Originally Posted by
bluebird2
Here is the link to the 2009 Deer Chronicle which proves you are just making things up as you go along..
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...rchronicle.pdf
You have just proved to everyone that you have no clue how to analyze data. If regeneration increased from 24% to 34% in 2F, that is a 10% increase in regeneration , not 41% as you claimed. But the data really shows that regeneration increased from 34% in 2007 to 39% in 2008 which is a 5% increase, not 41%.
But in 2G regeneration decrease from 42% in 2007 to 38% in 2008. So why didn't the PGC increase the allocation in both 2F and 2 G in order to improve forest regeneration to the goal of 70% regeneration? Furthermore,the doe in 2F only produced 1.39 embryos/doe while in 2G it was 1.68,so why didn't the PGC increased the allocation in 2F , if reducing the herd improves productivity and herd health?
BTW, you still didn't answer the question about how the PGC determines the number of doe that need to be harvested when they claim they don't have any DD goals and don't know how many deer we have in each WMU??
I would tried to copy and paste the data from the past three years but this site will not allow that many characters so I can only put the links and a small part of the complete story.
But here are the links for the 2006 and 2007 annual reports where they show the habitat evaluation data for the previous years and then the chronicles that show the habitat data from 2008 and used for determining the 2009 antler less allocations.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2006_wildlife/21001-05.pdf
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2008_wildlife/21001-07z.pdf
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/20090616_deerchronicle.pdf
Those clearly show that the habitat is unit 2F is improving (24%, 34%, to 39%) and that unit 2G is still basically holding its own (42%, 42% to 38%) though it is true that there probably should be more deer harvested in the unit to reduce the probability of further habitat damage.
But, thanks for posting the data that clearly shows everyone that your argument doesn’t hold water and proving to anyone objective enough to accept scientific facts that the forested areas of the state still need more years of recovery before the deer populations should or perhaps even could be increased. To allow deer populations to increase while the habitat is still poor would be irresponsible and likely lead to even further habitat damage and increased natural deer population decline for the future.
Every piece of evidence available clearly shows that the big woods forested areas of this state have as many deer as their degraded and sometimes poor habitat can support for the long term future.
How you can post those reports and then ignore the facts they show proves just how delusional or misguided and agenda motivated you really are. You seem to be totally and seriously out of touch with the realities of your natural surroundings.
R.S. Bodenhorn