Absolutely no Oaks will grow anywhere in the forest up North where I have hunted all my life.

Here we have another prime example of someone trying to apply a widely accepted theory without thinking it through to a logical conclusion. The fact is the majority of our forest were harvested by 1925 resulting in a high percentage of the seedling/sapling stage with the highest carrying capacity. For the next 20 years (1925-1945) the carrying capacity decreased as the cuts progressed to the pole timber stage which has the lowest carrying capacity. As the pole timber matured into saw timber the carrying capacity increased and the herds increased until the large winterkill, due to a severe ice storm ,reduced the herd in the late 70's.

Since 1980 the PGC has been trying to manage the herd at densities that are below the true MSY carrying capacity of the habitat, But from 1980 to 2000 the herd increased to over 1.6 PS deer,which represented the true MSY carrying capacity of the habitat. That fact is confirmed by the fact that breeding rates and productivity decreased as the herd was reduced by 35-40%.

So,there is no doubt the quality of the habitat decreased significantly from 1925 to 1945 , the quality of the habitat has been relatively constant over the last 30 years . Therefore, it is blatantly obvious that it is the antlerless harvests that have been controlling the herd and which resulted in a 46% decrease in our buck harvest.

A very inconsistant source of browse - generally feast or famine.

Steve

Thanks RSB for a well prepared, well presented, factual perspective on the doe harvests. Till now, I think most of us hadn't taken the time to compare the harvests by county vs WMU in an objective way and you have taken a lot of time to do just that. I find it amazing that anyone, even Bluebird, could call what you posted "spin"

You have found a way to fairly compare the apples and oranges and busted the myth that doe harvests alonehave been the limiting factorsince we went to WMU's and concurrent seasons.

You aren't even close to being right. If RSB wanted to provide a factual representation of the antlerless harvests he would have provided the yearly antlerless allocations along with the yearly harvests , rather that using 5 year averages which tend to mask the correlation between the harvests and the decrease in the herd.

Even with the data RSB posted , it is clear that five years of high doe harvests resulted in lower harvests the next five years. How RSB can ignore that obvious correlation and accuse the deer management team of misleading the hunters is beyond me.

To further support my position, here is a quote from the PGC regarding the effects of the antlerless harvests.
So is RSB telling the truth or is the PGC telling the truth? Or, can't we believe either one?

Here is another interesting quote that shows RSB is just blowing smoke.

For those of you that think five year averages tell the story, do a five year average on your 401k plan blances.

In wildlife management, no measuring method is perfect. 5 year averages simply even out fluctuation in the annualnumbers from varying factors like weather, etc. Anyone who would criticize using avearges over annual numbers simply doesnt understand scientific wildlife management. Or in the case of the 401K comparison, it shows a lack of understanding of long term financial planning as well.

A five year average is useless on a declining harvest and herd, at best and only for information, a three year rolling average could be used for statistical purposes only. I suggest you look at PA harvests for the last five years, they are on a steady decline, which makes averaging a mute point.

Yes my point on the 401k plan showed no information, it was to demonstrate how useless a five year average is in deer management. As I worked in Accounting, Budget and Forcasts for over 30 years, I know a tad about investments and long term outlooks. But under the current conditions of our economy, it's hard to tell the baby boomer to just hang in there. I would that most people know what happens to their common stock, when a company files for bankruptcy.

All anyone wanting to know what the truth is would have to do is look a the data and colors on the maps I provided and then think it through with some rational thoughts.

The deer harvest history is what it is and there is no way for that data to do anything but provide the facts concerning when the highest antler less harvest actually did occur.

Those areas in red clearly show that the highest harvests occurred there between fifteen and twenty years ago. That isn’t a lie, it is a fact based on real data.

No matter how much you don’t like the data and no matter how much you wish it weren’t true that data clearly proves you are wrong about hunter harvests being the only, or even the most influential, factor controlling deer populations.

It is you who does the spinning. Explain to us just how providing real deer harvest data could be considered as spinning things. It is what it is and no one can change the facts it provides.

Your understanding and explanation of the forest growth history and levels of change for this part of the state were seriously lacking in realism too, but that is a matter for another thread and another time. Both DCE and BT Bowhunter had much more factual and realistic explanations for how the deer densities will change over relatively short time periods with an area.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Obviously that eliminates you and BTB from the group wanting to know the truth because you definitely didn't think it through or apply some rational thought. Instead you deny the basic premise of deer management which is that antlerless harvests are used to control the herd and prevent it from expanding to the point where natural mortality equals recruitment.
I don't dislike the data,I love it since it proves you are wrong. I do not question the validity of the data, but I do question your misguided conclusions you reach based on the data.
The only spin in the data you provided is the worthless five year averages which you use to disguise the true effect of the antlerless harvests. The real spin is when you claim the reduced antlerless harvests are due to the habitat controlling the herd. Now here are some facts you can't change.

Some of the antlerless harvests in Elk county occurred in 1988,89 and 90 and the PGC said the harvests during that period reduced the herd by 15%.
1988-4899
1989-4353
1990-5300

Now , just 10 years later the Elk Co harvests were:
1998-2600
1999-2100
2000-2969--- This was the start of the current HR effort.

Then we have 2002 and 2003!!!

2001-4387
2002-3200

Now ,everyone can see the second highest antlerless harvest in the last 20 years occurred in 2001, instead of 20 years ago!!! And that harvest occurred after the herd had been reduced to 14 or less OWD PSM!! Now inquiring minds might ask what was the OWDD in 1987 and the answer is 33 DPSM!!!!!!