RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

You admitted that the change in sample distribution occurred before the decline in breeding rates , so it is you that found the facts to complex for you to understand and as a result you admitted you were wrong.

If a significant number of the bucks saved by ARs aren't being lost to non-hunting mortality, why hasn't the percentage of 3.5 and 4.5+ buck increased significantly? Are there now tens of thousands of 5.5+ buck out there that no one can kill? Why did the number and size at the buck measuring session decrease?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

If hunters were able to harvest 10,090 3.5+ buck in 2007, why wouldn't they be able to harvest twice as many if those bucks existed? Are some 3.5 a lot smarter than the ones that were killed?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

As usual, wrong yet again.Since Jan. 1st, we don't have to wait for anything now.

http://www.openrecordspa.org/

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Only a small percentage of non-hunting mortality is due to winter kill and predation. The vast majority of non-hunting mortality comes from road kills, other accidents, poaching, crop damage and disease. A lot of adult deer died from the recent EHD outbreak last year.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

How brain dead are you that you can’t understand that the southwest corner of the state having a 91% reduction in the number of doe they were sampling, over that period of time, would have a profound affect on the statewide breeding and reproductive rate data?

That isn’t an excuse, but it is a fact, and if you aren't bright enough to understand the affect it has then that doesn't speak well for your level of logic or common sense.

You have provided nothing, not one blessed thing, that supports your opinions other then perhaps that you haven’t been able to kill a buck while many other still are. Further more, there is not one shred of harvest evidence that supports your opinion of a reduction in the deer population in your area, other then what occurred from the affects of EHD. And, incidentally since it seems you aren’t bright enough to figure it out the Game Commission can’t control the occurrence of EHD.

Now, if you thought the Game Commission ever promised everyone or even anyone a big buck you must have been some form of screwball to start with. I don’t know of anyone else that believed they were being promised a big buck. Many hunters certainly are harvesting the best bucks of their lives though, as evidenced by the increased support for antler restrictions since their inception.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

You said the decline in sample size occurred before breeding rates started to decline , so you effectively eliminated the change in sample size and location as the reason for the declining breeding rates.

Here is what you said.

Breeding rates declined from 2004 to 2007.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Quote:

---

You admitted that the change in sample distribution occurred before the decline in breeding rates , so it is you that found the facts to complex for you to understand and as a result you admitted you were wrong.

---

I did not, thought that is undoubtedly the spin you would like to attach to it. What I said was the biggest decline in the sample size in the southwestern part of the state occurred between 2001 and 2003, which was before to after antler restrictions. That decline in southwest data has continued every year until perhaps last year, for which I haven’t yet seen the data.

Quote:

---

If a significant number of the bucks saved by ARs aren't being lost to non-hunting mortality, why hasn't the percentage of 3.5 and 4.5+ buck increased significantly?

---

First off how do you know there hasn’t been an increase in 3.5 and 4.5 year old bucks? I happen to believe the number of older bucks has increased even though the antler restrictions are designed to increase the ages beyond 2 ½ years old. If there aren’t more bucks 3 ½ and older it only because we harvest the majority of our bucks at 2 ½ now instead of when they are 1 ½ years old.

Quote:

---

Are there now tens of thousands of 5.5+ buck out there that no one can kill?

---

I doubt it but that was never part of the management objective in the first place. Pennsylvania has too many hunters to have many bucks reaching that age but evidence suggests the number of older bucks has increased.

Quote:

---

Why did the number and size at the buck measuring session decrease?

---

I don’t know. Do you? I suspect that last year’s measuring session being the first time hunters had to pre-register to have their buck measured prevented some from getting their buck in for measuring.

I didn’t feel like tallying all of the book entries for the guns season because of the number but I did go through all of the archery bucks and categorize them into ten year periods to determine the average entries per year. The fact still remains that at least the archery hunters have entered more bucks in recent years so I suspect the gun hunters have as well.

Here are the archery results, in average harvest per year, that made the record book.

Time period…………………….number of book entries
Pre 1960.……………………………..0.4
1960-1969.…………………………..2.5
1970-1979.…………………………..3.5
1980-1989.………………………….18.4
1990-1999.………………………….33.4
Since 2000.………………………….38.5

That indicates that in all probability hunters are entering more book bucks since antler restrictions then ever before.


R.S Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Yep, so now all you and the rest of Uninformed Silly People need to do is convince Mr. Mutchler to make those records and raw data available to you.

Most records I suspect will be available as most have been in the past. But, I doubt that will extend to a lot of the raw data available within the Government achieves unless the person requesting has a legitimate reason for needing it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The biggest gain in breeding rates should have occurred where breeding rates were the worst prior to AR's and HR. You said that they are the very areas where the sample size was effected the least. Therefore , if breeding rates actually increased in 2G and 2F, the effect would have been a significant increase in the statewide breeding rates rather than a 5% decrease since there was no reason for the breeding rates in the southwest or southeast to decrease.

George block wrote that both the numbered measure and size decreased. the average rack measured was 10" smaller than in 2000.

Of course the numbers in the books increased from 2000-2007, we had a record number of deer during that period.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Statewide they might have. The sample size from the Southwest and Southeast areas of the state, where the traditionally highest breeding and reproductive rates have always occurred, continued to decline during that time as well.

The might have comes from the fact we also have to deal with reality that the entire state’s decline in sample size makes the coefficient of variation less reliable. That really means that there really might not even be a reduction in the breeding rates or reproductive rates anyplace other then on paper. It is just too soon to draw any definitive conclusions from the present statewide data.

The WMU specific data, as used for management direction, is still providing the needed direction though since it is based on using three years of data averages.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

the simple answer should be there are less deer because the pgc is/was trying to make pa have buck
with bigger racks suddenly after many years they finally said oh our habbitat is poor and alot of it is
or was but imo the breeding rates have changed and pgc doesnt seem to care as rsb said south in pa
breeding rate decline what have they done to fix it? Far as i have seen not a thing WHY?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

That really means that there really might not even be a reduction in the breeding rates or reproductive rates anyplace other then on paper. It is just too soon to draw any definitive conclusions from the present statewide data.


Lets just wait till we have no deer to find out for sure then

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Not surprising that you bring up Mutchler's name, since he should only be involved when there are disputes;I hope with the price of gas going back up that they do the smart thing and just go ahead andmove his office into PGC Headquarters.

We'll see what the PGC can get by with now; who knows, we might find out more than we know already about past agency heads.[:-]

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

If that is true than the shift in sample location would have even less effect . You keep digging your hole deeper with every post. Can you explain why breeding rates would decline after ARs and HR in the SW. You can't blame it on the coefficient of variation because the PGC is using 3 year averages and the decline is following a consistent trend downward.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I suspect where the sample sizes stayed relatively consistent in units 2f and 2G the breeding and reproductive rates have increased. I know they have in my area. But, the sample size declined in some areas of the north central too for the some reason it declined in the southern areas, which is due to WCOs no longer handling the deer where the roads are under contract for dead deer removal.

Since I don’t have roads under contract my samples size has stayed pretty consistent. The breeding rate for adult does in my area has increased by 16.1% since the first year the affects of antler restrictions had any bearing on the breeding rates. The adult reproductive rates increased by 5.1% during the same time period. That is based on using the five year averages before to after antler restrictions.

But, even those increases can’t come close to overriding the sample size changes from those southern areas over the past decade.



I’d have to see the sample size and years involved in that data collection before I would put much credence on that result. Perhaps this is just a good example of cherry picking just a couple of comparison years that would reduce the result desired instead of the truth?



Really!
Listening to hunters it seems most of them are saying that we have had far fewer deer during the years since 2000 and the harvest records indicate is undoubtedly true.

Therefore, why shouldn’t a person have expected the number of record books to have declined instead of increasing.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

only AR for all of us will help seeing more and bigger bucks.

as long as the BROWN ITS DOWN WITH A:)TAG ,those little bucks will not make it.

but still, we must find out why few fawns and take steps that we have fawns.

some say its OLD DOE are dead, i now believe that too.

some say its coyotes/bears, i believe that too.

some say its habitat, i believe that too.

but we must all find way to turn it around,if not things will keep getting worst UNLESS all doe hunting is stopped in WMU2G

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The changes in sample size over the past decade isn't relevant. What is relevant is the change from 2003 to 2007 ,which is when the breeding rates declined as a result of HR. If even a few WMUs had even a 10% decrease it would far outweigh the negative effect od reduced sample size in areas with higher breeding rates.
Now you are just being silly . We set record buck harvests in 2000 and 2001.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what I have posted.

There is nothing that I am aware of that indicates that the breeding or reproductive rates have declined in the south west or the south east part of the state. What declined was the number of does they sample for the data each year. That decline in sample size, during recent years, from those areas has affected the statewide data though since those areas not only have the best breeding and reproductive rates but once lead the state in the number of data samples.

The reason the sample size declined in those areas was from the fact that WCOs didn’t and still don’t have a suitable place to dispose of dead deer. They were having to haul dead deer for long distances to legally dispose of them. They simply didn’t have the time or equipment, a large enough truck, to meet the demand for dead deer removal. Therefore, Penn Dot took over the dead deer removal, (they got reimbursed from the Federal Government for doing so any way), and put the job for most highways out on contract. Those contractors have no interest or desire to remove deer embryos and jawbones. Thus much of that data is no longer available.
The Game Commission has been not only concerned about the lost data but working diligently trying to find ways of correcting the problem. There was some improvement in the sample size last year too so it seems some headway is being made.

This shift in data collection in no way means that the breeding or reproductive rates have declined in the southwest though.

But, it really wouldn’t surprise to learn that the breeding or reproductive rates in various parts of those southern units was declining though since I believe we are still under harvesting those areas enough to fully protect the habitat there. If we can’t fully protect the habitat in those areas with high deer populations it is pretty much a guarantee that at some point they will experience declining breeding and reproductive rates.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

but if that is fact,why does clinton county have very few fawns .

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

If breeding rates didn't decrease in any WMUs then the increases in the areas where breeding rates were poor ,would far outweigh any effects from the change in sample sizes. Therefore, it is obvious that breeding rates had to decrease in more WMUs than those that increased.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

it sounds obvious to me bb

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Are you now trying to say that lower deer numbers resulted in a reduced breeding rate for the adult does? Why would that be when all adult does should be bred if you have a suitable buck/doe ratio? How about explaining just how that works for us.
I seems to me that you are simply grasping for straws to support your conjecture.



And since then we have had lower deer numbers and lower harvests.

Besides we were talking about record book bucks. Besides if you take those couple of years out of the recent years you end up with an even higher rate of record book increases during the years since antler restrictions.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

It is rare indeed to have all of the adult bred in a wild herd. QDM managers are often satisfied with an 85% breeding rate. Breeding rates and productivity decreased because we have a much lower percentage of mature doe in the herd due to HR.

The number of record buck bucks will be proportional to the number of older bucks in the herd.Until 2007 we were still benefiting from the high deer numbers from 2000 to 2003. It takes 3 years for the full effect of HR to decrease the buck harvest. That is why we harvested fewer 2.5+ buck in 2007 than we did in 2002 ,before any 1.5 buck were saved by ARs.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

[quote]ORIGINAL: bluebird2











BINGO!! less pressured, more covered,worse hunting weather, fewer hunters etc, etc.















Additionally; over 10,000 3.5 year old buck, YOU say, taken in 2007?!? Sounds like a great year.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

If that were true then there have been a lot of 5.5 and older buck taken but there were only ,2,402 4.5 + buck harvested in 2007 and that is pathetic,when you consider less than half of the 2.5 buck were harvested.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

thats sounds good on paper anyway bb

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The Freedom of Information Act
5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended By
Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Before AR 90% of the antler harvest was 1.5 years old. How did we kill 50K plus 2.5 year olds in 02.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I checked in 2002 pa killed 165,000 antlered deer. If over 50k were 2.5 years old that would mean 1 out of every three bucks harvested were 2.5 is that right?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

First of all for you to say that the perceived decline in the breeding or reproductive rates is the result of younger does is simply not founded on facts or even logic. All of the data you are comparing is for adult does and quite simply if fewer of the adult does are being bred or their reproductive rates really are declining, as you insist, there is an obvious problem. That problem doesn’t have anything to do with the age of the does in the samples since they were all adult does being compared for each of those years.

Furthermore I would have to say there is absolutely no reason for anyone. QDM or not, to be satisfied with an 85% breeding rate for adult does unless they have an out of balance buck/doe ratio and are willing to accept that fact. If they do have an 85% breeding rate for adult does they need to make every attempt toward fixing it because there is an obvious problem with either the buck/doe ratio unless the habitat is very seriously lacking in it ability to support the existing deer population.

If the breeding and reproductive rates are really declining in the wildlife management units within Pennsylvania, as you and the other Uninformed Silly People insist, then should we go ahead and fix it or say it is ok as it is?

If we are to fix it, even though I don’t think it is declining, then the logical solution would be to have a better adult buck/doe ratio or fix seriously lacking habitat with even fewer deer. To fix the buck/doe ratio we can either increase the number of bucks we keep through the season, reduce the doe population or a combination of the two. Which of those options do you figure to be the best way to fix this perceived problem you insist is looming out there? If you figure the problem is with the habitat then obviously we need to harvest more deer. Is that a direction you think we should take? How you think your fellow Uninformed Silly People will feel about those options for fixing this problem you figure you have disclosed?



That is nonsense at its finest.

If what you just said were true then the buck harvests would not have declined in 2004 and then again in 2005 since we certainly had more deer back in 2001 and 2002 which would have been the three years you claim it takes to decrease the buck harvest.

The reason the number of 2 ½ year old bucks harvest declined in 2007 was because we had seriously reduced fawn survival in the spring of 2004 and 2005 when the fawns born died of being born under weight following those two harsh winters. Those fawns that died those two spring should have been the 2 ½ and 3 ½ year old bucks that hunters would have been harvesting last year. But, hunters will never get to harvest deer that died as fawns.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

rsb, fawns arevery few here in clinton county.

no doubt about that.

but of course our deer numbers are few too.

but i sawdoe without fawns a lot this year.

out of 6 doe i saw in 1 area last year,only 1 fawn was alive.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

All the dead deer found in PA died from starvation? How is it determine cause of death? Is it possible of some disease might be cause to the death or a injury preventing the animal from feeding?Why is it only deer that are dieing from starvation and not any elk or rabbits that feed the same browse as deer? Elk eat alot more than deer yet do we see any of them dead?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The 90% harvest rate figure was obviously an exaggeration Alt used to sell ARs. In order to harvest 52,000 2.5+ buck in 2002 we gad to carry over roughly 80,000 1.5 buck from 2001. That would result in a harvest rate for 1.5 buck of around 75% and a B/D ratio of 1:2.1.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I have ask you over and over again to provide an explanation for the declining breeding rates and all you could come up with is the bogus claim that it was due to a change in sample size and location. Since our B/D ratio is better than ever and the habitat is improving you can't point to those factors as being the reason for the decrease. The current plan was supposed to improve breeding rates by improving the B/D ratio and improving the habitat by reducing the herd , so doing more of the same isn't a logical solution.

The buck harvests in 2004 and 2005 didn't decline because of a decrease in the 2.5+ buck harvest . Those harvests were still higher than in 2002. The decrease in the buck harvest was due to a big decrease in the 1.5 buck harvest which dropped from 112K in 2002 to 63 K in 2005. That decrease was due to increased doe and BB harvests from 2002 to 2004 , not due to a decrease in recruitment due to severe winters.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

As I see it, RSB has produced a perfectly sensible reason to question the appearance, at first,that breeding ratesmay be shiftingwhileBluebird has produced noplausible cause and effect relationship when he claims that AR/HR is to blame for a changethat we cant even be sure is accurate due to issues with the sampling source.

Anyone wishing to be objective has to see that the variations in samplinglocation emphasisare relevant.

Second, if we were to assume that breeding rates have taken a 5% decrease, (not proven conclusivley) where is a plausible cause and effect relationship between AR/HR and that "decline"???

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I have made it perfectly clear that the reason the breeding rates decreased is because we have a much lower percentage of 2.5+ doe in the over wintering herd due to herd reduction. There is a direct correlation between the increase of the percentage of fawns in the antlerless harvest with the decline in the breeding rates. RSB has contradicted his own position by claiming the shift in sample distribution occurred before the decline in breeding rates. Breeding rates remained stable when the shift in sample distribution occurred.
You can not produce on fact or piece of data to support your claim. You are just blindly supporting RSB when you don't even understand the law of averages and how shifts in sample size effect the results.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Simply not true. I challenged you to produce a plausible cause and effect and you camo back with another unsupported theory that happens to suit your agenda.

You wonder why your posts generate strong reactions and name calling? It's because you are completely unable to ever be objective when presented with any valid point that may contradict your agenda. When presented with a valid question or arguement, you simply change the subject or present partail facts or distortions.

Your bias makes you the one unable to understand the law of averages or any other scientific analysis tool.

The conclusive evidence as to your bias is the fact that you have repeatedly claimed several well respected wildife professionals, (quite a fewother than Gary Alt) , biased or claimed they "didn't understand"


TWIST AND SPIN ONCE AGAIN!!!

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

My theory is in fact supported by the antlerless harvest data provided in Table 7 of the 2007 AWR. The adult doe in the antlerless harvested dropped from 61% in 2004 to 56% in 2007. During the same period breeding rates dropped from 93% to 88% which is also a 5% decrease.
If I am so biased and wrong you should have no problem proving I am wrong without name calling and posting pics of dead horses. But you can't do it because I can support my position with facts and you can't.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

A 5% difference in one only age class causing a 5% difference in the breeding rates overall makes no statistical sense. If that were the case the differences would have showed up in only that age class which did not happen. Justmore Bluebird "apples vs oranges" smoke and mirrors.

RSB's explanation makes a lot more scientific sense.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I fully agree that many areas have fewer fawns per doe then we had during some of the past years and that reduced fawn numbers per doe in your area is very likely.

The only question is why there are fewer fawns per doe. Some want to blame the reduced fawn numbers on hunters having harvested too many does, but in your case you are seeing the does but not the fawns so the problem in you area appears to be something that is only affecting fawn birth or survival rates yet not necessarily affecting adult populations.

When you have adult populations but few fawns the obvious places to look for the problem lie in either the does not being bred or the fawns not surviving after they are born. If the does aren’t being bred that is an indication of either a poor buck/doe ratio, extremely poor habitat keeping the does in such poor condition they don’t conceive while being bred or a combination of those two factors.

If the does are actually being bred and you still don’t have fawns then the problem is with poor fawn recruitment after the fawns are born. The things most likely to cause poor fawn recruitment are typically environmentally related.

Probably the largest factor resulting in poor fawn recruitment, (survival rates), occurs when the bred does don’t have enough high nutrition foods during both the winter and spring. If the does don’t have enough high protein foods during winter and spring they don’t send as much nutrition to the fawns they are carrying and end up used the protein to maintain their own health and weight. When that happens the fawns are carried full term but still born under weight. Fawns that are born under weight have a very low survival rate and normally die of malnutrition within a hours to perhaps a couple of days of being born. Some studies have shown new born fawn mortality as high as 92.9% from just nutritional factors (no predation involved) following years when does had poor winter and spring food supplies. Those lack of food conditions occur when does in the northern tier get locked into the wintering grounds during our long harsh winters.

The next factor that is known to cause low fawn recruitment is fawn predation. There is no doubt that many areas have high bear, coyote and bobcat populations. Those are the three most successful predators on fawns though there is documentation of fox and even raccoons feeding on dead fawns and perhaps even killing them when they get the opportunity. But, studies have also proven that where there is suitable habitat fawn predation is relatively low even where predator numbers are high.

Even when the fawn mortality studies were being conducted it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine when the predator had killed the fawn verses having simply fed on it after it had died of malnutrition or other natural causes.

Fawns are naturally intended to hide from predators until they can out run them but hiding on a forest floor with no under story is difficult at best when nay predator coming along can see the fawns laying there. Virtually anything that stumbles onto a new born fawn kills it so that is one of the reasons why it is important toward deer numbers to have good ground cover on the forest floor.

I have also frequently seen young fawns up moving around on their own when they should have been lying hidden on the forest floor. That is most likely because they were hungry and mom hadn’t come to feed them yet. But mom doesn’t come when the fawn is hungry; she comes to feed the fawns when she has a bag load of milk and if she isn’t finding enough food she doesn’t produce enough milk. Those fawns that are up walking around, because they are hungry, instead of hiding have greatly reduced their change of surviving. I have even seen fawns that were not only up walking around but also bleating in an attempt to get mom to come and feed them. If you want to call a bear, coyote or bobcat in all you need to do is get a good fawn bleat call, find a good spot down wind and start working that call during the fawning season. I have done that and had bears darn near in my lap very quickly. It really isn’t something I recommend for those weak or heart because one could get in bigger trouble then they want pretty quickly.

The bottom line is there are many reasons why there could be few fawns per doe, but pretty much all of them indicate both an environmental problem and a deer population that is actually working at reducing its own numbers to fit those environmental conditions they are living with.

R.S. Bodenhorn