% and nosedived to 46??
I think you missed the part about the changes in how the regen. is assessed. Its explained somewhat, and states on the report that the data cannot be compared to previous regeneration on previous reports due to changes in method. I find that more than a little hard to swallow.
Part of the reason the habitat evaluation, in unit 2A, declined as much as it did was the changes in the way the habitat was evaluated but those same procedures were used in every plot last year and most other units still came out without any major change from the past.
What was added was that the plots also had the amount deer browsing affects measured within the plots instead of just how much regeneration there was. I think that is important information that should be evaluated and included since it is certainly relevant to the ability of that habitat to continue supporting that level of deer number in the future.
Unit 2A came out the second worst for habitat and deer impact in the entire state and only behind unit 2F. That is not a good thing for your future unless that declining trend can be reversed. To reverse that trend it most likely means higher deer harvests and keeping fewer over winter deer. It isn’t an easy pill to swallow but believe me when I tell you the alternative is even worse.
Surely if the current deer numbers are having a significant impact on the regeneration, that is in existence now, it is only a matter of time until that habitat becomes degraded to the point it can’t support as many deer. That is not a picture the professionals deer managers want to see in more areas of the state then we already have. I think if hunters fully understood how low deer numbers can go, once that level of habitat damage occurs, they too would agree they don’t want to go that route and would instead opt for slightly fewer deer now, and forever, then the much low deer numbers that follow serious habitat damage.
Also as to the 1.37 fawn per doe in 2A, it is listed as "on target" not below target level. So shouldnt be a factor at all. But is noteworthy that the wmu is following the overall state trend of lower embryo count the more the herd has been reduced. It went from 1.45 in the 06-07 report down to 1.37 in the 07-08.
The adult doe reproductive rate for 2A is one of the lowest in the state. That is not a good thing for your future and a near certain sign that the area is suffering from more deer then the habitat can adequately support for the long term.
What this tells me, and what I believe it is telling the professional deer managers, is that the deer herd in unit 2A either already is or at the very least might be close to the point it starts to reduce its own numbers with declining juvenile breeding rates, reduced adult doe reproductive rates and or reduced fawn recruitment rates, Anyone or a combination of them can and will reduce the total deer population for an area.
The problem then is that once the habitat is damaged to the point the deer start reducing their own numbers even though the number of deer is pretty consistently declining (with up and own variances depending on the other environmental conditions such as mast crops or winter conditions) it takes fewer and fewer deer to keep that degraded habitat in the poor and degraded condition. Once that happens there is no quick or easy way to bring deer numbers back up again. You don’t want that to happen I assure you, it isn’t a good scene for the deer or the hunter.
The fact that there were also at least a few incidence of winter mortality in Greene County this year are yet another indicator of more deer then the habitat can support.
Next combine that with the fact that the buck harvest in the unit declined for the second year in a row, even with favorable hunting conditions, and no EHD deer reduction affects this summer, you have even more indicators of a deer herd that is working on reducing its own numbers and perhaps even about to take a more serious population crash. All in all not a good thought though one both the professional managers and the hunters need to be thinking about. In fact, in my opinion one they need to be doing more then just thinking about but closely monitoring.
The reduced deer numbers in the unit might be a result of the EHD effects in the summer of 2007 and I suspect that is why increased harvest opinions weren’t suggested by the professional deer managers last year. But, now with a second year of reduced harvests, lower deer numbers and increasing deer damage to their own food supply I think it would be logical to increase the harvest for 2A this fall and see if that downward trend can be reversed before it becomes to late to reverse it.
I know that isn’t what you want to hear. I know you want to think I am wrong. But, what if I am not wrong and you end up with a crashed deer population in the future? Is that a risk hunters want to take? In know most hunters have no opportunity to have someone point those possibilities out for them and just assume that harvesting fewer does will mean more deer, but that isn’t true there is much more that has to be taken into consideration if you really want the best possible deer numbers for the future. That is where you have an advantage over the average hunter, you do have the information but only you can decide if you are willing to consider all of those possibilities, both positive and negative.
BTW, congrats on the case, great job! We could use you around here.
Thank you, I am always pleased when I can ruin the day for a poacher and perhaps make a brighter future for the honest hunters.
You have some good WCOs in your area too, get to know them, work with them at both bring outlaws to justice and in learning more about the management issues and I am sure you will agree about both their quality and enforcement capabilities. That case I successfully prosecuted yesterday started with a guy making a call with a few tid-bits of information. Those few tid-bits of information can sometimes be the tremendous piece that makes all of the difference in stopping a major poacher.
R.S. Bodenhorn