Absolutley right Hacimsaalk! This is going nowhere. I'm going over to the turkey and trout threads!

ddear,

Please - Lets knock off the bickering and off topic rambling and get "Back on Topic" Thanks

I just consulted my OUIJA board, and I have concluded that:

1/25 archers do not engage in any form of firearm hunting

Of those, 1/3 refuse to harvest does.

If you do the math, that's 4(pi) times 232,296.00112 which equals 2,919,995.176634 deer per square foot.

In so finding, the OUIJA and I have concluded that if those hunters wearing less than the minimum required blaze orange get a deer on a Friday, then it would be a reasonable deduction that the majority of Friday-kills (buck only) are ill-gotten game.

As such, I have concluded (with the help of my Ouija Board) that 113% of Pennsylvania hunters practice archery only, and refuse to shoot does due to their disgust with Gary Alt and the state of Pennsylvania Blaze Orange laws.

In 2001 the PGC said that the harvest of 283 K anterless deer and 203K buck reduced the OWDD by 8%. Therefore ,it is reasonable to conclude that the 2002 harvest of 352 K anterless deer reduced the OWDD by more than 8%. Then, since the herd had been reduced by 16% in two years, it would be logical to conclude that the anterless harvest of 323k anterless would reduce the OWDD by more than 8%. then in 2004 the anterless harvest of 284K should have reduced the smaller herd by more than 8%.

Therefore, it appears that the herd has been reduced by more than 32% since 2001, while the PGC claims it has increased.

Can any Alt supporter provide one bit of data that shows the herd has not benn reduced by more than 32%?

Alts gone man, let it go

Alt is gone but the problems he created linger on and the commissioners have stated they are going to continue to follow Alt's plan. That means more herd reduction and lower buck harvests and fewer 2.5+ buck than we had before AR's were implemented.

ddear, the DCNR and Audubon have won the battle, they wanted to get rid of what they call wood's rat's I think the hunters fell for it, they have all but wiped them out on some public land, I think some of your numbers are on the low side, I know you have to relie on the PGC's fuzzy math numbers but they are all we have.

Here we go again.....

Use the PGC's numbers when it suits you.....



then you draw your OWN conclusions when it suits you (in the same post)



No more than you can provide one bit of proof that the herd HAS been reduced by 32%?

Select "some" facts, draw some conclusions here or there, tell only part of the story.... viola! propaganda is born!!

Can you provide one instance where the PGC currently claims the herd has increased? I think not!

ddear, please tell me you didn't learn this in math class. You just can't add the percentages from each year together and say that an 8% decrease per year over 4 years reduced the herd by 32%. This isn't even in the same ball park considering you have to also take into consideration herd growth, mortality rates etc...

here's an example just to prove a point.

you have a deer herd of 100,000 and reduce it by 8% which leaves you with 92,000 deer. now if that population increases by just 10% due to fawn births it would put it at 101,200. Year two decrease of 8% would put it at 93,104 with a 10% birth rate putting it back at 102,414. Therefore after 4 years of an 8% decrease you population would be 104,887 deer. So even though it may help prove your point to just forget how math works in reality an 8% decrease when taking all the factors into consideration turns out to actually be a 4.8% increase. It's funny how numbers work when you know how to use them. By the way...an 8% decrease on a population over 4 years (without taking any other factors into consideration) would actually be a 28% decrease in case you wanted to know.

You are right that one can't add percentages decreases over 4 years and get the exact amount of total herd reduction. But, your example is flawed because you are using the wrong defintion of herd reduction. The 8% herd reduction in 2001 ,was a reduction of the OW herd by *%. It was not an 8% reduction of the PS herd.
Furthermore, in 2000 the PGC said that a anterless harvest of 301K ,kept the herd stable. Therefore, if the 2001 harvest of 283 K reduced the OW herd by 8% ,there was no increase in recruitment from 2000 to 2001 and therefore it follows that the 2002 harvest of 352k anterless would have reduced the herd by more than 8% as would the the 2003 and 2004 harvests.

Remember the old computer model projected a decrease of 40% ,which is in line with the 2004 buck harevest of 124K ,which is close to the buck harvest back in 1984 .