|
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. We have all agreed that Alt was outta line with that one! When are you gonna quit beating that horse?  |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Do you mean like you lied about when Ars were implemented?
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Yer mixin up your threads Blueboy!!
Another dodge from the fact that your lie is   |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
i am surprised you would know the difference. I didn't think you were that smart.
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 i am surprised you would know the difference. I didn't think you were that smart.  |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
When you graduate from kindergarten let we know and maybe we can resume this discussion.
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
I know you don't like it much when your lies get exposed.
I know you don't like the little pictures when you twist the truth or beat a dead horse but the answer is simple. Stop trying to distort the truth and stop lying tosupport your agenda andyou won't have to get all frustrated trying to defend the indefensible |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter 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. 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. Good job of exposing bluebird’s flim-flam and misguided tactics there BTBowhunter. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
I know you don't like it much when your lies get exposed. In your third calculation you doubled the sample size in the low breeding rate areas for no logical reason other than to produce the results you wanted. The fact is that the number of doe sampled in 2b and 5C are still almost double the number sampled in 2G and 2F. So while my example was designed to reflect reality, yours was totally divorced from reality and designed to deceive and mislead. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Ijust got back from Cessna's taxidermy.I had to run out there to get some papers signed.He's located rightPenfield,WMU 2G.Once again,he's mounting over 400 whitetails,some of them true world class deer.1 out of every seven had spreads exceeding 20 inches.If I can figure out how,I'll post a picture.You won't convince these guys that antler restrictions aren't working as this guy keeps excellent records.
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
You won't convince these guys that antler restrictions aren't working as this guy keeps excellent records. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
No,but his records indicate that he's mounting way more bucks,more older bucks,and much larger bucks.To boot,he's doing in the WMU that has the lowest dd inthe entire state.
How does a buck get wasted?Is it a waste if they die from any means otherthan a hunter's bullet? |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Clearly Blue Bird, you are a liar, and from your ramblings after your lies are exposed, clearly a manic depressive.
  |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
How does a buck get wasted?Is it a waste if they die from any means other than a hunter's bullet? |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Clearly Blue Bird, you are a liar |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 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. if that is true, its not true, we are seeing very few fawns ,if any. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: crokit Clearly Blue Bird, you are a liar, and from your ramblings after your lies are exposed, clearly a manic depressive.
no need to call anyone a name on here  |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
are you saying that with the reduced number of doe that the PGC says that the breeding rates will be better.. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
So while my example was designed to reflect reality, yours was totally divorced from reality and designed to deceive and mislead. You flat out said it was impossible for a shift in sampling location to cause a 5% difference in breeding rates. My example merely showed that it was not only possible but in fact, exposed the fact that you needed to change another variable to make the possible appear impossible. You lied, you clearly got busted. Now why not move on? |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 are you saying thatwith the reduced number of doe that the PGC says that the breeding rates will be better.. i may call charles owner right now to get a study of his fawns. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Seriously,why on earth would there be fawns on private land but not state forests?Lack of fawns means lack of quality habitat.
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
i just got thru with mr.ch who owns 3500 acres of privateland.heb is near renovo. he said last 3 years hisfawns have dropped huge amount. he feeds his deergrowing all kinds of feed and does not kill a fawn. he said he saw around 12 fawns for about for about 75 deer. when he had lots of deer he had lot of fawns. he feels in his opinion is coyotes and bears doing it,he said they are killing fawns bigtime on his private land. i think he said they trapped/shot 19 coyotes last winter and about 6 so far this winter.. he also said he had 7 bears o his property this winter. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
You flat out said it was impossible for a shift in sampling location to cause a 5% difference in breeding rates. My example merely showed that it was not only possible but in fact, exposed the fact that you needed to change another variable to make the possible appear impossible. You lied, you clearly got busted. Now why not move on? In your example you doubled the sample size in the areas with low breeding rates with no logical reason for doing so, since sample sizes decreased in the majority of the WMUs. Furthermore, with fewer doe producing fawns and low breeding rates sample sizes would decrease in areas with low breeding rates. You examples proved nothing because they don't reflect what really happened in the state. You just fabricated numbers to get the desired results, which is something you accuse me of constantly. But ,you actually did it for all to see. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: DougE Seriously,why on earth would there be fawns on private land but not state forests?Lack of fawns means lack of quality habitat. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
That's not obvious at all bb.Sprouls's observation are far from concrete scientific evaluations.If you remember,he ain't seeing any fawns because all the roadhunters and crews are killin em all off.
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
That's not obvious at all bb The PGC data shows the breeding window hasn't changed and with fewer doe producing fawns the effects of predation would naturally increase. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: DougE That's not obvious at all bb.Sprouls's observation are far from concrete scientific evaluations.If you remember,he ain't seeing any fawns because all the roadhunters and crews are killin em all off. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Your scientific answer is that the hunters are killing them all and that the coyotes are eating the rest.Two studies have been done in 2G(the fawn mortality and doe mortality studies)that show you're wrong.
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: DougE Your scientific answer is that the hunters are killing them all and that the coyotes are eating the rest.Two studies have been done in 2G(the fawn mortality and doe mortality studies)that show you're wrong. would not be there:D scientificlly |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Sproul, I believe it when you say you're not seeing fawns but lets think about this for a minute:
The fawn study showed that bears and coyotes do kill a significant number of fawns but the majority still make it. The fawns studied however, were caught as healthy fawns of various ages until sometime in June when they simply got too big and fast to catch. The study did not address or include stillborns or those that died very quickly. RSB has suggested that the number of those is significant in areas of poor habitat. The adult doe study showed that hunters killed some but not nearly enough to reduce the herd. 8% one year and 15% the next died by hunting mortality. We all know that the biologists involved admit the number may be somewhat low because hunters may have been afraid to shoot collared deer but even if the numbers were off a good bit, we have to admit that only 8 and 15% is very low. We have to accept that something else is working to keep the numbers down too. I think RSB's suggestion that does that survive the wnter but are malnourished or stressed are likely to abort their fawns or the fawns won't survive after birth. That, and predator mortalitywould certainly explain part of why you see does without fawns with such regularity. The other point RSB made about fawns being more vulnerable in areas of poor habitat also makes a lot of sense. Yes, doe hunters kill momma but when you see mommas without babies all summer, something else is killing the fawnsbesides hunters. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
We have to accept that something else is working to keep the numbers down too. I think RSB's suggestion that does that survive the wnter but are malnourished or stressed are likely to abort their fawns or the fawns won't survive after birth. That, and predator mortality would certainly explain part of why you see does without fawns with such regularity. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter Sproul, I believe it when you say you're not seeing fawns but lets think about this for a minute: The fawn study showed that bears and coyotes do kill a significant number of fawns but the majority still make it. The fawns studied however, were caught as healthy fawns of various ages until sometime in June when they simply got too big and fast to catch. The study did not address or include stillborns or those that died very quickly. RSB has suggested that the number of those is significant in areas of poor habitat. The adult doe study showed that hunters killed some but not nearly enough to reduce the herd. 8% one year and 15% the next died by hunting mortality. We all know that the biologists involved admit the number may be somewhat low because hunters may have been afraid to shoot collared deer but even if the numbers were off a good bit, we have to admit that only 8 and 15% is very low. We have to accept that something else is working to keep the numbers down too. I think RSB's suggestion that does that survive the wnter but are malnourished or stressed are likely to abort their fawns or the fawns won't survive after birth. That, and predator mortalitywould certainly explain part of why you see does without fawns with such regularity. The other point RSB made about fawns being more vulnerable in areas of poor habitat also makes a lot of sense. Yes, doe hunters kill momma but when you see mommas without babies all summer, something else is killing the fawnsbesides hunters. i still have pictures if you would like them,but that as you say is 1 reason.. backwhen we had deer we had bad winters too, worst than now but we had acorns a lot. the year we killed over 40 deer in about a 8 mile area with picks along railroads, we still had deer and fawns next year. only difference was doe tags were very low and we had ac orns but habitat , in my opinion was about same as now, in 70 s. in fact, we nowhave more cleared areas than then for things to grow. well, lets agree, lets say its HABITAT, BEARS,COYOTES. WHAT ARE WE AS SPORTSMAN GOING TO DO TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. continue to wipe deer out when they only have a few fawns. when i hear all that BARKING from about june 10 on,it has too be fawns those coyotes are after because does run like you have a crew driving deer,they are scared of something. they even swim the kettle creek lake to get away from coyotes in june. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Here is a link for those that still believe the shift in sample size and location can account for the 5% decrease in breeding rates.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p...ion_report.pdf |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
That link is informative but it ends with 2003 and also does not address the sampling sizes after that so it proves nothing either way as to the issue of a shift in sampling numbers between WMU's
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
well said btb iwould like to see something more current 04 to 07 min to compare numbers
but good link bb helpful |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
Your request has been granted.:)
o 2000 – 1,080 does o 2001 – 950 does o 2002 – 531 does o 2003 – 619 does o 2004- 601 does o 2005 - 883 does o 2006 - 632 does o 2007 - 1003 does In 2007 both 2B and 5c had twice as many doe checked than in 2G |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
yea but where is rest of info like how many bred %on single, twins, triplits
|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
It is in the AWR on the PGC website for anyone who cares enough to know what they are talking about.
Table 2. Number of adult does examined and assessment of deer health by WMU based on samples collected from 2005 to 2007, Pennsylvania. WMU n Embryos per adult female Deer health assessment 1A 78 1.50 AT TARGET 1B 61 1.69 ABOVE TARGET 2A 91 1.37 AT TARGET 2B 165 1.59 AT TARGET 2C 117 1.38 AT TARGET 2D 87 1.60 AT TARGET 2E 19 1.58 AT TARGET 2F 67 1.39 AT TARGET 2G 40 1.68 AT TARGET 3A 30 1.50 AT TARGET 3B 59 1.36 AT TARGET 3C 36 1.53 AT TARGET 3D 79 1.28 BELOW TARGET 4A 99 1.52 AT TARGET 4B 50 1.50 AT TARGET 4C 47 1.36 AT TARGET 4D 65 1.55 AT TARGET 4E 35 1.66 AT TARGET 5A 22 1.64 AT TARGET 5B 56 1.55 AT TARGET 5C 123 1.60 AT TARGET 5D 42 1.71 ABOVE TARGET |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
for anyone who cares enough to know what they are talking about. The 2000-2003 report gives numbers by county and the report you posted is by WMU so without a better breakdown one way or the other, we would be comparing apples to oranges |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
I didn't direct my post to you so why would you take it personally. Could it be because you didn't take the time to read the AWRs so you would know what you are talking about instead of accusing me of lying when I was telling the truth?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:29 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.