You have got to be kidding - 1983 VS 2005. What is your point? What does 1983 and 2005 have to do with the 05 allocations,most of which to my recollection were reduced.That seems to be what everybody has been looking for - a reduction. I congrad the PGC for steppin up and making reductions. They could have done nothing.

Your follow up impact Discussion based on allocations is as usual and almost without question - Negative based on your posted data and your conclusions.

I suggest you post your question on 1983 vs 05 directly to the PGC. Come back and let us know what they say.

In three consecutive lines, here it is.

Are you saying WCO Bodenhorn is out of context or is this just more smoke and mirrors?
OWDD is Over Winter Deer Density. Over winter is after hunting season.
in the next line the 2004 kill is cited. I didnt miss a thing.


Sorry AJ52!
I'm done here! I promise!
I just have a real problem letting a lie stand. especially when its camoflaged by "statistics.[:'(]

So, who's ready for the Walleyes on Saturday???

No, I am not kidding. The buck harvest has been the most reliable indicator of the OWDD since the buck season has consistently been two weeks in lenght as long as I can remember,which is prior to 1960. AR 's decreased the harvest in 2002 ,but if Ar's worked as intended the buck harvest should have returned to normal in 2003.

However, the 2004 buck harvest was below the buck harvest in 1983 ,which indicates the herd has been reduced to the OWDD levels we had in 1983 ,which was 23 DPFSM or 13 DPSM. So, if 536K anterless tags were enough to control the herd in 1983 with a 2 day anterless season, why do we need 879K tags in 2005 to control a similar herd ,when we have all the additional seasons plus bonus tags ,that we didn't have in 1983?

If you didn't miss anything would you please explain how 14 K OWD in 5 C could produce a higher harvest than 62K deer in 2 G

its hard for people not from PA to understand why us hunters care so much about our deer herd. but until u hunt state game lands here in PA u wont get it... im not sure if this is ddear point but what i think he is saying is when our heard was low in 83 we cut back doe tags, and now in 05 we are worse off and the tags were cut back some but still have more tags and seasons to hunt than in 83...



i dont think when someone cares about the herd that it is pityful... and if they think whats going on w/ the herd is a bad thing right now they should be aloud to write about it on a MB.. they should be aloud to write as much as the people do that think the small herd is a great thing..

Some How 3-4 posts got zapped,deleted into cyber space?? Very Strange

PA Gobbler - I understand where yor coming from on. I really do.

However - this is not about how much somebody is allowed to post about PA deer herd.

This is about the never ending repetitive data we all have seen in prior threads at least a dozen times. This is about every topic where the words PA Deer,ALT,AR,Buck,Doe,
Permit are uttered, it turns into a statistical data crunch. This is Not what Everybody wants to hear.

This is ALL about offering up new informative accurate and constructive ideas,opinions,
experiances that makes the North East forum and its topics worth visiting(A Hit).

I've followed this topic for 8 pages. I'm giving it 24hrs(or less) to heal itself. Its going nowhere fast.

Ok, totally serious question for ddear. Kind of a 'back to basics' type of post. I, like many others, have gotten lost in all your numbers over the many posts you have made. This is why I basically skip over them anymore. My question for you is what is the primary point you are trying to relay across to members of the discussion boards? Is it that you think the habitat can support deer at higher levels than prescribed? Just a simple question looking for a simple reply.

thanks,
T

My primary point is that fragment forest habitat can support a lot more deer than contiguos forest habitat. The PGC assigns the same OWDD to a SM of pole timber in Potter Co. as it does to a SM of pole timber in Berks Co. that is spread over 2 or 3 SM of land area and that simply makes no sense and results in much lower OWDD's in WMU's like 5 B and 5 C ,than are necessary.

My secondary point that relates directly to this thread is that, as the herd is reduced ,it takes lower anterless allocations to reduce the herd even more. Therefore, the recent reduction in the anterless tags does not mean that the PGC has changed their plan to reduce the herd by 50% from what it was in 2003.

ddear,

I know you're passionate about this whole deer management program, but I'm really starting to think that you have diarrhea of the fingers.

You just spew and spew and spew and it goes on and on and on and I'm starting to think you might be Nash from "A Beautiful Mind" with a room full of paper clippings, numbers, calculations, strings, bobbers, deer pelts and arrows, just going RAVING MAD in a fatal obsession with Gary Alt and PGC.

I really think it's starting to get to you man. Let it go. Just let it go.

Maybe some of you should listen to the numbers.

In NY last season, the DEC reduced the antlerless permits by 17%, statewide, in response to a reduced harvest in 2003 caused by a bad winter. (DEC info - I'm not editorializing, here.)

The 2004 antlerless harvest was down 18% statewide. Seems reasonable...on the surface. DEC calculates that only 17% of DMP are filled, so a reduction in DMP of 17% should have resulted in an antlerless harvest decrease of about 3%.

Oops.

As a result, DEC has announced they will make significant cuts in the antlerless allocations for 2005. Can you say "overharvest?"