ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

5. The average buck harvest for the eight years prior to last year was 5,453
6. That is a 5% reduction in a year when 3up should have increased the harvest

As RSB just stated = 3 or 5 years groupings of figures are better to use.. and what the PGC uses...

so in the 5 years prior to the 3 up rule the average buck harvest was 5,148 ...last year it was 5,200
an INCREASE....

It's easy to see using the 5 year averages RSB posted that the buck harvest has INCREASED each and every period since 1983 !!!!




Using the 3 years prior to last... YEP ... that shows a totally different picture = those 3 years average was 5,600 because of ONE BANNER year in 2010 (5,900) ... so 2011 is down to 5,200.. kind of naturally in MHO...
not often we get a couple banner years in a row...


It's all in how one looks at the figures and what one used in forming their opinions....

didn't some one just point out how numbers can be used to support one's opinions..
it is all in the point (positive or negative) one decides to use the numbers to support their opinion on ....

ORIGINAL: S-10

Not to belabor the point but since Dardys, RSB, and others brought up the 13% available vs my "added to kill" try this math.

1. 100,000 bucks available prior to the 3up rule.
2. 13,000 additional bucks available as a result of the 3up rule.
3. 80% success rate on the 100,000 available bucks = 80,000
4. 80% success rate on the 13,000 available bucks = 10,400
5. QUESTION--What percent did the addition of the 3up rule have on the total harvest in the 3 up areas.

Added--What would really be interesting would be if RSB would share the actual effect the rule change had. The PGC has those numbers from the checked bucks plus they have it for all the bucks from the harvest reports.

ORIGINAL: fishin coyote

ORIGINAL: RSB


One year of data does not really mean much of anything except that the harvests were off for the year. They might be completely the other direction a year from now. To have any type of indication of what is happening you have to look at harvest trends over at least a three year period and five years is even better.
 
Here are the harvest trends for the counties that make up unit 1A in harvest pre square mile.
 
Period____________Antlered__________Antlerless
83-87_____________2.67______________3.11
88-92_____________3.67______________4.96
93-97_____________3.99______________5.93
98-02_____________4.79______________7.18
03-07_____________2.95______________7.65
08-11_____________2.98______________6.09
 
Based on the harvest history it appears that the goal in 1A was to reduce the deer population and that they most likely succeeded to some limited extent. It appears that they have backed off of the antlerless harvests to some extent and also that the buck harvest trend have remained stable over the past nine years since antler restrictions.
 
But, unit 1A is also constantly losing wildlife habitat to ever increasing urban sprawl so you really should expect to have both increased deer harvests and declining deer populations until that habitat reduction trend turns around.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn Â Ã‚ 

RSB,
Let me 1st state that I don't have boots on the ground in your WMU so I don't pass judgment on it, You don't have your boots on the ground in my WMU but feel that you can put a good PGC spin on the numbers(which by the way you did a good job at)
Lets break it down
1st
Yes 1 yr doesn't mean a thing overall but the PGC sets seasons and allocations on 1 yrs worth of data.

2nd
Any harvest data before AR/HR is worthless in todays discussion

3rd
This is the best one.
Urban sprawl is a problem over the entire state. Yet if your numbers are based on forested sq.miles (which I believe is the way your biologists do it although I may be wrong)then the numbers of sq. miles goes down which inflates the harvest numbers per sq. mile.

Mike