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

I was just eyeing the 07-08 annual report. I'll start with the good. Pgc has said they arent SURE that the decline in harvest in 2A was due to hunters solely avoiding the ehd area, but wanted to know if it were due to smaller herd and that this year pasts harvest would give some insight into it. Well they have their insight. Basically exact same buck harvest. Should be interesting to see if "adjustments" are made now that they have that insight.

Some things I found outrageous to say the least...So heres the ugly

according to 05 annual report, 2A had 58% regeneration. That from a high herd level from 2001 to 2004 sampling.

according to 06-07 annual report 2A from sampled plots from 2001 to 2005 samples collected had 61% regeneration. That is froma somewhat lowerherd size, and showed improvement even though it wasnt "poor" anyway previously even with much higher herd levels, only 2 years removed from 69+ dpsm!!.

In the very next annual report (lmao) with a much smaller herd,according to buck harvest as well as the herd size change chart on page 18 of the 07-08 report...and samples collected from 2003-2007 the regeneration in the 07-08 annual report is listed at 46%

Now does any sane rational man woman or child have an explanation as to why the regeneration would be 15% lower when the herd was MUCH higher,during the sampling years of 2001-2005 than they were during the last samplingused on the 07/08 reportof 2003-2007 when the deer herd was lower???

The bad? ANOTHER year of declining percentage of does bred. They also redid the past pregnancy rates! Surprise surprise. So the decline didnt look quite so bad. A percentage or two was added here or there, with the footnote at bottom saying *embryo counts and pregnancy rates adjusted to account for females that were lactating when collected in the spring. As a result of this change, these results may not agree with previous reports!

The new chart:

2000-----93%
2001-----93%
2002-----93%
2003-----93% wow looking good so far eh?
2004-----91%
2005-----92%
2006-----89%
2007-----88%

They made the decline more gradual. Yet still steady decline and 07/08 was no exception a new low.

Embryo counts? Dropped AGAIN as well.

2000-----1.60
2001-----1.58
2002-----1.63
2003-----1.59
2004-----1.53
2005-----1.51
2006-----1.54
2007-----1.50

What do they need? A brick wall to fall on them to see its not working??

LINK: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2008_wildlife/21001-07z.pdf

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

Do you realize that there must be other factors at work here?

Do you not believe the heat ,the mites or any other factors need looked into?

What wmu are you referring to?

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

As to the regeneration issue Jim, Im speaking of 2A. I would certainly hope there were some explanation for it, other than simply blaming the deer given the overall circumstances! Thats a pretty quick pretty signifcant change.

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

Let me look into that and I'll get back to you.

Give me some Idea what you think is causing the decrease in breeding rates and what effect this decrease will have.

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

Lower recruitment and lower sustainable harvests plus more unhappy hunters.

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

I personally think the deer are just sad because they know they are being mismanaged, and just aren't in the mood to do it. Ever just not been in the mood? Or they figure why bother? The PGC wants us all dead anyhow, might as well make it easy on them.

Seriously, though probably has more to do with the reduced herd overall, less bucks and less does, spread over a broader region means more travel time for bucks between receptive does, meaning less getting bred overall. However, since this rate never declined prior to HR we know that the herd was not to the point of nature controlling the herd, due to the stress of reduced browse affecting them nutritionally. The deer were healthy and fine in the majority of the state. The fact that the breeding rates did not decline till post HR proves that. The real mystery is in embryo counts and why that declined as the herd was reduced. Science tells us that the embryo count should have increased as the herd was reduced IF the herd was nutritionally stressed. More food, less deer = healthier deer, right?

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

Jim, I would imagine, just a guestimation on my part, that the continuing lowering breeding rates would be due to an overall younger doe age structure. Im not certain that would show a continued decline though, unless as many of us think, the reduction is also continuing. Less does as 3, 4 year olds and over can have a big effect on recruitment. And with reduction you are gonna have less and less of them percentagewise in the herd. Just as with the buck, if you increase the harvest rate, there are less older buck.

As to the effect, I think them obvious. Less deer. Less deer harvested. But not so much is that my concern as it is the fact that the plan was supposed to be guided by herd health and habitat health. My concern is with both showing at best erratic results, how "scientific" can it be and what does it mean to our deer herd and hunting if its not.

If the herd health isnt showing what it should be showing after all this reduction why are we doing it to the extent we are? also, if we were to follow this program , by taking that reproduction issue at face value...it would equate to even FEWER deer!

Also, the regeneration issue...How do we gauge deer impact...if regeneration is so fickle as not to bea reliable indicator of acceptable deer levels with other factors at play and cannot be dictated by science, but a mere "judgement call" about what else among other known factors as well as unknown may be the cause?

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

Science and good old common sense tells us that both should have increased. Something other than deer numbers has to be involved.

The idea of less deer having trouble finding mates doesn't fly . Deer are very mobile critters and there are still plenty out there for mating purposes. Besides, if deer were having trouble finding mates, the breeding time window would have increased.

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

In areas where deer numbers are at levels where fawns are a large% of the breeding deer I can see where breeding rates would fall as a doe fawn will likely produce just one fawn that first year.

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

You were given the answer months ago but you and RSB blindly rejected it because of your inherent bias?

Why do you think the PGC isn't doing an extensive study to determine the cause of the decrease? The answer is they know the reason, but simply don't want the hunters to know. Instead they dismiss it by saying the herd isn't managed based on statewide breeding rates. It doesn't get much better than that.

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

That could easily be confirmed or denied if the deer sampled were aged and counted as well. I dont recall if that was part of what's been reported.

Another thought....

This would be a localized issue, but I understand form a local WCO that we actually had a significany number of deer that had EHD but survived. (I know because I killed an emaciated deer in 2B Jan 08 and was worried about CWD. know of another hunter who did as well. The local WCO told us that there had been a lot of similar cases of EHD survivors)

This is purely conjecture but I'd certainly think that a doe stressed by EHD might not get pregnant or carry her fawns to term. The big outbreak of EHD was infall 07but we had a smaller outbreak a few years back.

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

Jim fawns are notan issue with the numbers being discussed at the moment. The rates discussed are for ADULT doe only age 2 or older as stated in the report.

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

May be our doe are getting uglier.[:o]

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

Btb, it was determined that our ehd bout was a pretty potent strain where few of those infected actually survived. Certainly nowhere near enough to completely skew the statewide breeding rates, and whats more.....for the last several years as a trend.

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

"May be our doe are getting uglier"




UGLY DOE OUT LOOKING FOR LOVE FROM SOME LUCKY BUCK!

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

Not according to our local WCO. They did say that the number of survivors that were later killed by hunters had surpised them though. The geographic extent of it was much larger than first thought as well. Mine was in NE Allegheny co and the other was in Westmoreland and as I understand it, cases were confirmed ad far north as Cambria.

Also, the 2007 outbreak would not be in the data but the earlier outbreak, which was not as severe would be. Although the exact year escapes me right now. Certainly not a single explanation but I bet there will not be one single smoking gun to explain this.

As for the change in regen rates, all I can say is WTF?

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

Greene County inbreeding? LOL;)

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

"Not according to our local WCO. They did say that the number of survivors that were later killed by hunters had surpised them though."

Your wco had no idea what he was talking about. PGC biologists stated it was a especially caustic strain apparently. They said they determined this because in some localized areas it hit it wiped out 80+%. That wouldnt be possible if itdidnt kill a higher percentage of thoseineffected. Judging by the body count around here at the time, Id agree 100%. Luckily there were areas not at all infected and others with few deer infected.Even if 100% of the deer in those worst areas were infected that would be a 80% mortality rate among those infected. I dont believe 100% were infected so the mortality rate of those infected could theoretically have been much higher than 80%.

One way to determine a survivor is by looking at the hooves which would appear wrinkled or cracked. Noone I know has havested a deer that displayed the symptoms, nor have I heard of any taken. Not to say none where, but seems a very very low number.

"The geographic extent of it was much larger than first thought as well. Mine was in NE Allegheny co and the other was in Westmoreland and as I understand it, cases were confirmed ad far north as Cambria. "

YEs very few and far between isolated incidents. By far the huge majority of it hit right here in 2A.

"Also, the 2007 outbreak would not be in the data but the earlier outbreak, which was not as severe would be. Although the exact year escapes me right now."

YEs, and I too cannot recall...2002 maybe? Around there i believe...anyway there were just a small handful of confirmed deaths that year.

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

BTW, that pic wasnt mine, nor was it taken in Greene county. In fact Im not sure where it was taken.

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

Just one more example of why you can't take part in a civil objective discussion. I suppose the WCO just made it all up? Of course, whatever information you got is the only credible information out there right? The statements from the PGC biologists I saw came in late summer early fall. The discussion I'm referring towas after the hunting season unfolded and several harvested deer had been observed and checked with the same symptoms. Where did you get your information and what qualifies you to claim that my WCO has no idea what she's talking about?

Your closed minded approach says volumes about your position on other subjects as well

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

I was looking for some answers on 2 A when I found out most of the state is in real trouble as far as forest health goes.[:-]

I guess I better quit cutting trees down before the deer get the blame for 1B regeneration problems.:eek:

Maybe PA just isn't supposed to have both trees, and doe deer.:eek:

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

Better be careful telling about cutting those trees Jim. DCNR will be calling for an allocation of BAWANADMAP tags in 1B!;)

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

"Just one more example of why you can't take part in a civil objective discussion. I suppose the WCO just made it all up?"

No. They didnt know what the hell they were talking about.Plain and simple. Ilived through this crap up to my neck in it and listened to the foremost experts on the topic from pgc, not some obscure wco. Its been stated in pgc articles in magazines aswell as at presentation in Greene county. Its alsobeen discussionsonhpa and other place with"insiders" explaning the situation. The statements and knowledge on the topic that is 100% counterto what you have said which I have heard, read and seen thru several venues, doesnt even allow for the possibilty of that wco being right. I explained the situation, and if none of what Ive told you is believable or makes 1000% sense, than your a dang fool and would most likely argue if you were told by Jesus christ himself.

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

You where right corn,2002!
Hemorrhagic disease is common in the southeastern United States and outbreaks have been documented in Pennsylvania and many other states. Losses due to EHD have occurred in Pennsylvania in 1996, 2002, and 2007. While mortality associated with EHD may seem dramatic, local populations rebound quickly after an outbreak. Many infected deer live and show only mild signs of disease or no signs at all. And animals that survive an EHD infection develop antibodies that protect them from future outbreaks.
More information, including a brochure, can be found on our EHD webpage.

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

"I was looking for some answers on 2 A when I found out most of the state is in real trouble as far as forest health goes"

Yeah. LOL good one. Funny thing is we just got in trouble NOW after already having cut our ow herd in half, and the trend was increasing until last year! LOL

Naa my friend, I answered my own question. I reread the report and found something id missed by reading quickly. More pgc 100% unadulterated b.s.

You'll be tickled pink to hear apparently the bar has been raised.

"DATA ARE BASED ON SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM 2003-2007, PENNSYLVANIA. RESULTS CANNOT BE COMPARED TO PREVIOUS REPORTS BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN METHODS!"

Another change surprise surprise. And not one that is gonna benefit the hunters of Pa. After looking at the charts from the 06 report and this one, i see SEVERAL wmus are now rated LOWER thanks to this new "bio-vegetation nut" derived system.

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

@#$@@ double post!

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

Yes btb, I thought it was 2002. But as for this comment "Many infected deer live and show only mild signs of disease or no signs at all." Is common in some strains. Differing strainshavedifferent levels of mortality, as well as harsher effect where the disease doesnt normally occur and deer have little immunity. The last bout was a real slobber knocker.

And those who develop a degree of resistence still arent 100% immune. And also is only temporary.

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

Gee, it seems the experts disagree.....

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&Q=174681&PM=1



It would seem to me that only a "dang fool" would claim to know that every deer who contracted EHD in 2007 died.

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

Thats speaking of the disease in general. The effects of differing strains vary. We got as bad as they come in 2007. ITs agreed upon by all experts who evalutated the situation. Nothing you posted disagrees with me. Im not giving an opinion. Im speaking of the experts have said on our 2007 outbreak. A general statement not even pertainly particularly to The Pa 2007 outbreak is meaningless in refuting anything Ive said.

I suggest you send and email to the "ask the biologist" feature on the pgc website and ask if it was not a particularly bad strain that killed a very high percentage of those infected. I already know these things. I made it a point to know when it hit and spent as much time as possible finding out what the story really was. Now its 2 years later and the topic is a bit boring. Been there. Done that. Even the great "gal that fishes" who spoke regularly with those who studied the outbreak stated it was a particularly bad strain. Walter Cottrell, pgc veterinarian has stated the same.

OF course if you lived here and found bodies piled up like cord word and seldom saw a living deer thereafter, you wouldnt need to be told.;)

BTW, your also a liar as usual. I didnt say "every deer" I said MOST so its clear you're trying to be an arse and little else.

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

The pendulum swings both ways, but With this last regeneration report even I am left wondering what they are looking for.

I have posted pictures of my landin the past and I will again when I can get out, buts its snowing like hell so that ain't happening now.
My point is even in an area where food is abundant I can show you deer damage, one small white pine in particular that was cleaned off except where the snow covered it.
If the goal is not to have any noticeable deer damage then that goal is unobtainable in the northern half of the state where snow is prevalent.

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

"Game commission wildlife veterinarian Walter Cottrell described the symptoms of EHD as excessive drooling, weakness and a loss of fear of humans. He said the virus usually kills the affected animal within five to 10 days."

"EHD is a common but sporadic disease in white-tailed deer populations of the United States, and is contracted by the bite of insects called “biting midges.” In more northern states, such as Pennsylvania, EHD occurs less often and the deer are less able to mount an effective immune response. The virus usually kills the naïve animal within five to 10 days."

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

"If the goal is not to have any noticeable deer damage then that goal is unobtainable in the northern half of the state where snow is prevalent."

Jim this situation is absolutely rediculous. And it surely isnt limited to the north. When 2A for example,drops inrating of regen. acceptability by 15 *&%$# percent instantaneously!, or any of the other wmus that were lowered...thats nothing less than pure pgcsleazeball tactics. Plain and simple. They are simply changing the rules as they go along to kill more deer where they want to kill more deer, yet didnt have a good excuse to do so. I often use 2A as my example because I am most familiar with the wmus data, so speaking of this wmu, the human conflict was rated as low. The goal has been stabilization supposedly for years now. The herd has been reduced.The herd or habitat health has never been poor, and the cac also voted for stabilizatin.... So how do they get justification to in the near future kill more deer and lower the herd as has probably been their intent all along? Change the rules, then point to the new data as justification. It just plain stinks to high heaven. Im suremany other wmus are also "in line" forthe same judgingby the new regeneration chart.[:'(]

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

That quote came from September 2007.

The information relayed to me was in January 2008 after the hunting season played out.


Your claim that a WCO working in the field every day didn't know what she's talking about is either abject stupidity or a flat out lie. Yes, you had a bad outbreak down there inLaLa Land but you are at least 50 miles away and have no knowledge or evidence to support your challenge of what went on up here. You are also relying on information provided in early fall as the outbreak was playing itself out. That there were survivors in January around here tells a different tale. Sorry you can't accept that but you've done nothing but display your ignorance. You may well have been on the front lines wher the outbreak was the worst but that doesn't make you an authority. Your behavior makes you a complete buffoon. Oh and a liar since you seem so fond of that wordespecially when you've been proven wrong or can't come up with something of substance.

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

If you want to pull your hair out compare the regeneration results for each WMU with the PS deer densities in the 2005 AWR and see if it makes any sense.

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

Btb. I dontcare about a clueless wco. I wouldnt ask a wco for biological info any more than id have a hospital janitor give me a second opinion on surgery.Find out from the right people. As I have. As for your wco, They spoke of very general information and had nothing to do with our situation, lots of half truths spoken of thanks to the fact the disease was very new to us. Ive given youthefacts you can embrace them or ignore them as usual, in this case I dont care which,knock yourself out with your little ehd conversation. I know everything there is to know from a practical standpoint. You are trying to take the attention off of the facts here and the real discussion which as usual makes pgc look like complete arses. This is new and very interesting stuff yet youd rather talk about something dated which you know absolutely nothing about. Good luck with that. Now on to the conversation...

Bb, I just read more of the report, and see that we dont need to "compare" this "new" data to the old....Yet they fail to mention this "new" method took our wmu from being WELL above the "fair" minimum bar, to well BELOW IT! WTF!! They said they have the option of giving the next grade up if the percentage fell within a few of the next higher grade minimum....So they squeaked us out a fair, even though we are now below the fair into the "poor" designation by FOUR FRIGGIN PERCENT not because the habitat has decreased as determined by the system we had been using, but because they played their little games and changed the rules for their ecofruit agenda!!!Id like to tell those treehugging sobs exactly what they can kiss.

If our rating goes down by ONE PERCENT or so we are getting scalped. If they dont do it this year and not lower our allocation even though we've been steadily declining despite claims of stabilization. Anyone who looks into this stuff and still votes for a fee increase has their head buried firmly in their own anus.

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

With some quick numbers on average the PGC sells 3.5 licenses to kill a doe. 1B is low at 2.6 per kill with 4E a high at 4.2. That number sounds low to me because I know of no one in my group of friends that shot any and we had 13 tags among us.
Are DMAT kills counted in total harvest numbers? If so how many DMAT tags were available state wide?

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

If it was from disease wouldn't one think there would be 100s of dead deer being found in small areas?

Conspiracy theory,
If you wanted to do an experiment on wild deer,What would be the state with the most populated deer herd in the country where deer are over abundant?

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

"If it was from disease wouldn't one think there would be 100s of dead deer being found in small areas? "

I n many areas there were scorp. I personally found quite a few. Most on one farm ended up being over 20. 10-15 on a couple of others. Heard many in the area that found that many and more. In a few cases ALOT more. Also heard on hpa claims of one farm having over 100 dead, confirmed by galthatfished. Id say that joker was trying to horde some deer!!

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

I seen deer herded up yesterday. Seen 15 in one group and about 12 in another.These deer was withing 50yrds of a creek in both herds.I seen one deer in someones yard that looked like it had mange. Its fur was all messed up and looked kinda sick. Maybe they do have a disease. Start that rumor and watch hunting sale plumet.

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

They dont have ehd this time of year. But I wouldnt mind if someone did start a "scare" of some sort before hunting season. Someone needs to take action against theseclowns. The lows pgc are sinking to is getting completely outrageous. Just when I think they can go no lower, they kick us in the groin again.