|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Surely you are not so simple as to not understand how the change in the number of fawns in annual antler less harvest also changes the percentage for all of those ages and the sex class of juvenile male and juvenile female. Any unbiased and logically thinking person would also realize that the number of juvenile deer in any annual harvest will be very dependant on the number of fawn in existence. Surely even the village idiot could figure out that during the years when the majority of the fawns died right after being born there would be fewer fawn in the fall harvest. I sort of figure that anyone of even average intelligence would also figure out that during those years when there were fewer fawns available to be harvested the adult does harvested would make a higher percentage of the total harvest. Come on man you aren’t that dense, or are you? Of course I understand that and that is why I pointed it out to you, because it is obvious you don't understand it and that you are overly influenced by your personal observations in 2G.. The fact remains the number of over wintering doe determine the number of fawns in the herd ,but the ratio of fawns to adult females is relatively constant unless there is a significant decrease in breeding rates, which results in fewer fawns which changes the ratio of adults to fawns. So what happened , when the breeding rates began to decrease in 2005? The percentage of fawns in the harvest increased ,even though they represented a smaller percentage of the antlerless herd, and the harvest of adult doe decreased because there were fewer adult doe available to be harvested. quote: Don't you have that data? you just posted it for 2004. In 2002 we harvested 197,183 adult doe and it dropped to 119,767 in 2007 which is a decrease of 39%. At the same time the antlerless allocation only dropped by around 15%. So it is obvious there were a lot fewer adult doe were available to be bred and produce fawns in 2007. I suspect I do have the data, that is part of the reason I know how wrong you are. The other part is just common sense. If you want the data call Harrisburg and ask them for it. Maybe the Attorney for the Uninformed Silly People can get it for you. I’m not obligated to sharing data with anyone trying to use it in a law suit against the Agency on their misguided mission. I provided all the data that is needed to show how the harvest of adult doe decreased much more than the antlerless allocations ,which means there are a lot fewer adult doe available to be bred and produce fawns. That ,inturn, accounts for the decrease in breeding rates and productivity. Using your argument you are then trying to convince people that because we have fewer adult does those does that are left will have a lower breeding and reproductive rate, per individual doe, then the does had when we had more does. That is just plain goofy and one of the finest examples of pure nonsense a person could use as a reason for the decline in breeding and reproductive rates. There is no doubt that having fewer adult does results in fewer fawns being born even with slightly changing breeding and reproductive rates, that is pretty much a no brainer. But, having fewer adult does most certainly doesn’t reduce the breeding or reproductive rates of the remaining adult does. What causes fewer fawns in the population is having fawns born under weight and dying within days of being born. The variance in the number of fawns in the fall hunting season, due to how many survived after being born that year, is also causes the percentage change in Table 7 of the annual report. That too is a no brianer fro anyone who has the ability to see things with an unbiased eye and brain. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Using your argument you are then trying to convince people that because we have fewer adult does those does that are left will have a lower breeding and reproductive rate, per individual doe, then the does had when we had more does. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Using your argument you are then trying to convince people that because we have fewer adult does those does that are left will have a lower breeding and reproductive rate, per individual doe, then the does had when we had more does. so, would solution be to close doe season this year so our doe could get to 2.5 yrs of age to have fawns. or as RSB says its HABITAT would not be good to even do this . i am in process of talking to a friend who owns 2500 acres here in clinton. he has great habitat,i am curious on how many fawns he has on his property. it still is hard for me to believe its habitat ,when i see best of it on SGL252 in lycoming county and very few deer or small game. how can we have great HABITAT on these SGL lands in pa .and such lousy hunting. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Using your argument you are then trying to convince people that because we have fewer adult does those does that are left will have a lower breeding and reproductive rate, per individual doe, then the does had when we had more does. Yes 2 ½ and older does do have higher reproductive rates. But, the breeding rates for all does 1 ½ and older should not reflect any difference unless there is an extremely serious habitat problem. With that said I will also say that I see absolutely nothing that indicates there is any change in the percentage of 2 ½ and older does in the statewide population and least of all where the bulk of the sample came from. A decline in older does is really nothing more then your speculation as you grasp for straws to support your opinions. Show us where you came up with a lower percentage of 2 ½ and older does in the deer population and then explain why 2 ½ and older does should have a higher breeding rate then does that are 1 ½ year old. Both are equally breeding mature unless there are other much more serious problems with the food supply. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
For those that still believe that the shift in sample size is responsible for the 5% statewide decrease in breeding rates ,here is an example that shows that is simply impossible. If you take 3 WMUs with a breeding rate of 96% and 200 doe sampled and 3 WMUs with an 86% breeding rate and 100 does sampled the average breeding rate for all 6 WMUs is 92%.
Now if you reduce the sample size of the first 3 WMUs to 100 does sampled and keep the same breeding rate,while keeping the sample size in the other 3 WMUs constant, but increasing the breeding rate by just 4%, the average breeding rate for all six WMUs increases to 93.9%. Therefore, despite the shift in sample sizes it is impossible to get a 5% decrease in breeding rates unless the statewide breeding rates decreased by at least 5% in most WMUs. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
thats a good perspective
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: sproulman ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Using your argument you are then trying to convince people that because we have fewer adult does those does that are left will have a lower breeding and reproductive rate, per individual doe, then the does had when we had more does. so, would solution be to close doe season this year so our doe could get to 2.5 yrs of age to have fawns. or as RSB says its HABITAT would not be good to even do this . i am in process of talking to a friend who owns 2500 acres here in clinton. he has great habitat,i am curious on how many fawns he has on his property. it still is hard for me to believe its habitat ,when i see best of it on SGL252 in lycoming county and very few deer or small game. how can we have great HABITAT on these SGL lands in pa .and such lousy hunting. Closing doe season for even one year would be an absolutely horrible thing to do for the future deer populations. Yes the deer population would increase for that one year unless we had a hard winter that resulted in winter mortality. In that case we might end up with fewer deer for the very next fall deer season. But, even if you had a mild winter and an increase in the deer the next summer it would simply mean more deer eating up the limited food supply. Then at some point in the future you will have an other major reduction in the deer numbers because the habitat couldn’t support more deer. In many areas it doesn’t even matter if you have large pockets of excellent habitat on the ridges and plateaus. If that good food supply isn’t in the wintering grounds and you have a hard winter all that excellent food on the ridges is as unavailable to the deer as if it were on the moon. I have seen lots of deer that starved to death while there was all the good browse they could have ever eaten just a few hundred yards away. Once deer are locked into the wintering grounds, with deep prolonged snow, as frequently happens here in the northern tier they are very limited in what food is available. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 For those that still believe that the shift in sample size is responsible for the 5% statewide decrease in breeding rates ,here is an example that shows that is simply impossible. If you take 3 WMUs with a breeding rate of 96% and 200 doe sampled and 3 WMUs with an 86% breeding rate and 100 does sampled the average breeding rate for all 6 WMUs is 92%. Now if you reduce the sample size of the first 3 WMUs to 100 does sampled and keep the same breeding rate,while keeping the sample size in the other 3 WMUs constant, but increasing the breeding rate by just 4%, the average breeding rate for all six WMUs increases to 93.9%. Therefore, despite the shift in sample sizes it is impossible to get a 5% decrease in breeding rates unless the statewide breeding rates decreased by at least 5% in most WMUs. And if pigs had wings maybe they could learn to fly. You can’t take speculated numbers and apply them to make believe scenarios and come up with what is reality. You have to use the real numbers from the real deer in the real units to find the correct answer. You haven’t done that, therefore you are doing nothing more then speculating as to what might have happened. Yet in another instance you came up with the decline in the adult breeding being the result of a lower percentage of does 2 ½ and older in the population despite the fact there should be no difference in the breeding rates between 1 ½ and older does? All does over one year old are equally breeding mature and capable unless there is an extremely serious habitat problem. You have simply been grasping for straws and now you have resorted to making up pretend numbers. What’s next just using flat out fairy-tails? R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
A decline in older does is really nothing more then your speculation as you grasp for straws to support your opinions. Show us where you came up with a lower percentage of 2 ½ and older does in the deer population and then explain why 2 ½ and older does should have a higher breeding rate then does that are 1 ½ year old. Both are equally breeding mature unless there are other much more serious problems with the food supply. then explain why 2 ½ and older does should have a higher breeding rate then does that are 1 ½ year old. Both are equally breeding mature unless there are other much more serious problems with the food supply. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: R.S.B. ORIGINAL: sproulman ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Using your argument you are then trying to convince people that because we have fewer adult does those does that are left will have a lower breeding and reproductive rate, per individual doe, then the does had when we had more does. so, would solution be to close doe season this year so our doe could get to 2.5 yrs of age to have fawns. or as RSB says its HABITAT would not be good to even do this . i am in process of talking to a friend who owns 2500 acres here in clinton. he has great habitat,i am curious on how many fawns he has on his property. it still is hard for me to believe its habitat ,when i see best of it on SGL252 in lycoming county and very few deer or small game. how can we have great HABITAT on these SGL lands in pa .and such lousy hunting. Closing doe season for even one year would be an absolutely horrible thing to do for the future deer populations. Yes the deer population would increase for that one year unless we had a hard winter that resulted in winter mortality. In that case we might end up with fewer deer for the very next fall deer season. But, even if you had a mild winter and an increase in the deer the next summer it would simply mean more deer eating up the limited food supply. Then at some point in the future you will have an other major reduction in the deer numbers because the habitat couldn’t support more deer. In many areas it doesn’t even matter if you have large pockets of excellent habitat on the ridges and plateaus. If that good food supply isn’t in the wintering grounds and you have a hard winter all that excellent food on the ridges is as unavailable to the deer as if it were on the moon. I have seen lots of deer that starved to death while there was all the good browse they could have ever eaten just a few hundred yards away. Once deer are locked into the wintering grounds, with deep prolonged snow, as frequently happens here in the northern tier they are very limited in what food is available. R.S. Bodenhorn do you have idea if you were in charge of SFLand trees not important,how you would feed deer so deer numbers would increase. also do you know why dr.alt told me in front of rep hanna that he wanted us too kill the OLD doe,he said that over and over. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:16 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.