Pops423

I was curious too why the buck's were not tagged and studied with this as well.

DougE

This study is about doe mortality and dispearsment not bucks.In order tostabilize a growing population,you need to harvest about 30% of the does each year.I live in 2G and people are still killing does as fast as they can buy the tags.2G's antlerless allocations sell out in one day and the dmap's for Moshannon state forest sell out in 2 days.Guys aren't letting up on the doe kill.What this study shows is that hunters are not as big of a limiting factor on the deer population as one thinks.You shouldread the entire study.It shows that if a doe's core range doesn't fall within a 1/4 mile of a road,her chances of getting killed by a hunter are slim.This area has very very poor habitat.Poor habitat will limit deer numbers more than hunters.

bluebird2

here is the link BT,read it and weep.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...Q=173624#21010

Antlerless harvests and total harvests greater than recruitment definitely reduced the herd in the NC counties. That is the most basic concept of deer management and why you would try to deny it makes no sense to me.

bluebird2

I Deleted a double post.

DougE

Why isn't the herd growing at a fast rate when only 8% of the does are being killed by hunters.

bluebird2

Only 8% of the collared does were harvested and the PGC clearly stated that rate did not represent the harvest rate for does that didn't have a collar. If you believe the experts at the PGC ,a harvest rate of less than 3 DPSM is enough to match recruitment and keep the herd in 2 G stable.

DougE

But that harvest rate is still well above 8%.

bluebird2

In fact it is so far above 8% that it keeps the herd stable even with a harvest rate of less than 2 antlerless deer/SM. So what point were you trying to make/

BTBowhunter

No cause for weeping, it says just what I said it did. That hunters HAVE shown a reluctance to shoot COLLARED deer. It doesnt say that hunters showed any other reluctance to shoot does in 2G as you claimed.

Deer numbers areless where theyneeded to be less. Much of the crash in numbershas been a result of the habitat crash. The habitat is just starting torebound. Deer numbers have stabilzed. You have no credible evidence that harvest has exceeded recruitment.

Your relentless posting of misinformation, half truths, embellishments and statements out of context got you banned several times before.

Haven't you learned anything yet?

bluebird2

There was no habitat crash as you claim and Alt and the PGC never referred to a habitat crash. Furthermore ,it is totally illogical to conclude that the habitat would suddenly crash after over 70 years of over browsing. I have no idea how you could claim I have no evidence the harvests exceeded recruitment. All of the PGC data shows exactly that. What data are you looking at and do you have any data that shows harvests didn't exceed recruitment?

Maybe you should explain why buck harvests decreased by over 45% from 2001 to 2007 ,if total harvests prior to 2007 didn't exceed recruitment?