Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
08-30-2006 | 03:28 PM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,298
Likes: 0
From: Cogan Station, PA
RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
ORIGINAL: lost horn
Here is the link, it is on the PGC site.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=493&q=159232
ORIGINAL: M.Hensler/PA
I'm not sure where you got those numbers for? Care to provide a link? If they're even close to accurate with the adjustments, it's clear doe harvest have increased drastically starting in the 90s, before QDM and the bonus seasons, but the largest harvests were after QDM went into effect (which is expected given the additional seasons).
RSB, could you provide me a link to your numbers you've been giving in previous posts? Plus what's the PGC's feeling about 2G's deer population? I would assume the much lower allocation is an indicator of something, considering that's a much lower allocation than most of the other WMUs.
I'm not sure where you got those numbers for? Care to provide a link? If they're even close to accurate with the adjustments, it's clear doe harvest have increased drastically starting in the 90s, before QDM and the bonus seasons, but the largest harvests were after QDM went into effect (which is expected given the additional seasons).
RSB, could you provide me a link to your numbers you've been giving in previous posts? Plus what's the PGC's feeling about 2G's deer population? I would assume the much lower allocation is an indicator of something, considering that's a much lower allocation than most of the other WMUs.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=493&q=159232
08-30-2006 | 03:35 PM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,298
Likes: 0
From: Cogan Station, PA
RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
I'm kind of confused about the numbers here...that adjustment that is indicated in red begins in 1986, and the numbers drastically increase compared to the previous years trends (1985 had ~161,000 total harvests, and then in 1986, it's up to ~300,000?) How were these adjusments made? Was there a steady decline in reported hunter success in the years preceding? The numbers don't indicate that, yet after the adjustments are made, why such a drastic increase?
08-30-2006 | 03:54 PM
#23
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
Matt I beleive that prior to 1986 the PGC only published the kill based on actual report cards recieved. They also checked deer processors against reports to obtain a reporting rate. in 1986 they began publishing a kill based on the actual cards multiplied by the appropriate percentage based on their reporting rate.
This would be an example of how the kill gets calculated since 1986 The actual numbers mean nothing. They're just picked at random to show how it was done.
Report cards recieved 100,000
deer checkedbt WCO's at butcher shops 1000
% of deer checked at butcher shops where report cards came in 50%
Total estimated kill 200,000
This would be an example of how the kill gets calculated since 1986 The actual numbers mean nothing. They're just picked at random to show how it was done.
Report cards recieved 100,000
deer checkedbt WCO's at butcher shops 1000
% of deer checked at butcher shops where report cards came in 50%
Total estimated kill 200,000
08-30-2006 | 03:56 PM
#24
Typical Buck
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: Pa.
RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
ORIGINAL: M.Hensler/PA
I'm kind of confused about the numbers here...that adjustment that is indicated in red begins in 1986, and the numbers drastically increase compared to the previous years trends (1985 had ~161,000 total harvests, and then in 1986, it's up to ~300,000?) How were these adjusments made? Was there a steady decline in reported hunter success in the years preceding? The numbers don't indicate that, yet after the adjustments are made, why such a drastic increase?
I'm kind of confused about the numbers here...that adjustment that is indicated in red begins in 1986, and the numbers drastically increase compared to the previous years trends (1985 had ~161,000 total harvests, and then in 1986, it's up to ~300,000?) How were these adjusments made? Was there a steady decline in reported hunter success in the years preceding? The numbers don't indicate that, yet after the adjustments are made, why such a drastic increase?
08-30-2006 | 08:35 PM
#27
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
ORIGINAL: Crazy Horse RVN
Have you included DMAP figures in this listing?
Have you included DMAP figures in this listing?
It seems that the DMAP deer harvests are very insignificant in the big picture of deer harvests though.
During the 2004/2005 season there were only 34,135 DMAP permits across the entire state. Of those permits 7,946 hunters reported killing a deer and 19,874 hunters reported that they did not kill a deer. There were 6,315 hunters that didn’t file a report.
At that rate there were 0.76 permits per square mile and hunters reported harvesting an additional 0.18 deer per square mile. Even if you were to assume that all of those hunters that failed to report had actually killed a deer, which I am sure didn’t happen, it would only have increased the statewide harvest by an additional 0.32 deer harvested per square mile.
Even if you were to assume that all of the deer killed had come from units 2G and 2F, due to those areas having the most DMAP permits, it would only have only increased the antlerless deer harvest in those two units by 1.22 deer per square mile.
Therefore when you look at those facts in a logical and objective manner it is obvious that even with DMAP harvests included the 2G antlerless harvests have not been excessive when compared to past harvest history.
Perhaps it is time for hunters to face that fact that the environmental factors instead of high hunter harvests are what have been controlling the preseason deer populations in the northern tier areas of poor habitat the past few years.
08-30-2006 | 08:47 PM
#28
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
ORIGINAL: deerfly
Thanks for providing an excellent example of how a few years of high antlerless allocations reduces the herd and therefore fewwer antlerless tags are required in subsequent years to reduce the herd even more.
From 2002 to 2004 14.4 antlerless tags PSM produced a harvest of 5.3 antlerless DPSM. Then ,from 2003 to 2005 9.24 antlerless tags PSM produced a harvest of only 3.01 DPSM. Now some might think the reduced antlerless harvest would allow the herd to increase,but a look at the total harvest from 2003-2005 tells a different story. From 2003-2005 the average antlered harvest was 8,004 but the average antlerless harvest was 12,279. The fact that the antlerless harvest exceeded the buck harvest by over 4000 antlerless deer per year shows that the reduced antlerless tags continued to reduce the herd even more.
Thanks for providing an excellent example of how a few years of high antlerless allocations reduces the herd and therefore fewwer antlerless tags are required in subsequent years to reduce the herd even more.
From 2002 to 2004 14.4 antlerless tags PSM produced a harvest of 5.3 antlerless DPSM. Then ,from 2003 to 2005 9.24 antlerless tags PSM produced a harvest of only 3.01 DPSM. Now some might think the reduced antlerless harvest would allow the herd to increase,but a look at the total harvest from 2003-2005 tells a different story. From 2003-2005 the average antlered harvest was 8,004 but the average antlerless harvest was 12,279. The fact that the antlerless harvest exceeded the buck harvest by over 4000 antlerless deer per year shows that the reduced antlerless tags continued to reduce the herd even more.
That really shouldn’t be any surprise if a person looks at the data with a logical and unbiased mindset.
08-30-2006 | 09:05 PM
#30
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Pa doe tags 2005 vs 2006
ORIGINAL: M.Hensler/PA
I'm not sure where you got those numbers for? Care to provide a link? If they're even close to accurate with the adjustments, it's clear doe harvest have increased drastically starting in the 90s, before QDM and the bonus seasons, but the largest harvests were after QDM went into effect (which is expected given the additional seasons).
RSB, could you provide me a link to your numbers you've been giving in previous posts? Plus what's the PGC's feeling about 2G's deer population? I would assume the much lower allocation is an indicator of something, considering that's a much lower allocation than most of the other WMUs.
I'm not sure where you got those numbers for? Care to provide a link? If they're even close to accurate with the adjustments, it's clear doe harvest have increased drastically starting in the 90s, before QDM and the bonus seasons, but the largest harvests were after QDM went into effect (which is expected given the additional seasons).
RSB, could you provide me a link to your numbers you've been giving in previous posts? Plus what's the PGC's feeling about 2G's deer population? I would assume the much lower allocation is an indicator of something, considering that's a much lower allocation than most of the other WMUs.
Yes, the lower allocation in unit 2G does have significance based on the fact that it is obvious that the deer population in the unit is lower then it has been in any recent years or perhaps anytime in our lifetime.
There are other influencing factors that are also being evaluated though, such as the habitat conditions and what influence that has on the health of the deer herd. Right now they have backed off of the harvests in the unit until some of those other factors can be more closely evaluated.
Contrary to what some people would have you thinking and believing the professional wildlife managers are trying to do what is best for the future of both the deer herd and the hunters. Sometimes though what is best for both the deer and hunter has to provide primary consideration to the year round food supply needed to support more deer or even in some cases fewer deer.
The total picture is a lot more complex then just saying if we don’t shoot so many of them there will be more deer. In reality it just doesn’t work that way, at least for more then very short term.