Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
10-30-2008, 01:43 PM
#431
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Rsb, speaking for most of my hunting areas in Greene, Id say the high point of the population was definately in mid to late nineties, just going by memory. Lowest point in decades is currently.
Seems Pgc data shows this trend Ive seen for the most part. I'll get to the "lesser part" at the end.
According to pgc annual reports, the PREHUNT density in 2A in 2005 was 40.
In 99/2000 season, POSTSEASON after the herd was shotup, the total was 69 dpfsm (and 74 for washington!!)
I dont think it hard to see the decline. Even by pgcs skewed veryhigh endestimates.
Now fast forward to 06/07 and pgc said the herd actually slightly increased from 2005. Did it? Oh no no my friend. Not when we had 55,000 tags and harvested 19,600 doe!! Which was more than the 45,000 tags and 16,500 harvestthat reduced it previously 7% according to pgc...In a larger herd, with a lesser buck to doe ratio!!!
....AndId imagine you are wondering whatwas the reason for increase in doeharvest to 19K if 45,000 tags reduced the herd with a harvest of 16,500? simple. Ten thousand more doe tags that year!
Also, Rosenberry says all else equal, buck harvest trendsis good herd trend indicator. Lets look at the years in question, since weve supposedly been stabilizing... 05/06 buck harvest was 8500. Fell next year to 8100. Fell again this year to 6600.
Now the doe harvest. Can see a trend with the doe harvest as well in this case, because the allocation didnt change....Until this past years all time high of 60k....which still resulted in a LOWER harvest.
2005 doe harvest--19,600 (really got smacked unwarranted significantallocation raise)
200617000 same allocations.
2007 14300
In 2007 Allocations were unjustly increased by 5kand harvest still decreased.
Looks like further decreases to me on top of the "main" reduction previously. When we were supposed to be stabilizing theyears I postedaccording to the gameless commission.
Seems Pgc data shows this trend Ive seen for the most part. I'll get to the "lesser part" at the end.
According to pgc annual reports, the PREHUNT density in 2A in 2005 was 40.
In 99/2000 season, POSTSEASON after the herd was shotup, the total was 69 dpfsm (and 74 for washington!!)
I dont think it hard to see the decline. Even by pgcs skewed veryhigh endestimates.
Now fast forward to 06/07 and pgc said the herd actually slightly increased from 2005. Did it? Oh no no my friend. Not when we had 55,000 tags and harvested 19,600 doe!! Which was more than the 45,000 tags and 16,500 harvestthat reduced it previously 7% according to pgc...In a larger herd, with a lesser buck to doe ratio!!!
....AndId imagine you are wondering whatwas the reason for increase in doeharvest to 19K if 45,000 tags reduced the herd with a harvest of 16,500? simple. Ten thousand more doe tags that year!Also, Rosenberry says all else equal, buck harvest trendsis good herd trend indicator. Lets look at the years in question, since weve supposedly been stabilizing... 05/06 buck harvest was 8500. Fell next year to 8100. Fell again this year to 6600.
Now the doe harvest. Can see a trend with the doe harvest as well in this case, because the allocation didnt change....Until this past years all time high of 60k....which still resulted in a LOWER harvest.
2005 doe harvest--19,600 (really got smacked unwarranted significantallocation raise)
200617000 same allocations.
2007 14300
In 2007 Allocations were unjustly increased by 5kand harvest still decreased.
Looks like further decreases to me on top of the "main" reduction previously. When we were supposed to be stabilizing theyears I postedaccording to the gameless commission.
10-30-2008, 02:08 PM
#432
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Another interesting snippet from the "heart of the slaughter".
In our first year of ar we had no "saved" class of buck, since we didnt have ar the year before. Still, we harvested 3956 bucks in Greene county.
The following year, we harvested a rediculous 2200.... And that was with a "saved" bunch of bucks prior!
Needless to say, you know the rest of the story. County data was no longer given from that point on, and for good reason, the average joe could no longer make comparisons due to parts of counties being divided up and lumped together. The comparison, thanks to reduction became a joke, . Assuming Greene is about 1/3 of the land mass of the wmu, that would put our harvest right there at the pitiful 2200 mark now, as well. Couple that with the fact our herd is made up of more buck per doe and that equals much smaller herd when compared to first year of ar with basically 4000 buck harvested. Not only do you have the large obvious numerical difference, which speaks for itself, and points to significant reduction, but when applying to TOTAL herd size you must factor in the better buck doe ratio as well to see the trend as even a much moresmaller herd.
In our first year of ar we had no "saved" class of buck, since we didnt have ar the year before. Still, we harvested 3956 bucks in Greene county.
The following year, we harvested a rediculous 2200.... And that was with a "saved" bunch of bucks prior!
Needless to say, you know the rest of the story. County data was no longer given from that point on, and for good reason, the average joe could no longer make comparisons due to parts of counties being divided up and lumped together. The comparison, thanks to reduction became a joke, . Assuming Greene is about 1/3 of the land mass of the wmu, that would put our harvest right there at the pitiful 2200 mark now, as well. Couple that with the fact our herd is made up of more buck per doe and that equals much smaller herd when compared to first year of ar with basically 4000 buck harvested. Not only do you have the large obvious numerical difference, which speaks for itself, and points to significant reduction, but when applying to TOTAL herd size you must factor in the better buck doe ratio as well to see the trend as even a much moresmaller herd.
10-30-2008, 03:09 PM
#433
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: fellas2
RSB,surely you don't expect us to fall into the trap you're setting with that question! No matter how we answer that one,you'll dazzle us with statistics and baffle us with the brilliant reasoning of the PGC to explain and justify what they've been doing.I ain't goin there,i'm just telling it like it is.
RSB,surely you don't expect us to fall into the trap you're setting with that question! No matter how we answer that one,you'll dazzle us with statistics and baffle us with the brilliant reasoning of the PGC to explain and justify what they've been doing.I ain't goin there,i'm just telling it like it is.
RSBused to tell me he saw 12 deer from sinnnamahoning/keating,pa. about 15 miles that there are a LOT of deer..
some of areas he saw deer are PRIIVATELAND TOO.
he felt that if he can DRIVE along the road and see 12 deer,then there must be 100S wayback in woods.
first, best food is along the roads, this is WHY you have so many road hunters,its not because they are lazy, its because the deer are near roads for food.
soooooooooooo, you should be able to gage how many deer are in area by how many are in fields and near roads.
idont needplane with IR to count deer
10-30-2008, 05:19 PM
#434
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ARs always produce a higher percentage of 2.5+ buck in the herd , but it is a meaningless figure to the hunters in the field. To them the meaningful figure is the number of 2.5+ buck available to be harvested and that number was less in 2007 than in 2002, the first year of ARs.
You certainly can’t say that is an accurate statement. In fact I can pretty much guarantee that is not an accurate statement.
You certainly can’t say that is an accurate statement. In fact I can pretty much guarantee that is not an accurate statement.
Now compare that to the harvest of 61K , 1.5 buck in 2007 and the 61K that will be carried over to become 2.5+ buck and you will see we had a lot more 2.5 plus buck in 2002 than we had in 2007 or 2008.
10-30-2008, 05:44 PM
#435
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Stanton PA USA
Posts: 2,213
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Well, let's see how good your guarantee really is. In 2002 we harvested 112,814 and if ARs saved 50% of the 1.5 buck than we carried over 112,814 buck to become 2.5+ buck. But in 2003 we only harvested 80K 2.5+ buck or 54% of the 1.5 buck that were carried over. If you apply the same harvest rate to the 2.5+ buck harvest in 2002 then there were over 96K 2.
Now compare that to the harvest of 61K , 1.5 buck in 2007 and the 61K that will be carried over to become 2.5+ buck and you will see we had a lot more 2.5 plus buck in 2002 than we had in 2007 or 2008.
ARs always produce a higher percentage of 2.5+ buck in the herd , but it is a meaningless figure to the hunters in the field. To them the meaningful figure is the number of 2.5+ buck available to be harvested and that number was less in 2007 than in 2002, the first year of ARs.
You certainly can’t say that is an accurate statement. In fact I can pretty much guarantee that is not an accurate statement.
You certainly can’t say that is an accurate statement. In fact I can pretty much guarantee that is not an accurate statement.
Now compare that to the harvest of 61K , 1.5 buck in 2007 and the 61K that will be carried over to become 2.5+ buck and you will see we had a lot more 2.5 plus buck in 2002 than we had in 2007 or 2008.
It is painfully obvious what you WANT it to mean.
10-30-2008, 05:50 PM
#436
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Data can be read to mean whatever you want it to mean.........
It is painfully obvious what you WANT it to mean.
It is painfully obvious what you WANT it to mean.
10-30-2008, 09:42 PM
#437
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 147
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Well, let's see how good your guarantee really is. In 2002 we harvested 112,814 and if ARs saved 50% of the 1.5 buck than we carried over 112,814 buck to become 2.5+ buck. But in 2003 we only harvested 80K 2.5+ buck or 54% of the 1.5 buck that were carried over. If you apply the same harvest rate to the 2.5+ buck harvest in 2002 then there were over 96K 2.
Now compare that to the harvest of 61K , 1.5 buck in 2007 and the 61K that will be carried over to become 2.5+ buck and you will see we had a lot more 2.5 plus buck in 2002 than we had in 2007 or 2008.
ARs always produce a higher percentage of 2.5+ buck in the herd , but it is a meaningless figure to the hunters in the field. To them the meaningful figure is the number of 2.5+ buck available to be harvested and that number was less in 2007 than in 2002, the first year of ARs.
You certainly can’t say that is an accurate statement. In fact I can pretty much guarantee that is not an accurate statement.
You certainly can’t say that is an accurate statement. In fact I can pretty much guarantee that is not an accurate statement.
Now compare that to the harvest of 61K , 1.5 buck in 2007 and the 61K that will be carried over to become 2.5+ buck and you will see we had a lot more 2.5 plus buck in 2002 than we had in 2007 or 2008.
That would maybe be a valid argument if the numbers of legal bucks within each age group remained static each year, but the reality is they don’t. The number of 1 ½ year old bucks that are legal for harvest each year is variable depending on a number of environmental factors for the previous year.
In 2001, when the 1 ½ year old bucks of 2002 were just button bucks we had a good mast crop followed by almost no winter snow. That allowed all of the button bucks to go through the winter in better then normal condition and grain weight through the winter. Then during the next summer, prior to the 2002 season a higher then normal percentage of the 1 ½ year old bucks grew legal antlers. Thus it is very unlikely that 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks were protected from harvest during the 2002 season.
To support that fact I will post the number of 1 ½ year old bucks harvested for the year prior to and since 2002.
Year……………….1 ½ year old buck harvest……………….2 ½ and older bucks harvested
1998.……………………146,700.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.......34,749
1999.……………………155,429.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.......38,942
2000.……………………165,960.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.......37,261
2001.……………………159,392.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.......43,855
2002.……………………112,809.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.......52,607
2003.…………………….80,276.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........61,994
2004.…………………….62,011.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........62,399
2005.…………………….62,540.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........57,961
2006.…………………….75,762.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........59,528
2007.…………………….61,152.…………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦........48,048
As anyone being objective can see from the comparison of the number of 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested in the years prior to 2002 and those harvested during the 2002 season it is simply not realistic to believe that 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks were protected from harvest in that 2002 season. That failure to protect 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks also has a reducing affect on the next years harvest of older bucks, since they aren't available as older bucks when they are harvested as 1 ½ year old bucks.
Other things that will adversely affect the number of 1 ½ year old bucks harvested during any given year is the number that were recruited into the deer herd as button bucks the previous year. If they don’t survive as fawns they are never available as 1 ½ year old bucks or as older bucks in even later years. That has been a large part of the buck harvest problem during the years since those hard winters of 2002/2003 and 2003/2004.
To further illustrate the variance in the buck antler development from one year to the next I will also post the percentage of spike bucksalong with the percentage of antler legal bucks seen each yearduring the Elk County fallwildlife survey routes since 2002.
Year……………….% of bucks spikes………………..% of bucks with antler legal racks
2002.………………….24.1 %………………………………....51.7 %
2003.………………….26.7 %………………………………....46.7 %
2004.………………….55.2 %………………………………....27.6 %
2005.………………….42.9 %………………………………....38.1 %
2006.………………….14.3 %………………………………....67.9 %
2007.………………….24.1 %………………………………....34.5 %
2008.………………….13.5 %………………………………....64.9 %
From this data an objective person should be able see the reality of just how much both the number and percentage of 1 ½ year old bucks being harvested can change from one year to another year by the percentage that would be legal from one year to another. It is also pretty easy to see just how much affect the fall mast crop and winter snow conditions can have on the following year's antler development. That antler development on the 1 ½ year old bucks not only determines how many will be legal for harvest that year but also how many will be left as 2 ½ and older bucks in th following years.
One other thing that any objective person should be able to see is just how Bluebird cherry picks data andmisrepresents it in order to make it seem like it supports his misguided agenda when in reality it doesn’t support his point if you fully evaluate and understand the real facts and the rest of the story along with the data.
R.S. Bodenhorn
10-30-2008, 10:02 PM
#438
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
i can say i observed this last year.
the bucks with nice racks, say 6 poiint were all small looking deer.
i would guess and say they were 1.5 yr old deer with big racks.
i never saw that in awhile but as you said, acorns were great for 2 years and bucks grew big horns.
i dont think i see many bucks 2.5 years old harvested in clinton county, most i feel are 1.5 years old.
the bucks with nice racks, say 6 poiint were all small looking deer.
i would guess and say they were 1.5 yr old deer with big racks.
i never saw that in awhile but as you said, acorns were great for 2 years and bucks grew big horns.
i dont think i see many bucks 2.5 years old harvested in clinton county, most i feel are 1.5 years old.
10-31-2008, 07:00 AM
#439
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 175
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Hard winters of 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 in Greene County ??? Not to my recollection.In fact,I can't remember the last hard winter we had there.
It's hard to remember the last time it snowed there and lasted for more than a couple of days.Deer manage to survive in states with 10 times worse winters than we have in PA so I don't think you can blame the winters in SW PA for that.
It's hard to remember the last time it snowed there and lasted for more than a couple of days.Deer manage to survive in states with 10 times worse winters than we have in PA so I don't think you can blame the winters in SW PA for that.
10-31-2008, 02:25 PM
#440
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
....So it goes with the game commission and their antideer stance on management.
Any time harvest is down. Its the weather, poor mast crop the year before,great mast crop this year spreading out the deer, hunters not getting far enough off the roads or something else....Pgcs solution?kill more to make up for it next year.
Harvest is up. Shows the herd is growing, kill more, gotta prevent widescale total forest loss.
Brother,the hunters of our statejust cant win.
Any time harvest is down. Its the weather, poor mast crop the year before,great mast crop this year spreading out the deer, hunters not getting far enough off the roads or something else....Pgcs solution?kill more to make up for it next year.
Harvest is up. Shows the herd is growing, kill more, gotta prevent widescale total forest loss.
Brother,the hunters of our statejust cant win.
