I didn't attempt to come up with what really happened and I did not represent it as such. I simply provided an example to demonstrate the effects of reducing the sampling size in the best breeding areas while keeping the sample size in other areas the same. I simply proved that if breeding rates increased or remained stable in most of the WMUs ,then it is mathematically impossible for breeding rates to decrease by 5% due to a shift in sample size. But, if you think my example is flawed, please feel free to provide your own example which will prove that I am wrong.
If you believe that to be true ,then please provide a rational explanation for the 5% decline in statewide breeding rates, since I proved it was not due to a change in sample size and location. Also, please provide an explanation why herd health is based on the productivity of 2.5+ doe?

And ,most of all please tell us all how we reduced the herd if we didn't kill a lot more adult doe? We sure didn't kill more buck and we didn't kill more fawns than were recruited, so what group of deer did we harvest to reduce the herd?

Blueboy smoke and mirrors at it's finest!

Lets look at his example one more time without inserting any assumptions...

200 samples @ 96%
100 samples @ 86%

200x96=19200 100x86=8600 8600+19200=27600 27600/300= 93%

nowletsreducethe more productive samples by 100...

100 @ 96%
100 @ 86%
100x96=9600100x86=8600 8600+9600=18200 18200/200= 91%

But if the weight is shifted to favor the less productive area (what RSB tells us is what really happened)...

100 @ 96%
200 @ 86%

100x96= 9600 200x86=17200 9600+17200=26800 26800/300=89%

so a shift in sampling sizes can have a significant effect. Add in seasonal differences like weather, localized disease, mortality etc etc and all of a sudden RSB's explanations make a lot more sense.

Given enough time with a calculator and a lack of scruples, anyone can put their own twist and spin on things.

Nice try BTB , but you just proved my point. Your example shows no improvement in the breeding rates in the WMUs with the lowest breeding rates which means ARs and HR did nothing to improve breeding rates. then you arbitrarily doubled the sample size in the areas with the lowest breeding rate areas,when there was no reason for that sample size to double. thanks for proving my point.

Nice try at twisting the facts again youself Bluejob!

You claimed that a 5% change due to sampling size was impossible. You then inserted an arbitrary increase in breeding rates to cloud the issue and make your spin look better. I put all my calculations out there, you didn't. I contend that you'd hope we didn't notice that you changed two things at the same time to help "make" your point.

good job btb

Thanks Bowtruck!

The problem with Blueboy is that he almost always puts those little twists into things. He's usually better at concealing his deceptions. He tries to say that I simply call names but it would often take an hour to completly spell out and explain the nature of some of his deceptions. I don't mind doing it but when I do, he simply comes back with that particular twist worded differently a week or two later.

Watch and see if he doesnt claim to have proved me wrong on this in a week or so when breeding rates come up again

Breeding rates were supposed to increase statewide as a result of HR and ARs. Breeding rates would increase the most in areas with the lowest breeding rates and that is why in my example I increased the breeding rates by just 4%. But, you doubled the sample size in the areas with the lowest breeding rates with no logical justification. Did road kills suddenly double in 2f and 2G due to HR. Your example has no relation to reality,whereas mine reflects what was supposed to happen.

Twist distort and lie! Sorry but you're

You claimed that a 5% difference was impossible from a shift in sampling size by location. then used a distorted example to prove it . I used a very similar example without throwing in other variables and showed a 4% difference! When analyzing data, any good scientist strives to eliminate excess varaibles to keep the real cause and effect clear. Spin doctors, on the other hand, throw lots of variables in the soup till they like the taste!You claim a 5% difference was impossible. That was the point you saidyou were proving. Now that your little lie isbusted you shift gears and throw in a change in breeding rates!

You didn’t prove anything other then how desperate you were to promote your misguided agenda.

I’ve provided the correct answer at least a dozen times already, you just don’t like the answer.

But, here is something else for everyone to think about. Perhaps it was the years with the 93% breeding rates that were out of the normal. Here are the statewide breeding rates for the adult does since 1992.

Year………………. Adult breeding rate
1992.………………….90 %
1993.………………….91
1994.………………….89
1995.………………….90
1996.………………….88
1997.………………….89
1998.………………….91
1999.………………….89
2000.………………….93
2001.………………….93
2002.………………….93
2003.………………….93
2004.………………….91
2005.………………….92
2006.………………….89
2007.………………….88


So, no matter who is right or wrong everyone can see that the adult doe breeding rates over the past fewer years have been very much in line with the historical adult doe breeding rates. Therefore, there is no reason for any concern unless someone thinks we need to do more to have a closer buck/doe ratio. Should that be the case do you think we should keep even more bucks, harvest more does or a combination of the two?



I have done that time and again.

As for does 2 ½ and older being used to determine herd health this is just one more place in which you are behind the times. Herd health is now using adult does of all ages instead of placing higher emphases to the 2.5 and older does.

The measure is now set at 1.50 embryos per adult doe. A secondary measure is the percentage of juvenile does being bred.

You can read more about it in this link:


http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/2008_deer_mgmt.pdf



That is easy. We harvested more deer of the various ages then what were replaced in fawn recruitment. Anytime total deer mortality is higher then what were born and survived into the next fall the deer population has been reduced. That total mortality is a combination of factors but there is no doubt that hunters harvested more deer during the years prior to the harsh winters of 2002 through 2004. There is also no doubt that the fawn recruitment was much lower then normal following those harsh winter years. Therefore, the combination of higher harvests and lower fawn recruitment result in fewer deer in most areas.

The areas that were the most affected were the areas where hunters have long demanded that the deer harvests be held low to accommodate the hunters wanting to see a lot of deer while hunting. Those areas ended up with damaged habitat that couldn’t sustain the number of deer we were trying to carry through bad winters. The areas that hadn’t made that mistake still have the state’s highest deer numbers today even though they continue to harvest as many deer as the hunters can find and want to harvest.

The real answer to your question is mostly that hunters didn’t reduce the herd in most areas but the environmental conditions sure did.

R.S. Bodenhorn

But we were told in 2000 by Alt that we had to reduce the herd to improve herd health and as a result breeding rates would increase and we would have more and bigger buck than ever before. the data you just posted proves that was a lie and you are still defending that lie.
That is pure unadulterated horse puckey.