WMUS WITH DECREASING REGENERATION SINCE 2005 ACCORDING TO PGC ANNUAL REPORTS:

1A-------05/06 annual report----62%--------07/08 annual report---53%
1B------------------------------47%------------------------------35%
2A------------------------------58%------------------------------46%
2B------------------------------69%------------------------------59%
2D------------------------------68%------------------------------57%
2E------------------------------60%------------------------------54%
3C------------------------------55%------------------------------53%
4A------------------------------60%------------------------------58%
4B------------------------------66%------------------------------63%
4E------------------------------75%------------------------------74%
5B------------------------------69%------------------------------58%
5C------------------------------31%------------------------------23%

Gee Kill all the deer. Great plan pgc.

NOTE: this chart has been updated on the Deer plan failure highlights thread. It shows even more decreases comparing same 2005 to most recent data of 2008.

Hunters killed enough to reduce the herd in 2G from 15 DPSM in 2000 to 8 DPSM in 2005. if hunters hadn't killed 30+ K deer in 2003 and 19+K deer in 2004 the herd in 2G would be at 20 DPSM instead of 8 DPSM.
The deer determine the MSY carrying capacity and the PGC can confirm it based on the productivity of adult does. The fact that productivity decreased when we reduced the herd from 1M proves the herd was not at the MSY CC.

I'm blaming doe tag allocation numbers. The reason being that we here in the former southern Tioga and Potter counties south of Rt 6 went through a herd reduction program during the 90s. I think it was 1997 that the PGC allocated 20K tags for Tioga. They knocked the living crap out of the herd and for a few years hunting was pretty tough. When doe tag allocations were lowered in subsequent years, the herd made a comeback in habitat that was supposedly shot. Then came Gary Alt. Need I say more?

In my areas of operation, habitat is not controling the herd. Predators and hunters with doe tags are..

It is amazing how many hunters don't understand the basic concept that as long as we have a significant antlerless harvest combined with a buck harvest, then hunting is controlling the herd. The only way that wouldn't be true is if all the deer killed by hunters would have died from natural causes after hunting season. But guys like RSB and Doug are so indoctrinated that they can't think for themselves and come to logical conclusions of their own.

I can't speak for hunters in other areas. But I know my areas well which is northcentral 2G and southcentral 3A. I see what's growing, what's not growing, deer numbers, hunter numbers and such. I know what I've seen when the herd was high and I know what I see with the herd in single digits. I know what the neighbors and hunters observe.

BBs data pretty much matches what the overwhelming majority of folks in my area are seeing and experiencing.

Forget the concepts of time lag and correlation lag to understand why estimates of regeneration may lag behind increases in deer harvest or why increased deer harvests may not have lowered the estimated herd size by as much as thought. A "little bird" on the "inside" told me that both concepts were invented by a pioneering member of the PGC. :s14:

But that does not explain why regeneration decreased in many WMUs years after the herd had been reduced. Furthermore their is no reason to question the decrease in the herd since it is clearly reflected in the buck harvest estimates and the method for calculating those estimates has been the same for over 20 years.

It's a whole lot easier to listen to guys like you, Germain and even Sproul when we talk about 2G. You guys are living it. I think we've all seen enough deception from the bird to be suspicious about everything he posts. Personally, I think the root of all the problems lies with the WMU's being far too large. I don't know 2G all that well but get there enough to mnake a few unscientific observations.

A winter drive into Renovo from the south or the west is miles and miles of pole timber with precious little of anything visible thats within the reach of a whitetail deer tells one tale. Then theres the 255 corrider north of 80 that has plenty of deer food telling another. Better individual management of smaller WMU's would make a huge difference IMHO.

In the absence of smaller WMU's, the only alternative we have is personal hunter responsibility. Even in "deer rich" 2B for example, we have pockets that have been stomped to death while some inaccessible private areas are chock full of deer. In one fairly big block of 2B that I hunt, (private but open to all) most of the hunters there have voluntarily adopted a no doe policy for now. Is that the best way? Of course not. But it's beginning to work in our favor.

Some simply choose to sit back and lay blame. Thats never going to work for any of us. If we want smaller WMU's (something I think is almost universally agreed on by hunters and probably many PGC personnell) we have to be prepared to pay a considerably higher price for the more intensive micro management that will be needed. Unfortunately, we cant even get a few dollar increase for the general license. The naysayers say no increase till the deer herd gets fixed. It aint ever getting fixed any better without the resources to do that.

BTB, good point about the smaller wmus. Pgc doesnt want smaller wmus. How many times do you need to hear them say this? Theyve done in again in the last edition of "the deer chronicle" on their website. More money or no money it looks like we arent getting smaller wmus. We arent getting any fixes. Thats why many of us say "no money". Its not out of spite or hatred for the agency, even though with many those feelings do exist, and for good reason, its not the reason behind nonsupport of funding.

"Forget the concepts of time lag and correlation lag to understand why estimates of regeneration may lag behind increases in deer harvest or why increased deer harvests may not have lowered the estimated herd size by as much as thought."

You are taking a very general concept and taking it far FAR out of perspective.