bluebird2

Three spikes that aren't legal are the equivalent of 3 fawns that are so small they aren't worth skinning.. One may die from non-hunting mortality,one may not be AR legall as a 2.5 buck and one may be a legal 2.5 buck. So what?

FiveMiler

Fact of the matter is, you can't/won't accept the statistics and data provided by the PGC that BB2 presented. They are right there in front of your nose, but you are to busy judging herd health by the biggerantlersthat you think you see! That is the answer right there. Plain and simple.

No need for further sidestepping. The question has been blatantly answered. Thank you.

BTBowhunter

I went right to the PGC numbers because BB2's numbers are not to be trusted. Sometimes he posts all the facts but more often he does not. Whats right there and you cant seem to understandare minor fluctuations from year to year in the rate of embryos per adult fawn in a small sampilng of deer. The differences are statistically insignificant and certainly not enough to prove any trend one way or another. Any biologist will confirm that. It's not enough to make any trend and indeed has gone both up as welldownover the years that the numbers have been recorded.

The claim that breding rates are declining is silly enough, but the claim that herd health is declining is simply a bold face lie. No scientific or anecdotal evidence of that exists whatsoever.

It aint so just because you and BB2 want it to be

livbucks

So some are now proposing that a closer b/d ratio and less DPSM is a health risk for deer?

FiveMiler

Interesting way of presenting your thoughts. I'm not sure you understand, so I guess I will try to put it in simpler terms.....

The stats show that breeding rates and herd health have declined. That means, that does are not being bred in a shorter time frame as was anticipated, and doe health is falling along with embryo numbers. Is it due to closer B/D ratio or less DPSM? Is it?

BTBowhunter

Once again you ignored the question so I'll ask it another way.

Please show us where any wildlife professional concluded that doe health is "falling" or that the minor fluctuation in embryos per fawn is anything more than simply small annual variations.

livbucks

Present some evidence of that statement.

Cornelius08

BTB, Pgc should have had SOME of theproof to support the plan by now and all the wild claims they made at the initiation of this program.

Its QUITE clear they DO NOT have the proof of improving reproduction as shouldve been the case after several years of the "plan" and many areas seeing very extreme reductions. Seeing at that is the case, Id hardly say the end we are experiencing justified the extreme "means".

The pgc annual report clearly shows that every single measure of deer reproductive data has DROPPED. Nearly steadily (not normal fluctuation) from the initial years of the program til now. That IS rediculous. Certainly not what one would expect. I expected very insignificant gains myself. We did not even accomplish that! A year here or there could be attributed to lack of mast, overly dry summer/fall, tough winter.... The data doesnt show that to be the case. Conditions through the years in question were far from severe and anyway, the period of time was several years not just one or two.

The embryos per doe dropped. The timing of the breeding window was unchanged. And the percentage of adult doe actually bred DECLINED.

I dont care the reason, and the point isnt to show that the "plan" actually "caused" the declines. But whatit does showit thatthere is NOTHING that supports continuing with the antideer agenda when there is no supporting data (science) that was supposed to support it. Such extreme measure imho are in no way justified and its time for change.

FiveMiler

No need torepeat what Cornelius just said. Should pretty much answer anyones questions.

bluebird2

No, I am not proposing that. I am simply pointing out that the PGC data shows that breeding rates and productivity decreased as a result of the PGC plan.