"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. "

I understand that and have no problems when used in that manner RSB. But when we were speaking of the declining trend, that line of thinking wouldnt apply. We were trying to see if our reproductive data were improving or declining since our deer plan has been in place.I would also imagine it very important to compare the data from regeneration to exactly what is happening with the reproductive rates. To do so, it would be impossible to use 5 year groupings because the data has only been collected in this manner since 2001. As I said, no problems when comparing appropriate groupings imho, but depends upon exactly what we are trying to see with that particular data.

"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."

Sure it does matter. Even you yourself were quick to point out the trend of decline up until this latest evaluation. Now that the numbers are reversed and that trend is dead opposite, and not what you thought, now all of a sudden "it doesnt matter"?I feel it is every bit as important to my argument as you thought it might have been to yours.

"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."

And that is complete bull*** in my opinion. Not on your part, but on who ever came up with the idea!Of coursethere is gonna be more browsing in areas with more deer!!! What would they expect?? Aslongas there is adequate regeneration occurring anyway....so what?? And there most certainly was enough regeneration occurring according to both the previous years reports.

"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. "

IMHO, that is based on nothing. This change was not made to "continue supporting any level of deer into the future". When we accomplished our hr previously (which is STILL continuing according to the annual reports despite claims of stabilization) We more than addressed any habitat and or herd health issues. There were none to begin with yet acccording to the annual reports, and now after all the reduction experienced, there is absolutely no reason to believe that has changed now with so many fewer deer and regeneration that was on an improving trend! This tells me that this is all about ridiculous levels of biodiversity and nothing at all to do with deer and habitat.

"Unit 2A came out the second worst for habitat and deer impact in the entire state and only behind unit 2F. "

Yes, thanks to this change and only this change, and thats why i have a problem with it. Its not realistic. imho. Nor even close. There was no reason in the world for the change to be made other than to manufacture a reason to possibly kiill more deer, because up till then, absolutely none existed.

"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. "

I dont buy it for a moment, You are telling me this is how it is, because this change had to be made and it shows decline. A decline that did not exist prior to it!!! Thats bull-squat. The regeneration was improving and the herd declining.The new "agenda" is bull. And I base that not on emotion or lack of knowledge, buton the facts Ive spoken of over and over.

"Surely if the current deer numbers are having a significant impact on the regeneration, that is in existence now, "

And again....Its not. The regeneration here is as good as its been in a long time. The regeneration study shows its the best in recent years, and this "change" does nothing to dispell that. They simply changed the rulesto meet an agenda imho. There is no other explanation. To drop the rating by 15%which had ZERO to do with FURTHER degradation or further deer damage as compared to the last evaluation is utterly rediculous, and imho should not be accepted. There has been enough catering to environmentalist interests with all the reduction we've already achieved and enough it more than enough.

", t is only a matter of time until that habitat becomes degraded to the point it can’t support as many deer."

Nope. Sorry. You're not tellin' me that the very besthabitat type in this state, with best climate and soils etc can only hold half the deer as similar areas in other states. No way.

"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. "

Actually as I stated , it declinedafter our reduction and was much higher on earlier reports! Also, again, it was rated as ON TARGET. Not below target. And, again, the trend is decline just as the rest of the states trend was decline. What has effected one, has most likely effected the other as well.

"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."

Very few. Most northern states lose deer in winter. Andwhat you speak of was verylocalized in nature, and very low in number. That meansany habitat difficiency related to it wouldvery localized where the incidence occurred as well (if that were even the case there and not involving other factors ).We dont manage our herd accordingto what happens on 2 farms in the entirewmus. That is, it seems, unless in some way it happens to equate to fewer deer?

"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,"

I agree there was a decline and Ive complained about it since before it even occurred!...Jesus HChrist man, Ive said itallalong sincethe year before the decline!!! It was not hard to see coming! We were using 55,000 doe tags for yearsin a wmu that had already been reduced by using only 45,000 according to the 04 annual report!!! The herd had little else to do but to decline!! Throw in at least a few thousand deaddue to ehd, +60,000 tags to wash it down that year, and its pretty clear... The deer arent declining themselves> (LOL) They have a helluva lotta help! Cut the tags in a responsible manner, and Id bet my "eye teeth" that the embryo counts go up on average due to improved doe age structure, and the herd size will go up anyway, even without because no matter how high reproduction rate is, with our current herd size, 55k+allocation WILL overcome our recruitment. 45k did when the herd was much higher, and the reproduction rates were higher as well at the time according to annual report.



"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."

For pgc to do so would be 100% unwarranted and actually the opposite of what should occur.The harvest was thourough last year, and still barely matched the buck harvest of the previous one.That tells me, the previous year, due to ehd and whatever esle, the herd was low going into this pastpreseason. That also tells me, with a higher ANTLERLESS harvestlast year, the herd is now even smaller. The only thing in need of reversed is pgcs anti-deer policy and that is becoming VERY clear. Im sorry, but we hunters DO NOT want very few deer as a trade-off for unnaturally high amounts of trillium and hobblebush! Im not being a smart-, either, I mean that sincerely.


"But, what if I am not wrong and you end up with a crashed deer population in the future?"

I seeno risk. Thats why we went through as much of this plan as we have already prior to this point. The assumption of risk at this point to me is about like not only putting on a seatbelt to go to the store in your vehicle, but also being forced to wear a helmet, mouthpiece and padded suit. (LOL)


"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."

Yeah, I dont doubt we have some good wcos around here, I seem to hear quite abit and read it in your involvement in many cases through the years up there. Dont hear nearly as much down here, though poaching is definately rampant.





[align=right]
(in reply to Cornelius08) [/align]