PA Anterless Allocations
05-03-2005 | 11:04 AM
#61
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
Data………………………………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦..2G………………………………†¦5B………………………………………5C
Square miles of land in unit………..4114.04………………………⠀¦2767.79………………………………2169. 73
Public land……………………..............(49.2%)â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.(1.4%)…………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦(0.5%)
Developed…………………………………0. 6%....................................6.7%........ .................9.9%
Forested…………………………………… 90.0%..................................27.6%...... ..................44.5%
Farmland………………………………….7. 6%....................................63.1%....... ................43.9%
Square miles of forest land………3702.64………………………… …..763.91……………………………965.53
Deer goal in deer/sq.mi…………….15……………………… …………………5………………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.6
Number of OWDD per/unit……..61,711…………………………†¦â€¦â€¦.13,839…………………………….13 ,018
Number OWDD/forested Sq.Mi….16.67……………………………… ….18.12………………………………13.48
Harvest for 2004……………………….17,200………… ……………………22,200………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..24,000
Harvest/sq.mile………………………….4.18……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.8.02…………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..11.06
Harvest/ forested sq.mi…………….4.65……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.29.06………………………… ………24.86
There is really nothing complicated about it for those that are trained to recognize the affects. The only problem is in educating those that aren’t trained to recognize the cause and affect of why the populations have crashed and how the habitat is the controlling factor. Until we succeed in that education we will continue to see more and more areas with damaged or possibly even destroyed habitat and declining deer densities.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County
Edited by R. S. B. (Mon May 02 2005 08:59 PM)
Square miles of land in unit………..4114.04………………………⠀¦2767.79………………………………2169. 73
Public land……………………..............(49.2%)â €¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.(1.4%)…………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦(0.5%)
Developed…………………………………0. 6%....................................6.7%........ .................9.9%
Forested…………………………………… 90.0%..................................27.6%...... ..................44.5%
Farmland………………………………….7. 6%....................................63.1%....... ................43.9%
Square miles of forest land………3702.64………………………… …..763.91……………………………965.53
Deer goal in deer/sq.mi…………….15……………………… …………………5………………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.6
Number of OWDD per/unit……..61,711…………………………†¦â€¦â€¦.13,839…………………………….13 ,018
Number OWDD/forested Sq.Mi….16.67……………………………… ….18.12………………………………13.48
Harvest for 2004……………………….17,200………… ……………………22,200………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..24,000
Harvest/sq.mile………………………….4.18……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.8.02…………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..11.06
Harvest/ forested sq.mi…………….4.65……………………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.29.06………………………… ………24.86
There is really nothing complicated about it for those that are trained to recognize the affects. The only problem is in educating those that aren’t trained to recognize the cause and affect of why the populations have crashed and how the habitat is the controlling factor. Until we succeed in that education we will continue to see more and more areas with damaged or possibly even destroyed habitat and declining deer densities.
Dick Bodenhorn
WCO, Elk County
Edited by R. S. B. (Mon May 02 2005 08:59 PM)
There is the source you ask for and I will be happy to provide a link if you feel you need one.
Note that the harvest rate for 2G was only 4.18 DPSM since that will be close to the harvest rate for the entire state if we reach the goal of 12 DPSM. Based on data provided by the WCo, the calculated harvest in 1982, the last time we were at the goal of 12 DPSM, was 121K buck an 122K anterless ,for a total harvest of 243k.
Now ,in your opinion ,does the 2004 harvest of 124K buck indicate the herd has been reduced significantly statewide and if not ,how do you account fror the exceptionally low buck harvest?
05-03-2005 | 11:32 AM
#62
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
From:
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
ddear, All these numbers and accusations against PGC taking out the deer herd. Isn't that what you want? To quote you
kill every deer you see ,even if you have to use your car. Remember ,the cause is so important we shouldn't be ocncerned about our personal interests.
05-03-2005 | 12:02 PM
#63
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
From: old pa mountain hunter
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
bearklr after seeing where you are from i can see that the hunting would be differant. tons of farm land a lot of private property to hunt. you are very lucky to live where you are. i am from mckean county where the deer numbers are low and the numbers of hunters are very high. these are two things that do not go together very well. i am not kidding about guys mobbing differant areas up here. sometimes it gets down right nuts in the area. little by little the fun is being taken away from the sport. last year on the first day of rifle season i did not hear twenty shots up to noon and i don't believe i heard more than ten in the afternoon. i just don't know what to think anymore. the pga just keeps saying that the deer are here but they are getting smarter. i have found out that the deer are so smart around here that walk threw the woods and never leave a track and that they must be going down to the creek now to relieve themselfs because there are very few if any droppings in the woods. it is a whole differant world up here than in the lower counties.
05-03-2005 | 01:58 PM
#64
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
Now ,in your opinion ,does the 2004 harvest of 124K buck indicate the herd has been reduced significantly statewide and if not ,how do you account fror the exceptionally low buck harvest?
Now I have a question or two for you. The data you just posted indicates an owdd of 16.67 deer per forested square mile for 2g and if you count all land, an owdd of 15 deer per square mile yet in this very thread you also posted this:
The last time the PGC released any OWDD data was 2003 when there were 12 DPSM in 2 G. In 2003 hunters harvested 7.4 DPSM, whicj exceeded net rcruitment by 2.6 DPSM so the OWDD in 2G was reduced to around 9.4 DPSM The 2004 harvest also exceeded recruitment in 2 G ,so the OWDD in now probably less than 9 DPSM.
So it seems you use whatever "facts" are useful to you at the moment.
As I've said before, the figures dont lie but liars sure can figure.
05-03-2005 | 03:07 PM
#65
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
Those quotes came from Dick Bodenhorn WCO in Elk county.I know Dick personally and he has every stat imaginable.Ddear gets all his numbers directly from what the pgc publishes.If you take some time,it's not hard to find them.I find it interesting how everyone says ddear twists and makes up numbers,yet not once has anyone debunked his figures with credible numbers.I don't always agree with his point of view,but he predicted the outcome of this grand experiment better than anyone else has so far.He certainly had a more accurate vision of the future than Alt did.
05-03-2005 | 03:29 PM
#66
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
Doug,I beg to differ.
In this very thread dd claimed that the last owdd numbers the PGC released was for 2003 then three pages later he cites numbers claimed to be the owdd numbers for after the 2004 season. He claims the owdd for 2g is around 9 then references a PGC source that clearly states it's at 15.
I'll give him this, he seems to have infinite time to dig up material. Some of it could be useful if he would simply refrain from always trying to state his case in the extreme. For example: in this thread he has taken the position that a 44% reduction in antlerless tags is "insignificant" and will result in further herd reduction. He has once again used his own interperetation of PGC stats to "prove" his opinion. But this time he managed to post the stats that disprove what he himself just claimed.
Perhaps he has just become a victim of his own "information overload" tactics!
In this very thread dd claimed that the last owdd numbers the PGC released was for 2003 then three pages later he cites numbers claimed to be the owdd numbers for after the 2004 season. He claims the owdd for 2g is around 9 then references a PGC source that clearly states it's at 15.
I'll give him this, he seems to have infinite time to dig up material. Some of it could be useful if he would simply refrain from always trying to state his case in the extreme. For example: in this thread he has taken the position that a 44% reduction in antlerless tags is "insignificant" and will result in further herd reduction. He has once again used his own interperetation of PGC stats to "prove" his opinion. But this time he managed to post the stats that disprove what he himself just claimed.
Perhaps he has just become a victim of his own "information overload" tactics!
05-03-2005 | 04:02 PM
#67
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
Now I have a question or two for you. The data you just posted indicates an owdd of 16.67 deer per forested square mile for 2g and if you count all land, an owdd of 15 deer per square mile yet in this very thread you also posted this:
05-03-2005 | 04:26 PM
#68
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
But this time he managed to post the stats that disprove what he himself just claimed.
Perhaps he has just become a victim of his own "information overload" tactics!
Perhaps he has just become a victim of his own "information overload" tactics!
05-03-2005 | 05:36 PM
#69
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,776
Likes: 0
From: Slower Lower Delaware 1st State
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
On P1 of this thread T in PA3 posted the 05 PA anterless allocations. Good info and right on topic. I've watched this topic progress into nothing more than a pissin contest,as usual over the SAME data being thrown around.
Do I sound like a broken record??
We've seen the allocation table.
ddear
as usual you throw around the data and then come to your own conclusions. All this based on your elusive experiance as a hunter/woodsman.
Lets freshin up the discussion and move on - or is this topic beyond salvaging?
Do I sound like a broken record??
We've seen the allocation table.
ddear
as usual you throw around the data and then come to your own conclusions. All this based on your elusive experiance as a hunter/woodsman.
Lets freshin up the discussion and move on - or is this topic beyond salvaging?
05-03-2005 | 06:11 PM
#70
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
RE: PA Anterless Allocations
On P1 of this thread T in PA3 posted the 05 PA anterless allocations. Good info and right on topic. I've watched this topic progress into nothing more than a pissin contest,as usual over the SAME data being thrown around.
Maybe this will help freshen up the discussion. the last time we had a buck harvest that was lower thanthe 2004 harvest was 1983. In 1983 the PGC allocatd 536,650 anterless tags to be used during a 2 day anterless season . There was no early ML season, no early jr./ sr. early anterless season and no bonus tags.
The 2004 buck harvest indicates that the herd has been reduced to an OWDD that is less than it was in 1983. But in 1983 they issued 537 K anterless tags to control the herd with a 2 day anterless season and in 2005 they issued 879k tags with a concurrent season, an early ML season, early jr/sr. anterless season and an extended anterless rifle season in 2 B and 5C.
Can anyone explain why it would take 342 K additioal anterless tags in 2005 than it did in 1983 ,with the concurrent seasons and all the additional seasons that would increase the anterless harvest?