BTBowhunter

All right, I'll clarify. I guess I didnt say it quite right. Harvest no longer exceeds recruitment and hasnt for the past few years. Doe kill has not dropped and buck kill has stabilzed as well. ( Dont even insult the intelligence of all the membershere by trying to say that the sligghtly lower 2007 buck kill isnt related to the horrible opening week weather)

You have also dodged the issue of your attempt to distort the doe mortality study by twisting thestudy rsults to your own end.

We all know you are deaddeer, ddear, beenthere etc etc etc under a new account and we all know of your infinite capacity to takereal facts and twist anddistort themby putting forth only the part of the story that helps your case or bytaking information or statements out of context to make your point.

we're all tired of your game[:'(]

rybohunter

I thought they did a buck study a while back too. They tagged deer in 2 different areas. Armstrong co & center Or clinton???? Can't recall all the details?

BTBowhunter

There was a buck study as well. as you said, it was conducted in Armstrong and Centre counties. I don't recall the exact mortality rates but they were higher than the doe studies.

I beleive that dispersal in yearling bucks was more the primary focus of the studiy but mortality was also studied.

I did a quick search but cant find the final results. The PGC search engines arent the greatest. Maybe someone here has a link.

BTW Rybo, NICE BASS!

bluebird2

Actually the exact opposite is true. Those who tried to say the harvest rate of 8% for collared doe represented the true harvest rate for all doe ,were the ones who were distorting and twisting the results of the study. The facts remain as I stated them from the beginning. The harvest rate of less than 2 antlerless DPSM is sufficient to keep the herd stable,so the harvest rate for all doe had to be much higher than 8% in 2G.

You may attribute the decrease in the buck harvest entirely to the weather the first day, but the hunters made up for the lower doe harvest during the rest of the season. So , why didn't they also shoot more bucks while they were hunting doe. The trend of the buck harvest has been decreasing since 2002,so isn't it logical the buck harvest would continue to decrease until the herd has remained stable for two or 3 years?

Here is a link to a PGN article on the buck survival study.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=482&q=162900

White-tail-deer

Actually if you want to use PGC data as gospel then the herd in increasing in 2G, 2004deer densitydecreased .89, 2005 it only decreased .99 and 2006 it increased 1.42 so by those numbers the herd hasstabilized and is now growing in 2G. Table 8 in the report link below

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2007_wildlife/21001-06Z.pdf

bluebird2

Do you really believe the herd in 2G increased by 42% from 2005 to 2006?

If so, can you explain how that was possible? Did the 2007 2G buck harvest increase by anywhere close to 40%?

rybohunter

Thanks BT. As much as I love chasing whitetails, I love chasing my smallmouths too!

White-tail-deer

I just thought I'd take a few numbers from a report and throw them out there. Sound familiar.....

bluebird2

Not really, most people post data to make a point? Were you trying to point out how ridiculous it was for the PGC to claim the herd increased by 42% in just one year?

White-tail-deer

I thought my point was pretty clear.