Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
10-06-2008, 08:04 AM
#171
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Once again it appears that you are intentionally trying to mislead hunters to believe that the PGC has no way to estimate fawn recruitment. I know you qualified your claim by saying the PGC doesn't have an accurate way of measuring recruitment, but they do have a way of estimating recruitment ,just like they estimate , population densities and harvests. The PGC uses the SAK computer model ,modified for the effects of ARs, to estimate recruitment.
If the PGC couldn't estimate recruitment ,they couldn't tell if the herd was increasing or decreasing and they would have no idea how many antlerless tags to issue each year. WMU 2g is a prime example of how it works. After the 2006 the PGC said the herd in 2G increased by 42% so the PGC increased the antlerless allocation from 19,000 in 2006 to 26,000 in 2007.
Here is a quote from the 2005-2006 AWR which explains how they use the SAK model to calculate fawn recruitment rates.
Dead fawns don’t result in increasing deer numbers no matter how you wish they did. Herd health is not based on fawn recruitment. It probably should be, but there presently is no way of accurately measuring the recruitment from year to year, so they have to use what is available. Fawn recruitment is the important factor and herd health is not based on recruitment and only looks at the number of embryos. That is why you can have data that indicates excellent herd health and still have almost no surviving fawns for the ye
If the PGC couldn't estimate recruitment ,they couldn't tell if the herd was increasing or decreasing and they would have no idea how many antlerless tags to issue each year. WMU 2g is a prime example of how it works. After the 2006 the PGC said the herd in 2G increased by 42% so the PGC increased the antlerless allocation from 19,000 in 2006 to 26,000 in 2007.
Here is a quote from the 2005-2006 AWR which explains how they use the SAK model to calculate fawn recruitment rates.
The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and
older from harvest estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of
males 2.5 years of age and older were estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old
male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old males varied among
WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate
harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt
population of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year using current year
population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from 1.5 to 2.5 years of
age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest
rate of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the
pre-hunt population and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year
population of 1.5-year-old males was determined using a 3-year running average of
harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years. Following
determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older,
calculation of female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures
similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002
older from harvest estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of
males 2.5 years of age and older were estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old
male population. Because protection levels of 1.5-year-old males varied among
WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in time to generate
harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt
population of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year using current year
population estimate of 2.5-year-old males, survival rate from 1.5 to 2.5 years of
age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year. Harvest
rate of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was then calculated using the
pre-hunt population and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males. Current year
population of 1.5-year-old males was determined using a 3-year running average of
harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years. Following
determination of the 1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older,
calculation of female, fawn, and the total populations followed procedures
similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002
Why thank you for providing the methods that support the fact that there presently is no good way of determining fawn recruitment in this state.
Anyone that takes the time to read the quote form the link you provided should be able to see that the first look at fawn recruitment doesn’t occur until the bucks that are harvested as 1 ½ years old. That is 1 ½ years after they were born. Then the second look is at the 2 ½ year old bucks so that is 2 ½ years after they were born. Then to make it all even less significant or reliable is that the recruitment estimate for those two years gets added to the previous year (which was 3 ½ years from when they were born) and the average of those three years are used as an estimate of what happened during the current year.
Anyone with even half a functioning brain cell should be able to figure out from these methods that NO we don’t have a good handle on fawn recruitment.
To have a good handle on fawn recruitment we would need to do ongoing annual fawn mortality studies while also monitoring the food and winter index for each year so the fawn recruitment per doe could be measured based on the numerous variables. But, the agency doesn’t have the funding to conduct those studies because the Legislature doesn’t keep the Game Commission adequately funded. Of course having you and your cohorts wasting what little money there is on stupid law suits doesn’t help the wildlife management cause much either.
If we had the money being wasted to defend your goofy misguided law suits maybe we could do the research that would be needed to provide a better handle on the annual fawn recruitment, instead of having to work with estimates based on three year averages that don’t even start until a year and a half after the fawns were born.
R.S.Bodenhorn
10-06-2008, 09:35 AM
#172
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
You are beginning to sound more like a died in the wool USP supporter every day. Whether you realize it or not ,you just told everyone that the PGC basically has no idea how many fawns are recruited each year,which means they would have no idea how many antlerless tags are needed to reduce the herd or keep it stable. Isn't that exactly what the USP is claiming?
I, on the other hand, believe the PGC has enough data that has been accumulated over many years, to make estimates of recruitment rate that are sufficient enough to allow them to manage the herd and allocate antlerless each year. But , the problem is they are still managing the herd based only on the carrying capacity of forested habitat,which means they are managing the herd at considerably less than the true MSY carrying capacity of all of the habitat.
Isn't it ironic that I have to defend the PGC from misinformation from one of it's own employees.
I, on the other hand, believe the PGC has enough data that has been accumulated over many years, to make estimates of recruitment rate that are sufficient enough to allow them to manage the herd and allocate antlerless each year. But , the problem is they are still managing the herd based only on the carrying capacity of forested habitat,which means they are managing the herd at considerably less than the true MSY carrying capacity of all of the habitat.
Isn't it ironic that I have to defend the PGC from misinformation from one of it's own employees.
10-06-2008, 10:01 AM
#173
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"You claim that 2A is not a metropolitan unit but I say horse puckey. From my perspective as compared to unit 2G it is a very metropolitan unit"
He he he. No my friend. Its not "metropolitan" by any stretch. Just because you compare it to the "wilderness" of the big woods to suit your needs STILL does not make it "metropolitan" and that isTHEE DUMBEST self serving comment Ive ever heard you make and thats saying a bunch!!!
"And, buy the way I am pretty familiar with unit 2A. I have worked in Washington and Greene Counties and I have hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties."
Ive lived, worked and hunted here for 40 years. Youlive halfway across the state and made rediculous claims! (LOL) BTW, ALLEGHENY COUNTY which IS a "metro" area is in 2B NOT 2A. ALsothe only fragment of Washington county is the most rural area of the county.South of theslightly urban area. Greene, the entire county is in 2A and the biggest "city" LOL is Waynesburg Pa.....Better check out the population of that major "metropolis" LOL!!! Half of Fayette, which isnt exactly full of "city slickers"! (LOL)(LOL).....and as stated, Pgc has said HUMAN CONFLICT: LOW![8D][8D][8D]
Get a grip RSB. You are reaching far and wide now! PGC doesnt consider it an urban area, and has stated such. In fact, NOONE does or should. But you like to think far FAR outside the box! (LOL)[8D]
"I have been in all of the counties that make up unit 2A and have seen how metropolitian it is as compared to unit 2G."
You can comparethe huge majority of the wmus to 2G and theywill have higher populus than one of the very leastpopulated in the state! (LOL) Big deal!!Whatdoes that prove other than you wanna decieveanyone and everyone into thinking anywhere but "the big woods" is urban, and thatthere is somereason for the madness when there clearly isnt!
BTW, the habitat in 2A can, and should support more deer than any of the big woods areas.
The harvests are also reducing the herd in 2a. Have been, and continue to.
"Now go ahead and explain to everyone how it is that the deer herd can’t increase in 2G because we have been harvesting too many does."
Quite simple. Much smaller herd, takes muchsmaller harvest to reduce it.
"Then go ahead and tell us again how they have reduced the deer population by 50% in 2a yet the hunters are still harvesting so many more deer. "
The tag level has increased by over 15,000 since 45,000 tags reduced it previously, which is why it didnt initially decline. The harvest has NOT continued to increase either, but has decreased. PGC's own data shows that the herd decreased from 69 dpfsm-owin greene county, and 74 in Wash, down to21-30 ow, or an average of 25owdpfsm in wmu2A. Dont shoot the messenger.
"The facts simply don’t bear out your opinions. But like a lot of others I guess you think opinions should carry more weight then facts? "
he hehe. Like yours? And 2A being "metropolitan"? LOLOLOL! Or our herd not having been reduced when even Pgc says so? When EVERYONE even those satisfied with the plan admit to seeing 3 to 5 times less deer? When even the people for less deer on the cac said they believe the herd to be "decreasing"?
RSB, I think Ive lost just about the last shred of respect Ive had for your "opinions". No way you can be taken seriously after your last compilation of unsubstantiated completeramblings.
UNBELIEVABLE! (LOL)
"You claim that 2A is not a metropolitan unit but I say horse puckey. From my perspective as compared to unit 2G it is a very metropolitan unit"
He he he. No my friend. Its not "metropolitan" by any stretch. Just because you compare it to the "wilderness" of the big woods to suit your needs STILL does not make it "metropolitan" and that isTHEE DUMBEST self serving comment Ive ever heard you make and thats saying a bunch!!!
"And, buy the way I am pretty familiar with unit 2A. I have worked in Washington and Greene Counties and I have hunted in Allegheny and Washington Counties."
Ive lived, worked and hunted here for 40 years. Youlive halfway across the state and made rediculous claims! (LOL) BTW, ALLEGHENY COUNTY which IS a "metro" area is in 2B NOT 2A. ALsothe only fragment of Washington county is the most rural area of the county.South of theslightly urban area. Greene, the entire county is in 2A and the biggest "city" LOL is Waynesburg Pa.....Better check out the population of that major "metropolis" LOL!!! Half of Fayette, which isnt exactly full of "city slickers"! (LOL)(LOL).....and as stated, Pgc has said HUMAN CONFLICT: LOW![8D][8D][8D]
Get a grip RSB. You are reaching far and wide now! PGC doesnt consider it an urban area, and has stated such. In fact, NOONE does or should. But you like to think far FAR outside the box! (LOL)[8D]
"I have been in all of the counties that make up unit 2A and have seen how metropolitian it is as compared to unit 2G."
You can comparethe huge majority of the wmus to 2G and theywill have higher populus than one of the very leastpopulated in the state! (LOL) Big deal!!Whatdoes that prove other than you wanna decieveanyone and everyone into thinking anywhere but "the big woods" is urban, and thatthere is somereason for the madness when there clearly isnt!
BTW, the habitat in 2A can, and should support more deer than any of the big woods areas.
The harvests are also reducing the herd in 2a. Have been, and continue to.
"Now go ahead and explain to everyone how it is that the deer herd can’t increase in 2G because we have been harvesting too many does."
Quite simple. Much smaller herd, takes muchsmaller harvest to reduce it.
"Then go ahead and tell us again how they have reduced the deer population by 50% in 2a yet the hunters are still harvesting so many more deer. "
The tag level has increased by over 15,000 since 45,000 tags reduced it previously, which is why it didnt initially decline. The harvest has NOT continued to increase either, but has decreased. PGC's own data shows that the herd decreased from 69 dpfsm-owin greene county, and 74 in Wash, down to21-30 ow, or an average of 25owdpfsm in wmu2A. Dont shoot the messenger.
"The facts simply don’t bear out your opinions. But like a lot of others I guess you think opinions should carry more weight then facts? "
he hehe. Like yours? And 2A being "metropolitan"? LOLOLOL! Or our herd not having been reduced when even Pgc says so? When EVERYONE even those satisfied with the plan admit to seeing 3 to 5 times less deer? When even the people for less deer on the cac said they believe the herd to be "decreasing"?
RSB, I think Ive lost just about the last shred of respect Ive had for your "opinions". No way you can be taken seriously after your last compilation of unsubstantiated completeramblings.
UNBELIEVABLE! (LOL)
Maybe you live in unit 2A but you obviously have a biased opinion about the unit that can't be suported with facts.
Here are the facts about unit 2A along with the other units.
Unit 2A is made up of the following percentage of each of the listed counties. I will also post the human population per square mile for each of those counties. I am going to post them in descending order to make it easier for everyone to follow.
County……………% of unit 2A………………..average # of people/square mile in that county
Washington………….38%…………………… …………...........688.1
Greene……………….32%…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............70.6
Fayette……………….17%………………… ……………...........188.2
Beaver…………………7%………………… ……………..........417.0
Westmoreland…………4%…………………… …………..........361.7
Allegheny……………..2 %……………………………….........1755 .7
No matter how you want to look at it the unit has a lot of people per square mile. Though Greene Country is the least populated area of the unit it is still mostly a significantly populated and highly developed area of the state.
To further help put it all in perspective I am also going to post each unit in their ranking as far as developed area along with the percent of the unit that is farm land and then public land. The units are arranged in descending order based on the most highly developed to the least. Then go over and look at the percent of the unit that is farm land since that too is really developed land and used for an intended purpose of growing crops instead of large deer populations. Then finally look at the amount of public land which is what actually expresses the amount of area that should support good deer numbers, without conflict, if the habitat were suitable.
Unit………………% developed…………………………% farm land……………….% public land
5D…………………..43.2 %……………………………….18.3 %………………………0.0 %
2B…………………..20.1 %……………………………….20.0 %………………………0.2 %
5C……………………9.9 %……………………………….43.9 %………………………0.5 %
5B……………………6.7 %……………………………….63.1 %………………………1.4 %
1A……………………4.3 %……………………………….41.2 %………………………2.8 %
5A……………………3.8 %……………………………….62.4 %………………………11.4 %
3B……………………3.3 %……………………………….19.8 %………………………20.9 %
1B……………………3.1 %……………………………….34.5 %……………………….3.6 %
4C……………………2.8 %……………………………….22.8 %………………………13.0 %
2A……………………2.7 %……………………………….35.2 %………………………..1.7 %
3D……………………2.4 %………………………………..9.2 %………………………..15.5 %
2C……………………2.3 %………………………………..21.7 %……………………….9.3 %
4E……………………2.2 %………………………………..43.0 %……………………….3.6 %
4D……………………2.0 %……………………………….26.0 %……………………….28.1 %
2D……………………1.9 %……………………………….27.2 %………………………. 2.1 %
2E……………………1.7 %……………………………….19.3 %………………………..4.8 %
3C……………………1.3 %……………………………….26.7 %………………………..3.0 %
4B……………………1.2 %……………………………….33.4 %………………………..15.1 %
4A……………………0.9 %……………………………….29.3 %………………………..14.1 %
2F……………………0.8 %………………………………...7.0 %…………………………55.6 %
2G……………………0.6 %………………………………..7.6 %…………………………49.2 %
3A……………………0.4 %……………………………….23.5 %………………………….9.6 %
Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land.
Based on those facts is should be obvious that unit 2A presently has the habitat, do to the farm land, private gardens, shrubs, etc. to support more deer and much higher deer harvests then the real undeveloped areas of the state. But, based on the fact that there is so little public land the deer management plan for the area has to be tailored to fit not only the habitat of the unit but also the tolerance and desires of the landowners.
That is why the deer harvests were increased in the areas that make up unit 2A back almost two decades ago. Those increased deer harvest in that unit is what has allowed that habitat to stay healthy enough to support the present deer numbers. Reduce that deer harvest and you will see your habitat declining from deer damage. If that happens you will also see your deer numbers decline even as you harvest fewer deer. In fact your deer harvests will have to decline because you will have fewer deer for hunters to find and harvest. That is exactly what happened in much of the northern tier and it can happen to your area as well if you start over protecting your deer instead of their habitat.
You have also claim that the deer herd in unit 2A has been reduced by 50% but there is absolutely nothing to support that opinion as I will point out with the twenty year harvest history for Greene County as compared to past fewer years of deer harvests for unit 2A. All of the years from 2003 on are the harvests for unit 2A while the prior years are harvests for Greene County.
Years………………Buck harvest/sq. mile……………….Antlerless harvest/sq.mile
83-87.………………….4.71.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.........6.23
88-92.………………….5.66.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.........8.35
93-97.………………….6.39.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.19
98-02.………………….7.19.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.86
2003.…………………..4.32.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..........9.13
2004.…………………..4.31.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.22
2005.…………………..4.69.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........10.82
2006.…………………..4.47.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..........9.39
2007.…………………..3.64.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..........7.90
From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period. Last year’s harvest was slightly lower but based on the weather on the opening day combined with the fact your area had a significant amount of EHD mortality prior to last season people certainly should have expected a lower harvest last season. But, those factors were environmental induced deer and harvest reductions and had nothing to do with any over harvest of the deer populations.
Simply your opinions have virtually no supporting facts or evidence.
R.S. Bodenhorn
10-06-2008, 10:13 AM
#174
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Actually, the data you provided shows the buck harvest dropped from the 5 yr. average of 7.91 to 3.64 in 2007 ,which is a decrease of 49%,which confirms what Cornelius and others have been saying all along. Thanks again for providing the data that shows you are wrong.
10-06-2008, 10:16 AM
#175
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
....This just in....From the great "metropolis" of 2a! (LOL)(LOL)
According to 2000 census.
Greene County Pa ----- 40,672
Elk County Pa----------- 35,112
Now Rsb, THIS is a metropolitan area, (and not in 2A!)--
Allegheny Co.-----------1,281,666
The only other "pieces" of 2a are just that. Pieces of other counties, andWash for example is the rural part, and not to be confused with the more populated areasto the north.Id hardly call Fayette a "metropolis" either.It falls in the lower middle of the pack of wmus, andonly half of it is in the wmu 2A.
Greene, only has 13 -14 counties with lower human populations and many of those are only by 1 to 2 thousand. Not bad considering we have 67 counties!
Ha ha ha. Think I'll go over to my cousins place over on the other side of 2a towatch a fieldthis evening. Hope I dont get hit by one of those spoiled,rich yuppies riding around on their tractors, or get mugged by one of those rough gangs that just might pull a length of bailer twine on me!....or perhaps hassle me to buy an "eight ball" of ginseng root!(LOL)(LOL)
Here ya go! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greene_County,_Pennsylvania
....This just in....From the great "metropolis" of 2a! (LOL)(LOL)
According to 2000 census.
Greene County Pa ----- 40,672
Elk County Pa----------- 35,112
Now Rsb, THIS is a metropolitan area, (and not in 2A!)--
Allegheny Co.-----------1,281,666
The only other "pieces" of 2a are just that. Pieces of other counties, andWash for example is the rural part, and not to be confused with the more populated areasto the north.Id hardly call Fayette a "metropolis" either.It falls in the lower middle of the pack of wmus, andonly half of it is in the wmu 2A.
Greene, only has 13 -14 counties with lower human populations and many of those are only by 1 to 2 thousand. Not bad considering we have 67 counties!
Ha ha ha. Think I'll go over to my cousins place over on the other side of 2a towatch a fieldthis evening. Hope I dont get hit by one of those spoiled,rich yuppies riding around on their tractors, or get mugged by one of those rough gangs that just might pull a length of bailer twine on me!....or perhaps hassle me to buy an "eight ball" of ginseng root!(LOL)(LOL)
Here ya go!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greene_County,_Pennsylvania
You also have to consider the size of the counties.
When you crowd more people into a smaller area it still comes out to a more developed and metropolitan area.
As an example I will show the counties along with there population, country size in square miles and then people per square mile of land mass.
County……………..population…………..siz e of county……………….people/sq.mile
Greene……………..40,672.……………….. 576.…………………………70.61
Elk…………………35,112.………………. .829.…………………………42.35
Allegheny………1,281,666.………………..73 0.………………………1755.71
The fact is that Greene County, even though the least populated county in unit 2A, it still has far more people then Elk County, other areas of unit 2G, 2F, 3A or most of the other northern tier units with the exception of the area around Erie.
R.S. Bodenhorn
10-06-2008, 11:44 AM
#176
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Rsb, you'vecOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL)
I know completely well 2A has more people than Elk, as does most counties...and that the density is higher. I also know Elk is an extremely low populus county... I also know Greene is considered a low populus county...Not to the extent of Elk of course. Point was, you said it was, and its not a metro area. IT would needFAR more building up and with the current population, would need to be about 1/10 its current size to qualify density wise. No similarities in the least. Also not treated as such by pgc from deer management standpoint, and certainly not an sra, yet you included it with a couple of the most populated wmus in the state to make a point, that didnt exist..
These things shouldnt even be arguable by any rational person, Im not arguing who has the least people in the state....Im saying 2A is not a metropolitan area, and VERY VERY VERY VERY far from it! (LOL)
I know completely well 2A has more people than Elk, as does most counties...and that the density is higher. I also know Elk is an extremely low populus county... I also know Greene is considered a low populus county...Not to the extent of Elk of course. Point was, you said it was, and its not a metro area. IT would needFAR more building up and with the current population, would need to be about 1/10 its current size to qualify density wise. No similarities in the least. Also not treated as such by pgc from deer management standpoint, and certainly not an sra, yet you included it with a couple of the most populated wmus in the state to make a point, that didnt exist..
These things shouldnt even be arguable by any rational person, Im not arguing who has the least people in the state....Im saying 2A is not a metropolitan area, and VERY VERY VERY VERY far from it! (LOL)
10-06-2008, 12:14 PM
#177
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Rsb, you'vecOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL)
Bluebird2,Deaddeer, deerfly, ddear, beenthere, you'vecOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL)
10-06-2008, 12:23 PM
#178
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
"Maybe you live in unit 2A but you obviously have a biased opinion about the unit that can't be suported with facts. "
My opinions and the facts support one another. Yours do not.
"Here are the facts about unit 2A along with the other units.
Unit 2A is made up of the following percentage of each of the listed counties. I will also post the human population per square mile for each of those counties. I am going to post them in descending order to make it easier for everyone to follow.
County……………% of unit 2A………………..average # of people/square mile in that county
Washington………….38%…………………… …………...........688.1
Greene……………….32%…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............70.6
Fayette……………….17%………………… ……………...........188.2
Beaver…………………7%………………… ……………..........417.0
Westmoreland…………4%…………………… …………..........361.7
Allegheny……………..2 %……………………………….........1755 .7 "
WAY WAY WAY WAY off my friend. I shouldnt have to tell such an "expert"[:'(]data analyzer (LOL) how far off that cute lil' depiction is, but I guess I do.
You are taking percentages from the average. We arent talking the "average". You are averaging in the highest populations of the state!! Washington for example...Same could be said for the others as well.. The highest population centers of the countyBY FAR are in unit 2B. The most rural section is in 2A. The difference in density is FAR FARlower than the averages you depict by averaging it out also adding the HIGHEST, which are incredibly EXTREME and skyrocket the average when averaged in!! Why average them inwhen only the LOWER density areasare actually in the wmu??? 1. Because that is the only data you had, and dont know that you were not properly applying it. or 2. You knew it but hoped everyone else was too stupid to realize it.
Im guessing number 1.
"Then finally look at the amount of public land which is what actually expresses the amount of area that should support good deer numbers, without conflict, if the habitat were suitable. "
That is absolutely rediculous. Human conflict is rated by Pgc, not on public land only but on a wmu-wide basis.
2A is rated as LOW and always has been. Please consult the annual reports.
"Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land. "
Actually its not, nor is it even close. YOU USED INCORRECT FORMULAS to come to that absolutely REDICULOUS conclusion, and are simply trying to save face for looking so extremely silly, and hope not may viewing actually know anything about the wmu in question. Your attempts to decieve are completely out of line and anyone who knows the wmu, or even doesnt but can analyze the pertinent dataand still repects your opinion after reading what You've posted is an idiot. I dont mean to be rude, but thats the only way it can be said.
"Based on those facts is should be obvious that unit 2A presently has the habitat, do to the farm land, private gardens, shrubs, etc. to support more deer and much higher deer harvests then the real undeveloped areas of the state. But, based on the fact that there is so little public land the deer management plan for the area has to be tailored to fit not only the habitat of the unit but also the tolerance and desires of the landowners."
Human conflict rated aslow shows that not to be the case. I live here, andhave friends family members who are land owners and know many others MANY others, and most arent "antideer" and dont support the slaughter any more than I because most of them hunt too. There are FAR FAR more who want more deer,and some who want stabilizationnot less and less....VERY few want that, but it doesnt matter one bit. Pgc doesnt want to know what people want or dont want. They do what THEY want, and their friends/family members interests. I know what people in 2A want. I live here and talk to many people every single day, and think I have just a tad bit better idea than you my friend. I also know of a very few who wanted less deer. They have red-tag, and few deer... There are other tools available that pgc has given them as well. If they refuse to use them, I have no sorrow for them.[:'(] At any rate, its no excuse to lower the herd when the habitat is fine, the herd is healthy and the human conflict low... No excuses rsb. None exist. Thats but one reason why this program is an unbased sham and a failure here, and across most of the state, according to Pgcs own data.
"You have also claim that the deer herd in unit 2A has been reduced by 50% but there is absolutely nothing to support that opinion as I will point out with the twenty year harvest history for Greene County as compared to past fewer years of deer harvests for unit 2A. All of the years from 2003 on are the harvests for unit 2A while the prior years are harvests for Greene County."
Theherd density was reduced from 69dpfsm to 25 (21-30)according to PGCS annual reports. I suggest you read them and not try to circumvent thefacts by posting data that has nothing to do with anything. Even so, of the data you posted, the buck harvest during the 98-2002 period tells the tale. ALso, the rediculous harvests in the middle of your lil' chart (nice grouping of certain years too btw) are the reason the herd continues to decline and the harvests of 06 and 07 show that clearly. The kill didnt fall immediately because the allocation was raised 2 or 3 times to prevent that from occurring. OUr goal has supposedly been "stabilization". Your chart clearly shows that isnt the case, but a bunch of bs.
"From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period."
Its not my opinion its fact.If the goal were stabilization only as pgc said it was for the last 3 years, then there was definately overharvest. Not even debatable. Nor is itdebatable that our habitat, herd health, and level of human conflict (even according to pgc) can sustain much higher deer densities than current level of 25 owdpfsm when we had 69 in Greenewith no problems at all. Im not asking for 69 owdpsm mind you, Im just showing how rediculous it is foryou toexpect anyone to believe we should support 25owdpsmand continuing efforts at reduction FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL.
My opinions and the facts support one another. Yours do not.
"Here are the facts about unit 2A along with the other units.
Unit 2A is made up of the following percentage of each of the listed counties. I will also post the human population per square mile for each of those counties. I am going to post them in descending order to make it easier for everyone to follow.
County……………% of unit 2A………………..average # of people/square mile in that county
Washington………….38%…………………… …………...........688.1
Greene……………….32%…………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............70.6
Fayette……………….17%………………… ……………...........188.2
Beaver…………………7%………………… ……………..........417.0
Westmoreland…………4%…………………… …………..........361.7
Allegheny……………..2 %……………………………….........1755 .7 "
WAY WAY WAY WAY off my friend. I shouldnt have to tell such an "expert"[:'(]data analyzer (LOL) how far off that cute lil' depiction is, but I guess I do.
You are taking percentages from the average. We arent talking the "average". You are averaging in the highest populations of the state!! Washington for example...Same could be said for the others as well.. The highest population centers of the countyBY FAR are in unit 2B. The most rural section is in 2A. The difference in density is FAR FARlower than the averages you depict by averaging it out also adding the HIGHEST, which are incredibly EXTREME and skyrocket the average when averaged in!! Why average them inwhen only the LOWER density areasare actually in the wmu??? 1. Because that is the only data you had, and dont know that you were not properly applying it. or 2. You knew it but hoped everyone else was too stupid to realize it.
Im guessing number 1.
"Then finally look at the amount of public land which is what actually expresses the amount of area that should support good deer numbers, without conflict, if the habitat were suitable. "
That is absolutely rediculous. Human conflict is rated by Pgc, not on public land only but on a wmu-wide basis.
2A is rated as LOW and always has been. Please consult the annual reports.
"Now you should be able to see that unit 2A is the 10th highest developed unit in the state as far as buildings and highways. It is also the 6th highest developed in farm land of the state while being one of the lowest public land units in the state at the 5th lowest amount of public land. "
Actually its not, nor is it even close. YOU USED INCORRECT FORMULAS to come to that absolutely REDICULOUS conclusion, and are simply trying to save face for looking so extremely silly, and hope not may viewing actually know anything about the wmu in question. Your attempts to decieve are completely out of line and anyone who knows the wmu, or even doesnt but can analyze the pertinent dataand still repects your opinion after reading what You've posted is an idiot. I dont mean to be rude, but thats the only way it can be said.
"Based on those facts is should be obvious that unit 2A presently has the habitat, do to the farm land, private gardens, shrubs, etc. to support more deer and much higher deer harvests then the real undeveloped areas of the state. But, based on the fact that there is so little public land the deer management plan for the area has to be tailored to fit not only the habitat of the unit but also the tolerance and desires of the landowners."
Human conflict rated aslow shows that not to be the case. I live here, andhave friends family members who are land owners and know many others MANY others, and most arent "antideer" and dont support the slaughter any more than I because most of them hunt too. There are FAR FAR more who want more deer,and some who want stabilizationnot less and less....VERY few want that, but it doesnt matter one bit. Pgc doesnt want to know what people want or dont want. They do what THEY want, and their friends/family members interests. I know what people in 2A want. I live here and talk to many people every single day, and think I have just a tad bit better idea than you my friend.
I also know of a very few who wanted less deer. They have red-tag, and few deer... There are other tools available that pgc has given them as well. If they refuse to use them, I have no sorrow for them.[:'(] At any rate, its no excuse to lower the herd when the habitat is fine, the herd is healthy and the human conflict low... No excuses rsb. None exist. Thats but one reason why this program is an unbased sham and a failure here, and across most of the state, according to Pgcs own data."You have also claim that the deer herd in unit 2A has been reduced by 50% but there is absolutely nothing to support that opinion as I will point out with the twenty year harvest history for Greene County as compared to past fewer years of deer harvests for unit 2A. All of the years from 2003 on are the harvests for unit 2A while the prior years are harvests for Greene County."
Theherd density was reduced from 69dpfsm to 25 (21-30)according to PGCS annual reports. I suggest you read them and not try to circumvent thefacts by posting data that has nothing to do with anything. Even so, of the data you posted, the buck harvest during the 98-2002 period tells the tale. ALso, the rediculous harvests in the middle of your lil' chart (nice grouping of certain years too btw
) are the reason the herd continues to decline and the harvests of 06 and 07 show that clearly. The kill didnt fall immediately because the allocation was raised 2 or 3 times to prevent that from occurring. OUr goal has supposedly been "stabilization". Your chart clearly shows that isnt the case, but a bunch of bs."From those harvest history facts I sure don’t see anything to support your opinion of the deer harvests in your area being over harvested during any time period."
Its not my opinion its fact.If the goal were stabilization only as pgc said it was for the last 3 years, then there was definately overharvest. Not even debatable. Nor is itdebatable that our habitat, herd health, and level of human conflict (even according to pgc) can sustain much higher deer densities than current level of 25 owdpfsm when we had 69 in Greenewith no problems at all. Im not asking for 69 owdpsm mind you, Im just showing how rediculous it is foryou toexpect anyone to believe we should support 25owdpsmand continuing efforts at reduction FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL.
10-06-2008, 12:43 PM
#179
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
The only thing I'd change about that statement is who it's addressed to LOL....
Bluebird2,Deaddeer, deerfly, ddear, beenthere, you've cOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL)
Rsb, you've cOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL)
Bluebird2,Deaddeer, deerfly, ddear, beenthere, you've cOme full circle, post tons of text, and basically say most of which I dont disagree with and you know it. You dont care if youre right as long as you arent shown to be wrong! (LOL)
10-06-2008, 12:44 PM
#180
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
I'll type this a bit bigger as you seem to keep missing it maybe this will help:
According to the pgc2004/05 annual wildlifereport the change in 2A population index was an estimated-7%.
Now, given that fact, WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY was the grounds for RAISING the allocations to levels from 10,000 to 15,000 HIGHER in the following years, starting the VERY NEXT year, and harvest goals of 18,000 which was HIGHER than the 16,500 that reduced the herd in the last year??? And the goal was supposed to be stabilization...
No explanation necessary, as there cannot be one. Its a sham and that proves it. These things can be pointed out left and right when analyzing the claims and data. Couple this rediculous deception with the fact that all predictions have proven false and pgcs own data shows it beyond doubt.....that pgc needstossed on their duffs andrestructure withsome non-ecoextremists.
C'mon RSB, you can do it...say it with me now....Its a MISERABLY FAILED PROGRAM! (LOL)
According to the pgc2004/05 annual wildlifereport the change in 2A population index was an estimated-7%.
Now, given that fact, WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY was the grounds for RAISING the allocations to levels from 10,000 to 15,000 HIGHER in the following years, starting the VERY NEXT year, and harvest goals of 18,000 which was HIGHER than the 16,500 that reduced the herd in the last year??? And the goal was supposed to be stabilization...
No explanation necessary, as there cannot be one. Its a sham and that proves it. These things can be pointed out left and right when analyzing the claims and data. Couple this rediculous deception with the fact that all predictions have proven false and pgcs own data shows it beyond doubt.....that pgc needstossed on their duffs andrestructure withsome non-ecoextremists.
C'mon RSB, you can do it...say it with me now....Its a MISERABLY FAILED PROGRAM! (LOL)