Background on 2011/12 allocations

Not sure if folks have seen this or not but this is some info on the allocations this year.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1059259/2011_antlerless_allocations_and_supporting_information_pdf

I see the recommendation charts have the ACTUAL kills not the rounded off ones... I wonder what the difference would be using the real figures for harvest totals ????

maybe a thousand state wide ????

Boy, you can do some interesting math with all those numbers.

Per Chris Rosenberry---The PGC has been keeping the herd stable since 2005 in nearly all WMU's.

1B goal is to keep the herd stable since 2005

2005 1B deer numbers = 84,078
2010 1B deer numbers - 76,665

Action taken = Increase antlerless allocations by 2,156

Yep--That should do it.

Yeah I meant actual reported kill, not rounded off ones... (making 5,551 into 5,600) I am not aware of any other counts that they could possibly have or do....

thought page 5 was funny. "Most" CAC wanting stable or lower populations. Sure is an aweful lot of bright green on there asking for increases. I don't believe the word "most" is appropriate for that.

I saw that too kype. And i didnt even give it a second thought. You know why? Its nothing but another example of deception at pgc. And thats hardly noteworthy these days.


Another example the allocations suggestions.

One fine example. 2a to stabilize with a concurrent season, suggestion was 54000 tags. Weve had 55000 for several years and Rosenliar said the herd has been declining now. (the only reason he admits this is because ive pointed this out on message boards a million times and some had let the boc know). All along he said the herd was stable and that was the goal. Now all of a sudden, with the lowest herd size since the fraud plan began, even though 35k to 45k had been lowering a much higher herd prior to 2005...

Yep, now all a sudden knocking of ONE THOUSAND from our 55k was supposed to have stabilized the herd. lmao. Yes, at a rate of 1 deer per 4 or 5 tags, that would stem the hemmorhaging. lmao.

UN---REAL!


Doesnt matter though, we got split seasons plus 65000 tags! Yeah, thats gonna allow stabilization too! lmao. Can you say perpetration of fraud?

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

1B goal is to keep the herd stable since 2005

2005 1B deer numbers = 84,078
2010 1B deer numbers - 76,665

I'd say the PGC recommendations and what the BOC approved have held to a pretty stable harvest in 1B since 2005 ... here's the deer harvests per square mile and you can see it stables out with the typical up a little one year down a little the next... "NORMAL"


05 = 5
06 = 6
07 = 5
08 = 6
09 = 4
10 = 6


My math tells me that's right smack on an average of 5.3 every year for the past 6 years.... sounds stable to me ....

You don't judge the size of the herd based on the total harvest, you base it on the buck harvest. The buck harvest in 1B decreased from 3.21 BPSM in 2006 to 2.6 BPSM in 2010,which is a decrease of 19%.

I think its hilarious how pgc permits themselves so much leeway when it comes to a declining herd still being called "stabilization" but that when it comes to the opposite and going from declining to stabilization Huh-uh. No way...

Rosenliar said in the last meeting that the herd was declining in 2a, with our ridiculous allocation of 55,000 tags. He either finally noticed, or finally told the truth. Either way, according to the data in the link provided in the first post here, in order to actually get stabilization with a concurrent season, as we've had all along....and if commissioners wanted to go that way....the biologist recommendation if they chose stabilization was 54,000 tags! We reduced the herd with 55k and were continuing to. A cut of 1000 tags would at best save around 200 stinkin deer in the entire unit! So apparently the difference between our very noticeable reduction and stabilization is 200 deer. lmao.

And thats in theory and assuming that 54,000 wouldnt still be well above recruitment level. And i think it safe to say that it is.

So anyway, if they are off by a couple thousand deer but it equates to them being on the decline, its fine and within acceptable range .lol. But if its stopping the decline that is the issue, they shoot for a total to 1/10,000th of one deer per square mile and a total far short. lol.


Unfortunately, the buck harvest last year dropped by 1000 alone.

1. When you use rounded off dpsm it dilutes the picture even more than normal. That's why the PGC carrys the decimal.
2. When you average "all" those years it defeats the purpose of trends. No matter how wild the the numbers the average is always in the middle.
3. Notice 1B has gone from 2.1 licenses per deer to 3.0. That is a 30% increase and indicates fewer deer on the landscape.
4. The buck harvest determines the herd status (per the PGC) and the buck harvest is trending downward with the exception of one abnormal year in 2008.
5. The estimated population is also down although 2008 shows an abnormal high number.
6. Increasing doe tags on a population below target level is normally not considered a good way to increase the population.

That is what I am trying to say.

PS-- the weather looks sucky but good luck on the streams

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"to be stable you have to have the exact kill every year.. year after year... that has never happened in the history of deer hunting... my money says it would be impossible to be the same every year.. too many factors vary from year to year.... and too use highest verus lowest.. just makes me laugh..."

A near constant decline doesnt equate to stable. Period.

"you just insist on using extremes to support your opinions..."

I have no choice. Thanks to the pa gameless commission the numbers are extreme. Therefore i have to use extremes.

"highest verus lowest and will not consider the "in between"...."

I didnt compare the highest to the lowest. I compared highest to LAST YEAR. Which by coincidence happens to the be the lowest for our unit. Reason i picked last year is because that is representative of our CURRENT reality. Not four years ago when we had more deer.

and I can't imagine anyone would agree that shows any type of trends over a period of time...

one year to another means nothing ... for example = """84,078 to 76,665 """" means nothing if the next year it goes back up to 84,078....

Ok. Heres my unit last 4 years of harvests which is basically our current reality. 6600, 6700, 6800 and 5800. Our harvest back in 2000 was 13700. Nice trend eh? lmao.

Could also compare to 2005 if one wants to, when our herd was supposed to be stabilized. 2005--8500. We have never had a harvest of buck higher than that since, yet have had FIVE lower than that, and our modern day low harvests were the last 4, with our ridiculously lowest last year. Thats not comparing one year to one other year. Thats one helluva trend of decline.

 
I would say both the 2A buck harvests and deer population are relatively stable if you really look at the totality of the facts instead of just cherry picking a few thing that you feel supports your opinion.
 
Here is the harvest buck history for the counties that make up unit 2A along with the yearly buck harvests since 2003.
 
Unit 2A buck harvest history in harvests per square mile of land mass:
 
83-87……..2.66
88-92……..3.57
93-97……..4.28
98-02……..5.26
2003……...4.32 – all data is now after antler restrictions protecting the younger bucks
2004……...4.31
2005……...4.69
2006……...4.47
2007……...3.64 – following EHD naturally reduced the deer population including bucks
2008……...3.70
2009……...3.76
2010……...3.20
 
As I said it looks pretty stable to me considering antler restrictions, the probability the herd, especially the replacement of older bucks would still be recovering from the EHD mortality in 2007. But there is also the fact that the original intent was to reduce the deer population in Unit 2A. Since it has been in stabilize mode for several years there is also the possibility the deer herd has been so high in that part of the state it is now working on reducing its own numbers like occurred over the past several decades in the northern tier big woods areas.
 
But, all in all except for this year being slightly lower it looks to me like it has been very stable.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

"I would say both the 2A buck harvests and deer population are relatively stable if you really look at the totality of the facts instead of just cherry picking a few thing that you feel supports your opinion."

Thats insane. Period.

2000--13700
2001--11600
2002--9900
2003--7500
2004--7800
2005--8500
2006--8100
2007--6600
2008--6700
2009--6800
2010--5800


Nope. Nothing at all stable about it. NOthing but a new modern day record low harvest 2 out of the last 4 years. There is no defense for a pathetic 6800 to 5800 which is where our harvest has been the last 4 years. And thats not cherry picking. Thats our current ridiculous reality. And Its pure bull-.

Dont know how you have so little pride as to flaunt such deception in nearly every post, but i am pretty certain that if someone who didnt agree with the sham plan said Jesus Christ was a man from Jerusalem who was central to the christian faith, you'd say he was a chinese female buddist.

Never seen someone intentionally try so hard to be controversial and extreme.. Dont know if its to garner attention or what?


Btw, watch the video recording of day one of the meeting. Rosenberry stated the herd was being decreased in 2a. On a declining trend. As if we needed him to say so! lmao. Ive been saying this for some time now, yet they still claimed stabilization/ Guess he got tired of looking like a total fool and realized that both hunters and some members of the boc can tell if numbers are actually going up or down, despite not having a biology degree. lol.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"I would say both the 2A buck harvests and deer population are relatively stable if you really look at the totality of the facts instead of just cherry picking a few thing that you feel supports your opinion."

Thats insane. Period.

2000--13700
2001--11600
2002--9900
2003--7500
2004--7800
2005--8500
2006--8100
2007--6600
2008--6700
2009--6800
2010--5800


Nope. Nothing at all stable about it. NOthing but a new modern day record low harvest 2 out of the last 4 years. There is no defense for a pathetic 6800 to 5800 which is where our harvest has been the last 4 years. And thats not cherry picking. Thats our current ridiculous reality. And Its pure bull-.

Dont know how you have so little pride as to flaunt such deception in nearly every post, but i am pretty certain that if someone who didnt agree with the sham plan said Jesus Christ was a man from Jerusalem who was central to the christian faith, you'd say he was a chinese female buddist.

Never seen someone intentionally try so hard to be controversial and extreme.. Dont know if its to garner attention or what?


Btw, watch the video recording of day one of the meeting. Rosenberry stated the herd was being decreased in 2a. On a declining trend. As if we needed him to say so! lmao. Ive been saying this for some time now, yet they still claimed stabilization/ Guess he got tired of looking like a total fool and realized that both hunters and some members of the boc can tell if numbers are actually going up or down, despite not having a biology degree. lol.

 
I already acknowledged that based on the 2010-buck harvest it might very well be possible the 2A deer population could be on the decline. If it is though it must be a natural decline though if a person were to use only the logic you try to apply to everything being hunter harvest related. The following explanation is why I feel confident in saying that.
 
Since the 2009-buck harvest in 2A was higher than it had been in 2008 that indicates a stable or perhaps even increasing population. Yet the 2009 doe harvest for unit 2A was 9% lower than it had been in 2008. Therefore since hunters harvested more bucks and fewer doe in 2009 than they had the previous year the 2010 deer population, including the buck population, should have been higher than it had been in 2009 using your logic of harvest fewer doe and you get more deer for the next year. But since the 2010-buck harvest wasn’t higher then either the bucks were there and simply not harvested or the deer population actually declined after the doe harvest declined the previous year.
 
If the population actually did decline, as you claim, then go ahead and explain to everyone why it declined in the unit the year after hunters harvested fewer antlerless deer.
 
The only reason for the population to decline following a reduced doe harvest is when there is some form or natural event reducing your deer population. Therefore, either there was something other that a population decline in 2A that influenced this year’s decline in the buck harvest or the population declined following a reduction in doe harvests the previous year. Either way I bet you don’t like the facts of what those two possibilities indicate and will thus deny them.
 
Those factors are exactly why you can’t drawn any definitive conclusions with changes in harvest data from just one year to the next and instead have to look at the very minimum of two or three years before even thinking about evaluating any trends.
 
Then even if you do see a downward trend you have to look at all of the possible reasons for the downward trend. Hunter harvests are certainly not the only thing that will reduce deer populations and every professional deer manager knows that even though it appears some hunters either don’t or refuse to accept the evidence they don’t want to accept. In fact the professionals know that you can actually watch a population decline because you haven’t been harvesting enough deer. There are many areas of the state that have already proved that fact to anyone objective enough to accept conclusive evidence.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Since the 2009-buck harvest in 2A was higher than it had been in 2008 that indicates a stable or perhaps even increasing population. Yet the 2009 doe harvest for unit 2A was 9% lower than it had been in 2008. Therefore since hunters harvested more bucks and fewer doe in 2009 than they had the previous year the 2010 deer population, including the buck population, should have been higher than it had been in 2009 using your logic of harvest fewer doe and you get more deer for the next year. But since the 2010-buck harvest wasn’t higher then either the bucks were there and simply not harvested or the deer population actually declined after the doe harvest declined the previous year.
 
If the population actually did decline, as you claim, then go ahead and explain to everyone why it declined in the unit the year after hunters harvested fewer antlerless deer.
 
The only reason for the population to decline following a reduced doe harvest is when there is some form or natural event reducing your deer population. Therefore, either there was something other that a population decline in 2A that influenced this year’s decline in the buck harvest or the population declined following a reduction in doe harvests the previous year. Either way I bet you don’t like the facts of what those two possibilities indicate and will thus deny them.
 
Those factors are exactly why you can’t drawn any definitive conclusions with changes in harvest data from just one year to the next and instead have to look at the very minimum of two or three years before even thinking about evaluating any trends.

It doesn't get much funnier than that!! First you try to prove Wayne is wrong by comparing the 2008 harvest to the 2009 harvest and then you say that you can't reach any definitive conclusions with changes in harvests from one year to the next.

Then even if you do see a downward trend you have to look at all of the possible reasons for the downward trend. Hunter harvests are certainly not the only thing that will reduce deer populations and every professional deer manager knows that even though it appears some hunters either don’t or refuse to accept the evidence they don’t want to accept. In fact the professionals know that you can actually watch a population decline because you haven’t been harvesting enough deer. There are many areas of the state that have already proved that fact to anyone objective enough to accept conclusive evidence.

As yet you have failed to provide any evidence to support your claim that populations have declined in any area of the state as a result of harvesting too few deer.

 
If that is what you got from what I posted you are either suffering from a serious reading comprehension deficiency or simply trying to pull another flim-flam job of misrepresentation concerning what someone else actually said.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

"I already acknowledged that based on the 2010-buck harvest it might very well be possible the 2A deer population could be on the decline. If it is though it must be a natural decline"

Nope. Dont tell me that when we have 55,000 and higher tags in play here. lmao. Its nothing short of asnine to suggest under those circumstances.

"Since the 2009-buck harvest in 2A was higher than it had been in 2008 that indicates a stable or perhaps even increasing population."

Ha ha ha ha. Dont think any comment is necessary? lol.

"If the population actually did decline, as you claim, then go ahead and explain to everyone why it declined in the unit the year after hunters harvested fewer antlerless deer."

The hunters harvested fewer antlerless deer because the herd is smaller! Thats also why the buck harvest has fallen through the floor.

"The only reason for the population to decline following a reduced doe harvest is when there is some form or natural event reducing your deer population."

Is 55,000 tags for several years a "natural occurrence" in your book?? not so much in mine.

"Either way I bet you don’t like the facts of what those two possibilities indicate and will thus deny them."

Not a matter of what i do or dont like. Its a matter of absurdity.

Other things can effect harvests of course. But you need look no further when you have 55,000 antlerless allocations or better for years now. lmao. There is no huge mystery to anyone with one ounce of common sense.

A much larger herd was being reduced in the unit back when reduction was the goal, with many many fewer tags. Now we have half the deer and twice the allocation. lmao. Yep, that'll stabilize the herd, and if it doesnt, it must be something else reducing the numbers. Something other than the 55,000 to now 65000 tags. lmao.