BTBowhunter

So you agree that breeding rates have not deteriorated as you once claimed

While it's true that no one had to register before now, It's also a fact that registered use3r couldnt view it either. the logical and reasonable explanation is that there was another problem and you have nothing but your personal paranoia to support your theory that it was intentional

[quote]

There is a big difference between the mean embryos /doe and the number of fawns recruited. [quote]

Typical bluebird distortion. Fawns not born are fawns not recruited. While other factors besides birth rates also affect recruitment, birth rates are a major component

Not what was said. Winter severity affects fawn recruitment not breeding rates

I know exactly where you're headed with this. Not gonna take the bait. Why don't you tell us your answer and then I'll expose the little distortion game your planning on this one. (hint: it's not 5 but it's not 15 either LOL)


I think it's time to go climb a tree..........

bluebird2

Get real!! I said there was no increase in breeding rates compared to 2002. I did not say that breeding rates didn't decrease.

That is the only point I was making. the PGC wanted to keep track of who was reading the AWRs.

[QUOTE]Typical bluebird distortion. Fawns not born are fawns not recruited. While other factors besides birth rates also affect recruitment, birth rates are a major component
[/QUOTE

The discussion was about the increase in breeding rates, not about an increase or decrease in recruitment.

That is your typical tactic when you can't answer the question. A 15 % increase in the breeding rate would have resulted in 103% breeding rate in 2008. You really don't have a clue,do you?

BTBowhunter

Whatta chump! Or you think we are! LOL

I'll let you stew a while while you try to figure out just exactly why you should leave the numbers game to the experts.


Yes, there is a logical answer and 103% isn't it.

Gonna go shoot a doe. See you after dark. Maybe by then someone will explain it to you..........

bluebird2

Remember, for you a logical answer included claiming that 80% of the deer that died in 2G died from non-hunting mortality. You also assumed the 5% decrease in breeding rates was due to a shift in sample size and location,even though there was no evidence to support that claim.

I agree you are a chump since you are the only one left trying to defend the failed PGC DMP.

BTBowhunter

I said that those were the study results and that's what they were.
Oh and I notice you dodged the issue on your bogus flim flam claim that breeding rates would have had to have been 103%


Ahh but there was evidence. You simply chose to dismiss it.

Take a look around skippy. This is the only site left (other than the USP site that is) where the few insistent whiners like you that have been banned or bounced virtually everywhere else have gathered for your last stand.

Like I said before,
Breeding rates up, embryo/adult doe up considerably.... Your gonna have to go back write a whole new playbook for your warped agenda.

Have a good night. Dont let all those nasty new results keep you awake

bluebird2

No, those were not the results of the study and your interpretation was dead wrong. The study reported that only 20% of the adult doe that were being tracked wee harvested by hunters. It did not say that 80% of the deer that died in 2G ,died from non-hunting mortality.

You have been constantly dodging my questions on this thread, but unlike you I have the answer. The fact is they use 3 year average breeding rates to determine herd health in the individual WMU's , but the statewide average breeding rates are year to year changes . But, that still doesn't explain why breeding rates would suddenly increase by 5% in just one year after declining from 93% in 88% in 2007.


Wrong again. Breeding rates are the same as they were in 2000 , mean embryos/doe are the same as in 2000 and productivity has decreased from 1.1 fawns/doe to .99 fawns /doe. Therefore ARs and HR did nothing to improve the health of the herd.

Pa Trophy Man

Not so bird, the rest of us just got tired of arguing with someone who doesn't listen.

bluebird2

Why should I listen to guys like BTB who lies about the PGC studies and stats , even though the data shows conclusively that he is lying?

Cornelius08

Same ol' same ol. Someone telling the facts about the failed deer program and the same few with absolutely no legitimate response doing their usual to turn it into a war of insults.



Its really pretty hilarious, since its not even dabatable. The breeding data DIDNT improve as claimed would be the case in the beginning and 80% of the doe arent being killed by natural causes lmao. So what the hell is the argument about other than a couple not wanting their precious pgc besmirched by telling the truth about a miserably failed econut driven deer program?

BB, keep tellin' it like it is brother! The whining and crying from the pgc damage control squad only means you've hit the nail on the head once again.

BTBowhunter

The bird and the cornhole claim lies.


Here's just a few stats from the new AWR


% of 1.5 bucks in the harvest in 2001 82%

% of 1.5 bucks in the harvest in 2008 52%


Even more important......

% of 2.5+ bucks in the 2001 harvest 18% Total 36,600

% of 2.4+ bucks in the 2008 harvest 48% Total 59,200 (ALMOST DOUBLE)

And yet the bird has claimed multiple times that we have less 2.5 bucks than we did before







% of doe bred in 2002 93%

% of doe bred in 2008 93%

Yet the bird has claimed multiple times that breeding rates declined


Now as for the cornhole, you know, the guy who's only "proof" of just about anything is to simply yell it out early and often......


He claims 2A should and can support far more deer yet it has the second worst embryo per doe rate in the state. It also has the third worst regeneration rate in the state. yet he screams bloody murder about too few deer where there are clearly too many.



BTW, the deer density in 2A dropped a whopping 1% from 2004 to 2008. I believe Cornhole has referred to that as a slaughter