Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion

Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
RSB
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 932
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
  • Status: offline
RE: Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion 2011/04/07 19:25:34 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly


ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

As for your comments on 2G deer harvests, we have been over it and over time and again. This isn’t the right forum for it. Are you so single minded that is where you have to drag every thread?


If you want to prove that I am wrong,all you have to do is post the recruitment rates and harvest rates for 2G from 1995 to 2010. You won't do it because it will show you have now idea what you are talking about.


This isn’t the place for it besides I don’t have the recruitment rates and either do you.
 
If you go to the thread where they would be appropriate you will find my comments and the supporting data to prove you absolutely don’t have a clue what your talking about.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn


If you don't have the recruitment rates then you are blowing smoke when you claim the habitat is controlling the herd. If you don't know the recruitment rates then you don't know if the harvests are exceeding recruitment. That means you admitted you have no idea what you are talking about.

 
Anyone using commonsense will figure out it is you blowing the smoke.
 
Anyone employing any common sense at all should also be able to figure out that with years of continuously reduced harvests in 2G and a deer herd that still isn’t increasing that either the adult mortality has greatly increase or the fawn recruitment has declined.
 
Unless of course they figure its Aliens or maybe those secret stealth model U.N. black helicopters are out there stealing the deer and sending them to another universe or something.   
 
R.S. Bodenhorn
#31
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion 2011/04/07 20:17:52 (permalink)
What was the recruitment rate in 2000 when the PGC claimed 1M OWD produced a PS herd of 1.5M deer?

The PGC has recruitment rate data for every WMU in the state, but you aren't man enough to release that data because it would make you look like a fool. the sad fact is that recruitment decreased as the herd was reduced and that is the exact opposite of what you predicted.
#32
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion 2011/04/07 21:37:57 (permalink)
Cal dubrock in 2006 press release which was about the harvest estimate after the 2005 season.

"Hunters have once again performed an important service for the rest of society by controlling the state's deer herd. They do it
willingly, and without burden to taxpayers. They also will enjoy many nutritious meals from the venison they added to their
freezers or provided to needy families through the Hunters Sharing the Harvest program."
#33
RSB
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 932
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
  • Status: offline
RE: Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion 2011/04/08 17:53:36 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

What was the recruitment rate in 2000 when the PGC claimed 1M OWD produced a PS herd of 1.5M deer?

The PGC has recruitment rate data for every WMU in the state, but you aren't man enough to release that data because it would make you look like a fool. the sad fact is that recruitment decreased as the herd was reduced and that is the exact opposite of what you predicted.


If you feel there is data out there that proves me wrong or you correct I am sure you would have already put plenty of misguided spin to it and posted it over and over again, like you do everything else.
 
The fact is there is nothing that supports your contentions that harvesting fewer does has resulted in having more deer, as you have repeatedly said would happen with lower allocations and harvests. It hasn’t worked out as you said it would in any of the units it has been tried.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn
post edited by RSB - 2011/04/08 17:55:14
#34
RSB
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 932
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
  • Status: offline
RE: Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion 2011/04/08 17:58:17 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: wayne c

Cal dubrock in 2006 press release which was about the harvest estimate after the 2005 season.

"Hunters have once again performed an important service for the rest of society by controlling the state's deer herd. They do it
willingly, and without burden to taxpayers. They also will enjoy many nutritious meals from the venison they added to their
freezers or provided to needy families through the Hunters Sharing the Harvest program."


And your point of that is what? That hunters are used to harvest deer to keep deer populations in check is certainly no big revelation or secret to most people.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn
post edited by RSB - 2011/04/08 17:59:01
#35
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion 2011/04/08 18:29:31 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

What was the recruitment rate in 2000 when the PGC claimed 1M OWD produced a PS herd of 1.5M deer?

The PGC has recruitment rate data for every WMU in the state, but you aren't man enough to release that data because it would make you look like a fool. the sad fact is that recruitment decreased as the herd was reduced and that is the exact opposite of what you predicted.


If you feel there is data out there that proves me wrong or you correct I am sure you would have already put plenty of misguided spin to it and posted it over and over again, like you do everything else.
 
The fact is there is nothing that supports your contentions that harvesting fewer does has resulted in having more deer, as you have repeatedly said would happen with lower allocations and harvests. It hasn’t worked out as you said it would in any of the units it has been tried.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn


I just posted that the herd in 2000,which claim was being controlled by the habitat , had a recruitment rate of 50% according to the PGC.

Harvesting few doe from 1907 to 1940 allowed the herd to increase from next to nothing to 40 DPSM, Then harvesting few doe from 1940 to 1975 allowed the herd to increase to over 40 DPSM. Low doe harvests in 1998 allowed the herd to increase by 7 % and the low doe harvest in 1999 allowed the herd to increase by 13%.

Try again!!
#36
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: Old Growth Forest Management Plan discussion 2011/04/08 18:38:59 (permalink)
And your point of that is what? That hunters are used to harvest deer to keep deer populations in check is certainly no big revelation or secret to most people.


I figured it might be to you, since your contention was that the tags werent doing it, it was the habitat remember? You wanted UNLIMITED tags because we werent getting it done remember? Convenient memory there pap!
#37
Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Jump to: