Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 14:52:07
(permalink)
You are right the longer season was to help compensate for weather.. but look what the BOC has done.. taken the longer season away from over half the WMUs... going backwards again ... Have as many allocations and hunters as you want.. now take all the split season WMUs... have the weather be bad for half those days and see what happens to the harvest totals... I was basically talking all deer hunting .. especially the first day and the Saturdays... weather plays a big part in the senior citizen hunt (only 3 days to particapate) and naturally better weather helps the archery totals ... and I believe weather can influence the late season harvests as well....
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/04/19 14:53:14
|
deerfly 
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 16:00:24
(permalink)
I was basically talking all deer hunting .. especially the first day and the Saturdays No you weren't, the PGC doesn't control the number of general licenses sold and we have been discussing whether the allocations or other factor was the major factor controlling the harvests. Can you point to any season over the last ten years where bad weather had a bigger effect on the total harvests than the effect of 1M doe tags had in 2003 and 2004? What was the effect of bad weather on the buck harvest over the last 6 years?
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 18:39:54
(permalink)
what I wrote was == I was basically talking all deer hunting .. especially the first day and the Saturdays...
weather plays a big part in the senior citizen hunt (only 3 days to particapate) and naturally better weather helps the archery totals ... and I believe weather can influence the late season harvests as well.... so yes I meant all deer harvests can be effected by weather.. when I was referring to weather.. allocations and tags was about antlerless.. weather was for all deer...I just did not post it correctly worded... I have to be more careful in my wording I guess...  If I had to pick one bad year in the past 10 ... I would say the first week of rifle in 2009 ... and this year the second day was a wash-out .... but I think the first day and the following Saturday made up the difference so we still had a GOOD year with increased harvest...
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/04/19 18:46:22
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 19:42:46
(permalink)
What was the major factor that controlled the buck harvest of 108K in 2009 compared to harvest of 165K in 2002? Was the weather responsible for that decrease or was the size of the herd responsible for that decrease?
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 19:49:33
(permalink)
#1 the weather , and #2... 2009 was after a rather large herd reduction state wide and various ARs
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 20:02:38
(permalink)
Of course you fellows realize that according to the PGC our deer herd in 2010 was between 1.3 and 1.4 million. We should be killing around 233,333 bucks by their numbers of 1:2 ratio and saving 50% of 1/1/2 year olds.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/04/19 20:13:37
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 20:25:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout
#1 the weather , and #2... 2009 was after a rather large herd reduction state wide and various ARs
So did the weather in 2009 account for the decrease in the harvest from 165k in 2002 to 108K in 2009 or did the reduction in the size of the herd account for the majority of the decrease? If the weather in 2010 was responsible for the increase in the buck harvest ,why didn't it increase to 165 K like in 2002?
|
retired guy
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3107
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/26 15:49:55
- Location: ct-vacation place in Richland
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 21:06:18
(permalink)
The pros say that last season there was whats called a 'trickle rut' throughout the entire north Eastern part of the US---something to do with moon phases and daylight. There was a whole section of a sporting TV show on it. They said that all the does were gonna get bred but the real hot rut was to be at a minimum. We were supposed to see an initial normal start to the rut and then- gonzo- just a very slow methodical spattering of action throughout the fall and early winter. It certainly was the way it went herabouts. We had normal sign and then nada and then the same area would have ground scrapes again a time or two through out the fall. Usually its hot and heavy with the major rut and then lighter later on. This year it was spotty at best but long lasting. Have to wonder if things like that have a noticeable impact on buck harvest. Our deer numbers were just fine but to walk the woods at times one would think there were no bucks around. Then the ground scraping would show again then go again. It was really different. This was observed in a very large several hundred acre little hunted area having a nice number of whitetail that I'v been fortunate to hunt for 30 years and know very well.
post edited by retired guy - 2011/04/19 21:12:53
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/19 23:32:18
(permalink)
why didn't it increase to 165 K like in 2002? one thing is that we did not have as many hunters as in 2002, we also had less antlerless tags,, and more WMUs were put on a split season... and of course herd reduction left less deer available ...and as I keep saying there are Many factors effecting the harvest numbers.. trying to explain why the harvest varies from year to year is any one's guess.. All I know is it has been varying as long as records have been being kept... and in any given year the #1 reason could be different.. one more time .. there are many factors influencing deer harvest... weather number of hunters number of licenses/tags number of deer available length of seasons amount of huntable land for hunting weapons being used each and all effect harvest and they vary from year to year as to which may be the leading factor, so as a result so does the harvest numbers.....
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2011/04/19 23:35:37
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/20 17:33:13
(permalink)
and as I keep saying there are Many factors effecting the harvest numbers.. trying to explain why the harvest varies from year to year is any one's guess.. All I know is it has been varying as long as records have been being kept... and in any given year the #1 reason could be different..
The discussion wasn't about what causes variations in the harvest from year to year, it was about which factor had the major effect on the harvest every year and that would be the antlerless allocations. While severe weather may reduce the antlerless harvest by 5K to 10K statewide ,hunters would still harvest over 180K antlerless deer,due to the antlerless allocations. Weather is probably at the bottom of the list of factors controlling the harvests.
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/27 18:09:39
(permalink)
Apparently RSB has given up on trying to convince us that the habitat is controlling deer numbers, so he moved his efforts to another MB and is trying to convince DPSM that the habitat is reducing the herd in 2A. It is very possible to watch your deer populations decline because hunters aren’t harvesting enough deer even while hunters say they need to harvest fewer because the deer population is declining, as indicated by a declining buck harvest.
When the deer herd appears to be declining the first thing a person needs to do to figure out what the best course of action should be is figure out why the herd is declining. It seems hunters always want to blame the decline on over harvests but the truth is frequently the exact opposite.
But if you take a look at the other indicators for you 2A you will see that the habitat has been steadily declining.
Years……………% of plots with adequate regeneration
2001-05……………………51 %
2002-06……………………49 %
2003-07……………………38 %
2004-08……………………40 %
2005-09……………………39 %
2006-10……………………37 %
That is a clear indication that 2A is starting to loose it’s habitat due to more deer than the habitat can sustain for the long term.
Next you want to look at what is happening with fawn recruitment rates because when your habitat starts to decline to the point it will not support more deer your deer herd will actively reduce its own numbers with deduced fawn recruitment rates.
So let’s look at the 2A fawn recruitment rates over the past few years.
Year……………fawns per doe ratio
2003……………….0.40
2004……………….0.41
2005……………….0.35
2006……………….0.39
2007……………….0.43
2008……………….0.40
2009……………….0.38
2010……………….0.36
When you start looking at the facts the 2A habitat and deer are sending us I think Gal might be right that 2B is over protecting it’s deer herd and headed toward being just like much of unit 2G with a deer herd that is actively reducing its own numbers because of too many years of carrying more deer than the habitat can sustain.
Once the deer start reducing their own population the only way to correct it is to harvest more deer not fewer. You will have more deer for the long term by over protecting the habitat instead of over protect the deer.
****Bodenhorn The funny thing is the data he posted shows that reducing the herd did not improve productivity or forest health and apparently he still doesn't realize that forest health is not a measure of the carrying capacity of the habitat.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/28 06:06:06
(permalink)
The PGC's Forest Habitat Health Assement process has actually only been in place since 2007 and has already being revised to allow for indicators they didn't allow for.
Prior to 2010 they didn't allow for the effects of closed canopy not allowing for sunlight to reach the forest floor.
Starting in 2011 they will start to allow for Quote: "All other negative effects"
Sounds like they may no longer blame everything on "Those Dammed Deer"
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/28 10:03:54
(permalink)
so he moved his efforts to another MB and is trying to convince DPSM that the habitat is reducing the herd in 2A. Lmao. What a joke.
|
retired guy
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3107
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/26 15:49:55
- Location: ct-vacation place in Richland
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/28 15:13:17
(permalink)
WOW- how can anybody who wants mature forests NOT know that a mature forest has a jungle -like canopy that results in a wide open spaces with nothing but tree trunks and leaves underneath - no deer either cause they cant eat anything.
To even initiate a program without basic knowledge shows to an outsider that there is a HUGE disconnect.
Take a hike in the Aderondiak SF when theres about an inch of snow down and see whats up. Hunted there ONCE. You could literally walk a mile between deer sign.
|
wayne c
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3473
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: Maybe I Was Wrong
2011/04/28 15:32:27
(permalink)
Apparently RSB has given up on trying to convince us that the habitat is controlling deer numbers, so he moved his efforts to another MB and is trying to convince DPSM that the habitat is reducing the herd in 2A. Yes, his "proof" was that the fawn numbers rose in 2007 due to less deer being available and more food due to ehd deaths. Unfortunately for him, the fawns were BORN IN SPRING, and the ehd outbreak didnt occur till late summer early fall of 2007. Therefore ehd reduction played NO ROLE in increased fawn production. In fact, it had never been higher after the ehd hit, than it was BEFORE. The number had also increased the year previous in 2006. So much for his argument. I had made a thread about this, but it got deleted apparently it was deemed as me attacking rsb, and not simply defending against something that was simply not true, and had proven it. Understandable i suppose though. Perhaps this more tasteful reply is a bit more appropriate.
post edited by wayne c - 2011/04/28 15:36:21
|