PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Here is the link to the PGC's "Fall Deer Chronicles"

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...onfall2008.pdf


The PGC is basically admitting that ARs protect buck that are inferior for the rate of antler development. Therefore, the average buck saved by ARs will have a smaller rack at 2.5 than the average buck carried over before ARs. That explains why the PGC has failed to release any data on the size of the buck harvested since ARs were implemented.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Getting that out of what those Chronicles say is very valid proof that you either have a serious reading comprehension problem or just plan twist things in your head and then totally misrepresent the facts from that point on.

Have you no honor at all?

Point out to us just where you got that total nonsense you just posted concerning the 2.5 year old bucksfrom before to after antler restrictions out of those Chronicles.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

It is not about having honor, it is simply that we have a difference in opinion and the study supports my opinion, not yours.

Here is the quote from the study.
Before ARs the 1.5 buck that were carried over represented a cross section of the 1.5 buck population. With ARs the vast majority of bucks that are carried over are those bucks that the study shows have a trait for slower antler development. Therefore ,the average 2.5 buck produced by ARs will have a smaller rack than the average buck carried over prior to ARs.

Furthermore, the study did not address the negative effects of harvesting the best buck in each age class. If the best of the 1.5 buck with <3pts. were harvested at 2.5, as they would be in PA and the same thing happened at at 3.5, it is obvious that the results of the study would be quite different and the <3pt. group would have not equaled the <4pt. group.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Gotta say that's what I read into it too !

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Here is what you posted in your original post:

Quote:

---

The PGC is basically admitting that ARs protect buck that are inferior for the rate of antler development. Therefore, the average buck saved by ARs will have a smaller rack at 2.5 than the average buck carried over before ARs.

---

That is not what the study showed at all. You are simply once again either misrepresenting the facts with what you posted or you simply can’t comprehend what is being reported.

This study has nothing to do with the bucks before antler restrictions as compared to the bucks since antler restrictions. The results of this study as they relate toall age class ofbucks were just as true before antler restrictions as they are now.

Antler restrictions has had no affect what so ever on the quality of the antlers for the same age class of bucks. What affects the antlers for a particular age class are primarily the nutritional and environmental factors that buck had to deal with in the early stages of life before they have reached mature body weights. Oncebucks have reached full mature body weight, at aboutfour to five years old,then their antlers are more a result of their genetic potential and bucks of the same age can be more fairly evaluated.

Therefore, there was not one single thing in the Deer Chronicles that indicated any change in buck antlers from before to since antler restrictions other then the fact that older bucks have better antlers then the younger bucks have. That was true before antler restrictions and it is still true today with antler restrictions. Nothing has changed other then we have more older bucks then ever before and they have better antlers then the younger bucks that once dominated the buck population.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Here is what the PGC had to say about the study.

Obviously the PGC was attempting to use this study to refute claims that ARs were protecting buck with inferior genetics for antler development. However, the study showed that ARs do in fact protect bucks that are inferior for the RATE of antler development, and that is the reason why ARs result in high grading and smaller average rack sizes for 2.5+ buck.
That may be you opinion , but I doubt you can provide the data to support that claim. On the other hand, the data from Miss. clearly shows that ARs resulted in high grading and smaller rack sizes of 2.5+ buck and the Koerth study further supports my position.
That simply is not true. What has changed is that we are now protecting bucks that are inferior for the RATE of antler development as the study clearly demonstrated. Furthermore, we now have fewer older buck than we did in 2002 ,before any bucks were protected by ARs, and we have a lot fewer 2.5+ buck than we had in 2003.

BTW, younger bucks still dominate the buck population just as they always have and always will. ARs just made 50% of them illegal. If you want to be taken seriously ,you should be more careful about making claims you can't back up.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

It is your claims that aren’t backed up with the real deer studies.
Those computer simulated studies you keep trying to hang your hat on have been very well discredited by a number of other studies that showed totally different results when real deer were studied instead of the make believe deer in your studies.

You still haven’t produced anything that supports your comments concerning the Deer Chronicles either.

Nor is there anything, not one single shred of anything, that gives any indication that the antlers of the Pennsylvania bucks being adversely affected since the introduction of antler restrictions regardless of how much you wish there was. You keep saying that the bucks are being high graded and the antler are getting smaller but you are full of bologna because it just isn’t happening the way you say it is.

In fact a sample of 1052 semi local bucks from the four years before antler restrictions compared to 1607 bucks from the same core areas sampled during the past five years show that the antlers have improved instead of declining. Since antler restrictions the average points on the bucks going to the taxidermists has increase by 2.2% while the spread has increased by 5.5%.

Your opinions of antler restrictions resulting of high grading in a wild herd simply aren’t supported by the real facts, other then from some make believe deer in a computer simulation.


R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Please don't tell me that we're resorting to using info from taxidermists.I personally can't think of a more ridiculous sample group to take.Not onlt that,but if all we can expect is a 2% increase in point # and 5% increase in antler spread,we've wasted a lot of time and effort on what is a unpopular program already.Sorry,but think about it, 2% means all of 2 deer out of 100 is all it would take to back up these numbers. 2 DEER !!!! Give me a break.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Maybe you should take a break and do a little research on the results from Miss. If you do you will find I am not citing the results from computer studies, I am citing the results from surveys of buck harvested across the entire state. The results show the average rack sizes of the buck decreased across the entire and if they could have accounted for the bucks that weren't AR legal and therefore not harvested, the resu;ts would be even more damning.
Are you claiming you know more about ARs than Dr. Rosenberry, who told me he did not know if the rack sizes of 2.5+ buck increased or decreased since ARs were implemented?

Here is what Miss. had to say about ARs and high grading and please note they are not talking about computer models.

Then we have this from Arkansas about their ARs.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Didn’t you also notice that in Mississippi and Arkansas they harvest their bucks before the peek of their breeding season. That means that not all of their bucks were getting to contribute to the gene pool and indeed many of their best bucks had been harvested before ever breeding even once. That is not the case in Pennsylvania, where our season occurs after the rut and all adult bucks including the best and the worst of the even those 1 ½ year old have already had the chance to contribute to the gene pool before they are available for harvest.

Furthermore, what measures of other possible contributing factors, such as other environmental factor influence, having on the antler development either before or after antler restrictions, did either of those state evaluate. If they didn’t evaluate the other possible influencing factors then they simply don’t know what caused any change in the antler development of their bucks.

To help illustrate that point I am going to post the antler development results collected by the Elk County volunteer wildlife survey teams for the past few years. From this you can see just how much the change in the previous fall mast and winter weather conditions can have on the antler development of the bucks from one year to another.

Year…………..% of bucks spikes…………….% of bucks antler legal
2002.…………….24.1 %………………………………51.7 %
2003.…………….26.7 %………………………………46.7 %
2004.…………….55.2 %………………………………27.6 %
2005.…………….42.9 %………………………………38.1 %
2006.…………….16.7 %………………………………66.7 %
2007.…………….24.1 %………………………………34.5 %
2008.…………….13.5 %………………………………64.9 %

Since those spikes are either all, or very nearly all, 1 ½ year old bucks people should be able to see that their antler development is very much affected by a whole host of factors other then their genetic potential. Thus, the simple fact is that the studies in Mississippi and Arkansas not only have correlation to reality in Pennsylvania and might not even have any reality to what really occurred as far as genetic influence in their own study area.
The simple fact is that the best genealogists and deer researchers in the Nation clear say that the affects of antler restrictions need more study but to date they find nothing that indicates any adverse affects to the genetics of wild deer populations where the harvest occurs after the peek of the breeding season as occurs in Pennsylvania.

Why don’t you just admit that you just can’t stand the fact that you and your group of family hunters can’t just shot the first deer you see with a piece of antler on his head and don’t really care about what is best for the long term management of the species as long as you get what most benefits you?

If the present management objectives weren’t based on what the deer provided as evidence that indicate to be best for the future of the species and their long term habitat then I assure you the professional managers would be leading the initiative for changes. But, those professionals are for presently just doing what is best for the long term benefit of the species instead of caving in to the demands of a few vocal hunters that have never known what they were talking and have done more damage to the deer herds, their habitat and the future of hunting then any other group of people, including the anti-hunters.

You have proven yourself to be a leading among those adversely affecting the future of hunting in this state and the nation. Congratulations.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

If the results of the Koerth Study are valid and spikes have the same genetic potential as 4 pts, then the fact that Miss. harvests their buck before the rut would be irrelevant. Furthermore, in Miss. they carryover at least 70% of their 1.5 buck, so there are plenty of 1.5 bucks passing on their genes. Also, in Miss. they carry over around 50% of their 2.5 buck ,so if the theory of dominant breeding works, the 2.6+ buck will be doing most of the breeding.


The decrease in rack sizes was observed across the entire state over a 12 yr. period, so you are simply trying to induce other variables to muddy the waters since you have nothing to refute the facts.
While that may be true, their are no studies based on genetics that prove ARs have no negative effect on the gene pool. As yet, I am not aware of any study that has established acceptable criteria for determining how ARs effect genetics in a wild herd. But we have the Koerth which documents spikes develop slower than 4 pts. and we have the results from Miss, that documented a significant decrease in rack size over 12 years. And, we also have PA which refuses to release the data on rack sizes of various age classes and the head of the deer management team that claims he doesn't know if rack sizes have increased or decreased.
I didn't reduce the buck harvest from 203K in 2001 to 119K in 2007. I didn't implement concurrent seasons which magnifies the negative effect of HR. I didn't mislead the hunters and tell them the B/D ratio was skewed and we needed to shoot more doe. Those are just a few of the things the PGC did to adversely affect the future of hunting. I just point out their mistakes on the MB,which has no effect on the future of hunting.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

That comments proves you that either have no idea how high grading could occur when you harvest the bucks with the best antlers prior to the breeding season or that you are just posting more deceptive nonsense to further your misguided agenda.

The fact that a state carries over a high percentage of the younger bucks really has no meaning what so ever in the genetic carry over discussion if they are harvesting the best bucks prior to the breeding season. In that case, as occurs in Mississippi, they very well might have been high grading and damaging the antler potential of their future bucks because they were shooting 30% of their best 1 ½ year old before they had a change to pass on their genetic line. That could then also result in reduced genetic potential in each age class to follow.

That is the reason there is no valid comparison between the Mississippi and Arkansas antler restrictions results and the way antler restrictions and harvests occur in Pennsylvania. It would just be an apples to plums comparison.

Quote:

---

The decrease in rack sizes was observed across the entire state over a 12 yr. period, so you are simply trying to induce other variables to muddy the waters since you have nothing to refute the facts.

---

Really!

Many environmental variables extend into decades. The habitat and antler development variables across the northern tier of this state changed greatly over each of the past several decades before antler restrictions were even a thought in this state. That can be seen pretty easily by looking at the variance in the number of record book bucks from the various regions of this state over the past decades before antler restrictions. What is to say that similar habitat and environmental variables didn’t create the change in the antler development in Mississippi?

Post a link to the entire journal and we can then all take a look at the various methods and controls used to assure that the results weren’t biased by anything other then genetic high grading.

Quote:

---

While that may be true, their are no studies based on genetics that prove ARs have no negative effect on the gene pool. As yet, I am not aware of any study that has established acceptable criteria for determining how ARs effect genetics in a wild herd. But we have the Koerth which documents spikes develop slower than 4 pts. and we have the results from Miss, that documented a significant decrease in rack size over 12 years. And, we also have PA which refuses to release the data on rack sizes of various age classes and the head of the deer management team that claims he doesn't know if rack sizes have increased or decreased.

---

Though the affects of antler restrictions on a wild deer population are still unproven one way or the other the fact still remains that the most knowledgeable on the subject don’t believe it is possible to alter the genetic where you harvest after the breeding season certainly gives credence to the Pennsylvania management objectives.

As for spikes taking longer to catch up that has been reported by the professional researchers as nothing more then an age or early stage nutritional factor and the length of time it takes the younger bucks to catch up in both body and antler development. It is about like comparing first grades to forth graders in size and development. By the time they are both in college as a freshman and senior though that first grader that is now a college freshman might very well be the larger more dominate of the two.

When the Game Commission has the funding to complete some of the data collection, your camp’s law suits are no longer an issue and the time is right to release reliable data results then the results will be made public. That time is not yet right since the data is still being collected and thus inconclusive at this time.

Quote:

---

I didn't reduce the buck harvest from 203K in 2001 to 119K in 2007.

---

No you didn’t all alone, though people just like you had a large hand in that buck harvest reduction.

The first factor in the buck harvest reduction has to come from the fact that the entire objective of antler restrictions was intended to reduce the buck harvests so we had more bucks in the next fall population. That was a totally planned occurrence.

The place you and your camp have to take blame is in the fact that we should have had the deer herd in balance with the existing habitat a long time ago and would have had it not been for the never ending public and political pressures to carry far to many deer for way to long. That carrying too many deer and damaged habitat is a large part of why the fawn recruitment crashed following those hard winters. Since those fawns that died within days of being born aren’t out there as adult bucks now, your camp actually did help in the present reduced buck harvests. Hunters can’t harvest something that doesn’t exist because it died right after it was born since it’s mother didn’t have enough food to nourish it.

Quote:

---

I didn't implement concurrent seasons which magnifies the negative effect of HR.

---

That is only a negative for a relatively short period of time so that we can have a brighter future for the longer term. Responsible professionals have to look at the big picture for the future instead of selling out the future to have more for the short term now.

Quote:

---

I didn't mislead the hunters and tell them the B/D ratio was skewed and we needed to shoot more doe.

---

No one was mislead about the need for or the intent to reduce the deer numbers across this state or about the need for a more balanced buck/doe ratio. Those were biological facts that the deer were screaming out to every professional willing to even look at the facts the deer were providing. Some hunters just refuse to accept those facts, perhaps because they are self serving and could care less about the future of the resources.

Quote:

---

Those are just a few of the things the PGC did to adversely affect the future of hunting.

---

Actually the present management objectives are the best possible direction for assuring a better future for the deer, their food supplies and the hunter of the future. Failure to keep the deer numbers within the limits of their food supply is direction that will absolutely guarantee even fewer deer for the future. That is nature’s law not the Game Commission’s.

Nature guarantees that no living organism can exist in populations greater then the food supply for more then short term periods of ideal conditions. Nature also has proven time and again that the populations will increase as their habitat and food supply improves enough to support a higher population.

Quote:

---

I just point out their mistakes on the MB,which has no effect on the future of hunting.

---

Oh my no! The people like you that have worked to undermine the direction of sound scientific deer and habitat management have been the biggest factor in damaging the present deer population. That has been the case for many decades. We could and would have a lot more deer over most of this state today if the hunters and politicians had allowed the professionals to do what they have known needed to be done for a long, long time.

The hunters and politicians of this state have done far more to harm the deer populations, the habitat and the future of hunting in this state then the anti-hunters or any other group of people have. You and people like you really are a very large part of the damage to not only the future for deer numbers but also the future of hunting in this state.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

RSB,please do me a favor and quit belittling the hunters of this state.Please remember,if it weren't for them you'd be collecting unemployment or working in the local McD's.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Oh my no! The people like you that have worked to undermine the direction of

Quote:

---

sound scientific deer and habitat management have been the biggest factor in damaging the present deer population. That has been the case for many decades. We could and would have a lot more deer over most of this state today if the hunters and politicians had allowed the professionals to do what they have known needed to be done for a long, long time.

The hunters and politicians of this state have done far more to harm the deer populations, the habitat and the future of hunting in this state then the anti-hunters or any other group of people have. You and people like you really are a very large part of the damage to not only the future for deer numbers but also the future of hunting in this state.

---

That's pure hog wash!! The hunters have always done their job, the PGC told them how many deer they wanted killed and they have done a very good job.
Study this link and see if that's not the case!!!
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=493&q=159232

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

You really gotta love it when a guy completely trashes the people who pay his wages.Take a close look at the info in the link "lost horn " has provided and you'll see the real answer.Just think to when the PGC stated medlling year in and year out with seasons,bag limits,and restrictions and you'll see when things went itno the proverbial "shi**er".Ever since then the deer kill has dropped almost 40% so it's easy to figure out who harmed who.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Apparently you still don't understand that the effects of high grading have nothing to do when the when the doe are bred or a change in the gene pool The decrease in rack sizes occurred within the first five years of ARs, which is far to soon to be the result of a change in genetics.
The deer management experts say the decrease in rack sizes was not due to changes in variables or habitat. they attributed the decrease to the effects of high grading and you can't provide anything to refute their position.

It is ridiculous to assume it takes 3 years for a spike buck to make up the effects of being born 2 months later.
As you know , the B/D ratio before ARs was 1:2.1 and now it is slightly better than 1:2. But breeding rates and productivity have decreased ,so the B/D ratio was not the problem and Alt misled the hunters in order to get HR.
That is nothing more than PGC propaganda. the fact is the PGC issued more antlerless tags in 1998 and 1999 than they did in 2000 and 2002. For decades hunters harvested as many deer as the PGC would allow and to blame the hunters for the current mismanagement is irresponsible on your part.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

I’ll tell you what I’ll always call an ace and ace and a spade a spade. I’ll also stop laying the blame on the hunters of this state when the hunters allow themselves to become educated on the real factors instead of thinking they know a lot more about wildlife management then the trained professionals.

The fact is that the vast majority of the hunters don’t much of anything about deer other then where to place a bullet in one, how to gut it and how to eat it.

If you think the hunters across this state have done their job then you have either paid absolutely no attention to the history of deer management in this state or you never understood that hunters should be the tool used to manage deer within the limits of the food supply.

Get the book “Deer Wars” and read up on the part hunters and politicians have played in the REAL story of what has happened as far as deer management, and mismanagement, across this state over the past six or seven decades.

Oh, and by the way I DON’T WORK FOR THE HUNTERS, I WORK FOR THE RESOURCE. Hunters have in the past paid for wildlife management but make no mistake about the fact that if hunters don’t pay that bill the State’s tax payers will. I’m not so sure that wouldn’t be a better thing anyway since so many hunters refuse to be educated and seem to be more of a problem then an asset toward doing the right things for the best possible future.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

And then this?

Quote:

---

The deer management experts say the decrease in rack sizes was not due to changes in variables or habitat. they attributed the decrease to the effects of high grading and you can't provide anything to refute their position.

---

Ok which one do you want go with? In one sentence you say it was too soon to have been the affects of genetics and I will agree with you on that. But, then in the very next sentence you say the experts attribute the antler changes to high grading. Is that one of those where you can’t figure out what best suits your misguided at this minute?

If the changes in the Mississippi buck antlers was from high grading it was most likely because they were harvesting their bucks before the breeding season. Since we don’t do that in Pennsylvania the Mississippi study has no relevance anyway, so who in Pennsylvania really cares what the cause of declining antler development was in Mississippi?

Quote:

---

It is ridiculous to assume it takes 3 years for a spike buck to make up the effects of being born 2 months later.

---

Ridiculous or not that is what the studies show, that those spikes will catch up, some in one year, some not for two or three years.

Quote:

---

As you know , the B/D ratio before ARs was 1:2.1 and now it is slightly better than 1:2. But breeding rates and productivity have decreased ,so the B/D ratio was not the problem and Alt misled the hunters in order to get HR.

---

The breeding mature buck to breeding doe ratios are not that high and never have been. The button bucks aren’t breeding mature while a high percentage of the juvenile does are or at least should be if their mothers got bred when they should have.

No breeding rates and productivity have not declined. The STATEWIDE data declined, but only because the sample sizes changed in the various areas of the state and shifted from the best areas providing the highest sample to now the worst areas of the state providing the highest samples. Most of the individual area breeding and reproductive rates have either improved or stayed the about the same. Some areas, like this area, have seen greatly improved breeding rates since antler restrictions improved the buck/doe ratio.

Quote:

---

That is nothing more than PGC propaganda. the fact is the PGC issued more antlerless tags in 1998 and 1999 than they did in 2000 and 2002. For decades hunters harvested as many deer as the PGC would allow and to blame the hunters for the current mismanagement is irresponsible on your part.

---

Though hunters bought the antler less license and harvested deer the fact still remains that the hunter and political pressures were nearly always put into play to force the Game Commission into reducing the allocations every single time the harvests started to get even close to be affective at protecting the deer food supplies. That went on for decade after decade and has been going on for well over fifty years in the northern tier areas of the state.

I know if has been going on because I have been there to hear high powered politicians tell the Commission that if they didn’t reduce the antler less allocations they would never get a license increase. I have been there to hear the politicians say that their constituents wanted fewer antler less license and if the Game Commission didn’t reduce the allocations they would take the regulatory powers away from the Commission and they would decide how many license to issue. I have seen first hand the public (hunter) and political pressures that absolutely forced the professional deer managers into do what they knew to be the wrong thing for the future of the deer, their habitat and the future of hunting.

The thing is I saw those things occurring twenty years ago and now I see the same tactics in play once again. It will not work to have more deer for the future this time any more then it worked the last time. It is the exact opposite of what will result in having the best possible deer management for the future. History has proven that over protection doesn’t result in having more deer for anything more then short term periods of ideal environmental conditions. Yet hunters refuse to learn that lesson and fight to keep repeating that same STUPID mistake over and over and over.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

The future of hunting is on private land, just look towards our southern neighbors. Most of the HR has taken place on public lands and private land open to hunting, now those private lands are drying up with leasing happening just like our southern States. Your PGC has no control over where an antlerless is used, they should have been issued for private land or public land only. Most hunters hunting State Gameless Lands aren't seeing even one deer, they are dropping out of the sport faster than the national average.

The future of hunting will be determined by the DCNR, not the PGC, our PGC has served its purpose in the past, but outside influence has clouded its mission. Our SGL's are being managed for timber, why not have out timber experts (DCNR)manage this land rather than an uncontrollable agency that won't admit they make mistakes.

You sure would have to change your attitude to become aForest Ranger, your people skills are the same as the upper management of the PGC.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

You are welcome to your opinions, but I certainly don’t agree with the ones you just expressed.

Quote:

---

The future of hunting is on private land, just look towards our southern neighbors. Most of the HR has taken place on public lands and private land open to hunting, now those private lands are drying up with leasing happening just like our southern States. Your PGC has no control over where an antlerless is used, they should have been issued for private land or public land only. Most hunters hunting State Gameless Lands aren't seeing even one deer, they are dropping out of the sport faster than the national average.

---

But, many of the public land are the most under hunted areas in this state. They are under hunted and under harvested because hunters aren’t willing to hunt the remote hard to hunt areas where it is hard to get a harvest out. That might not be true around the most metropolitan areas with smaller areas of public land. But, even there hunters probably have to actually over harvest the public lands just to reduce the over all deer population around the areas that are being so seriously under harvested. If they don’t do that then it will lead to even more under harvested areas that then result in more rapid habitat damage over larger areas and eventually to crashing deer populations do to not having enough food to support the deer populations.

Quote:

---

The future of hunting will be determined by the DCNR, not the PGC, our PGC has served its purpose in the past, but outside influence has clouded its mission.

---

I don’t know just what you think the outside influences are but the last I had heard the laws required that all of the state’s resources be managed for all of the state’s public, not just hunters.

But, that aside I can tell you that the people that have had the greatest and most harmful influence on the mismanagement of the deer herds and their habitat have been the hunters and politicians of this state. The Game Commission’s mission has always been clear and they would have been much more successful at fulfilling a better deer mission had they not received the interference from those public and political pressures.

Quote:

---

Our SGL's are being managed for timber, why not have out timber experts (DCNR) manage this land rather than an uncontrollable agency that won't admit they make mistakes.

---

That comment proves beyond any doubt just how utterly clueless you are. The game lands are managed for wildlife even if it means totally wasting timber to provide better wildlife management and populations. The DCNR is mandated by their regulations to manage for timber, though they still try to benefit wildlife as much as possible while fulfilling that mission.

The Game Commission has made lots of mistakes. The worst ones have been when they listened to the hunters and politicians yammering for more deer then the habitat could support long term while ignoring the advise and recommendations of the state’s resource professionals. That is the mistake that has resulted in having so few deer in so many areas today and that is exactly what needs fixed. That is also why I come to places this attempting to point out the follies of those past mistakes. Hopefully enough people are able to understand those mistakes of the past so we can stop making them and improve the future.

Quote:

---

You sure would have to change your attitude to become a Forest Ranger, your people skills are the same as the upper management of the PGC.

---

Why is that, because I tell people the truth even when it isn’t what they wanted to hear or politically correct? Oh well, I never had any desire to be a Forest Ranger anyway, if I had I would have become one along time ago.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Just remember,one man's truth is another man's B.S. !Just cause it comes out of your mouth don't make it right.The world is full of "experts" just like yourself that don't have a clue about the real world,just what they've been told or written on paper.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

How many times do I have to explain to you that high grading has nothing to do with when the doe are bred, it has nothing to do with a change in the gene pool and it has nothing to do with a change in any other factors. It is simply the result of harvesting the best buck in each age class and leaving buck that are inferior for the rate of antler development to advance to the next age class.
But the studies don't prove that the spikes are the result of being late born and there is no study that shows late born fawns take 4years to catch up with fawns that are born 2 months earlier.

Once again you are intentionally trying to mislead hunters by trying to define the B/D ratio in a way that fits your agenda. The B/D ratio is defined the ratio of adult males to adult females. No where is it stated that a high percentage of female fawns should breed the first year. Besides Alt said we needed ARs to correct the problem of late breeding but it had no effect.
Try getting your propaganda right. Twenty years ago the PGC implemented bonus tags and the harvests for the next ten years kept the herd relatively stable. Alt created a crisis that didn't exist and as a result now we have politics more involved than in the last 30 years involved.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

[/size]
Who implied that when the does got bred had anything to do with high grading? That is nothing more then more the misleading nonsense you post in an attempt to discredit others. You do that because your agenda doesn’t have merit.

I know what high grading is and I also know that in Pennsylvania our 1 ½ year old bucks, both the best and worst of them, are breeding during the rut and before the season the same as had occurred before antler restrictions. The only thing that changed with antler restrictions is that we now keep about half of our 1 ½ year old bucks alive at least a year longer then we once did so there are enough bucks to bred the does during the correct time and cycle.

Since nearly all of the bucks are breeding before they get harvested, just as always occurred there is virtually no chance of high grading or in any way affecting the genetics of the deer in this state.

If you really knew anything at all about the subject you would know that too. In fact I highly suspect you do know it but it doesn’t fit your misguided agenda so you use misinformation as a large part of your platform to discredit the management programs because it prevents you and your family from killing the first buck you see regardless of the number of points. Your opposition is all about what benefits you instead of what benefit’s the resource and that is pathetic.

[/size]

Quote:

---

But the studies don't prove that the spikes are the result of being late born and there is no study that shows late born fawns take 4years to catch up with fawns that are born 2 months earlier.

---

[/size]

There are tons of studies that most certainly do prove that during many years a high percentage of the spikes are bucks that were born late. Of course harsh environmental conditions are also a leading cause of spikes on 1 ½ year old bucks.


[/color]

Quote:

---

Once again you are intentionally trying to mislead hunters by trying to define the B/D ratio in a way that fits your agenda. The B/D ratio is defined the ratio of adult males to adult females. No where is it stated that a high percentage of female fawns should breed the first year. Besides Alt said we needed ARs to correct the problem of late breeding but it had no effect.

---

I am not misleading anyone.

I am simply pointing out that a pretty high percentage of the juvenile does should be bred and that juvenile bucks are not breeding mature so that all falls onto the adult bucks. In some areas, where hunters have typically harvested as many does as possible, it has not uncommon to have over 50% of the juveniles bred. In the area where we have typically under harvested the does and harvested as many bucks as possible though it was not uncommon to have fewer then 10% of the juvenile does bred with many areas even under 5%. In many cases where the juvenile does were reaching breeding maturity the bucks were not getting the adult does bred during the correct time because there weren’t enough adult bucks to get both the cycling adults and cycling juveniles both bred. The bucks don’t care if they are chasing an adult of juvenile doe when they are both in cycle at the same time, and many of them were and are each fall. That was a large part of why we needed more adult bucks in the fall then what we had prior to antler restrictions protecting some of the 1 ½ year old bucks.

The late breeding was a problem and it has improved even if you want to believe or admit it hasn’t. As the late breeding of the adult does is corrected it will eventually also result in more of the juvenile does reaching breeding weight during their first year and ultimately higher fawn birth and recruitment rates. We are already see that starting to occur in this part of the state.

[color=#0000ff]

Quote:

---

Try getting your propaganda right. Twenty years ago the PGC implemented bonus tags and the harvests for the next ten years kept the herd relatively stable. Alt created a crisis that didn't exist and as a result now we have politics more involved than in the last 30 years involved.

---

[size=2]
There is no propaganda involved other then the horse puckey you and your supporters keep spreading.

You are correct that twenty years ago there was an attempt to bring the deer numbers into balance with their habitat and that higher harvests were the means to accomplishing that objective. But, the same public and political demands of today were heard back then too. The problem was that the Board of Commissioners in place at that time caved in to the yammering in order to get a hunting license increase and reduced the harvest long before the deer herds were in balance with the habitat. We, the hunters, and the deer got lucky though because we had a run of almost ten years with better then normal mast production and mild winters. That allowed the deer populations to increase more then nature typically allows for long term periods. Hunters got used to that and mistakenly thought it could go on that way forever, but nature proved them wrong and we are living with that mistake right now.

Alt didn’t create any crisis. It was the lack of harvesting enough deer for to long that created the crisis. The professional deer and habitat managers of this state saw that the crisis was looming on the horizon because the deer and their food supply where screaming that message, even though most hunters couldn’t or wouldn’t recognize it. Alt was just the messenger that was sent out to make the hunters aware of the potential for the crisis and deliver the message the deer were providing.

Thesadthing is that it wasalready to late to get it corrected before those hard winters, that nature sent our way, and the deer herds crashed from the resulting low fawn recruitment during theyears following those harsh winters.

I can also tell you with absolute certainty that there is no more politics involved in the deer management now then has occurred many times in the past fifty years and even longer. The only difference now is that the current Board of Commissioners refused to sell out the futureof our resources to appease the yammering of the hunters and politicians to get a license increase. I applaud the fact that we finally have enough Commissioners with the guts to do the right thing instead of selling out the resources by doing the wrong thing for the promise of a license increase.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

You did in your next comment.

You are claiming the does are bred before the 1,5 buck are harvested . You loose once again.
While that may or not be true , you can't provide one study that shows it takes 3 years for a buck that is born 2 months late to catch up in body weight to a buck that was born earlier.

that is pure nonsense. the areas with the highest fawn breeding rates also had the highest adult doe breeding rates. The areas with the lowest fawn breeding rates are those WMU's where the female fawns do not reach 80 lbs. by jan and therefore do not have their first estrus. You know absolutely nothing about the correlation of breeding rates and the adult breeding B/D ratio.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Poor RSB was logged in for over half and hour and couldn't come up with a rebuttal to my post.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

From what you are posting it certainly seems that it is you who has no idea what high grading is. High grading has nothing to do with when the does are bred it is all about what bucks are breeding the does and in the case of high grading it would be inferior bucks because the better bucks had been harvested prior to the breeding cycle.

Once again I will point out that we don’t harvest our bucks until after ALL of the bucks have had an opportunity to pass on their genes. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO HIGH GRADING IN PENNA.

Do you get this time, or is still over your head?

Quote:

---

While that may or not be true , you can't provide one study that shows it takes 3 years for a buck that is born 2 months late to catch up in body weight to a buck that was born earlier.

---

I don’t have the time to sit and look for the reports on the internet but I have many deer research journals that show that late born male fawns are more likely to be spikes. There are also several recent studies that clearly show that spikes, many of which were late born fawns, will catch up and even surpass the bucks that had a jump start with their first antlers.

Those studies do indicate that some smaller will not catch up and surpass the once larger bucks until they are three to four years old. But, we were talking about antlers until you just attempted your switch to body weight once you realized you were wrong about what the studies say concerning antler development. What is that any way, more of your flim-flam artistry?

Quote:

---

that is pure nonsense. the areas with the highest fawn breeding rates also had the highest adult doe breeding rates. The areas with the lowest fawn breeding rates are those WMU's where the female fawns do not reach 80 lbs. by jan and therefore do not have their first estrus.

---

No it isn’t nonsense at all.

In a high percentage of the counties, where the breeding data came from, it was very clear that there weren’t enough bucks to breed all of the cycling does. It was clear since during the years when a higher percentage of the juveniles were being bred in November more of the adult does weren’t bred in November as they should have been. It was also very clear when 35% of the counties across the state experienced a decline in both the adults and juveniles being bred at all during the five year period prior to antler restrictions.

It is true that the areas with the lowest fawn breeding rates are the poor habitat areas where fawns don’t gain weight as fast but it is also true that we are now that the habitat and previous late breeding cycle is starting to be corrected we are also starting to see more juveniles being bred. Many of these juvenile does are also being bred in November during the same time period or just slightly later then the adult does instead of that not being bred at all or months later as it used to be.

Quote:

---

You know absolutely nothing about the correlation of breeding rates and the adult breeding B/D ratio.

---

Oh really?

I have been collecting that data for over thirty years now so I figure I know a good bit about that correlation. I would even post the data that shows that correlation but that wouldn’t be appropriate when you take such data and twist it into what you think is going to help in your law suit.

At this point I will just leave it at the data clearly shows significant improvement since antler restrictions.

Quote:

---

Poor RSB was logged in for over half and hour and couldn't come up with a rebuttal to my post.

---

The time I am logged in has little to do with coming up with rebuttal to your nonsense. Even while I am logged in I don’t just sit in front of the computer. My phone rings rather frequently this time of the year. Then I will often not only spend time answering that call but sometimes need to make other calls concerning the follow up to the in coming call. As a matter of fact I have talked with two of my deputies on the phone within the past hour, and while I was logged into this site.

Are you that desperate in your attempt to make it sound like you know what you are talking about? The fact is your arguments and misguided agenda are losing more and more credibility every day as even more research comes in proving just how wrong you are.


R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Rsb, Pgcs data CLEARLY shows decreases in embryo counts per doe, as well as no improvement in breeding window and actual decrease in percentage of adult does bred. This is ALL counter to what the program was supposed to do.

If its your contention not enough data were compiled per area to show true stats comparable to previous years data, then you are saying flat out pgc is flying completely blind. I guess that would make USP's lawsuit legitimate and no so stupid after all.;)

We are sticking to a completely failed plan that is not supported by data compiled, and its not supported by the hugemajority of our states hunters. Its actually kind of scary for our sport to have people like you who blindly support a bottomed out deer plan and would undoubtedly support it no matter what, even if it meant half the deer we have now for no good reason. From your perspective the ONLY failure could be allowing reasonable numbers of deer where they can and should be. As far as too few? Apparently to you, there never could be, and the maleffects of that to our sport or anything else, not even given a second thought.

Sorry, but time for a change of direction.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Rsb, your support of the very extreme viewed current ecoweiney commissioners who have the majority of the board currently is quite comical.

There is absolutely nothing beneficial, responsible or acceptable in what they have done and the extremes and lengths theyve gone to in order to cater to their close allies within the "obtuse" conservationist organizations.

That wasnt the case previously, and hopefully their grasp on the throat of our wildlife management can be pried loose soon. They are the worst detriment to the sport of hunting. Our numbers dwindling at over double the national average during they peak of this sham program shows this vividly.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

A shift in where the majority of the data came from between before and after antler restrictions certainly doesn’t mean their isn’t enough data in each unit to have proper management within the units. The shift in where the majority of the data came from only biased the total statewide results but since we manage by wildlife management unit instead of statewide that USP argument is just as goofy and invalid as your is.

Quote:

---

We are sticking to a completely failed plan that is not supported by data compiled, and its not supported by the huge majority of our states hunters. Its actually kind of scary for our sport to have people like you who blindly support a bottomed out deer plan and would undoubtedly support it no matter what, even if it meant half the deer we have now for no good reason. From your perspective the ONLY failure could be allowing reasonable numbers of deer where they can and should be. As far as too few? Apparently to you, there never could be, and the maleffects of that to our sport or anything else, not even given a second thought.

---

The present deer management certainly isn’t a failed program. It is the first time in a long time that the deer populations were even close to being within balance of the long term food supplies. It is the first time in decades that the habitat has had any opportunity to show any improvement that would allow for increasing deer populations in the future.The present management planalso uses more scientific data from the deer and thier food supply in developing the management direction then has ever been used before. That means the deer themselves are telling the professionals when there are too many deer, the right amount of deer or if deer numbers can increase. Surely you don't think the deer areproving false information about their breeding and reproductive ratesjust to trickthedata resultsdo you?

Today's deer management objectives and stylesare positives for the future instead of the negatives you seem to think they are.

The problem is that many people, like you, simply don’t understand how nature works, orthe message the der themselves send,so you have it in your head that the lower deer numbers are from over harvesting the deer. In reality though the low deer numbers we have today are the result of having far too many deer for far too long, and the deer themselves have proven that to be true.

The deer populations crashed because hunters and politicians demanded that deer be mismanaged with populations that were too high for toolong in the past. We are now paying for that stupid mistake, and no matter how much yammering people do about not enough deer the only thing that is going to correct the problem is working with nature instead of against it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Once again RSB,what is your definition of significant improvement ? If it is sacrificing 50% of our yearly harvest for a few bigger sets of horns(which by the way is highly debatable) them that may be your definition but not that of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of hunters across this state.If the program you speak so highly of is so sucessfull,why are our license sales decreasing at 2.5 times the national average ? If it's so sucessfull,why the lawsuits,the audits,and the complete and utter chaos it has caused among the ranks of hunters in this state ? If it is so sucessfull,why must you defend it strongly ? Could it possibly be that you don;t have as much faith in it as you put on,or have the pencil pushers,the big whigs,and tree huggers numbedyou to reality ?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

You really are a laugh riot since you just contradicted yourself in a single sentence and that is quite an accomplishment. But just for laughs let's assume the nonsense you post is true. You just admitted that due to ARs in Miss. inferior bucks would be doing most of the breeding and based on your theory the same thing would happen a year later in PA when the inferior 2.5 bucks that were saved by ARs as 1.5 buck, become the dominant breeding bucks.

That is exacly what I have been saying all along ,so are you finally agreeing or are you going to recant what you said?

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Wait , there it is RSB, I here the deer telling us it's too crowded around here ,we need to kill more of them ! What's that deer,you say,the information you're giving us about you're reproduction is true ! Message,what message ??? I must have missed that one,was it a phone call or e-mail message that you sent us or did you just send it to RSB so that he can continue to babble on the nonsense the PGC has brainwashed him with.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

I didn’t contradict myself at all. It is just that you either aren’t very knowledgeable on the subject you want to debate, you are just talking nonsense or you are seriously deficient in reading comprehension. I could only guess at which it is.

Once again in Mississippi they killed their better bucks before they had a change to breed even one time, thus many of their bucks never got to pass on their genes and those were in fact the bucks with the better antlers. In Pennsylvania we don’t kill any of our bucks until they have had the change to breed and pass on their genes. In Pennsylvania most bucks, both the best and worst, breed and pass on their genes several times before the season even starts, thus there is little to no chance of high grading.

If you aren’t capable of understanding the significance of that difference and how it can result in high grading in Mississippi but not in Pennsylvania then I guess you just aren’t intelligent enough to understand even the elementary level topics of genetics or the possibility of high grading.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

The significant improvement would be having habitat and food that will support more deer then the low numbers that can be sustained in the depleted habitat that has made up so much of the traditional deer range.

As for law suits and the stories about how hunters are dropping out of the sport I suspect that is just a bunch of hype that is only half true to start with. Other then the law suit and that is being brought forward by a bunch of nincompoops that have never been anything but a bunch of rebels and radicals that have continuously refused to learn anything about deer or the way nature really works.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Go to these sites and try educating yourself a bit before you make an even bigger fool of your self.


http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=521&q=175332


http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&Q=175353&PM=1


http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=460&q=174310


R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

Not hard to understand why you'd list those link's,could it be because they're PGC link's,the people who are trying to get people to believe in their hooey.So we're supposed to believe all these studies,facts,and figures that you try to throw at us but something that is actually able to track in real numbers like license sales is as you call it "hype".Once again,you show no sense of reality.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

So now you are backtracking and claiming that high grading changed the genetics of the herd in less than 5 years, even though you said before that was not the case. You are also saying that 6 and 8pt. 1.5 buck are genetically superior to spikes and Ys. So you agree that we are harvesting our genetically superior 1.5 buck and leaving the inferior bucks to become the dominant breeding 2.5 buck.

Boy, I sure am glad we finally agree on something.:)

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

"As for law suits and the stories about how hunters are dropping out of the sport I suspect that is just a bunch of hype that is only half true to start with."

According to US FISH AND WILDLIFE the decline nationwide in hunter numbers from 2001 to 2006 was 4%. According to our fine PaGame commissions license sales numbers in that same period, our decline was 10%. Nuff said.;)

"Other then the law suit and that is being brought forward by a bunch of nincompoops that have never been anything but a bunch of rebels and radicals that have continuously refused to learn anything about deer or the way nature really works."

Seems to me, if you count everyone unhappy with pgcs irresponsible management, the huge majority, I dont think the mainstream could be considered rebels, radicals or anything else. As for thelawsuit, all I see is one sportsmens organization being proactive and doingone of the only things they can to counter the eco-extremist initiated and run antideer agenda.Seeing as there is no reasonable set of checks and balances to keep pgc "straight" and prevent selfserving irresponsible practices, I guess I dont have a problem with the lawsuit. Right or wrong, beats doing absolutely nothing but shutting out eyes and taking the lumps upon ourselves and the resource itself for very little reason other than petty self serving ones, catering to their eco-weiner interests and their timber connections which are quite strong among some of our current commissioners. I would strongly recommend others who see the gross misconduct on pgcs part to contact our legislators and let them know this. This is the effective and only course of action which IS meaningful. The legislators represent the people. Pgc represents themselves and whatever interests the sitting board of commissioners has at a particular moment in time. At some points in history, this was hunters and hunting. Currently it is timber and eco-fools/extremists.

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

BRAVO !!!!

RE: PA Fall deer Chronicles
 

I’m not backtracking at all.

I have repeatedly pointed outthat no one, including the researchers in Mississippi, know what caused the antler development decline in their study. Could it have been from genetic high grading? Perhaps it could have been since they had an antler restriction that allowed for the harvesting of many of their bucks before those bucks ever got to cast their genetics into the herd even one time. But, the fact remains that no one knows one way or the other and can only speculate at the cause.

But even if it had been from high grading in Mississippi, that still has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to deer management in Pennsylvania because we don’t harvest our bucks before the breeding occurs.

Quote:

---

You are also saying that 6 and 8pt. 1.5 buck are genetically superior to spikes and Ys. So you agree that we are harvesting our genetically superior 1.5 buck and leaving the inferior bucks to become the dominant breeding 2.5 buck.

---

No, I am not saying that at all and for you to even suggest such nonsense once again proves beyond a doubt that you either have a very serious reading comprehension deficiency or you are just an evil and misguided person with an evil misguided agenda.

I have said from day one that there is absolutely nothing that indicates a 1 ½ year old eight point is genetically superior to a short antlered spike. It is impossible to determine which of the 1 ½ year old bucks have superior genetics until they reach about three or even four years of age. All one can do before that age is guess at which is genetically superior or inferior.

Therefore, there is not one single spread of evidence or even an indication that we are harvesting the genetically superior bucks at a younger age in Pennsylvania. In fact, with antler restrictions protecting approximately half of the 1 ½ year old bucks now itbecomes more likely that if any genetic change is occurring it is on the positive side instead of negative side. After all Pennsylvania always had an antler restriction that protected the smallest spikes and saved them until the next year. All the present antler restrictions did was make sure we kept some of the better antlered 1 ½ year old bucks then we ever did before when all we kept were the smallest spikes.

R.S. Bodenhorn