|
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
Presently I see no significant concerns with the statewide breeding rates, though there certainly is still room for improvement. I am also confident we will see improvements as more information becomes available from the ever continuing research and data collection. |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
I dont agree with grouping 5 year together when all it does is hide the trend of decline for doe percentage. It might be ok to do when comparing other data for other purposes, but the decline only began 4 years ago, and its a clear trend. A trend hidden by very high year before the decline of 93% which interestingly had also been that high for a few years prior to the decline despite being the highest herd levels. Putting data into three to five year averages is done for a couple of reasons. One reason data is frequently grouped into three or more years is to increase the sample size so there is enough data to meet the minimum coefficient or variance required to have confidence in the data. That is the reason they use three years of data in the published reproductive results. Everyone wishes there were more data but there isn’t and short of going out and simply killing doe to get it we might never have enough data to move away from using multiple years when making management decisions. The other reason for combining years is to remove biased variables that could influence making poor management decisions based on a single year of influence from something that was far from normal. One year doesn’t show trends, single years frequently just show variables. So, for that reason it really does result in better long term management and fewer management mistakes when you use three to five year trends before making anything more then minor annual management adjustments. There can also be some problems though with just using averages. One of those problems can be that unless you also monitor the annual data it would prolong the detection of a problem in a the management direction and objectives. That is why the Game Commission uses both annual and three to five year trend data when evaluating and making management decisions. It truly is the best way to manage for the best possible future and the professionals really are keeping a watchful eye on all of the indicators in every unit. Unfortunately sometimes they have to wait to long to make adjustments to make sure they aren’t just addressing a variable instead of a trend. That is why wildlife management is always, and always will be, a problem of catching up with what has happened in the past instead of being able to manage for what is happening right now or is going to happen in the future. As for 2A, you have some mistakes which may make you come to the conclusion you did. I know there was alot of nonsense to sort through and alot to address, so its understandable I guess. But the trend for the regeneration was not one of decline. Accoring to the 05 report which had it data collected from 2001 to 2004, (2As highest herd size while regen studies have been conducted) showed us at 58% regeneration. The 2006 report had us at 61% regeneration (data from 2001-2005) You had the two years mixed up. I have the reports right here in front of me in print. I don’t know for sure but it is possible that I had the data for the years reversed. Instead of going back and looking it up I’ll just take your word for it having been reversed. It really doesn’t matter one way or the other though. What matters is what the habitat shows now because that is what determines the unit’s ability to support more or fewer deer for the future. And now, that we are even lower herd density according to the herd density chart on the report, Im supposed to believe we all at once have nose dived 15% in one year into poor?? When we were just the year before WELL up into fair at 61% and nosedived to 46?? I think you missed the part about the changes in how the regen. is assessed. Its explained somewhat, and states on the report that the data cannot be compared to previous regeneration on previous reports due to changes in method. I find that more than a little hard to swallow. Part of the reason the habitat evaluation, in unit 2A, declined as much as it did was the changes in the way the habitat was evaluated but those same procedures were used in every plot last year and most other units still came out without any major change from the past. What was added was that the plots also had the amount deer browsing affects measured within the plots instead of just how much regeneration there was. I think that is important information that should be evaluated and included since it is certainly relevant to the ability of that habitat to continue supporting that level of deer number in the future. Unit 2A came out the second worst for habitat and deer impact in the entire state and only behind unit 2F. That is not a good thing for your future unless that declining trend can be reversed. To reverse that trend it most likely means higher deer harvests and keeping fewer over winter deer. It isn’t an easy pill to swallow but believe me when I tell you the alternative is even worse. Surely if the current deer numbers are having a significant impact on the regeneration, that is in existence now, it is only a matter of time until that habitat becomes degraded to the point it can’t support as many deer. That is not a picture the professionals deer managers want to see in more areas of the state then we already have. I think if hunters fully understood how low deer numbers can go, once that level of habitat damage occurs, they too would agree they don’t want to go that route and would instead opt for slightly fewer deer now, and forever, then the much low deer numbers that follow serious habitat damage. Also as to the 1.37 fawn per doe in 2A, it is listed as "on target" not below target level. So shouldnt be a factor at all. But is noteworthy that the wmu is following the overall state trend of lower embryo count the more the herd has been reduced. It went from 1.45 in the 06-07 report down to 1.37 in the 07-08. The adult doe reproductive rate for 2A is one of the lowest in the state. That is not a good thing for your future and a near certain sign that the area is suffering from more deer then the habitat can adequately support for the long term. What this tells me, and what I believe it is telling the professional deer managers, is that the deer herd in unit 2A either already is or at the very least might be close to the point it starts to reduce its own numbers with declining juvenile breeding rates, reduced adult doe reproductive rates and or reduced fawn recruitment rates, Anyone or a combination of them can and will reduce the total deer population for an area. The problem then is that once the habitat is damaged to the point the deer start reducing their own numbers even though the number of deer is pretty consistently declining (with up and own variances depending on the other environmental conditions such as mast crops or winter conditions) it takes fewer and fewer deer to keep that degraded habitat in the poor and degraded condition. Once that happens there is no quick or easy way to bring deer numbers back up again. You don’t want that to happen I assure you, it isn’t a good scene for the deer or the hunter. The fact that there were also at least a few incidence of winter mortality in Greene County this year are yet another indicator of more deer then the habitat can support. Next combine that with the fact that the buck harvest in the unit declined for the second year in a row, even with favorable hunting conditions, and no EHD deer reduction affects this summer, you have even more indicators of a deer herd that is working on reducing its own numbers and perhaps even about to take a more serious population crash. All in all not a good thought though one both the professional managers and the hunters need to be thinking about. In fact, in my opinion one they need to be doing more then just thinking about but closely monitoring. The reduced deer numbers in the unit might be a result of the EHD effects in the summer of 2007 and I suspect that is why increased harvest opinions weren’t suggested by the professional deer managers last year. But, now with a second year of reduced harvests, lower deer numbers and increasing deer damage to their own food supply I think it would be logical to increase the harvest for 2A this fall and see if that downward trend can be reversed before it becomes to late to reverse it. I know that isn’t what you want to hear. I know you want to think I am wrong. But, what if I am not wrong and you end up with a crashed deer population in the future? Is that a risk hunters want to take? In know most hunters have no opportunity to have someone point those possibilities out for them and just assume that harvesting fewer does will mean more deer, but that isn’t true there is much more that has to be taken into consideration if you really want the best possible deer numbers for the future. That is where you have an advantage over the average hunter, you do have the information but only you can decide if you are willing to consider all of those possibilities, both positive and negative. BTW, congrats on the case, great job! We could use you around here. Thank you, I am always pleased when I can ruin the day for a poacher and perhaps make a brighter future for the honest hunters. You have some good WCOs in your area too, get to know them, work with them at both bring outlaws to justice and in learning more about the management issues and I am sure you will agree about both their quality and enforcement capabilities. That case I successfully prosecuted yesterday started with a guy making a call with a few tid-bits of information. Those few tid-bits of information can sometimes be the tremendous piece that makes all of the difference in stopping a major poacher. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel RSB, congrats on a fine job once again hanging up the gun of another low life poacher. Keep up the good work! Thank you Sir! I am always happy when I can bring a poacher to justice and save more wildlife for the honest hunters. As in this case, the help of a concerned citizen making a phone call with even what they believe is just a tid-bit of information can make a huge difference in our ability to bring them to justice. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
Forest health is not a scientific measure of the year round food supply as you claim and it in no way an accurate measure of the carrying capacity of the habitat. The surveys do not measure the amount of regeneration of various tree species that can be eaten by deer within habitat plots, it measures the regeneration of trees that are capable of replacing the existing canopy species. Therefore, forest health ,as determined by the PGC is not a measure of the health of the habitat or the habitats ability support a given deer density over the long term. Forest health, as done in recent years, most certainly is a scientific measure. The ability of the forest to regenerate is a very good measure of the ability of the habitat to support more or fewer deer since deer eat those new trees. Plus now they also measure the amount of deer browsing affects on the regeneration and that too becomes part of the forest health indicator. But, forest health is only one part of the total deer management indicators that shape the direction of the deer management objectives for each individual unit. An example of this would be 5C with only 23% regeneration but a reproductive rate of 1.6 embryos/doe compared to 4C with 60% regeneration but only 1.36 embryos/doe. Since 5C is comprised of mixed farm land and wood lots it can support a much higher deer density than 2G and 2G which are 90% forested. But that high deer density will often result in over browsing of the small survey plots used to determine forest health. Units like 5C do have a lot of deer food that isn’t forest habitat that actually does get measured in the reproductive data. That reproductive rate most likely stays relatively high because the deer are eating farms crops, neighborhood shrubs and many other things that keep those deer healthy enough to have that high reproduction. But, does that mean the Game Commission should manage to have more deer eating the Farmer’s livelihood or the Homeowner’s landscaping investment? That is where the deer/human conflict dimension and the CAC enter into the deer management equation. As for the forest regeneration though that tells the professional manager that all is not well and that the deer herd is a critical juncture that needs to be controlled and closely monitored before the deer do both the habitat and themselves in to a poor future. Hunters don’t benefit from that poor habitat deer future either. There is no doubt that unit 5C can support more deer then units like 2G that is evident in the fact that unit 5C harvests about three times as many deer per square mile, city streets and all, as what are harvested in unit 2G. That still doesn’t make it right, for either unit, to have a deer population that adversely affects it habitat and its own future. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel AND...by altering the criteria by which they have judged forest health and regeneration for the last six years, they have stet the stage for continued herd reduction throughout much of the state. When a WMU that had been reduced, and then given a status of fair or good regeneration has suddenly been declared poor, it only stands to reason what we can expect for future antlerless allocations. Reminds me of a company that sets performance incentive standards, and then raises themduring the last quarterof the fiscal year to avoid paying out. It's as crooked as it is scandalous. Clearly, an honest and comprehensive audit would find fault with such a practice. So are you are then saying that the professional researchers and managers should just ignore all of the scientific evidence the deer and their food supply provide for each unit? I would think anyone interested in the best possible future for the deer or the hunter would certainly want the professionals using the most up to date and best possible data available when managing the resources instead of saying it should be ignored because we don‘t like what it shows. That ignore the scientific facts sounds like a bad idea to me, based on past experience. In fact, that ignoring what the deer and habitat say is what has lead us to so many areas of the state having lower deer numbers now then they likely would have had we listened to the scientific data of the past instead of ignoring it to appease hunters and politicians. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel screamin steel just because one works hard and owns land doesnt mean they shouldnt have a opioion and voice on deer and deer managment as far as your comments have killed buck before ar after ar with a recurve and a compound I come back when i want and wont take grammer lessons Some speak of more civil discussion then steel post that hmmm civil To start with i have to follow all of the pgc rules. Scrap that not all i cant start fires,camp,atv,,cut trees and brush. Anyway if the deer pop drops below a huntable herd in most area and pgc cuts back or does away seasons it most certainly does affect me Yes i can and do set up deer managment on my property so i can keep a decent size herd. But all the hunters of pa is affected in some way or another by the descions pgc makes As for your question as to way i come here because not only do i care about my hunting and my familys hunting i care about hunting as a whole for generations to come yes i came in on topic agreeed with btb then all went downhill in a senceless namecalling liar,liar no you no you nonsence 3rd grade stuff it ended then YOU chimed in hours later. The namecalling is bad and should not be allowed. But to me it is far worse to question a persons reason for coming here it is a hunting forum not a pa deer managment forum all people should be welcome here not told to leave because the own land by another member I am affected by pgc deer managment and will continue to come here |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Presently I see no significant concerns with the statewide breeding rates, though there certainly is still room for improvement. I am also confident we will see improvements as more information becomes available from the ever continuing research and data collection. That is easy. Since the deer are managed by unit instead of with those statewide results the improvements that were needed are being realized within the units where it was most needed. That is why in areas like this area both the breeding rates and window have been so greatly improved over the past half dozen years. Some units though do seem to be experiencing some slight declines, most likely due to having populations that have grown out of the balance of the habitat. Those various habitat/deer density issues and problem areas will be addressed, on a unit by unit bases, with various management options in the future. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
It only makes sence to me to use science to make the desions they always said science dont lie
|
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
"Putting data into three to five year averages is done for a couple of reasons.
One reason data is frequently grouped into three or more years is to increase the sample size so there is enough data to meet the minimum coefficient or variance required to have confidence in the data. That is the reason they use three years of data in the published reproductive results. Everyone wishes there were more data but there isn’t and short of going out and simply killing doe to get it we might never have enough data to move away from using multiple years when making management decisions. " I understand that and have no problems when used in that manner RSB. But when we were speaking of the declining trend, that line of thinking wouldnt apply. We were trying to see if our reproductive data were improving or declining since our deer plan has been in place.I would also imagine it very important to compare the data from regeneration to exactly what is happening with the reproductive rates. To do so, it would be impossible to use 5 year groupings because the data has only been collected in this manner since 2001. As I said, no problems when comparing appropriate groupings imho, but depends upon exactly what we are trying to see with that particular data. "I don’t know for sure but it is possible that I had the data for the years reversed. Instead of going back and looking it up I’ll just take your word for it having been reversed. It really doesn’t matter one way or the other though. What matters is what the habitat shows now because that is what determines the unit’s ability to support more or fewer deer for the future." Sure it does matter. Even you yourself were quick to point out the trend of decline up until this latest evaluation. Now that the numbers are reversed and that trend is dead opposite, and not what you thought, now all of a sudden "it doesnt matter"?I feel it is every bit as important to my argument as you thought it might have been to yours. "What was added was that the plots also had the amount deer browsing affects measured within the plots instead of just how much regeneration there was." And that is complete bull*** in my opinion. Not on your part, but on who ever came up with the idea!Of coursethere is gonna be more browsing in areas with more deer!!! What would they expect?? Aslongas there is adequate regeneration occurring anyway....so what?? And there most certainly was enough regeneration occurring according to both the previous years reports. "I think that is important information that should be evaluated and included since it is certainly relevant to the ability of that habitat to continue supporting that level of deer number in the future. " IMHO, that is based on nothing. This change was not made to "continue supporting any level of deer into the future". When we accomplished our hr previously (which is STILL continuing according to the annual reports despite claims of stabilization) We more than addressed any habitat and or herd health issues. There were none to begin with yet acccording to the annual reports, and now after all the reduction experienced, there is absolutely no reason to believe that has changed now with so many fewer deer and regeneration that was on an improving trend! This tells me that this is all about ridiculous levels of biodiversity and nothing at all to do with deer and habitat. "Unit 2A came out the second worst for habitat and deer impact in the entire state and only behind unit 2F. " Yes, thanks to this change and only this change, and thats why i have a problem with it. Its not realistic. imho. Nor even close. There was no reason in the world for the change to be made other than to manufacture a reason to possibly kiill more deer, because up till then, absolutely none existed. "That is not a good thing for your future unless that declining trend can be reversed. To reverse that trend it most likely means higher deer harvests and keeping fewer over winter deer. It isn’t an easy pill to swallow but believe me when I tell you the alternative is even worse. " I dont buy it for a moment, You are telling me this is how it is, because this change had to be made and it shows decline. A decline that did not exist prior to it!!! Thats bull-squat. The regeneration was improving and the herd declining.The new "agenda" is bull. And I base that not on emotion or lack of knowledge, buton the facts Ive spoken of over and over. "Surely if the current deer numbers are having a significant impact on the regeneration, that is in existence now, " And again....Its not. The regeneration here is as good as its been in a long time. The regeneration study shows its the best in recent years, and this "change" does nothing to dispell that. They simply changed the rulesto meet an agenda imho. There is no other explanation. To drop the rating by 15%which had ZERO to do with FURTHER degradation or further deer damage as compared to the last evaluation is utterly rediculous, and imho should not be accepted. There has been enough catering to environmentalist interests with all the reduction we've already achieved and enough it more than enough. ", t is only a matter of time until that habitat becomes degraded to the point it can’t support as many deer." Nope. Sorry. You're not tellin' me that the very besthabitat type in this state, with best climate and soils etc can only hold half the deer as similar areas in other states. No way. "The adult doe reproductive rate for 2A is one of the lowest in the state. That is not a good thing for your future and a near certain sign that the area is suffering from more deer then the habitat can adequately support for the long term. " Actually as I stated , it declinedafter our reduction and was much higher on earlier reports! Also, again, it was rated as ON TARGET. Not below target. And, again, the trend is decline just as the rest of the states trend was decline. What has effected one, has most likely effected the other as well. "The fact that there were also at least a few incidence of winter mortality in Greene County this year are yet another indicator of more deer then the habitat can support." Very few. Most northern states lose deer in winter. Andwhat you speak of was verylocalized in nature, and very low in number. That meansany habitat difficiency related to it wouldvery localized where the incidence occurred as well (if that were even the case there and not involving other factors ).We dont manage our herd accordingto what happens on 2 farms in the entirewmus. That is, it seems, unless in some way it happens to equate to fewer deer? "Next combine that with the fact that the buck harvest in the unit declined for the second year in a row, even with favorable hunting conditions, and no EHD deer reduction affects this summer," I agree there was a decline and Ive complained about it since before it even occurred!...Jesus HChrist man,:D Ive said itallalong sincethe year before the decline!!! It was not hard to see coming! We were using 55,000 doe tags for yearsin a wmu that had already been reduced by using only 45,000 according to the 04 annual report!!! The herd had little else to do but to decline!! Throw in at least a few thousand deaddue to ehd, +60,000 tags to wash it down that year, and its pretty clear... The deer arent declining themselves> (LOL) They have a helluva lotta help! Cut the tags in a responsible manner, and Id bet my "eye teeth" that the embryo counts go up on average due to improved doe age structure, and the herd size will go up anyway, even without because no matter how high reproduction rate is, with our current herd size, 55k+allocation WILL overcome our recruitment. 45k did when the herd was much higher, and the reproduction rates were higher as well at the time according to annual report. "The reduced deer numbers in the unit might be a result of the EHD effects in the summer of 2007 and I suspect that is why increased harvest opinions weren’t suggested by the professional deer managers last year. But, now with a second year of reduced harvests, lower deer numbers and increasing deer damage to their own food supply I think it would be logical to increase the harvest for 2A this fall and see if that downward trend can be reversed before it becomes to late to reverse it." For pgc to do so would be 100% unwarranted and actually the opposite of what should occur.The harvest was thourough last year, and still barely matched the buck harvest of the previous one.That tells me, the previous year, due to ehd and whatever esle, the herd was low going into this pastpreseason. That also tells me, with a higher ANTLERLESS harvestlast year, the herd is now even smaller. The only thing in need of reversed is pgcs anti-deer policy and that is becoming VERY clear. Im sorry, but we hunters DO NOT want very few deer as a trade-off for unnaturally high amounts of trillium and hobblebush! Im not being a smart-, either, I mean that sincerely. "But, what if I am not wrong and you end up with a crashed deer population in the future?" I seeno risk. Thats why we went through as much of this plan as we have already prior to this point. The assumption of risk at this point to me is about like not only putting on a seatbelt to go to the store in your vehicle, but also being forced to wear a helmet, mouthpiece and padded suit. (LOL) "Thank you, I am always pleased when I can ruin the day for a poacher and perhaps make a brighter future for the honest hunters. You have some good WCOs in your area too, get to know them, work with them at both bring outlaws to justice and in learning more about the management issues and I am sure you will agree about both their quality and enforcement capabilities. That case I successfully prosecuted yesterday started with a guy making a call with a few tid-bits of information. Those few tid-bits of information can sometimes be the tremendous piece that makes all of the difference in stopping a major poacher." Yeah, I dont doubt we have some good wcos around here, I seem to hear quite abit and read it in your involvement in many cases through the years up there. Dont hear nearly as much down here, though poaching is definately rampant. [align=right] (in reply to Cornelius08) [/align]     |
RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
That is easy. Since the deer are managed by unit instead of with those statewide results the improvements that were needed are being realized within the units where it was most needed. That is why in areas like this area both the breeding rates and window have been so greatly improved over the past half dozen years. Some units though do seem to be experiencing some slight declines, most likely due to having populations that have grown out of the balance of the habitat. Those various habitat/deer density issues and problem areas will be addressed, on a unit by unit bases, with various management options in the future. You had a hard time admitting statewide breeding rates decreased by 5% so how are you going to explain decreases of 20% in the WMUs which previously had higher breeding rates? The answer is you can't and the only logical explanation for the 5% decreased is that breeding rates declined in the vast majority of the WMUs. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:37 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.