We could go back and forth forever about your bogus "proof" posted months ago. It doesnt really matter much now does it.

Your flimsy arguement about breeding rates declining has now been taken away.

Wrong again. My position is just as strong as ever. Ars did nothing to improve breeding rates ,productivity or the breeding window. Furthermore, if you believe breeding rates increased by around 10% in just one year ,I have some prime swamp land for you.
Now let's see if you can answer a simple question. The PGC uses 3 year averages to determine breeding rates,so how much would the breeding rate have to increase to improve the breeding rate from 88% in 2007 to 93% in 2008? I will even give you a clue, the answer isn't 5%.

This news doesnt suprise me in the slightests! Especially with the bogus deer audit looming. Pike

The great conspiracy has been deflated.

Upon notification of the problem, the data is now again viewable by anyone, registered on the their site, or not.

Maybe the very mild winters contributed to deer coming through in very good health condition.??????Other than a few pockets in the NC, most of the state has been spared a hard winter for a few years.

My question is now, if the habitat is so god awful terribble in most areas, and still rated as poor and below target forest regeneration, how in the hell are we getting such high breeding rates? Unhealthy forests cannot be producing such healthy deer.

While there is no doubt severe winters can have a significant impact on recruitment, IMHO they don't have much effect on breeding rates ,since breeding takes place before severe winter weather and the doe will carry those embryos until spring under most conditions.

The PGC admits that forest health is not a true measure of the quality of the habitat or the carrying capacity. But , at the same time they claim that heavy browsing by deer indicates that there is a lack of adequate food for the size of the herd in a given area with high browsing impact.

Obviously even with high levels of browse damage, there is more than "adequate" food- relative to the herd size atleast, or that lack would correspond with a negative impact on herd health, with one measure of such being breeding rates. I haven't viewed much of the report yet, but I am curious if fawn breeding rates have improved or remained the same.

Breeding rates improved. Embryos/ adult doe markedly improved. So much for the birds soapbox about herd health.

BTW, I've been registered on the PGC site for years now and I couldn't get in yesterday either. No conspiracy, probably just some screw up with the website.

Steel, You probably have a very valid point about the mild winters. A few bad winters and recruitment will undoubtedly suffer. In the big picture, it's still pretty early in terms of the true long term effects because of factors other than hunting that vary from year to year or cycle to cycle.

Wrong again. Since ARs were implemented and the herd was reduced , there has been no increase in the breeding rate or the number of embryos/doe compared to 2002.


No one had to register to access the AWRs prior to yesterday. But ,apparently enough people called and complained that the PGC dropped the requirement.

There is a big difference between the mean embryos /doe and the number of fawns recruited. Mild or severe winters would have little if any effect on the breeding rates of adult doe.

How much did the breeding rate have to increase in 2008 to raise the three year average by 5%?