crunching numbers

Kinzua Quality
Deer Cooperative
McKean County
Infrared Aerial Deer Survey
2006

This area is part of the Kinzua Quality Deer Cooperative, where landowners and hunters are working cooperatively to benefit the forest habitat and the local community. Extensive studies are being done to document responses in habitat health and the deer herd to management practices. Deer were distributed more evenly across this area than on most state forestland surveyed. This is most likely because of the less mountainous topography typical of the Allegheny Plateau and more consistent forest habitat. Deer densities averaged around 10 per square mile, with maximum concentrations of 16 to 17. Most deer were observed along drainages.




Area
Acres
Sq. Miles
Date
Completed
Deer Seen
Avg. Deer /
Sq. Mile
Highest
Density

KQDC North
14,163
22.13
7-Apr-06
191
8.63
16

KQDC South
17,589
27.48
7-Apr-06
283
10.30
17
 
YEP--that's what happens--look at the numbers for the 70,000 acre area both the PGC and DCNR were hyping as the best example of the corect way to manage deer. Average of 9.5 per sq. mile and falling, that's why the PGC changed from claiming 18-20 dpsm was ideal and started using criteria that would make any number the correct one.

what i don't understand is if there wern't hunters killing thousands of deer a year than what would happen? they would keep reproducing and when there wasn't enough habitat the reproducing would slow down steading itself right?

LUNCH TIME !!!!!

its probly different in 2f than here in mercer county because it seems like we should be able to support a bigger herd theres a ton of corn soy bean and other stuff the farmers grow and seems like theres a ton of apples and acorns on the ground  so what i'm tryen to get to is do you think the farmers complaining play a bigger role in this area then the accual forest since most of there feeding is on there crops

sugar..
 
Mercer County is an interesting study....
 
Since Mercer county and Lawercne make up most of WMU 1A
 
 I took Mercer and Lawernce and added their total deer harvest prior to HR/AR
together and compared that to the WMUs harvest figures the PPGC is now using....
 
That is one area that has NOT shown a DRASTIC reduction in harvested deer... so you may be right the habitat both ag and forest must be supporting about the same number of deer.. at least based on harvest figures...

As for the infra-red... and you know this too because Merlin Brenner of DCNR was active in posting on my board about those studies and I am sure you read his comments..

Sure did----It's interesting that the company doing the survey claims 90/95 % accuracy, the western states that have used it believe it is 85/95 accurate and the DCNR claims it as low as 50% after they found out it wasn't showing the number of deer they had been telling everyone there were out there. There are also some claims the pilot was told to fly over a deer farm and add those to the count. Hummmm

It's interesting that the company doing the survey claims 90/95 & accuracy,

 
That claim means only one thing....
 
The results are 90-95% accurate that that is how many deer were THERE at that time in the area that the infra-red picked up..... It in no way meams that they are 90/95% accurate that's how many deer are in that entire forest.. WMU... or even on that farm.... that's what the infra-red showed where it was pointed...
 
so that 90% COULD MEAN THEY MISSED ONE..  instead of  10 in that area there were 11.....
 
Making way to much out of that study...IMHO

You keep trying to defend them don't you. If you remember the reason they decided to do the infra red study was because there were so many critics of their claims of lots of deer based on their pellet count. Many people said the pellet count was flawed and could be manuplated by counting in wintering areas or near crop fields. The PGC/DCNR said the infra red study would confirm their pellet count numbers. Well guess what---the infra red study showed there to be only about half the number of deer they claimed.  So being the slippery politicans they are they discreated the infra study---HOW - by citing as proof the very pellet counts the critics were questioning to begin with and claiming the infra red study to be off by as much as 50%.