ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: fishin coyote

Was not 99.9% of EHD contained in 2A ? If any did occur in 2B it was along the border with 2A.

Having growed up in the northern section of 2B(Beaver cnty.) with family that own farms the herd is not what it once was. Some due to HR but most due to urban deer eradiction programs instituted in a rural area IMHO.
Mike

Yep. EHD was primarily 2A.  Western Beaver County, southern Washington, northern Greene.

Deer distribution is absolutely a big issue in the 2B. Not just in western Pa but out east as well. It is all about access as those that live here have been saying. 

Agreed. 

The deer disparity across 2B is growing and will continue to grow with 18 weeks of doe hunting focusing pressure in the more accessible, rural portions of 2B. 

You are correct that there is a harvest disparity across unit 2B and I can tell you that there is a lot of effort being put into an evaluation of unit 2B to try to correct some of the issues you and others are bringing up. You will most likely see some changes within the unit for the 2013/14 seasons.
 
But there are disparities within every unit and just making smaller or different shaped units with different boundaries might not result in reducing those harvest disparities, in fact unless there is enough data to support the changes it very well could make it worse instead of better.
 
Change is only a benefit in wildlife management if you have data that supports the change. Making smaller units may just change the confidence variable from where it is now to a lower level and thus more chance for not capturing and recognizing management or population modeling mistakes for a longer period of time.
 
Wildlife management is always, and always will be, a science combined with the art of trying to catch up with what has already occurred. For that reason when you increase the confidence variable you also make it more likely that you will be outside of the best possible management parameters that occur with the increased data that results from a larger unit.
 
With that said I do expect unit 2B is going to see a unit within the unit that better addresses hunter access issues to at least attempt to remove some of the disparity you speak of.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn      

ORIGINAL: wayne c

We will not know what the unit 2A antlerless harvest was for this year for several weeks yet but when the numbers come out we will all have more incite into how much affect the season length and hunter success rate change is from a 12 to 7 day season has on antlerless harvests compared to the allocations.

And how exactly do you think will we know that by looking at one years antlerless harvest??

 
You will know if more licenses and shorter season resulted in more or fewer deer being harvested. You, or at least the professional managers will also be able to evaluate any differences in the hunter success rate.
 
You are also somewhat correct that one-year does not show a trend. But, at least it will give a glimpse into that is likely to be expected for the future.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

You will know if more licenses and shorter season resulted in more or fewer deer being harvested. You, or at least the professional managers will also be able to evaluate any differences in the hunter success rate.

Not likely. In one year alone, there will be no real way to determine what was caused by the season change (if anything) and what was caused by any other factors. Like reduction to the herd from the previous year?? Weather?? Just only to be expected deviation, since even without change each years harvest is naturally gonna be a little higher or a little lower. Very seldom is the "exact" same harvest had two years in a row, even with same season structure and same allocations. Thats why its constantly said how important "trends" are.

You are also somewhat correct that one-year does not show a trend. But, at least it will give a glimpse into that is likely to be expected for the future.

As long as no real decision-making, or significant change is based on that one year. However if they looked at the last several years of "overharvest" I wouldnt be upset or think it unwarranted if they decided to cut back on the allocations a bit.

ORIGINAL: RSB
 
Since the Commission dropped unit 2A from the 12 day to 7 day antlerless season last year the higher allocation consistent with the harvest parameters for the 7 day season was put in place. That higher allocation was simply intended to obtain the same harvest as what would have been obtained with the lower allocation and longer antlerless season.
 

 
Yes. Understand that. You are avoiding the question. You just said the higher allocations were meant to offset a shorter season to obtain the same harvest.
 
I, and others, have been consistantly asking the same question of you. Why in a unit(2A) with a decreasing population, according to the PGC, and a goal of stabilization, according to the PGC, would the PGC set allocations to obtain the same harvest?

well one thing that will be leanred from even a one year change to a 7 days season for does is it can be compared to the other WMU that had that change made in the past... and I doubt the new areas will have any different results..

Each unit isnt the same. You have different access issues, FAR different topography, far different hunter numbers, and WAAAY different allocations, some with 2 or 3 times as many as others, as well as different deer densities... If anyone tells you that each unit would be effected exactly the same with the change, you tell 'em theyre full of it.

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: RSB
 
Since the Commission dropped unit 2A from the 12 day to 7 day antlerless season last year the higher allocation consistent with the harvest parameters for the 7 day season was put in place. That higher allocation was simply intended to obtain the same harvest as what would have been obtained with the lower allocation and longer antlerless season.
 

Yes. Understand that. You are avoiding the question. You just said the higher allocations were meant to offset a shorter season to obtain the same harvest.

I, and others, have been consistantly asking the same question of you. Why in a unit(2A) with a decreasing population, according to the PGC, and a goal of stabilization, according to the PGC, would the PGC set allocations to obtain the same harvest?

Congratulations. You've just earned "thug" status.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: RSB
 
Since the Commission dropped unit 2A from the 12 day to 7 day antlerless season last year the higher allocation consistent with the harvest parameters for the 7 day season was put in place. That higher allocation was simply intended to obtain the same harvest as what would have been obtained with the lower allocation and longer antlerless season.
 

Yes. Understand that. You are avoiding the question. You just said the higher allocations were meant to offset a shorter season to obtain the same harvest.

I, and others, have been consistantly asking the same question of you. Why in a unit(2A) with a decreasing population, according to the PGC, and a goal of stabilization, according to the PGC, would the PGC set allocations to obtain the same harvest?

Congratulations. You've just earned "thug" status.

 
Next he'll have to "deal" with you.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Another one added to the list of folks growing tired of the same old retoric on topic after topic in spite of overwhelming evidence that proves him wrong. Welcome

 
On the particular case of 2A, I do strongly believe he is incorrect.  I wouldn't characterize it that I disagree with him on "topic after topic". I appreciate that he takes the time to post here.

I suppose it's just part of that social media stuff they have said they were getting into.

I really enjoy following the PGC on twitter. They put some really cool links/photos/info/stories on there.

Ironhed