2007/2008 deer harvest

2007/2008 deer harvest

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> Big Game Hunting >> 2007/2008 deer harvest

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/21/2008 10:06:24 AM

dpms

Posts: 303
Joined: 8/28/2006
Status: offline

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=173862&A=11

Next year should be good for the antler chasers.

Post #: 1

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/21/2008 12:40:46 PM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

We are now killing about as many 2-1/2 or older bucks as we were in 2001. The only difference is we are killing 93,000 fewer bucks than we were in 2001.

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 2

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/21/2008 1:09:13 PM

jlh42581

Posts: 4188
Joined: 10/13/2004
From: Milesburg, Pa
Status: offline

Its beause theres fewer and further between.

_____________________________

Jeremy
http://www.outdoorintegration.com

"The flies used for so discriminating a fish as the trout should, first of all, have the appearance of life."

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 3

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/21/2008 6:48:16 PM

hunt-n-fish

Posts: 70
Joined: 8/24/2006
Status: offline

I wonder if the estimates PGC have are as accurate as determining how many walleyes there are in Lake Erie? With something like steelhead they know how many fish they stock each year to better determine populations/harvests, with any natural reproduction a bounus.

Unfortunately, the deer are all Mother Natures responsibility.

(in reply to jlh42581)

Post #: 4

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/22/2008 8:39:24 AM

dpms

Posts: 303
Joined: 8/28/2006
Status: offline

I still am amazed when I see the percent harvest of fawns that are killed. Over 40% of the antlerless harvest.

Are Pa. hunters that imcompetent or do there just not care and only want to fill a tag?

There are a few I know that purposely target female fawns for meat but I would think they would be in the minority statewide..

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 5

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/23/2008 11:11:42 AM

Maga2120

Posts: 667
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

do they not remember how crappy the weather was on first day of rifle? that turned alot of people away from hunting that day, causing the number of deer harvested to lower.

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 6

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/23/2008 5:40:02 PM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

Ah Maga, they remember they are just trying to hide taht fact or something, Ha im glad to see its down(only becuase i think it saved some deer heard)..but then again those numbers are all made up bullcrap and we all know it they are still making an "educated guess". I really wish Pa would have Check stations like ohio does. if freaking OHIO can do it..so can PA. G's roughly Half the does were supposed to be next years adults...not to mention around 50k button bucks. gotta love those pa motto's
"i gotta tag....." "brown its down" "i havent been out all year..." "its my first deer in 30 years..." You get the drift...

(in reply to Maga2120)

Post #: 7

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/23/2008 6:13:46 PM

DanesDad

Posts: 1569
Joined: 3/21/2005
Status: offline

That's how it goes. Fawn stew tastes better than tag soup.

(in reply to Bull Lifter)

Post #: 8

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/23/2008 11:29:57 PM

Maga2120

Posts: 667
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

yeah... im hoping the population will go back up... today i went shed hunting and saw 10 deer.... although i didnt find any sheds i was a fun walk.

What they need to do is make it so you can shoot one buck and one doe a year and thats it no bonus tags or nothing. that will bring the population back up.

(in reply to DanesDad)

Post #: 9

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 8:51:12 AM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpms

Are Pa. hunters that imcompetent or do there just not care and only want to fill a tag?

I know two guys that get at least 6-7 tags a year, and HAVE to fill them. They'll hunt every second of light, and won't stop until their tags are used. They go nutz if they don't fill ALL of them.

One of them is smart about it, using the doe tags where a ton of deer exist on private property, the other one, it doesn't matter where.

The need certainly isn't hunger, it's an obsession with something, I don't know what.

Last year was the first time I went into the last day of rifle, without getting a deer prior, with about 180 hours of hunting in for the season. I did get a bit antsy; feeling the want deer sticks, jerky, etc..

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 10

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 10:12:05 AM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

If the hunters that killed the buttons passed on them and instead held out for the adult doe how many buttons would we have in following years. Remember, each adult doe has 1.7 fawns on average and more than half are males. As for folks killing lots of doe, the PGC was created to prevent excessive killing of wildlife and they are the ones issuing the tags. They are the experts

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 11

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 11:17:17 AM

eyesandgillz

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/18/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

If the hunters that killed the buttons passed on them and instead held out for the adult doe how many buttons would we have in following years. Remember, each adult doe has 1.7 fawns on average and more than half are males. As for folks killing lots of doe, the PGC was created to prevent excessive killing of wildlife and they are the ones issuing the tags. They are the experts

And they are doing a fine job of management, I must say. Whitetailed deer in PA are in no danger of becoming threatened. The kill this year is as expected. Less deer overall and crappy first day weather leads to less deer killed throughout the season.

And Bull Lifter, adding check stations would only further deplete the the PGC's already stretched budget without gaining anything from it. Their estimated harvests (formulas, data collection, etc.) have been peer reviewed (as discussed several times here) and have been found to be statistically valid. Yes, they are just "educated guesses" but the guys doing the "guessing" are doing a good job of it.

Next year should be a great year for bucks!

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 12

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 11:38:54 AM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

Eyes you alwyas have something smart to say back to whoever puts a valid point on the board. that doesnt stretch teh budget..ohios check stations are gas stations or local sport shops, they do not recieve a thing for checking a deer and if it was i think they get a whole 50 cents for doing it. The GC spends money on things of less value then actually wanting to know the deer that gets harvested, and no i dont think they are doing a great job of guessing. They would gain alot from adding a check station. Maybe where ever you live the deer heard is just fine but for my county of beaver its lack there of and i do find them in danger in certain areas. So before you go rambling Oh the deer are fine...look at PA as a whole state and not just to where you are from and the deer are fine and i see no need in change blah blah blah..

(in reply to eyesandgillz)

Post #: 13

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 11:51:41 AM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

QUOTE from QDMA= It is certanily not necessary and may not be advisable to selectivly shoot older does.-----QUOTE from QDMA= ALL hunters should be required to bring every deer killed to a check station. ------QUOTE from DCNR= Check stations (fixed or mobile) are extremely valuable and could be done on a statewide basis. They are not costly and states such as Winconsin employ them. Wisconsin has a high deer harvest like Penna. -----QUOTE from Kip Adams in another article= Check stations are an excellent opportunity to cooperate with local or statewide groups to educate hunters and gather data.

(in reply to eyesandgillz)

Post #: 14

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 1:50:44 PM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

We'd have a ton more bucks S-10. What was it this year, 24% of the kill was BB. It's usually around 22%? I forget what the average is.

Whatever the case, it's not the GC fault that hunters decide to take the "lone" doe. Is it the states fault for me traveling 95 mph in a 55 mph zone and putting someone's life at risk, including my own? I believe the GC has released public douments on how to identify a BB and to not shoot them. We both know a lone deer without visible antlers is very likely a BB. While we need doe to breed, we need bucks to breed too. I know most if not all the no deer guys promote "save the doe" but the less bucks and more doe we have, the less doe that get bred due to time contraints. That's a direct affect on the number of deer available. This ain't no cattle operation.

So .. that meat may be tasty today, but apparently, it hasn't been there in many places to put meat on the table, for tomorrow. I sure hope none of us no deer guys are shooting BB.

..right.

< Message edited by SilverKype -- 3/24/2008 1:52:01 PM >

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 15

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 1:51:16 PM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

opps

_____________________________

Catch the energy. Release the potential.

(in reply to SilverKype)

Post #: 16

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 2:03:36 PM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Peer reviewed and Statistically Valid are misleading as hell . Peer reviewed is as simple as handing the papers across the asile to someone else of the same level in the company as you to check for errors in the papers. You can both be working for the same person who has given you both your goals and objectives and controls your pay and employment.------Statistically Valid means you have defined what you want to check and determined the accuracy you want to acheive. If you want 50% accuracy then If the sampling is within 50% it is Satistically Valid. If you want 90% accuracy then the sampling has to be more accurate. Anyone know how accurate the PGC claims to be?

(in reply to eyesandgillz)

Post #: 17

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 2:17:10 PM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Silver---Your arguing with the QDMA, not me. However, if you shoot an adult doe you are killing 2.7 avg deer, one of which is a BB. So the next year you have approx 3 less deer including a BB. You killed the same number BB only it was one year later. BTY--I don't knowingly shoot BB, actually I seldom shoot doe.----Unless you are hunting over bait or a food plot where you have lots of time to study them many have a hard time telling the difference when they are slipping through the woods. You could be seeing a BB and small doe after the mother has been killed and shoot the BB thinking it was a doe and fawn. Alts only concern was reducing the herd as soon as possible and telling us to shoot the adult doe was the way the acheive that goal.

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 18

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 4:23:42 PM

eyesandgillz

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/18/2003
Status: offline

Bull, you live and hunt in Beaver and you are complaining about lack of deer? Geesh, what do you want, the deer to give you a lap dance in the woods?

S-10, http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/reporting_rate_variability.pdf, I am sure you have read through it in its entirety.

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 19

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 4:32:38 PM

Bull Lifter

Posts: 88
Joined: 2/1/2007
Status: offline

And what are you trying to say by that Eyes? I've seen this county and certain areas change over a short period of time where i can say im not gonna hunt there myself anymore due to the herd swing.

(in reply to eyesandgillz)

Post #: 20

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 4:42:29 PM

hunt-n-fish

Posts: 70
Joined: 8/24/2006
Status: offline

Oh boy ........................................., here we go again!!!!!

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 21

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 4:48:19 PM

dpms

Posts: 303
Joined: 8/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

However, if you shoot an adult doe you are killing 2.7 avg deer, one of which is a BB. So the next year you have approx 3 less deer including a BB. You killed the same number BB only it was one year later.

If you pass a BB you will improve the buck/doe ratio if you harvest a mature doe. The 2.7 average thing. Improving the buck/doe ratio is a goal of passing BB's.

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 22

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 4:50:45 PM

parker31

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/12/2007
Status: offline

lol yup

(in reply to hunt-n-fish)

Post #: 23

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 5:17:50 PM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Your right, assuming you are trying to keep the herd stable and only improve the buck/doe ratio. What Alt did was to try to improve the ratio at the same time he was trying herd reduction. He flooded the market with tags so anyone who wanted one or more got them. Once a large portion of the adult doe were shot you had many hunters still looking and all that was left were the fawns. Actually that post was directed towards Silver who seemed concerned that he had some folks in his area shooting too many deer. I was pointing out he might be better off with them shooting a fawn rather than the big doe. It is interesting however that the QDMA feels you shouldn't target the older doe.

(in reply to dpms)

Post #: 24

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 6:16:24 PM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Eyes-each time I read it I pick up a bit more although I still don't fully understand the thing. They think they are accurate within 12% in most WMU's although say the reporting rate varies wildly from unit to unit. It also varies between buck and doe, and by season. They use the words assume, estimate, variation, etc a lot. They reference a couple studies(no specifics) that say check stations are not 100% accurate. Interesting they talked up QDMA when it was to their advantage but ignore it when it's not. They think they were over estimating the archery kill by a quarter. Their old model was wrong but they think this one is better. No doubt estimating deer numbers and deer kill is a tough job no matter how it's done but check stations count bodies, don't use multiplying numbers that may change every year, take time but so does checking processors, and gives the hunter a perception that the harvest numbers are accurate. It also allows the collection of any information or tissue samples that may be desired. Many states do it, The DCNR and QDMA both support it. It may not be 100% but it's a real number we don't have to wait two months to get while it's being massaged.

(in reply to eyesandgillz)

Post #: 25

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 6:26:41 PM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

:) :) :)
I see old S-10 is still up to his tricks....
:) :) :)
Out of those "2.7 deer for next year" you are killing by shooting a doe....

does he forget that just about 1/2 will not live to be 6 months old let alone the next deer season anyhow...:)

_____________________________

TIL LATER..

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 26

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 7:15:19 PM

S-10

Posts: 948
Joined: 1/21/2005
Status: offline

Howdy Doc--long time since we've jib jabed. Your right about that, that's why the QDMA says we should be shooting the fawns instead of the adult doe. That's just the opposite of what Alt wanted us to do. Of course, he's the expert and all.

You should stop in more often.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 27

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 7:35:28 PM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

Not been the best of a year for me..had heart surgery in November.. NO deer hunting for me.. that's part of that 11% decrease in the harvest.. and had trouble with my browser and this site after it was updated (changed) I could not log in or post..everything seems to be fine now.. so I'll stop by from time to time...

As for Ohio check stations...

I have shared this E-mail from someone who works for Ohio and the check stations... but maybe some here have not read it before....
QUOTE =====

Dave,
As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey.

Technically, I guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure non-reporting rates.

In the 10 years that I've been here, I've been engaged in numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration.

I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be desired.

In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest.

Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.

On the surface, MR seems like the "cats meow." You kill a deer, you bring it to the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were taken, but you're now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size of the upcoming fall population.

In a perfect world, that might be the case.

The reality is, we know PA and MO come to mind immediately, that not everyone checks their deer.

How many?

Who knows for sure?

In some years it may be as low as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do.

If you didn't check your deer and you were asked after the season via a phone call, if you checked your deer, what's you're answer going to be?

My point is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at best.

Moreover, if you don't know what noncompliance is, you don't know what the true harvest is either.

So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that � an estimate.

In large part it is because of tradition.

It also is a very good PR tool.

It gives us an opportunity to interact with our hunters.

I like working check stations, as do many of my colleagues.

The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall.

On-site registration will be a thing of the past.

Last year was the last time they collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now rely on processors for that data.

Mandatory registration has its advantages.

However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of the alternatives is not one.
While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan's current system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than mandatory registration.

Brent "xxxxx" , a good friend and someone whom I respect a great deal summed it up best with the following comments:
"Another major concern relates to estimating non-compliance.
When hunters are required to register a deer, or even required to return a postcard, make a phone call, etc. to report their season results, it is difficult to later ask how many individuals did not comply (and are thus admitting to violations).

Although we know that it is harder to garner a survey response from individuals that did not hunt or harvest any deer, we do capture information from these individuals and are able to generate confidence intervals."

I believe PA has tried to estimate non-compliance by examining how many deer checked at processors do not show up later in the reported harvest, but I don't remember what they've found from this.

I don't believe WI tries to determine non-compliance at all, which means the number of deer registered is simply a minimum number of deer killed.

This unknown element would especially be of concern when trying to summarize figures for individual units.

Thus, I would disagree with the generalized statement that "registration enables us to manage deer on a finer scale... with greater precision".

Precision in the harvest estimate is not known in either of our states, as it would require knowing the true harvest.

Although providing confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with the relatively wide range at the level of a WMU, they do provide a measurable means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest.

Other general benefits of our system are that we generate measures of participation and effort."

Mandatory registration may help some to restore hunter confidence in the DNR estimates.

However, I don't believe it will improve the estimates themselves.
=======
UNQUOTE

_____________________________

TIL LATER..

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 28

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 7:46:16 PM

Dr. Trout

Posts: 889
Joined: 3/3/2002
From: Jefferson County
Status: offline

http://members.tripod.com/drsems/outdoorworld.html

(in reply to S-10)

Post #: 29

RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest - 3/24/2008 10:37:54 PM

SilverKype

Posts: 3454
Joined: 1/24/2005
From: State
Status: offline

Trout!! Welcome! Are you still smoking Trout?

You are not supposed to use your brain while posting here!! It's more fun that way.

You didn't miss much in terms of hunting season. There are no deer!! Gary killed them all. At the very least, you are up and running for fishing season.

_____________________________

Catch the energy. Release the potential.

(in reply to Dr. Trout)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> Big Game Hunting >> 2007/2008 deer harvest

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Locked w/ New Messages
No New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

0.219