|
PGC data flawed
I claimed 10 times less deer from 8 years ago.
RSB claims below. Buck harvest trends are typically a pretty good indicter of the total deer population. Eight years ago the hunters harvested 194,371 bucks, which still included 80% of the 1 ½ year old bucks. Last year hunters harvests 109,200 bucks while not harvesting about 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks in the population. He also said that over a million bucks should of been harvested if we had 10 times more deer back then. Does anyone else see a problem with his claims here? He based everything on bucks harvest. Tags was never given out for multiple bucks asthey was for does. If the AR is working how can there be under 50% 1.5s left over from not being harvested? Wouldn't you think that the bucks would have better antlersnow at 1.5 age since the AR program? 1.5 bucks would have the minimum points to be harvested from the AR program if it was a success?A better buck breeding would give better geneticsand better antler size? But yet the claim is that 50% of the 1.5s would not be harvested. Now there is something all wrong with his statement otherthan the few things I pointed out. |
RE: PGC data flawed
jack, i can only report what i see in woods hunting in clinton county.
we dont have many bucks at all. i believe a lot of this is do to kids allowed to shoot the spikes and the hunters shooting the small button bucks. i can say this, most of the bucks are very young that are shot and i would guess about 1.5 /2 years old.. but almost all have big racks onthem. actually they look funny with those big horns on such young bucks,bodys are small. but we are not seeing fawns . |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: explorer_Jack I claimed 10 times less deer from 8 years ago. RSB claims below. Buck harvest trends are typically a pretty good indicter of the total deer population. Eight years ago the hunters harvested 194,371 bucks, which still included 80% of the 1 ½ year old bucks. Last year hunters harvests 109,200 bucks while not harvesting about 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks in the population. He also said that over a million bucks should of been harvested if we had 10 times more deer back then. Does anyone else see a problem with his claims here? He based everything on bucks harvest. Tags was never given out for multiple bucks asthey was for does. If the AR is working how can there be under 50% 1.5s left over from not being harvested? Wouldn't you think that the bucks would have better antlersnow at 1.5 age since the AR program? 1.5 bucks would have the minimum points to be harvested from the AR program if it was a success?A better buck breeding would give better geneticsand better antler size? But yet the claim is that 50% of the 1.5s would not be harvested. Now there is something all wrong with his statement otherthan the few things I pointed out.  Just another example of a "well read, well educated USP supporter" |
RE: PGC data flawed
On every level,that's one of the dumbest posts I've every read.If we had 10 times less deer,our preseason herd would be down to about 130,000 animals.I guess that's no as bad as the USP consultant claiming that we'd have less than 50000 deer by now.
Genetics don't change with age and no one ever claimed that the average size of 1.5 year old bucks would increase.I people wonder why the PGC doesn't listen to hunters. |
RE: PGC data flawed
I people wonder why the PGC doesn't listen to hunters. |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 I people wonder why the PGC doesn't listen to hunters. Add to that the fact that the the loudest arguements are often irrational or untrue as we see from the likes of Blueboy Corny ,and now EJ it becomes somewhat understandable that some in the pGC have begun to tune out when hunters speak up |
RE: PGC data flawed
There is a huge difference between hunters expressing their opinion and the PGC intentionally lying to over 900K hunters.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
I dont wonder why hunters are tuned out. I know why. If its not biodiversity extremists they arent interested. Doesnt matter what I say, the only way the ear would turn my way is if i did a 180 degree turn and begged them to slaughter more deer. Then Id probably be asked if there is anything else they could do for me.[8D]
|
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE On every level,that's one of the dumbest posts I've every read.If we had 10 times less deer,our preseason herd would be down to about 130,000 animals.I guess that's no as bad as the USP consultant claiming that we'd have less than 50000 deer by now. Genetics don't change with age and no one ever claimed that the average size of 1.5 year old bucks would increase.I people wonder why the PGC doesn't listen to hunters. If you know these areas I am talking about,you know I am right. Now your comment was one big foolish one to call my facts for that area stupid. RSBs post was the stupid one. How can you tell the deer heard by the buck harvest if each year you give out more doe tags than buck tags. How many deer do we have now compared to 8 years ago then? This isn't sheep farming now. |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: explorer_Jack ORIGINAL: DougE On every level,that's one of the dumbest posts I've every read.If we had 10 times less deer,our preseason herd would be down to about 130,000 animals.I guess that's no as bad as the USP consultant claiming that we'd have less than 50000 deer by now. Genetics don't change with age and no one ever claimed that the average size of 1.5 year old bucks would increase.I people wonder why the PGC doesn't listen to hunters. If you know these areas I am talking about,you know I am right. Now your comment was one big foolish one to call my facts for that area stupid. RSBs post was the stupid one. How can you tell the deer heard by the buck harvest if each year you give out more doe tags than buck tags. How many deer do we have now compared to 8 years ago then? This isn't sheep farming now. If you seriously don’t know that deer populations are most generally estimated and evaluated by the buck harvests then you really and seriously don’t have a clue about how deer populations are estimated in nearly ever state that has deer. Antler less harvests are controlled with license allocations, but in states were every hunter can hunter for bucks the buck harvest is influenced by the number of bucks in the population and available for harvests and therefore the bases for estimating the pre-season deer population. That is pretty basic knowledge for people that have even an elementary understand of estimating deer populations. If you don’t believe me as ole Bluebird, it will be interesting to see how he answers just as a credibility check if nothing else. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: PGC data flawed
Well from your past posts RSB,If you can recall correctly,The PGC didn't know how many deer was in PA. They had no idea. Now your saying they did know how many deer was in PA from the number of buck harvested? OK,Now tell us all what the estimated number of deer is in PA now and what they was back in 2000 before the HR came into play in the state. Other states have a good estimate because they do more of a survey with check stations. But let us have the numbers of deer you think you have there RSB. Let it out of the bag. For now and back in 2000, What was the deer numbers in PA RSB? You just got done saying that is how the herd number is figured,Now tell us.
If you seriously don’t know that deer populations are most generally estimated and evaluated by the buck harvests then you really and seriously don’t have a clue about how deer populations are estimated in nearly ever state that has deer. I will have to say the same for your knowledge if you can't show us some numbers by the buck harvest of how many doe per buck there are now and then in 2000. This should be good. |
RE: PGC data flawed
Here is an example of how they calculate the population based on the buck harvests.
We used data on deer reproduction, sex and age of harvested deer, license numbers of successful hunters, and reported harvests to estimate 2000 and 2001 deer populations by management unit. Wildlife Conservation Officers (WCOs) also conducted winter deer mortality surveys along preselected routes in their respective districts. Six hundred and eight does were used to determine conception and fawning dates. The average reproductive rate was 0.99 embryos/doe with the median conception date of November 14. The median projected birth date was May 30. Average points and spread of 3,184 sets of antlers measured in the 2000 season ranged from 5–8 points and 10–17 inch spread for 1.5-year-olds and 3.5+-year-olds, respectively. Our 2000-01 winter deer density of 39 deer/mi2 of forest land was the same as in 1999-00. The 2000-01 winter deer loss index of 0.21 deer/mile was well below previously recorded losses. We projected a preseason deer population of 1.504 million for 2001. Changes approved for the 2001-02 deer seasons include: a 12-day concurrent antlered and antlerless rifle season for all hunters; an expanded, 7-day antlerless muzzleloader season in October; a 3-day antlerless rifle season in October for junior, senior, disabled, and military license holders; antlerless licenses that are unsold after all hunters have an opportunity to purchase one will be sold, up to 2 per hunter; the “private land only” restriction on unsold licenses was removed; field possession regulations were liberalized to allow a hunter to harvest another deer after tagging the first deer harvested; and crossbows will be legal during the regular firearms season in Special Regulations Areas. The goal for 2001 is to reduce the statewide deer herd by about 5 percent. Population analyses indicate that about 328,000 antlerless depopulation 5 percent. |
RE: PGC data flawed
Jack,you are so clueless,i'm almost embarrassed for you.You don't have the slightest idea about deer management or habitat management.You're a perfect example of why the PGC can't listen to the hunters.
No area has the same deer density from decade to decade or from year to year.Things are constantly changing in the whitetails's world.Habitat and foof sorces change throughout the year aas does pressure and weather.That all has an effect on where you'll find deer and how many will be there.Once you learn that,you'll be alot more successful and you won't have to cry as much. I'm very familiar with the area around Mitches.I lived in Rockton from 1992-1995 and I still spend time in that area.I fish Anderson creek and I get dmap coupons and harvest deer in dmap area 312.As a matter of fact,I drove through there last night and have to go throughthere again tonight.To say that there were 10 times as many deer 8 years ago in that area is a gross exageration.I used to drive that every day in the early 90's and you did in fact see 100 deer from rt 322 to the top of themountainUnfortunately,those huge hoards of deer devistated the habitat on Rockton mountain.Rockton mountain is a poster child for overbrosingand browse line.It's absolutely some of the worst habitat in this part of the state and the deer are responsible for that.If you want to argue that case,all you have to do is look at the areas that are fenced in.they took a fence down down by kelly cellar road about three years ago.It's 100 acres of pole timber that used to be too thick to walk through.the areas unfenced are a disaster.there's no preferred regeneration and you couldn't find a stump sprout to save your live.Take rt 153 until your just ready to cross over I80.There's a big fenced in area that's just loaded with oak and maple regeneration.As you drive on rt 322 or rt 153 through that area,you can see for hundreds of yards through the open timber.Go out there this winter and try to find 5 pounds of preferred browse.I bet you can't do it.So why should you expect there to be 10 times the amount of deer presently there?By the way.that area was flown over in march of 2005 and infrared pictures were taken of tyhe deer.The area of Moshannon state forest from Spruce hill,down along Brown springs had 126 dpsm.Overall however,that area averaged out at 16 dpsm.there is no way that it was ever overwintering 160 dpsm as you claim.Perception is not reality.You can go on DCNR's webiste and see for your self.You may learn something if you do.There were huge areas during that flyover that showed very few if any deer.All the deer were concentrated in the few spots that actually had food that time of year.That was three years ago and since then tags have been slashed in that area.No way had the herd been reduced since 2005 in that area. You really truly are lost. |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE Jack,you are so clueless,i'm almost embarrassed for you.You don't have the slightest idea about deer management or habitat management.You're a perfect example of why the PGC can't listen to the hunters. No area has the same deer density from decade to decade or from year to year.Things are constantly changing in the whitetails's world.Habitat and foof sorces change throughout the year aas does pressure and weather.That all has an effect on where you'll find deer and how many will be there.Once you learn that,you'll be alot more successful and you won't have to cry as much. I'm very familiar with the area around Mitches.I lived in Rockton from 1992-1995 and I still spend time in that area.I fish Anderson creek and I get dmap coupons and harvest deer in dmap area 312.As a matter of fact,I drove through there last night and have to go throughthere again tonight.To say that there were 10 times as many deer 8 years ago in that area is a gross exageration.I used to drive that every day in the early 90's and you did in fact see 100 deer from rt 322 to the top of themountainUnfortunately,those huge hoards of deer devistated the habitat on Rockton mountain.Rockton mountain is a poster child for overbrosingand browse line.It's absolutely some of the worst habitat in this part of the state and the deer are responsible for that.If you want to argue that case,all you have to do is look at the areas that are fenced in.they took a fence down down by kelly cellar road about three years ago.It's 100 acres of pole timber that used to be too thick to walk through.the areas unfenced are a disaster.there's no preferred regeneration and you couldn't find a stump sprout to save your live.Take rt 153 until your just ready to cross over I80.There's a big fenced in area that's just loaded with oak and maple regeneration.As you drive on rt 322 or rt 153 through that area,you can see for hundreds of yards through the open timber.Go out there this winter and try to find 5 pounds of preferred browse.I bet you can't do it.So why should you expect there to be 10 times the amount of deer presently there?By the way.that area was flown over in march of 2005 and infrared pictures were taken of tyhe deer.The area of Moshannon state forest from Spruce hill,down along Brown springs had 126 dpsm.Overall however,that area averaged out at 16 dpsm.there is no way that it was ever overwintering 160 dpsm as you claim.Perception is not reality.You can go on DCNR's webiste and see for your self.You may learn something if you do.There were huge areas during that flyover that showed very few if any deer.All the deer were concentrated in the few spots that actually had food that time of year.That was three years ago and since then tags have been slashed in that area.No way had the herd been reduced since 2005 in that area. You really truly are lost. Who said anything about 160 deer and who said anything about 3 years ago? You truly are an idiot are you not? Lets try back in 2001 and previous years as I mentioned you idiot about the 100s of deer on top of that mountain. What an idiot rsb jr. is. |
RE: PGC data flawed
Hey guys, don't try to argue with a insurance man:DI have yet to meet one that liked a live deer.:D;)
|
RE: PGC data flawed
Jack,Follow close now.They did an infrared flyover in march of 2005 that showed 16 dpsm.The area you mention,near spruce hill had the highest concentration of deer(126 dpsm)on any of the flyovers.You claim that the deer herd has been reduced 10 fold and that's simply not true,I don't care what date or year you use.If there were 16 over winter dpsm in 2005,that would mean there were 160 over winter dpsm at some point in time,if you think there used to be 10 times as many deer.You're full of it and you completely lack any logic what so ever.
Do you really think that areacan andshould support 10 times as many deer as there is now?If so,you really are clueless and part of the problem. |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: lost horn Hey guys, don't try to argue with a insurance man:DI have yet to meet one that liked a live deer.:D;) douge gets 6 deer and others dont see a deer. thats great system we have here in pa. too allow that to happen.[:@] 1 deer and your done in wmu2g;) |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE Jack,Follow close now.They did an infrared flyover in march of 2005 that showed 16 dpsm.The area you mention,near spruce hill had the highest concentration of deer(126 dpsm)on any of the flyovers.You claim that the deer herd has been reduced 10 fold and that's simply not true,I don't care what date or year you use.If there were 16 over winter dpsm in 2005,that would mean there were 160 over winter dpsm at some point in time,if you think there used to be 10 times as many deer.You're full of it and you completely lack any logic what so ever. Do you really think that areacan andshould support 10 times as many deer as there is now?If so,you really are clueless and part of the problem.  |
RE: PGC data flawed
Sproul,If I can consistatly kill deer on publicland in 2Gwith my limited schedule,anyone can.
I think the Sproul state forest showed around 9 dpsm. |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE Sproul,If I can consistatly kill deer on publicland in 2Gwith my limited schedule,anyone can. I think the Sproul state forest showed around 9 dpsm. they said BAD WEATHER. we heard they said,DEER ARE HIDING BEHIND PINE TREES:) dont laugh, i heard that was statement made.:D 9 and from that time our deer have been reduced to about 4, i feel. i think PGC says we should have 12 dpsm. |
RE: PGC data flawed
The doe mortality study shows that hunters are killingless than 8% of the doe.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE The doe mortality study shows that hunters are killingless than 8% of the doe. |
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE The doe mortality study shows that hunters are killing less than 8% of the doe. |
RE: PGC data flawed
The study was done since the time Sproul is claimingthe herd was decimated from 9 dpsm to 3 dpsm.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
That's right ,and who wants to go down in history as shooting the last doe standing with a collar on it.:)
|
RE: PGC data flawed
I am sure there are many that wouldnt care bb
|
RE: PGC data flawed
Unfortunately you are right, but there are still a lot of hunters that care and it still makes the results from the study far from an accurate representation of the doe harvests across the state and the simple fact that in 2007 we harvested almost 2 antlerless deer for every antlered buck proves that PA hunters are still very effective at harvesting enough doe to exceed recruitment.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 That's right ,and who wants to go down in history as shooting the last doe standing with a collar on it.:) |
RE: PGC data flawed
That is just another one of your lies . We didn't wipe out all the BB in the area. We still had 1.5 buck the following year.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
OK OK not all, almost all. Remember It was you that told us there was "virtually" none when you posted your results the next season
|
RE: PGC data flawed
Just keep making up your lies,since that is all you have.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
yeah btb if it doesnt fit into bb agenda it has to be flawed ,misleading,false thuoght you knew that
|
RE: PGC data flawed
Can someone post a link to all of the FLIR results currently available?
|
RE: PGC data flawed
Just go to DCNR's link.The flir results are all there.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
Did you see the PGC revised the 40% increase in the herd in 2G in 2006 from 40% down to 6%? That mistake resulted in a 23% decrease in the herd in 2G in 2007.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
When they did the fly over Douge, How many turkeys was also recorded?
That data should of been collected also at the time? Every wildlife that was seen during the fly over should of been recorded for future reference.How many turkeys was seen and recorded? |
RE: PGC data flawed
They flew over that part of MSF in march of 2005.This was DCNR'Sproject,not the PGC's.DCNR doesn't care how many turkeys they have.They're concerned about deer because deer impact the habitat,turkeys do not.Where do you come up with this stuff?
|
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE They flew over that part of MSF in march of 2005.This was DCNR'Sproject,not the PGC's.DCNR doesn't care how many turkeys they have.They're concerned about deer because deer impact the habitat,turkeys do not.Where do you come up with this stuff? Turkey do so impact the habitat. They eat seedlings and new plant growth also. Haven't you ever seen them around newly planted fields? To say they don't affect habitat is something a stupid person would say.You got a hybrid turkey that causes no habitat loss and feeds on nothing to grow in PA? |
RE: PGC data flawed
Go on the website and look.They use low-flying aircraft andthe pictures clearly show deer.There used to be actual pictures,not sure if there still is.
|
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: DougE The doe mortality study shows that hunters are killingless than 8% of the doe. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:11 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.