PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
10-08-2008 | 08:03 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
Other than the USP and a few neanderthals here, it seems the PGC has managed to impress the scientific community with it's deer management plan as well as making a lot of huntesr happy with the improved quality of our deer.
Release #108-08
GAME COMMISSION DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONTINUES TO EARN PRAISE FROM SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
HARRISBURG – Results of collaborative research conducted by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and U.S. Geological Survey’s Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Pennsylvania State University were published in the scientific journals Behavioral Ecology and The Journal of Wildlife Management.
“Publication of these peer-reviewed papers demonstrates recognition of the scientific quality of wildlife research conducted in Pennsylvania,” said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. “The findings of this important fieldwork have helped shape the Game Commission’s deer management program.
“Additionally, publication of these papers demonstrates the value of the collaborative research being conducted by the Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. It’s a partnership that spans decades and one that we and Pennsylvania wildlife have been fortunate to have for so long. Neither the Game Commission nor the Cooperative Research Unit could have completed these studies individually.”
The two recent articles report results from study of white-tailed deer bucks that occurred in Pennsylvania from 2001 to 2005 as part of the Game Commission’s evaluation of changes in antler restrictions.
“As part of the buck study, the Game Commission and Cooperative Research Unit conducted a large-scale study where management actions were changed and results monitored,” Roe said. “Although we regularly report harvest changes and results from this study in annual reports, which are posted on our website (www.pgc.state.pa.us), these articles report additional results that have increased our understanding of dispersal behavior and its implications to such practical issues as attempting to manage the spread of diseases, such as chronic wasting disease (CWD).”
Dr. Duane Diefenbach, who heads up the Cooperative Research Unit, said the two recently-published articles detail how field studies provide important findings that improved the science used to manage whitetails.
“The buck study was designed to evaluate the impact on Pennsylvania’s deer population caused by the new antler restrictions that were put in place in 2002,” Diefenbach said. “This research sheds new light on dispersal behavior of deer and provides insight for other practical management concerns such as disease spread.”
In the “dispersal causes” paper, the Game Commission’s new method of monitoring deer population trends formed the basis of the analysis.
“Publication of this paper demonstrates the scientific acceptability of the general procedures used in our modified population monitoring method,” Roe said.
Roe pointed out that this is the third article in four years to validate methods used by the Game Commission to manage the Commonwealth’s deer herd. In 2004, The Journal of Wildlife Management published a paper reviewing the Game Commission’s deer harvest reporting rate and estimating procedures.
Diefenbach noted the article that appeared in The Journal of Wildlife Management provides another tool for deer managers facing the threat of combating wildlife diseases, such as CWD.
“This paper uses field data from Pennsylvania and Maryland to develop a predictive model of dispersal distances of yearling male white-tailed deer,” Diefenbach said. “The benefit to this model is that it provides a simple tool managers can use in other areas to assess possible movements of deer in their area.
“As a result, wildlife managers can use the model to assess the potential spread of the disease rather than having to implement costly and time-consuming field studies. Critical decisions that might otherwise have to be based on ‘best guesses’ now can be based on real data.”
With the presence of CWD in free-ranging deer herds across the United States, including New York and West Virginia, understanding how deer move across the land is important for managers attempting to understand and/or contain spread of diseases. Dispersal by yearling male white-tailed deer is one method of spreading disease.
“This work, based on research in Pennsylvania and in Maryland, developed a general management tool that managers across the eastern US can use to save considerable financial, personnel, and other resources if faced with detection of CWD,” Diefenbach said. “Wildlife managers and researchers can now develop reasonable expectations of how far a disease is likely to spread due to dispersal.
“And, while CWD has not been detected in Pennsylvania deer or elk, this is important information in our efforts to prepare should CWD ever be found within our borders.”
Dr. Christopher Rosenberry, Game Commission Deer and Elk Section supervisor, noted that the Behavioral Ecology paper – co-authored by Rosenberry, Diefenbach, Bret Wallingford, Game Commission Deer and Elk Section biologist; and Dr. Eric Long, a former graduate student at Pennsylvania State University – investigated changes in dispersal behavior that occurred when Pennsylvania changed its antler restrictions and increased antlerless harvests.
“These changes in hunting regulations increased the number of adult males in the population and decreased the number of adult females,” Rosenberry said. “This resulted in changes in dispersal behavior of yearling male white-tailed deer.
“Each spring during the fawning season and each fall during the time leading up to the peak of the rut, 70 percent of yearling male white-tailed deer across Pennsylvania leave the areas where they were born. On average, these deer will move about three to six miles, but we have recorded movements greater than 30 miles.”
Rosenberry noted that, in recent years, different studies have identified different causes of yearling male dispersal.
“For example, an early 1990s study in Virginia identified adult does as the cause for yearling male dispersal,” Rosenberry said. “This became a part of deer management recommendations where increasing antlerless harvests could increase the proportion of bucks in a population.
“Later, studies that I conducted as a graduate student in Maryland identified competition among yearling males as a likely cause of dispersal. The present study demonstrated the likely involvement of both mechanisms in dispersal of white-tailed deer.”
For more information on the Game Commission’s deer management program, visit the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us/][/url]www.pgc.state.pa.us), and click on “Deer Program” in the “Quick Clicks” box in the right-hand column of the homepage.
# # #
[/align]
Content Last Modified on 10/7/2008 12:19:48 PM
GAME COMMISSION DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONTINUES TO EARN PRAISE FROM SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
HARRISBURG – Results of collaborative research conducted by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and U.S. Geological Survey’s Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Pennsylvania State University were published in the scientific journals Behavioral Ecology and The Journal of Wildlife Management.
“Publication of these peer-reviewed papers demonstrates recognition of the scientific quality of wildlife research conducted in Pennsylvania,” said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. “The findings of this important fieldwork have helped shape the Game Commission’s deer management program.
“Additionally, publication of these papers demonstrates the value of the collaborative research being conducted by the Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. It’s a partnership that spans decades and one that we and Pennsylvania wildlife have been fortunate to have for so long. Neither the Game Commission nor the Cooperative Research Unit could have completed these studies individually.”
The two recent articles report results from study of white-tailed deer bucks that occurred in Pennsylvania from 2001 to 2005 as part of the Game Commission’s evaluation of changes in antler restrictions.
“As part of the buck study, the Game Commission and Cooperative Research Unit conducted a large-scale study where management actions were changed and results monitored,” Roe said. “Although we regularly report harvest changes and results from this study in annual reports, which are posted on our website (www.pgc.state.pa.us), these articles report additional results that have increased our understanding of dispersal behavior and its implications to such practical issues as attempting to manage the spread of diseases, such as chronic wasting disease (CWD).”
Dr. Duane Diefenbach, who heads up the Cooperative Research Unit, said the two recently-published articles detail how field studies provide important findings that improved the science used to manage whitetails.
“The buck study was designed to evaluate the impact on Pennsylvania’s deer population caused by the new antler restrictions that were put in place in 2002,” Diefenbach said. “This research sheds new light on dispersal behavior of deer and provides insight for other practical management concerns such as disease spread.”
In the “dispersal causes” paper, the Game Commission’s new method of monitoring deer population trends formed the basis of the analysis.
“Publication of this paper demonstrates the scientific acceptability of the general procedures used in our modified population monitoring method,” Roe said.
Roe pointed out that this is the third article in four years to validate methods used by the Game Commission to manage the Commonwealth’s deer herd. In 2004, The Journal of Wildlife Management published a paper reviewing the Game Commission’s deer harvest reporting rate and estimating procedures.
Diefenbach noted the article that appeared in The Journal of Wildlife Management provides another tool for deer managers facing the threat of combating wildlife diseases, such as CWD.
“This paper uses field data from Pennsylvania and Maryland to develop a predictive model of dispersal distances of yearling male white-tailed deer,” Diefenbach said. “The benefit to this model is that it provides a simple tool managers can use in other areas to assess possible movements of deer in their area.
“As a result, wildlife managers can use the model to assess the potential spread of the disease rather than having to implement costly and time-consuming field studies. Critical decisions that might otherwise have to be based on ‘best guesses’ now can be based on real data.”
With the presence of CWD in free-ranging deer herds across the United States, including New York and West Virginia, understanding how deer move across the land is important for managers attempting to understand and/or contain spread of diseases. Dispersal by yearling male white-tailed deer is one method of spreading disease.
“This work, based on research in Pennsylvania and in Maryland, developed a general management tool that managers across the eastern US can use to save considerable financial, personnel, and other resources if faced with detection of CWD,” Diefenbach said. “Wildlife managers and researchers can now develop reasonable expectations of how far a disease is likely to spread due to dispersal.
“And, while CWD has not been detected in Pennsylvania deer or elk, this is important information in our efforts to prepare should CWD ever be found within our borders.”
Dr. Christopher Rosenberry, Game Commission Deer and Elk Section supervisor, noted that the Behavioral Ecology paper – co-authored by Rosenberry, Diefenbach, Bret Wallingford, Game Commission Deer and Elk Section biologist; and Dr. Eric Long, a former graduate student at Pennsylvania State University – investigated changes in dispersal behavior that occurred when Pennsylvania changed its antler restrictions and increased antlerless harvests.
“These changes in hunting regulations increased the number of adult males in the population and decreased the number of adult females,” Rosenberry said. “This resulted in changes in dispersal behavior of yearling male white-tailed deer.
“Each spring during the fawning season and each fall during the time leading up to the peak of the rut, 70 percent of yearling male white-tailed deer across Pennsylvania leave the areas where they were born. On average, these deer will move about three to six miles, but we have recorded movements greater than 30 miles.”
Rosenberry noted that, in recent years, different studies have identified different causes of yearling male dispersal.
“For example, an early 1990s study in Virginia identified adult does as the cause for yearling male dispersal,” Rosenberry said. “This became a part of deer management recommendations where increasing antlerless harvests could increase the proportion of bucks in a population.
“Later, studies that I conducted as a graduate student in Maryland identified competition among yearling males as a likely cause of dispersal. The present study demonstrated the likely involvement of both mechanisms in dispersal of white-tailed deer.”
For more information on the Game Commission’s deer management program, visit the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us/][/url]www.pgc.state.pa.us), and click on “Deer Program” in the “Quick Clicks” box in the right-hand column of the homepage.
# # #
[/align]
Content Last Modified on 10/7/2008 12:19:48 PM
10-08-2008 | 09:11 PM
#2
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
The pat on the back would be a bit more meaningful if it werent them giving it to themselves.(LOL)[:'(] And it has very little, or nothingto do with the concepts of "the deer plan".
I also see nothing counter to anything we "neanderthals" LOL are saying. Its not "buck dispersal" (LOL)[:@] Or "them brushing up on disease management schemes"[8D]that we have a problem with. Thats also not why they arent getting a license fee increase, not why they are being sued, not why they are being petitioned, and have an audit pending... Maybe next the fashion society can do an analysis on Roes wardrobe and it to will support the plan? Maybe then all this negativity will go away? (LOL)
Its appropriate numbers of deer that the habitat can support and should hold, appropriate deer numbers, and also the supporting data be provided that would be sure to follow. Also some evidence ar is having no maleffectsgenetically would be nice. Currently none of this is occurring and none of this has been addressed. Theyd rather speak on nice sunny topics that have nothing to do with hunters concerns, and act like it somehow dismisses them![8D]
Maybe thanks to the lawsuit or the approved audit that never seems to come or the license fee denial will make these things be addressed, and maybe then someone other than themselves will pat them on the back for a change.
I also see nothing counter to anything we "neanderthals" LOL are saying. Its not "buck dispersal" (LOL)[:@] Or "them brushing up on disease management schemes"[8D]that we have a problem with. Thats also not why they arent getting a license fee increase, not why they are being sued, not why they are being petitioned, and have an audit pending... Maybe next the fashion society can do an analysis on Roes wardrobe and it to will support the plan? Maybe then all this negativity will go away? (LOL)
Its appropriate numbers of deer that the habitat can support and should hold, appropriate deer numbers, and also the supporting data be provided that would be sure to follow. Also some evidence ar is having no maleffectsgenetically would be nice. Currently none of this is occurring and none of this has been addressed. Theyd rather speak on nice sunny topics that have nothing to do with hunters concerns, and act like it somehow dismisses them![8D]
Maybe thanks to the lawsuit or the approved audit that never seems to come or the license fee denial will make these things be addressed, and maybe then someone other than themselves will pat them on the back for a change.
10-09-2008 | 04:49 AM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
“Later, studies that I conducted as a graduate student in Maryland identified competition among yearling males as a likely cause of dispersal. The present study demonstrated the likely involvement of both mechanisms in dispersal of white-tailed deer.”
10-09-2008 | 06:11 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
So,after doing 3 studies they still don't know which is the major factor for buck dispersal and it is only "likely" that both mechanisms of dispersal are involved. Furthermore , the spread of disease among deer is not a major concern at this time, so the study did nothing to improve the current deer management in the state and did not benefit hunters in any way.
“Later, studies that I conducted as a graduate student in Maryland identified competition among yearling males as a likely cause of dispersal. The present study demonstrated the likely involvement of both mechanisms in dispersal of white-tailed deer.”
You sit there and offer no solutions to anything while you use data developed bythe target ofyour rantsagainst them by takingfacts out of context.
You are the consumate example of a spin doctor who is a master atassembling bits of true facts in order to assemble lies.
No solutions from Bluebird, just more whining and complaining.
Why don't you and your USP cronies go out and hire wildlife biologists of your own and compile your own data instead of swiping bits and pieces from the PGC? I'll tell you why! Because you know damn well that any biologist that does it right isn't going to do any better.
So instead, the USP spends its money on lawsuits hoping to snooker a judge by using your tactics. You and the USP know you can't fool the real professionals soinstead you're going to tryto fool a judge. Your chances are better that way but they are still very slim.
10-09-2008 | 07:45 AM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
No solutions from Bluebird, just more whining and complaining.
You and the USP know you can't fool the real professionals so instead you're going to try to fool a judge. Your chances are better that way but they are still very slim.
10-09-2008 | 09:04 AM
#7
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
From:
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
Interesting Debate. I strictly hunt 4C and we are Way below our carrying capacity. I have been hunting here for 20 years and know the deer movement pretty good. I now go for hunt after hunt and don't see a deer or a track!!
10-09-2008 | 02:56 PM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
“The buck study was designed to evaluate the impact on Pennsylvania’s deer population caused by the new antler restrictions that were put in place in 2002,” Diefenbach said. “This research sheds new light on dispersal behavior of deer and provides insight for other practical management concerns such as disease spread.”
10-14-2008 | 07:38 AM
#9
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
"Thats funny coming from one who's sole purpose is to find fault with anything the PGc does and to find fault with virtually every deer management biologist out there today. "
Yeah, right.[:'(] SO many states doing like pa is! (LOL) Not a one. Would suggest most arent so accepting of "nontraditional" eco-extremist methods.
Yeah, right.[:'(] SO many states doing like pa is! (LOL) Not a one. Would suggest most arent so accepting of "nontraditional" eco-extremist methods.
10-14-2008 | 08:59 AM
#10
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
RE: PGC gets a pat on the back for it's deer program
Anyone ever notice that over the past 20-30 years we have become a society that analyzes and over analyzes everything from soup to nuts.
For many years in this state we as hunters and the deer population itself has done just fine.But once again,as a society that believes it knows
everthing about everything,have taken the deer population management to a new level of complication.Do all the supposed studies you want,hire all the overpaid college degree biologists you want,put all the restrictions,constantly change the seasons and bag limits,spend all the hunters money you can steal,and when push comes to shove,there just ain't the deer there used to be.I've hunted in 6 different WMU's over the past 2 decades and they aren't there,period.EHD runs rampant in 2A last summer and fall with no way of telling how many were affected,but they continued to issue antlerless licenses until they sold their 60,000.They do nothing to promote habitat growth in the northern counties where deer are almost non-existant,yet continue to try to decimate the herd in the south where the "human" element is involved.Mother nature has done a fine job for thousands of years without the our help but we insist on intervening at every turn and at every whim of some tree hugger,insurance company,or politician that feels it necessary to do what nature has always taken care of.
For many years in this state we as hunters and the deer population itself has done just fine.But once again,as a society that believes it knows
everthing about everything,have taken the deer population management to a new level of complication.Do all the supposed studies you want,hire all the overpaid college degree biologists you want,put all the restrictions,constantly change the seasons and bag limits,spend all the hunters money you can steal,and when push comes to shove,there just ain't the deer there used to be.I've hunted in 6 different WMU's over the past 2 decades and they aren't there,period.EHD runs rampant in 2A last summer and fall with no way of telling how many were affected,but they continued to issue antlerless licenses until they sold their 60,000.They do nothing to promote habitat growth in the northern counties where deer are almost non-existant,yet continue to try to decimate the herd in the south where the "human" element is involved.Mother nature has done a fine job for thousands of years without the our help but we insist on intervening at every turn and at every whim of some tree hugger,insurance company,or politician that feels it necessary to do what nature has always taken care of.
