The Paranoid PGC
10-22-2009, 04:32 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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%.
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%.
10-22-2009, 07:03 AM
#26
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
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%.
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%.
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.
10-22-2009, 08:23 AM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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.
10-22-2009, 08:57 AM
#28
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
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.
10-22-2009, 09:06 AM
#29
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
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.
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.
10-22-2009, 11:26 AM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
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%?
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
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.
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
How much did the breeding rate have to increase in 2008 to raise the three year average by 5%?
