|
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
Are you claiming Bret Wallingford of the PGC is lying about the B/D ratio? He is the one that provided the data that shows the B/D ratio in 2001 was 1:2.1 There is also a PGN article from 1984 that shows that no county had a B/D ratio worse than 1:2.8 and many counties were at or below 1:2.0
|
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Are you claiming Bret Wallingford of the PGC is lying about the B/D ratio? He is the one that provided the data that shows the B/D ratio in 2001 was 1:2.1 There is also a PGN article from 1984 that shows that no county had a B/D ratio worse than 1:2.8 and many counties were at or below 1:2.0 Even considering that button bucks generally get counted as doe by hunters, how many PA hunters would agree with you based on deer sightings prior to 2001? Assuming for a moment that the 1984 article says what you say it does (probably numbers taken out of context again) just how relevant and reliable is data from 1984 likely to be? You yourself question every current number to come out of the PGC (when it fits your agenda) Your wishing for the good old days has caused you to quote data that was 20+ years old before to make your point. All it does is make you appear desperate. |
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
Here is the data B. Wallingford provided for our 2001 deer herd.
Why did the population “estimate” of 1.5 million in March 2001 (press release # ??) change to 1.37 million in March 2002? The March 2001 “estimate” of the deer population was not a population estimate at all. It was a PROJECTION of what we expected have in October 2001. It used the previous 5 years of survival and reproductive data to estimate what these parameters will be the NEXT year. Since it projects into the future, and bases survival and reproduction on past years, there is little chance that this year’s actual survival and reproduction estimates (because they are measured using data) will hit exactly on the 5-year average. The 5-year average is used to reduce variation, and give us the best estimate of what the parameters will be in the following year. Survival of deer between January and October is an important parameter to measure for projecting deer populations. This parameter accounts for the difference that occurred between the 2001 projection and the 2001 estimate. In January 2001, using the ESTIMATED preseason population (which used harvest data) and subtracting the harvest left the following deer to overwinter: Adult bucks: 55,482 Male fawns: 282,571 (total males = 338,053) Adult females: 412,803 Female fawns: 259,700 (total females = 672,503) (Note: all of the overwintering deer listed above will be adults in the October 2001 preseason estimate.) The October 2001 preseason ESTIMATE (calculated in February 2002 using the 2001 harvest data) gave the following for adult males and females: Adult bucks: 244,220 Adult females: 532,551 Assuming for a moment that the 1984 article says what you say it does (probably numbers taken out of context again) just how relevant and reliable is data from 1984 likely to be? You yourself question every current number to come out of the PGC (when it fits your agenda) Your wishing for the good old days has caused you to quote data that was 20+ years old before to make your point. All it does is make you appear desperate. The data is quite relevant because it shows we haven't had a problem with the B/D ratio for over 25 years. Furthermore, since we have had an antlerless harvest every year since 1984 , it is impossible to have a B/d ratio of 1:4. Even considering that button bucks generally get counted as doe by hunters, how many PA hunters would agree with you based on deer sightings prior to 2001? |
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Here is the data B. Wallingford provided for our 2001 deer herd. Why did the population “estimate” of 1.5 million in March 2001 (press release # ??) change to 1.37 million in March 2002? The March 2001 “estimate” of the deer population was not a population estimate at all. It was a PROJECTION of what we expected have in October 2001. It used the previous 5 years of survival and reproductive data to estimate what these parameters will be the NEXT year. Since it projects into the future, and bases survival and reproduction on past years, there is little chance that this year’s actual survival and reproduction estimates (because they are measured using data) will hit exactly on the 5-year average. The 5-year average is used to reduce variation, and give us the best estimate of what the parameters will be in the following year. Survival of deer between January and October is an important parameter to measure for projecting deer populations. This parameter accounts for the difference that occurred between the 2001 projection and the 2001 estimate. In January 2001, using the ESTIMATED preseason population (which used harvest data) and subtracting the harvest left the following deer to overwinter: Adult bucks: 55,482 Male fawns: 282,571 (total males = 338,053) Adult females: 412,803 Female fawns: 259,700 (total females = 672,503) (Note: all of the overwintering deer listed above will be adults in the October 2001 preseason estimate.) The October 2001 preseason ESTIMATE (calculated in February 2002 using the 2001 harvest data) gave the following for adult males and females: Adult bucks: 244,220 Adult females: 532,551 Assuming for a moment that the 1984 article says what you say it does (probably numbers taken out of context again) just how relevant and reliable is data from 1984 likely to be? You yourself question every current number to come out of the PGC (when it fits your agenda) Your wishing for the good old days has caused you to quote data that was 20+ years old before to make your point. All it does is make you appear desperate. The data is quite relevant because it shows we haven't had a problem with the B/D ratio for over 25 years. Furthermore, since we have had an antlerless harvest every year since 1984 , it is impossible to have a B/d ratio of 1:4. Even considering that button bucks generally get counted as doe by hunters, how many PA hunters would agree with you based on deer sightings prior to 2001? |
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
Actually bluebird is correct about the adult b/d ratio and I read the letter from Breet Wallingford.I believe it was sent to Mark Hogan.In any event,if you kill doe and we've beenkilling more antlerless than antlered deer for a couple of decades,it's impossible to have a b/d ratio any worse than 1/3.That isn't to say that the b/d ratio has gotten better and made the rut much more exciting.
|
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
This is purely unscientific but I'm required to keep a log for the suburban hunting program that I participate in and my adult doe/adult buck sightings are actually 55/45 in favor of bucks so far this year within the program area. My trail cameras which are placed both inside and outside of that area are running about 45/55 in favor of the does. By my personal experience, we are just about right at the present.
Again, I acknowledge that this is one hunters experience and may not be an indicator of the bigger picture. |
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
According to the numbers you just presented, we were harvesting 80% of our adult bucks and yet only around 22% of our adult doe in 2001. And you expect us to believe the B/D harvest was not out of whack? I have no idea where you got the 20% adult doe harvest . In 2002 we harvested 37% of our adult doe and every year more doe than buck are lost to non-hunting mortality. The only way one can get a B/D ratio of 1:4 is if there is no antlerless harvest and you have very low productivity. |
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 According to the numbers you just presented, we were harvesting 80% of our adult bucks andyet onlyaround 22% of our adult doe in 2001. And you expect us to believe the B/D harvest was not out of whack? I have no idea where you got the 20% adult doe harvest . In 2002 we harvested 37% of our adult doe and every year more doe than buck are lost to non-hunting mortality. The only way one can get a B/D ratio of 1:4 is if there is no antlerless harvest and you have very low productivity. As for your questioning my 22 % number, I got it from your post: Adult females: 412,803 Female fawns: 259,700 (total females = 672,503) (Note: all of the overwintering deer listed above will be adults in the October 2001 preseason estimate.) The October 2001 preseason ESTIMATE (calculated in February 2002 using the 2001 harvest data) gave the following for adult males and females: Adult bucks: 244,220 Adult females: 532,551 532,551 pre season adult females 412,803/ 532,551=77.51% of adult females post season means that 22.49 were harvested The math is simple enough. Maybe the doe mortality figures regarding hunteing mortality are not so far out there after all. Now lets see you spin it |
RE: Witch Doctors Should Hunters Believe
There is no need to spin anything because the numbers are what they are. You were right that the numbers show a 22.5% decrease in the PS herd but what you missed is that the PGC claimed the OW doe herd dropped from 672,503 to 532 551 PS, which is a decrease of 21% so the total doe mortality was 43.5%.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.