Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
09-29-2008, 06:31 PM
#141
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Your entire argument is misleading and lacking in understanding of the realities of how hunter harvests, natural population control and future deer population are all tied to together. You seem to have a failure in understanding the predator prey relationship as well.
I know you will not accept the facts because they have been explained to you many times before but I also know that some of the other readers will get it and realize just how far out in left field you and your following are.
First of all I will fully agree that when populations decline it is because the mortality, whether it be from hunting, predation, or other natural causes, exceeds the fawn recruitment the deer population for that year will decline. Likewise any time the fawn recruitment is higher then the total of all mortality the deer population will increase.
The factors that affect fawn recruitment are of course the number of bred does in the population, the reproductive rate of those does and then the survival rate of the fawns after they are born. The habitat conditions affect all of those factors while hunting only affects one of them. Hunting only directly affects for any given year the total doe population left after the season, while nature affects all of the remaining fawn recruitment factors.
Therefore, hunter harvests is but one small part of the total deer population equation. To help put that in perspective I think it is kind of important to take a look at the antler less deer harvests between some of the management units on an equal level. To put the management units into an equal level of comparison we need to look at each one in antler less deer harvest per square mile.
I am going to post the annual antler less deer harvests since 2003 (the first year of the current wildlife management units) in harvests per square mile of land mass for the unit with the lowest harvest, the second lowest harvest, the statewide average and the unit with the highest harvest.
After I do that I will point out the significance of what that data means as it relates to the carrying capacity of the habitat and how it affects the fawn recruitment in the various units based on that habitat.
Year……lowest harvest……second lowest harvest…….average statewide harvest………highest harvest
2003.………4.95(2G)……………5.18(5D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦7.12.……………………….. 9.40(2D)
2004.………2.58(2G)……………4.49(3D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦6.29.……………………….1 1.74(2B)
2005.………1.51(2G)……………3.06(4D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦5.16.……………………….1 0.82(2A)
2006.………1.12(2G)……………3.32(2F)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.99.………………………. 12.11(2B)
2007.………1.60(2G)……………2.83(4B)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.72.………………………. 11.23(2B)
5 yr. aver….2.35(2G)……………4.03(4D)………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.66.……………………….10.70( 2B)
The reason this data has significance in dealing with the management and population question is by going back to what Bluebird said was actually correct when he pointed out that when we harvest more then we recruit the population declines. So the question has to be how do the units that are harvesting as many as ten times the annual antler less deer numbers per square mile (city streets and all included) as unit 2G have recruitment high enough to sustain those high harvests. Even the five year average from highest to lowest harvests indicates a 4.55:1 difference in the sustainable harvests. Why can’t the population in 2G stay stable with such comparatively low antler less harvests since it is relative to fawn recruitment? That answer should be very obvious for anyone that is willing to look at all of the factors with an objective view. Obviously the fawn recruitment is the limiting factor and that is what is really is what is controlling the deer numbers. Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.
Recruitment is influenced primarily by the environment conditions being combined with the existing habitat conditions. Research ahs shown that where does have poor food through both the winter and spring they will lose up to 92.9% of their fawns from nutritional factors even before any predation. The fawns die within days of being born because their mothers hadn’t received enough food to nourish them to the correct weight before the were born or to produce enough milk to sustain them after they were born. That is a very common problem in parts of the both unit 2G and 2F and probably some other northern units as well. The health of a deer can be monitored by checking the amount of fat in the bone marrow. I have checked the bone marrow in adult does in both unit 2G and 2F that was pink in November. That is a clear indication that those deer were not even able to find enough quality food to be healthy through the summer and fall. In November the deer should be at the peek condition of the year, yet the deer in some areas were stressed from malnutrition all year.
Then you have to put normal predation in on top of the nutritional looses. The fawn mortality study showed that in the poor habitat areas where there is little good ground cover about 50% of all fawns marked that did die of other causes became a victim of predation. In areas where there was good ground cover, that is habitat, fawn predation was not a limiting factor. What is also interesting is that this study was done entirely during a time period when we were experiencing good mast crops combined with virtually no winter deep winter snows. It would have been interesting to track fawn mortality through adverse winter years to see how that affected survival rates for both juvenile deer and new born fawns.
The bottom line though comes back to the fact that in the areas where they hammer their deer populations they can sustain much high deer harvests annually then we can were we have always harvested very few antler less deer. Remember they are sustaining five year average harvests that are 4.55 times as high per square mile in the unit that is made up largely of city streets, shopping malls and housing developments as we are in a unit that is 90% with almost no roads let alone streets and malls.
Anyone that doesn’t recognize that disparity as being an environmental issue, instead of a hunter harvest issue, simply isn’t being rational or reasonable.
R.S. Bodenhorn
09-29-2008, 07:07 PM
#142
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
After I do that I will point out the significance of what that data means as it relates to the carrying capacity of the habitat and how it affects the fawn recruitment in the various units based on that habitat.
Year……lowest harvest……second lowest harvest…….average statewide harvest………highest harvest
2003.………4.95(2G)……………5.18(5D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦7.12.……………………….. 9.40(2D)
2004.………2.58(2G)……………4.49(3D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦6.29.……………………….1 1.74(2B)
2005.………1.51(2G)……………3.06(4D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦5.16.……………………….1 0.82(2A)
2006.………1.12(2G)……………3.32(2F)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.99.………………………. 12.11(2B)
2007.………1.60(2G)……………2.83(4B)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.72.………………………. 11.23(2B)
5 yr. aver….2.35(2G)……………4.03(4D)………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.66.……………………….10.70( 2B)
The reason this data has significance in dealing with the management and population question is by going back to what Bluebird said was actually correct when he pointed out that when we harvest more then we recruit the population declines. So the question has to be how do the units that are harvesting as many as ten times the annual antler less deer numbers per square mile (city streets and all included) as unit 2G have recruitment high enough to sustain those high harvests. Even the five year average from highest to lowest harvests indicates a 4.55:1 difference in the sustainable harvests. Why can’t the population in 2G stay stable with such comparatively low antler less harvests since it is relative to fawn recruitment? That answer should be very obvious for anyone that is willing to look at all of the factors with an objective view. Obviously the fawn recruitment is the limiting factor and that is what is really is what is controlling the deer numbers. Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.
Year……lowest harvest……second lowest harvest…….average statewide harvest………highest harvest
2003.………4.95(2G)……………5.18(5D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦7.12.……………………….. 9.40(2D)
2004.………2.58(2G)……………4.49(3D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦6.29.……………………….1 1.74(2B)
2005.………1.51(2G)……………3.06(4D)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦5.16.……………………….1 0.82(2A)
2006.………1.12(2G)……………3.32(2F)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.99.………………………. 12.11(2B)
2007.………1.60(2G)……………2.83(4B)…†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.4.72.………………………. 11.23(2B)
5 yr. aver….2.35(2G)……………4.03(4D)………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.66.……………………….10.70( 2B)
The reason this data has significance in dealing with the management and population question is by going back to what Bluebird said was actually correct when he pointed out that when we harvest more then we recruit the population declines. So the question has to be how do the units that are harvesting as many as ten times the annual antler less deer numbers per square mile (city streets and all included) as unit 2G have recruitment high enough to sustain those high harvests. Even the five year average from highest to lowest harvests indicates a 4.55:1 difference in the sustainable harvests. Why can’t the population in 2G stay stable with such comparatively low antler less harvests since it is relative to fawn recruitment? That answer should be very obvious for anyone that is willing to look at all of the factors with an objective view. Obviously the fawn recruitment is the limiting factor and that is what is really is what is controlling the deer numbers. Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.
09-29-2008, 07:53 PM
#143
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
RSB, If you know the population is below what should be normal,Why in the he!! are not the PGC not trying to increase the deer numbers to normal? You just said the PGC doesn't want to help the deer herds.
Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.
Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.
09-29-2008, 08:00 PM
#144
Fork Horn
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location:
Posts: 282
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
The PGC has stated that the harvest rates of the does being tracked was not representative of the over all kill ratio. Furthermore before you try to belittle a fellow hunter you should do the math to see if you claim had any relationship to reality. If the 2007 harvest of 11,700 deer represented 15% of the deer that died in 2007, then we have the following equation.
.15X=11,700 where X represents the total number of deer that died in 2G in 2007. Now dividing .15 into 11,700 ,according to your theory 78,000 or 19 DPSM, deer died in 2G in 2007. Now that is a truly amazing number when you consider the PGC claimed there were 49,368 PS deer in 2G in 2005. In any case you are claiming 6.6 times more deer died from natural causes than were harvested. Even the USP wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim.
The PGC has stated that the harvest rates of the does being tracked was not representative of the over all kill ratio. Furthermore before you try to belittle a fellow hunter you should do the math to see if you claim had any relationship to reality. If the 2007 harvest of 11,700 deer represented 15% of the deer that died in 2007, then we have the following equation.
.15X=11,700 where X represents the total number of deer that died in 2G in 2007. Now dividing .15 into 11,700 ,according to your theory 78,000 or 19 DPSM, deer died in 2G in 2007. Now that is a truly amazing number when you consider the PGC claimed there were 49,368 PS deer in 2G in 2005. In any case you are claiming 6.6 times more deer died from natural causes than were harvested. Even the USP wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim.
09-29-2008, 10:27 PM
#145
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
If I am correct, the PGC is basing their conclusion that hunters are only killing 15% of available deer, based on tagging studies in a fairly remote area with limited access.I don't recall that the remainder of the tagged deer all died that year from some other form of mortality, only that 15% of the tagged deer were harvested. I would be curious to see similar studies from more accessible areas. Also, if this figure held true for the entire state, harvest would befar belowrecruitment, and the herd would be exploding all around us.
09-29-2008, 11:25 PM
#146
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
of all years i hunted,longtime, i bet i have only found couple dead fawns.
now, when we did not have COYOTES,we had fawns.
with this explosion of coyotes in last 10 years, hunters killing older doe,HR,early oct gun ,in my opinion are reasons of lack of fawns.
gary alt sat at our table and said,BY HAVING THE EARLY DOE SEASON IN OCT,WE WILL REDUCE THE NUMBEROF FAWNS .
its not FOOD that is causing it in wmu2g even tho i agree with you, food could be better.
SPROUL HAS SPOKEN
now, when we did not have COYOTES,we had fawns.
with this explosion of coyotes in last 10 years, hunters killing older doe,HR,early oct gun ,in my opinion are reasons of lack of fawns.
gary alt sat at our table and said,BY HAVING THE EARLY DOE SEASON IN OCT,WE WILL REDUCE THE NUMBEROF FAWNS .
its not FOOD that is causing it in wmu2g even tho i agree with you, food could be better.
SPROUL HAS SPOKEN
09-29-2008, 11:35 PM
#147
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: sammy_tat
RSB, If you know the population is below what should be normal,Why in the he!! are not the PGC not trying to increase the deer numbers to normal? You just said the PGC doesn't want to help the deer herds.
Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.
RSB, If you know the population is below what should be normal,Why in the he!! are not the PGC not trying to increase the deer numbers to normal? You just said the PGC doesn't want to help the deer herds.
Obviously even if we were to stop harvesting any does in units like 2G the deer populations couldn’t increase to normal levels unless you believe each of those does harvested was going to not only produce four fawns each but then keep them alive.
sammy, you can go to alvin bush dam and watch ,if you are there,coyotes running these fawns down in daylight.
i happen to be expert at this because i fish there 3 times a week.
been doing that for longtime,over 40 years, so i know what is happening.
when doe is going to have fawn, she gives off a odor.
the coyotes and bear smell this.
after fawn is born and not walking to well,the coyotes in pairs go after them.
studys that penn state showed bears also, i agree on that too.
but the biggest killer is the COYOTE.
what will prove my point is this,not only seeing it but i noticed that around homes in same are i saw doe with 2 fawns.
WHY,because the coyotes dont like being close to home to kill.
i got 2 fawns in my yard tonight,they lay here along riverbank and are SAFE.
i went out in woods this week and saw NO FAWNS..
does not take much to see what is happening........
09-30-2008, 10:09 AM
#148
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 7,208
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
OK, I'm all for whacking some yotes & stuff, but I have a buddy that lives in Ohio & his area is POLLUTED with coyotes. Yet he still has fawns in his areas and the deer aren't extinct. I don't feel you can 100% blame no deer on a single factor.
09-30-2008, 11:31 AM
#149
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"I know you will not accept the facts because they have been explained to you many times before but I also know that some of the other readers will get it and realize just how far out in left field you and your following are."
Sorry RSB. But those who see the sham for the sham it is are the "mainstream" and thehuge majority.The Far lefties are those who want the forest floor covered in a sea of trillium, and 6 bird nests in everybush.
"Therefore, hunter harvests is but one small part of the total deer population equation."
Ha ha ha. Not hardly. I agree there certainly are several factors and some significant, but there is nothing at all "SMALL" about the nearly million tags, and over a million doe tags we had in the recent past.
"The bottom line though comes back to the fact that in the areas where they hammer their deer populations they can sustain much high deer harvests annually then we can were we have always harvested very few antler less deer."
Not hardly. You speak of "sustained" harvests, but these harvest have not been sustained for long, and most show show declining trends, aside from someof the sras where the offlimits lands act as nucleus breeding grounds.
"Remember they are sustaining five year average harvests that are 4.55 times as high per square mile in the unit that is made up largely of city streets, shopping malls and housing developments as we are in a unit that is 90% with almost no roads let alone streets and malls. "
Five year averages in this instance are EXTREMELY out of line for this comparison as you are lumping together years of varying reduction. Most areas the herd is lower now than it was 5 years ago. Current years show where we are and where we are headed. To include 5 years prior and much higher herd level in with the mix is nothing more than poor attempt at camoflaging failure. You are also only comparing the absolute worst small portion of the state, with that of the highest deer densities and very worst access in the sras...
Neitherare indicative of the majority of the state which also felt the wrath of the pgc induced antlerless allocation carpet bombing.
Sorry RSB. But those who see the sham for the sham it is are the "mainstream" and thehuge majority.The Far lefties are those who want the forest floor covered in a sea of trillium, and 6 bird nests in everybush.
"Therefore, hunter harvests is but one small part of the total deer population equation."
Ha ha ha. Not hardly. I agree there certainly are several factors and some significant, but there is nothing at all "SMALL" about the nearly million tags, and over a million doe tags we had in the recent past.
"The bottom line though comes back to the fact that in the areas where they hammer their deer populations they can sustain much high deer harvests annually then we can were we have always harvested very few antler less deer."
Not hardly. You speak of "sustained" harvests, but these harvest have not been sustained for long, and most show show declining trends, aside from someof the sras where the offlimits lands act as nucleus breeding grounds.
"Remember they are sustaining five year average harvests that are 4.55 times as high per square mile in the unit that is made up largely of city streets, shopping malls and housing developments as we are in a unit that is 90% with almost no roads let alone streets and malls. "
Five year averages in this instance are EXTREMELY out of line for this comparison as you are lumping together years of varying reduction. Most areas the herd is lower now than it was 5 years ago. Current years show where we are and where we are headed. To include 5 years prior and much higher herd level in with the mix is nothing more than poor attempt at camoflaging failure. You are also only comparing the absolute worst small portion of the state, with that of the highest deer densities and very worst access in the sras...
Neitherare indicative of the majority of the state which also felt the wrath of the pgc induced antlerless allocation carpet bombing.
09-30-2008, 04:33 PM
#150
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Year……lowest harvest……second lowest harvest…….average statewide harvest………highest harvest PSDD
2003.………4.95(2G)……………...5.18(5D)†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦7.12.……………………†¦..9.40(2D)
2004.………2.58(2G) 16PSDPSM4.49(3D)…………………6.29.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.11.74(2B) 30PS DPSM
2005.………1.51(2G)14PSDPSM3.06(4D)………… ………5.16.……………………….10.82(2A ) 40PS DPSM
2006.………1.12(2G)…………….....3.32(2F) ………………….4.99.…………………†¦â€¦.12.11(2B)
2007.………1.60(2G)…………….....2.83(4B) ………………….4.72.…………………†¦â€¦.11.23(2B)
5 yr. aver….2.35(2G)……………...4.03(4D)……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.66.……………………….10. 70(2B)
2003.………4.95(2G)……………...5.18(5D)†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦7.12.……………………†¦..9.40(2D)
2004.………2.58(2G) 16PSDPSM4.49(3D)…………………6.29.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.11.74(2B) 30PS DPSM
2005.………1.51(2G)14PSDPSM3.06(4D)………… ………5.16.……………………….10.82(2A ) 40PS DPSM
2006.………1.12(2G)…………….....3.32(2F) ………………….4.99.…………………†¦â€¦.12.11(2B)
2007.………1.60(2G)…………….....2.83(4B) ………………….4.72.…………………†¦â€¦.11.23(2B)
5 yr. aver….2.35(2G)……………...4.03(4D)……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.5.66.……………………….10. 70(2B)
The low fawn recruitment numbers in 2G are due to having the lowest OWDD of of any WMU while the high fawn recruitment in 2D is due to having more than twice the number of OWD as 2G.