RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Hunting Boards] >> Big Game Hunting



Message

S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 12:37:52 PM)

(most states and their hunters would love to kill that many) that's a true but misleading statement since Most states don't have near the amount of huntable land as we do. -------(We could harvest 500,000 deer every year and still maintain a constant herd for the following fall. That's what the PGC is trying to do) --Sorry Doc but since the PGC claims the deer herd can only increase by about 33-35% a year we would have to have a fall herd of 1,500,000 deer for your claim to be true. That was about the size they claimed they had that started this whole mess. Besides-- unless you are just looking for some hamburg it's the buck kill that counts and is the only true way to determine what is happening. (per the PGC) and it's gone from 203,247 to 109,200 in six years and by PGC estimates we have about 10% more older bucks than in 2001. Not exactly what we were led to believe would happen. But then, they are the experts.[;)]



S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 1:11:30 PM)

OOps-- my bad , we have about 7,400 or 8% more bucks in the next age class as a result of AR/HR. Here is an interesting claim from Alt on 08-2001 press release--- We will sent 100,000 bucks into the next age class.--- Missed a few, oh well, they are the experts.[:'(]



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 1:39:47 PM)

Now that right there is 100% false S-10.  Show it to me.  Then I'll show you the facts.

Before AR, we shot around 80% -- 1.5 yo.

Now it's been 50% 52%, 56%.   It's hung very close to 50%.








Bull Lifter -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 1:42:25 PM)

i guess you guys really didnt understand the example i was showing. You put the huge amount of hunters that pa has into the woods year after year, and keep continuing to have a decent harvest rate those deer are not going to keep reproducing like everyone thinks they are. here ill make it into a smaller term you have 20 hunters and a woods with 15 deer. oh lets say 5 bucks.   so the 5 bucks get shot, now its 15. say 6 mature does. leaving 9 fawns. say 15 hunters go back to shoot a doe 6 guys shoot 3 mature does and 3 fawns now its down to 9 total deer with 3 moms thats going to have 2 now its back to 15. for next year. now those 6 fawns from last year 3 were buttons. now we have 3 bucks 3 older does, and 3 first year does and 6 fawns. ...and then next year comes...


I guess no one understands what i was saying? and everyones thick headed? i doubt that. i think everyone hear is just trying to be an asshole. I'd love to see this state shot 500 thousand for 4 years..then we would see who is right DOC. I've been in the woods more then you ever will be, i've read your journal, getting out that little in the woods doesnt impress me for making some of your comments about how i am wrong or you are right or im right and you are wrong. From everyone i have ever met in the feild share the same opinions with me. everyone i've ever met on the internet thinks something SOO freaking different its unbelievable. I'd like to see you live in the outdoors and not in the interent, from all i've read from most of you guys its something you copy and paste from a website that some "Expert" tells you.  



dpms So hunting isnt supposed to be fun? and most states WOULD harvest that many for a few reasons, most states do not have our types of seasons, our population of hunters. And...really what the herd is/was, i never said there wasnt deer, i never said anything about "there are no deer" there is...just quite pockety and alot moved into posted land. AND they dont offer 3 tags plus the buck tag.

I am not missing whats great about the hunting/outdoors. I'll do it every year I can. the "waste" isnt what you believe it to be. the way this world is its really hard to live with prices of everything, specially since im trying to get on my feet("peer") but yet i still spend the time and money to go hunting becusae i really do love it more then anything. but you cant say you ever went on a trip or anything and said "g's what a waste". i take time off way more then i should in bow season just to get let down now. i do my own thing, im my own boss. and end of october no more income til spring for me. so when im in my tree all of octobor instead of making money, you tell me i dont love my sport...You quite your job for all of october til april and then we'll see who says "waste'', i cant see you quiting work just for hunting. so do not tell me about " i dont understand hunting".


You say your from pittsburgh and the deer are "here" and not in the mountains, well what happened up there? why arent the deer there? oh wait thats becuase our hunting tradition. all the hunters here went there...they went there they shot the crap out of them and then they timbered. now the population increased here..and now all the hunters that went tot he "mountains" stick around here to see deer and oh guess what they're shooting the crap out of them here too and now they are timbering around here like nuts.  I throw the timber thing in there becuase i do feel to some extent(no facts...) that somethings fishy about the timber companies involved. google pennsylvania game commision and Timber Companies, just to see how much money is involved.



dpms -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 2:16:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bull Lifter

dpms So hunting isnt supposed to be fun? and most states WOULD harvest that many for a few reasons, most states do not have our types of seasons, our population of hunters. And...really what the herd is/was, i never said there wasnt deer, i never said anything about "there are no deer" there is...just quite pockety and alot moved into posted land. AND they dont offer 3 tags plus the buck tag.



What is fun to you? Killing a deer or hunting with the possibility of killing a deer? 

Most states do not have the number of deer as Pa. Take hunters and seasons out of the equation.

Most whitetail states have much less public land than Pa.  We have it good.  What do the hunters do in other states?  Hunt private land.  If you think the deer are there go get them like everyone else.



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 2:19:55 PM)

bululshitirer

Did you miss the recent news release from the GC.

Here it is, just in case.



#PGC Release 18-07# For immediate release

The Pennsylvania Game Commission is in the process of creating a new way for disgruntled deer hunters to cope with less deer. Under the current herd reduction program, many hunters are unable and unwilling to except and adapt to the changes of a well managed deer herd. Because of this, the PGC are creating "No Deer Clinics" that are opening in each of the WMU's in the winter of 2008. For a nominal fee, hunters will have access to as many tissues as they feel the need for. Because tissue corporations fear they will not be able to keep up with the demand, the PGC will erect these No Deer Clinics in low lying drainage areas near large river basins to alleviate the possibility of tear surge. Tear surge, a disease extracted from not coming in close contact with enough whitetailed deer, is treatable but currently there is no cure. Hunters that have been diagnosed with the disease are in encouraged to go to and remain at their local No Deer Clinics. The public is advised to be aware of their surroundings and if a tear surge has been detected, immediately move to higher ground. No Deer Clinics are to be no closer than 500 yards from any public or residental land as these disgruntled hunters can be considered unpredictable and dangerous.

For more information on No Deer Clinics and tear surge, visit the Game Commission's website (www.pgc.state.pa.us), click on "Treatment" in the left-hand column of the homepage, scroll down and click on "No Deer Clinics."
# # #



S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 3:19:08 PM)

Carefull what you ask for Silver----The year before AR/HR we killed 203,247 bucks of which 20% or 40,649 were more than 1-1/2. Last year we killed 109,200 bucks of which 44% or 48,048 were more than 1-1/2. Subtract the bucks over 1-1/2 we killed in 2001 from the bucks we killed last year and the difference is 7399. Alt said he would move 100,000 additional bucks into the next age class. Remember (more bucks and better bucks) He had no data to show how, no research to show it could be done, he just said trust us, we are the experts. We are taking 94,047 fewer bucks in exchange for 7399 of the ones we are taking being over 1-1/2.



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 3:43:13 PM)

Be careful what data you manipulate.  I'm not as dumb as you may think.  You are using one year (203,247 killed), a very high kill, and one year (109,200 killed) the lowest ever, to make it look extreme.  Nice work!!! 

I could take the lowest kill BEFORE AR and compare to the highest kill AFTER AR and make it look like AR is greater than 50% too.

But, without manipulating data in MY favor, look at trends.

Look back at a TREND of years; 80% was the norm before AR, now 50-55% is for harvest of 1.5 yo.  There's around a 25%-30% difference.

This coming year, when the number of 1.5 kills lowers and the 2.5+ rises, I COULD manipulate it and state how AR is exceeding exceptations, but we all know, this years weather will be the cause for more older bucks being harvested.  This of course hasn't happened yet, and if it does, we all know the truth inside.  It's a perfect example of how I could manipulate a biased opinion.  The PGC gives hunters the best possible estimate available and all you fellas do is try to slander them by manipulating the data.  Just because you don't agree with it..

Not buyin' it, nice try though..

I'll be sure to manipulate next years data without taking into account, external factors, such as weather.. we'll see how high that number jumps.



S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 4:01:22 PM)

Truth kind of hurts doesn't it. Look at the 6 year trend before and compare to the 6 year trend since AR/HR. Compare 2000 with 2005 or 06. Do what ever you damm well please, the numbers will change a bit but the trend is the same. As for that (100% false S-10) Even with all your squirming and spin you just admitted it was right so I will expect your apology when I come down to hunt with you in the fall.[:D] Please don't invite your buddies Brady or Slinsky. You may want to keep their name and picture close to you but they don't do anything for me.[;)]



dpms -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 4:17:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

Carefull what you ask for Silver----The year before AR/HR we killed 203,247 bucks of which 20% or 40,649 were more than 1-1/2. Last year we killed 109,200 bucks of which 44% or 48,048 were more than 1-1/2. Subtract the bucks over 1-1/2 we killed in 2001 from the bucks we killed last year and the difference is 7399. Alt said he would move 100,000 additional bucks into the next age class.


To be fair, you cannot deduce how many bucks older than 1.5 make up the population based off of harvest numbers.  We very well might have moved 100,000 but they might not show up propotionately in the harvest because they are better at evading pressure and harder to harvest than the 1.5 y/o.

We do know that the average age of our buck herd is much higher than previous based off of harvest numbers.  So one would assume that many 1.5 y/o did make it into the next age class.  Quantifying the numbers is difficult at best but you cannot quantify it based off of harvest info.



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 5:33:45 PM)

I guess I can spell it out for you S-10 and provide the links too.

Here's the 80-85% harvested before AR, were yearlings.  Let's use the smaller %, to support YOUR theory.  That means 20% were 2.5+ before AR.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/dmap/results2006.aspx

2004 -- about 50% of bucks harvested were yearlings.  So 50% were 2.5+.  80-50 = 30%.  That's a jump in harvest numbers of 2.5 by 30%.  http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=165413&A=11

2005 --about 50% of bucks harvested were yearlings.  So 50% were 2.5+.  80-50 = 30%.  That's not real close to your 8%.  http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=169655&pp=12&n=1

2006 - about 50% of bucks harvested were yearlings.  So 50% were 2.5+.  80-50 = 30%.  That's not real close to your 8%.  http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=172434&pp=12&n=1

So, accordingly, yearling harvest dropped 30% after AR was implemented.  2.5+ harvest rose 30%.

Let me spell it out for you.  30% is much higher than your claimed 8% -- and that's using the low end in YOUR favor.  yikes!!

Now, I suspect you'll be able to show me 8% in trends.  [:)]

Spin it how you like, it's there to view.



S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 6:22:40 PM)

Silver--In order to see what is happening you first have to get actual numbers.100% of zero is still zero. By your theory if there were two bucks killed in the entire state and one was a 2-1/2 year old the goal would be met and you would have 50% more 2-1/2 year old bucks to hunt. Try competing with a million hunters for the two deer and see what chance you have. Of the deer killed last year there were 7399 more 2-1/2 year olds (or 8%) in the kill than before AR/HR. ------DPMS- Thats the main way the PGC does it as well as most states. There may be a few more survivors but the percentage is so small it's insignificant. They don't live in a cave and in heavily hunted states like ours very few make it beyond 3-1/2 on public land . BTW--I do anticipate an up tick in the older deer harvested next year due to mother nature after which the numbers will continue to decline until the PGC gets enough pressure to slow the doe harvest. There is some indication that may happen.



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 8:31:01 PM)

Ok, then I think we can agree that you are speaking of HR, I am refering to AR. 

Whatever the case, statewide reporting by hunter harvest cards aren't accurate anyway.  We need check stations.[:)]



S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 8:44:52 PM)

Your as slippery as a greased pig. You should go into politics.[8D]



Dr. Trout -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 9:34:34 PM)

I guess this topic has run it's course....

when someone takes a harvest figure from one year and compares it to a couple years (SEVERAL YEARS LATER) .... and calls that a TREND... I just have to laugh....

A trend is --- several consecutive years figured together.. 5 years is the norm for deer.. and that is compared to another same number of consectutive yea that is what is a trend.. 


And as for this comment....

quote=====
I've been in the woods more then you ever will be, i've read your journal, getting out that little in the woods doesnt impress me for making some of your comments about how i am wrong or you are right or im right and you are wrong. ====

PLEASE show me a post anywhere on the internet where I have said someone's OPINION is wrong and mine is right...... never happened... If you post something (fact/figure) that is wrong I'll be the first to post the correct one..

Hopefully I have never said someone is Wrong because they have a different opinion.... 

My journals are of the days I am actually in the woods HUNTING.. occasionally I'll add my observations on a scouting trip.... 

As for hunting I have been hunting deer since I was 12.... that's 51 years worth.. about 80% of that was spent in the same basic 5 square miles where I live and hunt today... Last year was the first year since I was 12 I did not hunt NOR did I NOT harvest at least one deer....

As for time in the woods..... my back yard is SGL#54... so sitting by the camp fire I can still see what's going on in the woods... walking the dog.. walking my cameras with no weapons.... that is time spent in the woods and hardly any of that is in my journals...plus I drive thru this same hunting area everyday.... and that I talk about ALOT ~~~

as for days hunting.... we let's see... I go out first morning of rifle season and shoot a deer by noon... I go back home.. what's the sense of going back out....

a couple days later I go to fill my DMAP.. again it only USALLY takes a day or two to do that... that's two deer in recent years.. I do not need anymore for the family... I'm done till next year....

It's was bascially the same for me before HR/AR... I never worried about hunting or harvesting a buck.. I ALWAYS Knew I could get a doe or two (if legal for two)

One year I shot an 8 point and was home by 9:00am on opening morning.. I was done that year til doe season and one day there was all I needed.. so that year (not in journals) I hunted a TOTAL of two days in rifle season. ??

So what does the number of days hunting have to do with anything if you know where the deer are and thus where to hunt ????

As I said this topic has hit the toilet... in my opinion... I'll just agree to TOTALLY dis-agree with S-10 and Bull...if that makes them think they are right and win... so be it....

TIL LATER..
Doc



Dr. Trout -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/2/2008 10:20:07 PM)

Just for the heck of it here's some figures to figure out trends with :-)

Jefferson County deer harvest per square mile....

1982-1986
Doe-5.6
Buck-4.4
Total-10.0

1987-1991
Doe-7.1
Buck-5.0
Total-12.1


1992-1996
Doe-8.1
Buck-5.2
Total-13.3


1997-2001
Doe-7.5
Buck5.6
Total-13.1



So what does these figures tell you ???

They tell me ---

1)-that in the four (5 year) periods before AR/HR ---the hunters in Jefferson County were harvesting more bucks in each period... BUT...as they harvested more.. the total number harvested in each period DID NOT go down....

2) - the same ALMOST holds true for the doe numbers..except for a large increase in the third period then a small decrease by .6 dpsm...

3)- As for the total harvest..once again... it increased every period except the fall of .2 dpsm in the last period....which to me is NOTHING....

So how did they continue to increase harvests and not have the numbers drop...

It's easy.. they were not harvesting more deer of either sex than what was being re-cruited the following year....



dpms -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 7:37:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

Subtract the bucks over 1-1/2 we killed in 2001 from the bucks we killed last year and the difference is 7399. Alt said he would move 100,000 additional bucks into the next age class..


Again, he said he would move more bucks not kill them.



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 1:07:08 PM)

Let's take a step outside of our little hunting brains and realize that vehicle collisions have dropped 20%.

Now, tell me, who's the selfish hunters on here that don't care?



jlh42581 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 1:47:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

Let's take a step outside of our little hunting brains and realize that vehicle collisions have dropped 20%.

Now, tell me, who's the selfish hunters on here that don't care?


Big deal, I pay for insurance for just that reason. Its not like suddenly were gonna see rebate checks coming from the insurance companies for hitting less deer.



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 2:41:09 PM)

News flash J.

PA's deer herd is managed for ALL Pennsylvanians, lots just "more deer" people.



Dr. Trout -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 5:12:15 PM)

Evidently jlh42581 only know folks who have had the vechicle damaged by a collision with a deer...

There have been many who received serious injuries and even death... so to see the number of these type collisions reduced is a GREAT thing.

I'd rather save some folks from injuries or death than worry about a few less deer running around..




S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 6:10:20 PM)

Doc --think of your Jefferson county Pre HR/AR as a math problem. Prior to HR/AR The deer herd was static or increasing (Per The PGC) It was at 1,500,000+ (Per the PGC). The deer will increase at about 33-35% per year (Per the PGC ). Therefore, prior to AR/HR you could harvest 500,000 deer per year forever without changing the population.---- Now the herd has been substantially reduced (Per the PGC). Say it is 900,000 for easy math. Now if you harvest any more than 300,000 per year you will soon deplete the herd. The PGC is issuing enough licenses to kill more deer than the herd is capable of reproducing and even the slightly better reproduction we are getting are being killed off as fawns so they will not show as mature animals. Therefore it is impossible to maintain a harvest of 500,000 deer per year. BTW-you are missing some good steel fishing.



S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 6:28:57 PM)

DPMS-- A bit of history on the 100,000. Alt originally said he could send 100,000 bucks into the next age class so that even though we would have many fewer deer in the population the buck herd would not drop and could even increase a bit. He said hunters would likely see more bucks and better bucks than they have ever seen in Pa. As time passed he must have got nervous and started saying he would send 80,000 bucks into the next age class. Then the season came and went and they started backtracking and claimed they thought they sent about 40,000 bucks into the next age class. A while later they decided the number was 36,000 that made it. Then they decided their model was wrong and maybe they wern't sure about any of their numbers. I'll meet you on the Erie tribs, show you my best spot, and buy you lunch and cold ones if you can find anyone in PGC management willing to stick there neck out and claim they have ever sent Alts 80 or 100k in the next class. BTW-- most of this can be found in the PGC press releases, start 08 2001.



dpms -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 7:18:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

I'll meet you on the Erie tribs, show you my best spot, and buy you lunch and cold ones if you can find anyone in PGC management willing to stick there neck out and claim they have ever sent Alts 80 or 100k in the next class. BTW-- most of this can be found in the PGC press releases, start 08 2001.


Thanks for the invite.  That is a pretty safe bet.  I don't believe that we moved 100,000 on either.  I do believe that we sent enough on to matter and that is what is most important IMO.  Again, we will never now for sure.

I got a few honey holes myself as I spent two years living on the tribs when I went to Mercyhurst.  [;)]




Dr. Trout -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 10:22:51 PM)

I'm sort of with dpms.. I really do not know how many bucks we are sending into the next age bracket... but I do know we are sending more than we ever did before.. because of the ARs in place.

Another thing you have to remember about Dr. Alt.. and those antis never mention it or give him credit for saying it....



"Mistakes will be made and we will correct them "

So he was wrong on the 100,000....90,000...50,000  WHAT EVER..

He was right that we would not be harvesting as many bucks as we did before... we are protecting about 80% of the ones available each season... and he did say we would see bigger/older bucks in the harvest

MY 500,000 figure.. I know that is not realistic.. I was trying to make the point that we need to harvest what we feel will be replaced the next summer to keep the herd balanced with what the forest can support... AT THIS TIME...

A harvest of around 300,00 sounds good to me and that may become the NORMAL deer harvest for PA for a few more years...( think TREND) :)

900,000 hunters  = 300,000 deer harvest... one in three.... sounds better than most states I have heard of with that many hunters...



MuskyMastr -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 10:49:05 PM)

The problem lies with which bucks you are sending to the next age bracket.



SilverKype -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/3/2008 11:41:24 PM)

Are you going to start this inferior gene crap MM?

Let's hear the argument!



S-10 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/4/2008 8:24:00 AM)

Doc--your not into history revision are you? (Doc wrote-He(Alt) was right that we would not be harvesting as many bucks as we did before) Care to point out where Alt said that?-----Here is what he said in a 2002 Press Release-In the long term hunters will likely see MORE AND LARGER bucks than they have ever seen before.---- And in another 2002 Press Release-To increase the NUMBER AND SIZE of bucks in the herd. Lets see now, 2000 harvest=203,221  2001 harvest= 203,247 compare to 2006=135,290, 2007=109,200.  You guys must have studied out of a different math book than I did.[;)] And don't give me that(there out there, we just aren't finding them claim). The PGC says we are still killing about 80% of the Legal bucks, just like before.



dpms -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/4/2008 12:12:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

The PGC says we are still killing about 80% of the Legal bucks, just like before.


Where is this at?  I have not heard that statement and would like to see it in it's context.



jlh42581 -> RE: 2007/2008 deer harvest (4/4/2008 3:18:47 PM)

Are you guys done pulling your tampons out yet? Or is there still some cotton in there?

1: The deer herd is lower then it was.
2: It aint coming back without seroius reform.
3: Genetics DO play a role.
4: The deer were never starving, which is why we have crop damage.
5: The PA Deer Commission doesnt give a rats ass about you or your opinion.
6: Less Doe's DOES = Less bucks... not rocket science.
7: Tragic accidents from deer are few and far between, lay off the booze and the smokes before you worry about that.
8: Antler stew sucks.
9: There are nicer bucks in the woods.
10: You prob wont kill one because you dont have private land.


Now, cant we just drop this, dont any of you worry about hunting anything else. How about lets bitch about the fact theres virtually no where to hunt pheasants but a preserve. The grouse population is shot and kids dont want to hunt cause they dont see deer. End of story!


[sm=battle.gif]



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



   

0.172