RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

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

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

First of all I will agree that based on the most recent annual report it doesn’t appear likely that adult doe breeding rates in some parts of the state are not increasing though I am not so sure a slight annual or even a few years of decline is anything of concern or at all unusual.

For one thing the statewide sample size is much lower during the past five or six years then it had ever been in the past. That alone can make a huge change the data simply because of the margin of error that comes with a smaller sample size. It presently takes three years of breeding rate data to keep a coefficient of variation of plus or minus 13%. For that reason alone a couple percentage of change in the annual adult doe breeding rates might very well be nothing more then a error or the annual sample.

Before I get into what this years report tell me about the various units I want to show everyone those adult doe breeding rates over a longer time period and in five year averages.

Time period………adult doe breeding rates
83-87.…………………91 %
88-92.…………………91 %
93-97.…………………90 %
98-02.…………………91 %
03-07.…………………91 %


If you do it in three year averages the results are pretty much the same.

Time period………adult doe breeding rates
81-83.…………………91 %
84-86.…………………91 %
87-89.…………………92 %
90-92.…………………91 %
93-95.…………………90 %
96-98.…………………90 %
99-01.…………………91 %
02-04.…………………92 %
05-07.…………………90 %

As you can see there have been variations of the adult doe breeding rates all through the past though they have also generally stayed pretty stable without major variance and that trend continues yet today. I don’t see a reason for concern though I do see a reason to keep a watchful eye on the rates in the future just as they have in the past.

Now for the part I find most interesting and perhaps most concerning. It is also the part you probably aren’t going to like.

Deer management objectives for every individual unit are based on two separate, yet somewhat connected, indicators of the ability or need for of the deer to exist in either higher or lower numbers then presently occur.

One of those indicators is the health of the deer herd. The deer in each of the units provides that answer with the adult doe reproductive rate. If that adult doe rate is over 1.50 then it is presumed the herd is within a tolerable limit with its habitat. Mind you that is not really great but within a range that is acceptable.

The other indicator used in determining the ability of the unit to sustain, increase or decrease the deer population comes from an evaluation of the habitat, which is really a measure of the year round deer food supply. That is done by scientifically measuring the amount of regeneration of various tree species that can be eaten by deer within habitat plots. There are five sets of plots in each unit and each set will get evaluated once every five years. If that habitat value drops below 50 % regeneration then that is an indication the habitat is not good and probably not able to support more deer and very likely can’t even sustain the present deer numbers long term. That is also when deer populations are likely to start reducing their own numbers with reduced fawn recruitment rates.

Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.

Rank………Unit……………Reproductive rate………………Habitat value
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 %
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34

Unit 5D is not included since there isn’t enough habitat data available to place it in the results.

I think this sort of places the units in the order of concern for their ability to continue to sustain the present deer populations. The further down the list the more concern in general terms.

I think some of the units might be higher on the list then they really should be though. I think some units, like 2G and I am sure others, are probably higher then they should be because of their reproductive rate score actually being higher then it truly is. That higher reproductive score probably comes from the location of the highway samples. The majority of the deer being sampled are coming from highway kills and mostly around the most fertile soil and farm lands. The mountainous, poor soil and habitat areas also have very few roads so the sample in those worst of habitats is low to no existent. That of course results in an inflated reproductive score for some of the units.

So, based on the scientifically collected data, provided by the deer and their food supply, it appears unit 2A might very well need even more deer harvested before the habitat gets degraded to the point it simply can’t support the deer population it already has.

I know that isn’t what you wanted to hear of believe but you at least need to look at it objectively and see what the scientific data is telling the professionals. Though you don’t want to believe it, the wildlife management professionals really are doing what the evidence says is best for the each unit to be able to support good deer populations for not only today but for the long term future as well.

If you look at the past habitat surveys for unit 2A you will see that the habitat has been declining a bit more each year. In the past three years it has declined from 61% in 2005, to 58% in 2006 and now down to 46% in 2005. That is reason for concern. Then when you combine that with the fact that the deer health has been below that 1.50 satisfactory reproductive level two out of the past three years (1.45 in 2005, 1.53 in 2006 and now 1.37 in 2007) it isn’t looking good for the future in your unit unless the deer herd is brought into a closer balance with the existing year round food supplies.

Give it some serious though as to what happens when the deer herd damage their long term food supply and what it will mean to the future deer hunting in your area. It isn’t a good thing when that happens. I have seen the results of it right here in this part of the state. If you to see your future after carrying too many deer for too long, drive up here and look around and then decide if what slightly fewer deer then you have now or if you want more deer now and then what this part of the state has ten, twenty or thirty years from now.

Now see if you can come back and discuss those thoughts without just shouting or calling them lies. I am certainly willing to listen to what you have to say, and discuss your thoughts too as long as you can say it in an objective and respectful manner.

Oh, and I almost forgot to add. Yes, I did win my court case today and it was in deed a poacher.

Unfortunately, I only had enough evidence to convict him of one deer even though I am pretty sure there were several more then just one he was involved in. Besides the conviction I am also pleased to report that the Judge ordered him to pay the DNA lab fees I used to help convict him. I had him in possession of one set of antlers in closed season but when I finally did get him the dead bucks without heads stopped showing up in that area. I would love to know just how many of them he had killed.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Thanks RSB and kudos for nailing the poacher!

Does the age of the does being sampled get recorded and if so do you have that data?Could there be any validity to the theory that a higher percentage of pregnant fawns or even younger adult does in the samples could be contributing to the lower pregnancy rates?

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Rsb, I had a long reply and this fine site made me lose it ARGH!!! So I'll try and quickly hit my points.

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 highyear 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.

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.

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.

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.

BTW, congrats on the case, great job! We could use you around here.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Btw, just to show how greatly year groupings can vary, as to how exactly they are broken up, I could show the table on page 12 of the annual report adult doe pregnancy chart which shows 8 total years, as the most recent 4 years grouped, as compared to the first 4. The results show 93% pregnancy rate for the first 4. and only 90% average for the last 4.

But more importantly, the "trend" when analyzing the entire list year by yearis worse, since it shows the steady decline to a total of 5% in just 4 years.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

I have no problem with anyone who works hard and owns land, but deer mgt in PA affects you about as much as Oprah is affected by what you had for dinner last night. You and you alone have the liberty of setting your own management policies. So other than morbid curiosity, what brings you to this board? How can you really say whether you agree or disagree with the state's deer plan when you are so unaffected by it? It's like someone who is tax exempt complaining about paying taxes. As for civil discussion...well, just read back through the last few pages when you joined this topic and started and then continued with nothing constructive other than name calling and insults. Just a taste of your own medicine, sport. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out.;)

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

RSB, congrats on a fine job once again hanging up the gun of another low life poacher. Keep up the good work!

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.

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.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

The age of the does being sampled gets separated into three groups, (yearling, two year old and three years and older). In the past wildlife management used all three age groups in the deer health index but due to the declining sample size it had reached the point where the data sample size was not large enough to fall within that 13% coefficient of variance required to meet the minimum confidence level. For that reason all adults does (two years and older) are now grouped together to increase the sample size and bring it back to being within the required confidence level for making a more accurate herd health determination. Of course the standards used for the combination of the two age groups had to be amended to account for that change.

Yes, a change in the number of younger does in the sample size can have an effect on the statewide adult breeding rates. It shouldn’t have an effect though if the herd health were suitable in all areas and if the buck/doe ratio were correct in all areas. Since the only data being used for that adult breeding rate data is for adult does they should all be mature enough to be bred unless the habitat they are living in is poor or unless there simply weren’t enough bucks available in that area to get all of the cycling females bred.

I have long suspected, though can’t presently prove, that as more of the juvenile does reach breeding weight in an area it sets up a situation where perhaps more of the adult does don’t get bred, or at least not during their first cycle as they should.

Bucks simply don’t care if the cycling doe is an adult or a juvenile doe, they will spend their time trailing and hanging out near her until she is bred and that might be for a couple of days or more. If you have an increased number of juvenile does reaching breeding weight during any year that could, theoretically at least, result in fewer of the adult does in the same area getting bred.

That might not be a real serious problem though it could potentially cause a decline in the fawn recruitment rates for that area since typically fawns born to younger does do have a lower survival rate. But, even that might not be a major concern. Now that we have statewide antler restrictions it seems logical that any place that has a buck/doe ratio that far out of balance that adult does aren’t getting bred it is probably a problem of having too many does instead of not having enough bucks. Keep in mind now that the total deer population for the area needs to be in balance with the habitat, so adding more bucks simply to improve the breeding rate might be counter productive if you exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat.

But, in conclusion yes the decline in the adult doe breeding rates might be partly due to younger does being bred. But, once again nearly all adult does should be bred where they live in the correct habitat and buck/doe ratio balance.

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.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

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.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

If you see no significant concerns now that the breeding rate has dropped by 5%, why did you have significant concerns when the breeding rate was 5% higher. Before, you claimed ARs were necessary to improve the buck to doe ratio , improve the breeding ecology and breeding rates and reduce the breeding window. Now that none of that happened as predicted suddenly the lower breeding rates and lower recruitment are not a significant concern. Can you explain why you believe that now?

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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



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
 

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, 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.



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
 

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
 

You are a fool if think deer managment doesnt affect landowners
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
 

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
 

Unfortunately for you the answer is not at all easy. If breeding rates improved significantly in the WMUs with the poorest breeding rates, but the state wide average still decreased by 5% that means an equal number of WMUs had decreases in breeding rates that were double the amount of the increase in the WMUs where breeding rates improved. For example, if breeding rates improved by 10% in 2G the breeding rates would have to decrease by 10% in another WMU with a similar sample size. But in order to get a 5% average decrease the breeding rate in one WMU would have to decrease by 20%

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.

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"

Deer managementuses alot more than science alone. It takes alot of judgement calls and opinions. If those making the decisions are concerned more with biodiversity timber or whatever else the case may be, its only understandable they are gonna lean that way. And sometime a HARD lean. Even thoughthe plan may be just as "scientificallyvalid", but that isnt saying much if you are a hunter,when it could be just as much so, withappropriate decisions regarding hunting as well. And to do it right in the name of hunting, it takes hunter friendly biologists, boc, and or other staff. Not extreme environmentalists. It also doesnt help when you have dcnr collecting the data and having strong input into the regeneration study even on lands not sate forest.

This new development for 2A has eco-extremist all over it.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

If that were true, 2F would be managed at a lower DD than 2G, but instead it is managed at almost twice the DD as 2G. That makes absolutely no sense and neither do your previous attempts to justify the discrepancy.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

corn
A very good point and problem with current commission

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Also, statewide, 12 wmus did NOT decline due to too many deer, regeneration or anything else, when the herd has been declining and still is in at least 8 of those 12.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Bowtruck, Im glad you acknowledge some of what Ive said. Question is, what can be done about it? From where i stand, I see nothing....Other than me whining some more.(LOL):D

Seriously though, this is why I do not support fee increase etc. Its not because I want a deer behind every tree or cant kill a deer. I have little trouble with that. There is just a right and wrong, and I feel the current management trend here in 2A as well as many other areas of the state are wrong.

I have no problem with a decent chunk of the hr we have already gotten. Knock back some of it a tad in some wmus. And those that should be stabilized, stabilize them! Quit with the games already.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

I wish i knew the answer. Most of what you said is easily agreeable
And i wish pgc would quit with the games
3c has had next to no studies done so i wonder how they come up with
anything scientific
I dont support fee increase at this point in time for a number of resons

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

You hunt 3C truck?

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

yes 3c

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Looks like the herd is still being reduced there as well. According to the latest annual report. It shows declines in the chart which goes from 2004 to 2007. Declines in 04, 05, and 07. 3 of the 4 years.

Dont know much about that area.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

slow decline and few studys to back it here

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

RSB.

I'm not going to argue the science that has changed the methodology for evaluating regen without enough info to do it intelligently. I've always been on the side of letting thye professionals do their job but I also feel a need to understand what it is they do to the extent possible.

I know a decent amount of 2F. I think the parts I know well are probably among some of the best habitat in that WMU but the change in the regen rate there has me baffled when I'm now seeing much better regen where I hunt. The deer numbers are good, fewer than years ago but that is an improvement IMHO.I find it puzzling the forest health rating is so low where I've seen such a marked improvement in both the deer and the forest regen. Either the sample areas are far from where I frequent or I'm missing something big time. I'm not condemning or arguing the new practice, just looking to get a handle on it.

I think attending a deer tour just went way up on my priorities list for this year. Do you have the dates and locations for the deer tours this year or a link for that information?

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

"slow decline and few studys to back it here "

Yeah.Continued slow decline. What has the goal been for the wmu last few years? Reduction? Increase? Stabilization? I havent looked into.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

BTB, Im sure RSB will give his thoughts when he comes along, but I can help with one thing you mentioned....the new practice hasnt caused 2F to decline. It did not effect all wmus equally, though 12 wmus the majority, did decline. As for 2F There has been a 2% increase in regeneration according to the 07/08 report compared to the 06/07 report, but the wmu is still rated at poor at 34%.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

My bad.

I printed that dang thing when it came out and it got wet and I tossed it. I need to reprint it so I can refer back to it when discussing it there. I hate reading anythingthal long online becuse I often need to flip back and forth and it's a pain doing that with a PDF file online.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

To make it easier to see the wide variation between reproductive rates, regeneration and deer density, I added the the PS deer density for 2005 to the data RSB provided. I used the 2005 data sincethat was the last year the PGC provided the PS deer density estimates.



Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.

Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22

Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Does any one know how big these 5 study plots per wmu are is size?1 acre , 5 acres ?

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

Yep,once the habitat get's stressed to the point it is in many areas,it takes far less deer to continue to impact it.In these areas,hunters will be forced to deal with alot less deer forlong periods of time.It makes sense to me if we fix the problem before it becomes a problem like it did in 2G.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

2A has been made a bad joke. You DO NOT have a 15% decline in one year when there are both far less deer than previous AND previously the regneration was on a IMPROVING trend, not declining. It absolutely had NOTHING to do with "FURTHER" deer damage as compared to the previous report. It had EVERYTHING to do with new considerations being used in the evaluation.

No where in this state will EVER be permitted "normal" deer densities under current guidelines. IF you have 'x' amount of deer, they are gonna eat"y' amount of browse. If you have 'y' amount of browse consumed, yet still getting adequate regeneration, it should be a 100-% nonissue. Yet when its now all of a sudden said that 'y' amount of browsing is no longer tolerable, I think it safe to assume any time in the future that we have close to 'x' number of deer, it will be reduced despite how much regeneration is occurring, because...Once again, they will be consuming 'y' amount of browse!!

When 'x' number of deer is very modest to begin with, ishalf what it used to be when double 'y' was being consumed...and regeneration had still be acceptable....and this in the best part of the state...and you factor in all the other "facts" spoken of. Then pgcs decision "z" is equal to b+s! ;)

2Awas screwed. Plain and simple. Econut agenda at work.There is absolutely no other explanation. The deer sham plan is at work. There was plenty of regeneration occurring atWELL over acceptable levels at61%. And now thanks toa rediculous change that takes into account 100% nonsensical factor changes the rating to rock bottom?? BS!...And this is not picking on poor little pgc its very obvious foranyone with 2 eyes to see, who isnt too biased to admit it.And its pretty obvious that pgc is headed to ungodly deer numbers statewide for the bio-nut agenda, and its also clear they'll do whatever it takes no matter what the data says Just change the rules as needed.

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

If that is true, then why the high regeneration (74%) in 4E, with the same DD essentially as 2F with 34%? And why are the DD goals in 2F higher than 2G which has significantly higher regeneration? THIS PLAN JUST MAKES NO SENSE!!! Admit that it is the biggest crock of #$%^ you have ever seen! There are NO constants being used as criteria and goals to manage the WMU's, other than reduce the herd at all costs. For God's sake 5A with regen. of 66% and second highest reproduction in the state has a target DD of 6dpsm. When you say get used to low deer numbers for a long time, I believe you mean indefinitely. Or do you really expect that when they finally achieve their desired effect, they will allow the herd to increase only to do it all over again?Nope. This isd the future of deer hunitng in PA, unless we sportsmen force a change. If it makes a lick ofsense to anyone, I worry about your comprehension skills, not to mention your sanity!

RE: 07/08 annual report. Good bad and ugly. Mostly ugly
 

THose idiots are doing EXACTLY whatever the hell they want! The plan was extreme from its inception, and now its just morphing into a complete abomination! LOL.

PGC obviously is becoming MUCH more brash and not at all concerned with sticking to "science" or listening at ALL to hunters. I guess they have gotten out of the audit for awhile if not permanently, thanks to latest development in regards to that, might be getting a fee increase due to dirty dealings on the crossbow issue + ridiculoius new 4 wmus season structure + audit complications, and the usp lawsuit seemingly isnt going anywhere...

It seems they dont have a care in the world, and know now that they have even less to answer to, and their is no recourse to the hunters.