RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

in last 4 years our fawn sighting have dropped to point now here in clinton county,its something to see a fawn.

looking at does necks, dont laugh, i can tell if its young doe or older doe.

i saw 1 older doe this year that i would say was 2.5 yrs old on stateforestland.

others i would bet are 1.5 yrs old.

even big bucks we see killed are not over 3 yrs old,most look like 2 yr old bucks.

this fawn thing should be a TOP PRIORITY of the pgc right now, its that serious now here in clinton county.

yet, on privateland we have fawns .

doe that comes into my yard, i would guess is a 2.5 yr old doe or more.

she has 2 fawns with her.

but her size i dont see out on state forestland,only on privateland i have..

now, here is good one too.

my friend has privateland in tamarack, pa.

his deer come on his farm from STATEFORESTLAND.

he told me he sees very few fawns,if any.

yet he has best food year round for these stateforestland deer.

i used to say and know that predators are killing fawns and i dont let those things happen on my privateland but i now feel its something else too that is happening to cause less fawns now.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

very good info.

thatanswers why in our bass tournaments at raystown lake we hear coyotes barking like crazy at noon and seeing mothers running around june 15th.

also habitat thing too..


after no acorns this year and i am seeing bear tracks andcoyotes,like 2 per area where i hunt, i see things getting worst.


you know, we had fawns and still had bears back in 70s.

but when these coyotes showed up, fawns did decrease too.

dont know if thats any relationship.

but we had good feed last 3 years on acorns and still no fawns.

thanks for info.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

You have some good questions that deserve an answer. I will address them one at a time.

Quote:

---

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?

---

No not all dead deer we find following the winter died of starvation. We make every attempt to determine the cause of death, sometimes we simply can’t because there isn’t enough of the deer left to make a positive determination. Some of the things we look for are the general appearance of the dead deer. Does it have antlers. If it does there is a high likelihood it didn’t die of starvation since a stressed buck will shed the antlers before it starves. Do we see any broken bones or other signs of trauma? If we do then though the deer might have starved to death there was likely another contributing cause. Next, when the entire deer is present, we look at the positioning of the neck and head. It is typical for a deer that is starving to death to die with its legs under it but its head back over the side of its body. Next we break the femur bone to see what color the bone marrow is. A head that died of malnutrition will have bone marrow that looks about strawberry jam instead of being white and pasty like that of a healthy deer.

It still isn’t always possible to make a positive determination but when you several dead deer in a small area of a wintering grounds habitat and the majority of the indicators point toward starvation we have to suspect that as the cause.

Quote:

---

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?

---

I will have to say that I don’t have much knowledge or experience dealing with rabbits that have been found dead so I have no idea how many might die of starvation. I suspect any rabbit that dies of starvation is soon carried off and eaten by some predator so that is one that would be extremely difficult in which to measure starvation affects unless it were none in a controlled environment without predators.

As far as elk though I do have a good bit of experience. Elk will certainly browse but they can reach a lot higher and tend to bark aspen trees more then browse when they do feed on trees. But, in reality elk are more grazers and instead of heading into the wintering grounds, like deer do with deep snows, the elk continue to hit the fields or when there are acorns they more into the oaks. Since elk are much larger they can move through a lot more snow then deer can to get to the areas that have the food they need. Elk also have much larger and stronger legs enabling them to dig down through even crusted snow, that deer couldn’t dig through, to reach the grasses or acorns that a deer could never dig up. Elk will also eat and survive very well on grasses that have little to no nutritional value for a deer.

I have also seen many, many years when both the deer and turkeys were thriving by following the trails the elk made and then moving into the same areas as the elk to eat the grasses or acorns the elk had already dug up through the deep snow.

I know some people believe the elk out compete the deer where they overlap. Many believe that where we have elk we have fewer deer as because of the elk but studies show that is not the case. In the western states, where they have both white-tail deer and elk, they are finding that as the white-tail deer numbers increase, and especially when they over populate an area, the elk numbers start to decline because of degraded habitat and food supplies. All indication point toward the very high probability that deer out compete the elk for the food and actually limit the food supply and alter the habitat to the point that eventually both deer and elk numbers decline.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Thank for proving to one and all that you lack even the most basic understanding of the issues. The one age class you are referring to ,includes all does 1.5 yrs and older. The only other class of does is female fawns and we all know they have breeding rates under 50% and are not included in the statewide breeding rates for adult doe.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

And I have provided the correct answer over and over again but since it isn’t the answer that fits your misguided agenda you work as diligently as you can to discredit the explanation.

As you just pointed out since the buck/doe ratio is better and the habitat is improving there simply is no other logical explanation for the statewide adult breeding rates to decline beyond the factual shift in sample sizes per area of the state.

I agree that we probably don’t need to protect more bucks per doe at this time since all indications are that things are improving and the past problem with the buck/doe ratio has made great strides in being corrected.



The decline in the 2004 and 2005 buck harvests most certainly was at least in part due to the reduced number of fawns following the harsh winter and the results of the reduced fawn recruitments of 2003. I will use some data here to prove that point but first we have to recognize that the winter of 2002/2003 resulted in fewer surviving male fawns during the spring of 2003 and there is harvest data to support that fact. That decline in fawns in the spring of 2003 resulted in the number of button bucks in the fall antler less harvest declining by 11.6% from the previous year even though the antler less license allocation had increased that year. Then the next fall, 2004, when those fawns that didn’t survive in the spring of 2003 should have been 1 ½ years old bucks the number of 1 ½ year old bucks in the harvest declined by 22.8%. Then the following year, 2005, when those buck fawns from 2003, that died after birth, should have been out there as 2 ½ year old bucks there was a 7.1% decline in the 2 ½ and older buck harvest for that year.


Those facts pretty clearly indicate that the decline in fawn survival does have an effect of the buck harvest for a number of years. You can try to brush that off any way you choose but that still doesn’t change the reality of those harvest facts or what they really mean. The fact is very simple that hunters will never get the chance to harvest bucks that died as fawns because their mothers didn’t find enough food for them to survive after they were born. That isn’t even always a result of poor habitat but can simply be a result from the effects of harsh winter conditions that are beyond our control.

That is simply how nature affects wildlife populations beyond our control; all we can do is recognize that it happens and make harvest adjustments as needed and appropriate in the future. That has been done by the professionals while some hunters and the Uniformed Silly People still refuse to acknowledge those facts or understand how nature really works.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Whoops, I did say it wrong that time[&:]my bad. But it still doesnt change the fact that your theory is all wet. Having 5 % less in one age class to sample from still does not explain a 5% decrease in the breeding rates. Inadequate sample size (that resulted in having to use 3 year averages) and the shift of the weighting of those samples from good habitat areas to areas rated as fair or poor makes a much more sensible explanation in the breeding rates PER ADULT DOE. A difference in the total number of doe adult doesn't generate a difference in the breeding rates per adult doe.

It still flies in the face of reason that less deer competing for more food would be less healthy. BTW, twice as much food if we buy into another of your totally unsupported claims.

Who wants to bet twister comes up with another twist on his one?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Though it is true that a decline in the percentage of older does in the deer population could also result in a decline in the adult reproductive rates and perhaps even to a lesser degree a decline in the breeding rates I see nothing that indicates there being a decline in the percentage of older does in the adult deer population in most areas of the state nor statewide.

I can see how you could speculate that as the cause based on Table 7 of the annual report but this really is just one more example of how easy it is for lay people to jump to incorrect conclusion and take off in the wrong direction.

First off all the table just shows the percentage of button bucks, juvenile does and adult does (all over 1.5 years old) in the yearly antler less deer harvests. Therefore, that increase in the percentage of adult does you are looking at can just as easily be a result of there having been fewer juvenile deer in existence and thus harvests during those years, (from the reduced fawn recruitment I keep pointing out), as from any change in the actual number of adult does present in the herd or harvested.

Allow me to explain that even further by providing some of the antler less deer harvest facts for 2004 that hopefully will help you see the folly in your heading off in this incorrect direction.

In 2004 there were fewer antler less deer harvested of each age class then there had been in 2003. The percentage of those antler less deer harvest reductions between 2003 and 2004 were as follows:

Button buck (juvinile males)………………- 10.3 %
Juvenile does………………………………- 12.4 %
1.5 year old does…………………………..- 16.7 %
Does 2.5 and older…………………………- 9.6 %

As you can see even though the 2004 antler less harvest in the annual report reflects that 61% (the highest of any year) of that years harvest were adult does it is most likely because of the decline in the number of juvenile deer in the harvest instead of any increase in the older does being harvested. In fact you can see that the older does were in reality the age class that experienced the least decline in the percentage of harvest.


Therefore, without having more data to fully evaluate the percentages it seems more logical to suspect that the percentage decline in adult does being harvested is more a reflection on the annual fawn recruitment rates then it is on a change in the number of older does in the population.

In short the annual report simply doesn’t provide enough information to do anything more then speculate what the real reason is for those percentage changes without having the actual harvest numbers to go with it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The decrease in breeding rates does not indicate the herd is less healthy. It simply indicates a significant change in the average age of our adult doe. An 88% breeding rate for a young herd is still quite acceptable and the PGC agrees, since they stated that only one WMU was below it's target goal for herd health.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Your analysis is flawed because the decrease in the percentage of adult doe in the harvest started in 2005 ,not 2004. Furthermore ,breeding rates were at there high in 2003 so there is no reason to expect the ratio of fawns to adult doe would change. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is the percentage of adult doe in the herd decreased ,so more hunters filled their tags with fawns.

You keep trying to shoot down my theory ,yet you have no rational answer of your own to explain such a significant decrease in such a short time when the exact opposite was to be expected.
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.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

local butcher stated to a person in gun section at wal-mart that he had a lot of button bucks to butcher this season.

this is in lower part of clinton county where farms are more and not western part of clinton county where no farms are.

but i dont have info where they got the button bucks,could be in centre county, thats feeling i got from him.

i think that more fawns are near farm areas or areas where there are people more than up in sticks here in western clinton county.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

bluebird,so in your info, do you feel problem is we are shooting the older doe and thats why we dont have many fawns.

what is youropinion on this and try to be real simple for me, i have hard time understanding this info,just make it SIMPLE,to point listing WHY.


THANKS

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

i am on the fence

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

The simple answer is yes, we shot too many adult doe. But in 2G the answer is even more straight forward, they simply shot too many deer,period.

Maybe this will be a little easier to understand. With a deer density of 8-10 in 2G , the over wintering deer PSM ,the sustainable harvest is less than 3 DPSM. That means the PGC expects those deer to only produce 3 fawns that live to the fall hunting season. So ,if you owned 320 acres of woods you should expect to see only 1 or 2 fawns/year. then when you have so few doe producing fawns the effects of predation by yotes and bears is much greater that if there were a lot of does producing fawns.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

good answer bb i agree we as hunters as a whole shot to many deer and there is 2 answers
1 hunter greed to shoot as many as possable
2 pgc issued to many tags to allow the first one

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I agree. Just remember it is not only greed but ignorance. if you live in a city and hunt in 2F or 2G a lot of hunters have no idea how many deer are left in the woods they hunt. they rely on the PGC to tell them what to do.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

true bb

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I strongly agree with the statement bluebird made about the impact on fewer fawns from predators.
spot on

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

i was standing at my truck and heard a young lad say to his crew,
I WAS IN SPROULs WOODS AND I SAW HERDS OF DEER.

i looked at him and his glasses were on bottom of his nose and he was taking up flower growing in college:)from the city of harrisburg.

the gang he was with was taking in every word, they could not wait to kill all those HERDS of deer in that 1 mile of woods..
well, they did not even see a deer:eek:

this hunter did not know ANYTHING about what was left in that mile of woods,HERDS MY A.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I have always credited you with being of above average intelligence and then using that intelligence in a misguided direction due to a misguided agenda. From your lack of understanding of the percentages in that annual report I am now reconsidering my previous thinking at least as it relates to you level of mathematical capability.

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?

And, I am not trying to shoot anything down that has any bases of fact in it. I am simply trying to help people see the difference between what is real and what is just speculation or myth coming from people with a misguided agenda.



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.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

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.

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.

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.

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
 

That is not what I said. What I said was that because the average age of the adult doe herd has been reduced significantly by removing more 2.5+ doe, there is a higher percentage of 1.5 doe in the herd and 1.5 doe on average will have lower breeding rates and fewer embryos/doe.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

From 2001 to 2005 we reduced the herd by 600K deer because harvests exceeded recruitment. The decrease did not come from an increase in the buck harvest so the decrease came from the antlerless harvest. Now ,without a doubt we harvested more fawns as a result of the increased antlerless harvests, but the percentage of fawns in the harvest decreased and the percentage of adult doe increased. That means the vast majority of HR came from harvesting adult doe.
The 1.5 doe may be breeding mature in that they are all mature enough to be bred , that does not mean that 1.5 doe have the same breeding rates as 3.5+ doe.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

my, thats depressing.

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.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

I didn't attempt to come up with what really happened and I did not represent it as such. I simply provided an example to demonstrate the effects of reducing the sampling size in the best breeding areas while keeping the sample size in other areas the same. I simply proved that if breeding rates increased or remained stable in most of the WMUs ,then it is mathematically impossible for breeding rates to decrease by 5% due to a shift in sample size. But, if you think my example is flawed, please feel free to provide your own example which will prove that I am wrong.
If you believe that to be true ,then please provide a rational explanation for the 5% decline in statewide breeding rates, since I proved it was not due to a change in sample size and location. Also, please provide an explanation why herd health is based on the productivity of 2.5+ doe?

And ,most of all please tell us all how we reduced the herd if we didn't kill a lot more adult doe? We sure didn't kill more buck and we didn't kill more fawns than were recruited, so what group of deer did we harvest to reduce the herd?

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Blueboy smoke and mirrors at it's finest!

Lets look at his example one more time without inserting any assumptions...

200 samples @ 96%
100 samples @ 86%

200x96=19200 100x86=8600 8600+19200=27600 27600/300= 93%

nowletsreducethe more productive samples by 100...

100 @ 96%
100 @ 86%
100x96=9600100x86=8600 8600+9600=18200 18200/200= 91%

But if the weight is shifted to favor the less productive area (what RSB tells us is what really happened)...

100 @ 96%
200 @ 86%

100x96= 9600 200x86=17200 9600+17200=26800 26800/300=89%

so a shift in sampling sizes can have a significant effect. Add in seasonal differences like weather, localized disease, mortality etc etc and all of a sudden RSB's explanations make a lot more sense.

Given enough time with a calculator and a lack of scruples, anyone can put their own twist and spin on things.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Nice try BTB , but you just proved my point. Your example shows no improvement in the breeding rates in the WMUs with the lowest breeding rates which means ARs and HR did nothing to improve breeding rates. then you arbitrarily doubled the sample size in the areas with the lowest breeding rate areas,when there was no reason for that sample size to double. thanks for proving my point.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Nice try at twisting the facts again youself Bluejob!

You claimed that a 5% change due to sampling size was impossible. You then inserted an arbitrary increase in breeding rates to cloud the issue and make your spin look better. I put all my calculations out there, you didn't. I contend that you'd hope we didn't notice that you changed two things at the same time to help "make" your point.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

good job btb

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Thanks Bowtruck!

The problem with Blueboy is that he almost always puts those little twists into things. He's usually better at concealing his deceptions. He tries to say that I simply call names but it would often take an hour to completly spell out and explain the nature of some of his deceptions. I don't mind doing it but when I do, he simply comes back with that particular twist worded differently a week or two later.

Watch and see if he doesnt claim to have proved me wrong on this in a week or so when breeding rates come up again:D

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Breeding rates were supposed to increase statewide as a result of HR and ARs. Breeding rates would increase the most in areas with the lowest breeding rates and that is why in my example I increased the breeding rates by just 4%. But, you doubled the sample size in the areas with the lowest breeding rates with no logical justification. Did road kills suddenly double in 2f and 2G due to HR. Your example has no relation to reality,whereas mine reflects what was supposed to happen.

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

Twist distort and lie! Sorry but you're

You claimed that a 5% difference was impossible from a shift in sampling size by location. then used a distorted example to prove it . I used a very similar example without throwing in other variables and showed a 4% difference! When analyzing data, any good scientist strives to eliminate excess varaibles to keep the real cause and effect clear. Spin doctors, on the other hand, throw lots of variables in the soup till they like the taste!You claim a 5% difference was impossible. That was the point you saidyou were proving. Now that your little lie isbusted you shift gears and throw in a change in breeding rates!

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

You didn’t prove anything other then how desperate you were to promote your misguided agenda.

I’ve provided the correct answer at least a dozen times already, you just don’t like the answer.

But, here is something else for everyone to think about. Perhaps it was the years with the 93% breeding rates that were out of the normal. Here are the statewide breeding rates for the adult does since 1992.

Year………………. Adult breeding rate
1992.………………….90 %
1993.………………….91
1994.………………….89
1995.………………….90
1996.………………….88
1997.………………….89
1998.………………….91
1999.………………….89
2000.………………….93
2001.………………….93
2002.………………….93
2003.………………….93
2004.………………….91
2005.………………….92
2006.………………….89
2007.………………….88


So, no matter who is right or wrong everyone can see that the adult doe breeding rates over the past fewer years have been very much in line with the historical adult doe breeding rates. Therefore, there is no reason for any concern unless someone thinks we need to do more to have a closer buck/doe ratio. Should that be the case do you think we should keep even more bucks, harvest more does or a combination of the two?



I have done that time and again.

As for does 2 ½ and older being used to determine herd health this is just one more place in which you are behind the times. Herd health is now using adult does of all ages instead of placing higher emphases to the 2.5 and older does.

The measure is now set at 1.50 embryos per adult doe. A secondary measure is the percentage of juvenile does being bred.

You can read more about it in this link:


http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/2008_deer_mgmt.pdf



That is easy. We harvested more deer of the various ages then what were replaced in fawn recruitment. Anytime total deer mortality is higher then what were born and survived into the next fall the deer population has been reduced. That total mortality is a combination of factors but there is no doubt that hunters harvested more deer during the years prior to the harsh winters of 2002 through 2004. There is also no doubt that the fawn recruitment was much lower then normal following those harsh winter years. Therefore, the combination of higher harvests and lower fawn recruitment result in fewer deer in most areas.

The areas that were the most affected were the areas where hunters have long demanded that the deer harvests be held low to accommodate the hunters wanting to see a lot of deer while hunting. Those areas ended up with damaged habitat that couldn’t sustain the number of deer we were trying to carry through bad winters. The areas that hadn’t made that mistake still have the state’s highest deer numbers today even though they continue to harvest as many deer as the hunters can find and want to harvest.

The real answer to your question is mostly that hunters didn’t reduce the herd in most areas but the environmental conditions sure did.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
 

But we were told in 2000 by Alt that we had to reduce the herd to improve herd health and as a result breeding rates would increase and we would have more and bigger buck than ever before. the data you just posted proves that was a lie and you are still defending that lie.
That is pure unadulterated horse puckey.