quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

quote:

But, the results in those four study areas where valid results for those area in 2009. Those area results clearly prove that hunters did not harvesting 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks in any of those areas in 2009 so it is perfectly logical to suspect there were also many other areas of the state where hunters failed to harvest 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks or for that matter even the 2 ½ and older bucks in 2009.

Since you think the study data is revelant for 2G and have access to data most of us don't please do the following----------- 1. Post the total deer in 2G either before or after hunting season in 2001 and show the PGC caluclation used to get the number.
2. Post the total deer in 2G in 2009 and 2010 during the same time frame as above using the harvest % calculation and show the whole PGC calculation used to get the number.
3. If #2 is greater than #1 explain why.
Thanks


I don’t have that data and have no interest in trying to obtain it. If you want it call Harrisburg and request. That is what I do when I want data otherwise not available on the web site.

But, what I do know is that there are fewer deer now than there were in 2001. Part of that reduction, in some parts of the state more that others, was very intentional and the rest of the reduction was a result having allowed way too many deer feeding on the habitat for so long the deer reduced their own numbers with reduced fawn recruitment rates. That is just how nature works when populations deplete their food supply.

R.S. Bodenhorn

(in reply to S-10)
Report | Post #: 115

PROVE IT----you quote data that says only 8% of 1-1/2 and 31% of 2-1/2 bucks were harvested in 2G. You say there are many left-----You say there are fewer now than in 2001------in 2001 we harvested 80% of available bucks per the PGC. Make up your mind which misguided attempt to B.S. us your are going to persue and do the math to prove it. You have all the data necessary and have posted it in various places on here. SHOW THE MATH that compares the bucks available in 2001 with the bucks available in 2009 and 2010 using the 8% and 31% numbers. You made the claim and called me wrong so now PROVE IT.

ORIGINAL: S-10

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

quote:

But, the results in those four study areas where valid results for those area in 2009. Those area results clearly prove that hunters did not harvesting 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks in any of those areas in 2009 so it is perfectly logical to suspect there were also many other areas of the state where hunters failed to harvest 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks or for that matter even the 2 ½ and older bucks in 2009.

Since you think the study data is revelant for 2G and have access to data most of us don't please do the following----------- 1. Post the total deer in 2G either before or after hunting season in 2001 and show the PGC caluclation used to get the number.
2. Post the total deer in 2G in 2009 and 2010 during the same time frame as above using the harvest % calculation and show the whole PGC calculation used to get the number.
3. If #2 is greater than #1 explain why.
Thanks


I don’t have that data and have no interest in trying to obtain it. If you want it call Harrisburg and request. That is what I do when I want data otherwise not available on the web site.

But, what I do know is that there are fewer deer now than there were in 2001. Part of that reduction, in some parts of the state more that others, was very intentional and the rest of the reduction was a result having allowed way too many deer feeding on the habitat for so long the deer reduced their own numbers with reduced fawn recruitment rates. That is just how nature works when populations deplete their food supply.

R.S. Bodenhorn

(in reply to S-10)
Report | Post #: 115

PROVE IT----you quote data that says only 8% of 1-1/2 and 31% of 2-1/2 bucks were harvested in 2G. You say there are many left-----You say there are fewer now than in 2001------in 2001 we harvested 80% of available bucks per the PGC. Make up your mind which misguided attempt to B.S. us your are going to persue and do the math to prove it. You have all the data necessary and have posted it in various places on here. SHOW THE MATH that compares the bucks available in 2001 with the bucks available in 2009 and 2010 using the 8% and 31% numbers. You made the claim and called me wrong so now PROVE IT.

 
Read my response above, it applies to your comments as well.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

No one said the study area results would be valid for the entire unit. The fact is though that at least 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks did survive the 2009-hunting season in ALL of the study areas.

If the results of the study only applies to the specific study areas why did you try to use it to support your claim that it makes sense to harvest more 2.5+ buck than 1.5 buck when ARs only protect 49% of the 1.5 buck?

No one said the study area results would be valid for the entire unit. The fact is though that at least 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks did survive the 2009-hunting season in ALL of the study areas.

After claiming the study didn't apply to the entire WMU, you used it again and applied it to statewide harvest results. That doesn't make any sense!!!

BTW, it is possible to harvest more 2.5+ buck if in fact ARs protect 60 or 70% of the 1.5 buck, like in Miss. It is also possible to harvest more 2.5+ buck than 1.5, if the number of legal 1.5 buck decreased compared to previous years. So, the question then becomes,why did 2.5+ buck comprise 52% of the 2010 buck harvest, when around 15% of the buck saved by ARs are lost to non-hunting mortality.Also, in 2009 ,2.5+ buck were 51% of the buck harvest ,so you can dismiss the theory that a lot of 2.5+ buck survived the 2009 season.

Here is more evidence that the survival rates for 2.5+ buck in the study are flawed. Here is a quote from a 2010 PGN article.

Sept. 2010 PGN Article
Age Structure of Antlered Harvest
Age structure of the antlered harvest before APRs was about 80 percent yearling bucks and
20 percent adult bucks. With the increase in survival of yearling bucks under APRs, the age
structure of the antlered harvest changed to about 55 percent yearling bucks and 45 Pennsylvania Game News – Volume 81 NO. 9 September 2010 percent adult bucks. This increase in adult buck harvest has occurred during a time when
overall deer populations have declined.
The increased harvest of adult bucks does not necessarily mean more “record book” bucks.
Although age structure and number of adult bucks in the harvest has increased, about 75
percent of them are only 2.5 years-of-age. In other words, most of the state’s bucks are
still being harvested prior to growing their largest antlers.

If 75% of the 2.5+ buck are 2.5 buck, then it would be impossible for over 50% of the 2.5 buck to survive hunting season.
Also note that Dr. R. refers to 1.5 buck as yearling buck,while others refer to yearling buck as BB.

While I agree that based on the scenario you presented it would be possible to have a 2.5 buck harvest rate of under 50%. However, based on PGC data ,ARs protected less than 53K 1.5 buck in 2009, while in 2010 we harvested 48K 2.5 buck . That equates to a harvest rate of 90% of the 1.5 buck carried over and that does not account for the 15% of non-hunting mortality that occurred between 2009 and 2010.

Deerfly,

I'm not up on my PGC data so please forgive me if this has already been hashed out.

The PGC is saying there were only 53,000, 1.5 yo bucks in 2009? I don't really know what "protected" means. I just find it unreasonable to think that 90% of any age class of deer could ever be harvested. The 53,000 figure seems really low. Perhaps "protected" is only referring to 1.5 yo bucks that have 3 or 4 points depending on the unit? There is probably a significant number of 1.5 bucks that are legal to harvest that weren't? Again I'm sorry if you've already been over this.

When you consider we have 6 hunters for ever buck harvested ,a harvest rate of 90% of the 2.5 buck isn't that unreasonable

I'm not sure I agree with this logic. When you consider that we have a lot more than 6 hunters for every bear that is harvested, if we harvested 90% of all bears...they would be extinct. Since all bears (both sexes and all age classes) are susceptible to harvest, the population would crash pretty quickly if 90% were harvested annually.

ORIGINAL: CallJonyCochran

When you consider we have 6 hunters for ever buck harvested ,a harvest rate of 90% of the 2.5 buck isn't that unreasonable

I'm not sure I agree with this logic. When you consider that we have a lot more than 6 hunters for every bear that is harvested, if we harvested 90% of all bears...they would be extinct. Since all bears (both sexes and all age classes) are susceptible to harvest, the population would crash pretty quickly if 90% were harvested annually.

Personally, I don't think comparing buck harvest rates to bear harvest rates is a valid comparison for several reasons First, there were over 700K buck hunters in 2009 while there were only 148K bear hunters. Second , the bear season is limited to 3 days with the exception of a few WMUs,while bucks may be harvested in various seasons from Oct. to Jan. Third, bucks receive considerable hunting pressure across the entire range,while bear on the fringe of their prime range receive very little hunting pressure.

    Remember when Deer couldnt be found near folks- Now they have acclimated and are in backyards - and their numbers are increased in populated places despite heavy residential sprawl.
   Bears are starting to do the same thing. Never thought they would be here but they are now common in Ct. and growing in population.