PGC data flawed
02-02-2009, 03:51 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 169
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.
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.
02-02-2009, 03:59 PM
#2
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
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 .
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 .
02-02-2009, 06:36 PM
#3
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
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.
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"
02-03-2009, 05:09 AM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
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.
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.
02-03-2009, 06:55 AM
#6
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
I wonder why anyone listens to the PGC after all the lies they have told over the past 8 years.
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
02-03-2009, 10:01 AM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
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]
02-03-2009, 01:27 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 169
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.
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.
02-03-2009, 06:57 PM
#10
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: PGC data flawed
ORIGINAL: explorer_Jack
So you are saying you never seen 100+ deer in the field or on a stretch of highway before Douge and now you might be lucky to see 5 to 10in those same areas? Now in the areas I hunted there was that many deer. So it's not that stupid. Go back and read some of your posts before you open your mouth and call something stupid that you agreed on. You know damn well there use to be that many deer in a area cause you said so. Who else wants to say that this is not or never was true for an area? You everheard of or spotlighted Spruce Hill or Mitchs straight a way there stupid? Yea, My budy has a home up there where we all meet up and hunt each year. Now go ahead and deny that there is not 10 times less deer in that area. Go ahead putz,call me and others who have lost 10 times the amount of deer that use to be seen on side of roads and in the fields a liar.
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.
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.
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