ORIGINAL: DarDys

RSB,

First, you seem to be taking a little bit of a beating here.  Sorry for that.  Those that watch this board just tend to be very passionate about the subject.

That being written. I do have a question for you.  In a post above you state:

"that still doesn’t negate the fact that it still leaves a shortage of breeding mature bucks to accomplish the breeding during the correct time period the following year"

If I am not mistaken, in the video put out by the PGC to help sell AR, there was a statement that "90% of does in PA are successfully bred."  Since that is kennel like success on breeding percentage, how does that square with your statement that there is a shortage of breeding mature bucks?  With that type of success, it seems that some buck is taking the plunge.

 
Actually it was that about 90% of the ADULT does were being bred statewide prior to antler restrictions. Typically about 30% of the statewide juvenile does examined each spring had been bred prior to antler restrictions. Both of those statewide averages had great variation across the state depending on the state of the habitat and the buck/doe ratio, which was pretty much only affected by the previous antlerless harvest rates before antler restrictions.
 
There were areas of the state, like here in Elk County where only about 80-85% of the adult does were bred at all during most years. That is a horrible adult doe breeding rate. In fact even 90% is horrible for an adult breeding rate. Very nearly 100% of the adult does should be bred provided there are enough bucks to get them bred.
 
What might have been even worse though is the fact that it was taking over five months to get even 85% of the adult does bred. They should all be bred in about three weeks but weren’t because there simply weren’t enough bucks to get all of the does cycling at the same time bred during their first, second or even third estrus cycle. That then lead to lower fawn recruitment rates and even more late fawns being born that could reach breeding maturity their first year or possibly even survive through their first winter.
 
Since antler restrictions the ADULT doe breeding rates in my district have increase from an average of 84.4% bred over five months before antler restriction to where 96.9% have been bred since antler restrictions and the breeding cycle has been reduced to less than six weeks to get all of them bred. Even the few juvenile does we have had bred since antler restrictions have all been inside that six week window. The other interesting thing is that none of them have been bred later than the middle of December where before antler restrictions it was taking until the end of February to get even 80-85 % of the adult does bred.
 
Though the statewide data has shown little change in the adult breeding rates and mean (middle of the breeding season) I can say with absolute certainty that the combination of antler restrictions and bring the deer herd into closer balance with food supply has had a very positive affect on the deer in this area of the state. That is also a positive for the future of deer hunting in this part of the state, even though many hunters fail to understand some of the basic principles of just how nature, correct balances of bucks and does, habitat and deer populations all work hand in hand. If one is out of balance it affects everything else, too.
 
R.S Bodenhorn

I sure don't understand how you can interpet the charts you posted the way you do. The second lowest antler average was in 2005 and except for a couple ( one before AR and one since) they are all in a fairly narrow window indicating 150 +or- a couple inches is about the max we can expect in Pa for an average regardless where they are taken from. It was that way in the beginning and is still that way. Interesting that as the numbers of entries increased after 1960 so did the antler size somewhat. Most folks would agree that the 1960's and 1970's were not the best for good bucks but even then the average antler size was within 99% of what it is now with many more entries as it stands now.

I never heard of the breeding lasting anywhere near 5 months....
That's a pretty long rut.....
 
I would like to see data to back that claim up...

Thank you...
 
Now could you explain to me how you do not hunt rutting bucks as you have stated before..
Actually you ridiculed me for even suggesting such a thing...
Better wipe that piece of egg of your face....

I have claimed I do not target bucks as a whole... that is not the same as I will not shoot a buck if it happens by... and yes there is a chance that if one does come by he may be chasing a doe..

and I have not archery hunted in years so that rules out hunting bucks in the prime of the rut..in rifle season one may come by that is or is not looking for ruting action... that's all I meant...

Therefore, if the PGC wanted to increase recruitment all they have to do is decrease the antlerless allocations and the result would be that the sustainable harvests would increase significantly.

That sounds like an opinion to me.. do you have real data to support that claim ????

My opinion would be that by decreasing the allocations you would possibly increase the number of both adult and fawn females... thus allowing bucks to continue to bred into December and January maybe even more in February ..

common sense tells me if there are more females and fewer bucks now that hunting is over, what bucks are left will have more females to breed later into the new year... which I believe is part of what RSB was trying to say...

"My opinion would be that by decreasing the allocations you would possibly increase the number of both adult and fawn females... thus allowing bucks to continue to bred into December and January maybe even more in February .."

1. Breeding in Pa according to pgcs data was never a problem.
2. More doe would also equate to more buck existing to do the breeding! Especially since ar is in place. The data had shown that even prior to ar it was not a problem at all, and now with it, there is absolutely not even a figment of concern for it. Seems to be a 100% nonissue other than being made an issue as topic of discussion on message boards.

"common sense tells me if there are more females and fewer bucks now that hunting is over, what bucks are left will have more females to breed later into the new year... which I believe is part of what RSB was trying to say..."

That doesnt compute. You would have both more females AND more males. By increasing the doe herd, you are also increasing the buck populatin by more being born and more becoming adult breeding buck. There are no breeding issues and noting pgc seems to be concerned about, nor do i. And that was also the case BEFORE reduction was completed, or can even be argued before any of these "changes".

That sounds like an opinion to me.. do you have real data to support that claim.

Yes I do!! In 1998 the antlerless harvest was only 196K and in 1999 it was 184k. According to the PGC those reduced antlerless rates produced a 20% increase in the herd and as a result the buck harvest increased from 177K in 1997 to 203K in 2000.

oe harvests and it will shorten the breeding season ??????

I didn't say that reducing the antlerless allocations would shorten the breeding season. What I said was reducing the antlerless allocation would increase recruitment and that is what the reduced antlerless harvests in 98 and (( produced.

The length of the breeding season hasn't changed since 2000, so the decreasing the doe population had no effect on the breeding window.

My point was that if more bucks survived the hunting season or lasted longer into mid december (thru archery season and rifle )that would shorten the breeding period. More bucks around to breed remaining females during December rather than Jan or Feb..

but pa hunters are good (thus 80%) and that IMHO... is the main reason breeding season has not changed over the years. To many does for too few bucks in mid december...so breeding contiues late into December.. Jan or Feb...

ORIGINAL: S-10

RSB--- If most areas of the ANF can't support deer numbers greater than the 8-10 dpsm now explain how they managed to support them right up until the day the PGC started AR/HR. Both the constant deer harvest and record book shows that in fact the forest had been and still was supporting the 20+ dpsm all through the 90's even after the timbering stopped.

 
Once an area is clear-cut it typically regenerates to the point it will support about 60-80 deer per square mile through the winter. That is somewhat contingent upon the winter conditions and if the cut is where deer can use it during harsh winters. But with the amount of cutting the ANF was doing (about 65 million board feet per year) prior to 1994 (when the Allegheny Defense Project stopped the cutting) there was a lot of good habitat for deer all summer and even into the winter.
 
To put it in perspective and Allegheny Defense Project court injunctions resulted in not just the elimination of clear-cutting but also almost nearly all timbering. By 1999 the ANF was down to removing less than 2 million board feet and that was nearly all blow down or other salvage cutting. Even though the cutting stopped in 1994 many of the previous clear-cuts were already more than ten years old and about to reach the pole timber stage, that supports very few deer.
 
A clear-cut will have that high over winter deer benefit ability as long as it is within the reach of the deer. But a clear-cut typically out grows the ability of deer being able to reach the browse after about 12-15 years. With no now cuts to replace those older cuts the deer populations started to slowly decline from about 1994 on. But, the really harsh reality of it didn’t come along until about eight to ten years after all cutting had been stopped. That is why the ANF deer populations seemed to crash about the same time there was an attempt to reduce the deer populations.
 
In fact, the professional deer managers, of both the ANF and Game Commission, recognized the fact that the habitat across the ANF has rapidly declining, with the loss of the clear-cutting, and knew the deer populations were going to decline with or without hunting. They made the wiser decision of allowing hunters to reduce the deer instead of allowing them to starve to death.
 
It is important for hunters to look at all of the factors that affect deer populations, what changes are occurring with the habitat and even the other environmental factors, such as mast production and winter conditions instead of just assuming that any decline in deer numbers was because hunters shot too many does. That isn’t the only thing that affects deer numbers. In fact, often in habitat limited areas the deer numbers will actually improve more when hunters harvest more deer than they do when hunters harvest fewer deer.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn       

ORIGINAL: deerfly

You are correct that I was wrong. I didn’t read the entire Wallingford comment that represented the data as being post season. I read the first sentence where it said pre-season and used that to calculate. That was my mistake, but that still doesn’t negate the fact that it still leaves a shortage of breeding mature bucks to accomplish the breeding during the correct time period the following year.

There you go again attempting to intentionally mislead readers of this MB. In the very article this thread is about, Dr. R. stated that,

" In PA most adult does are bred in mid-Nov. and sexually mature female fawns tend to peak about two weeks later. Other aspects of the breeding ecology ,such as pregnancy rates and embryo counts, have also remained at stable and healthy levels.
Based on these data,it appears APRs did not significantly change the timing of breeding in PA."

Furthermore, since no one knows the percentage of fawns that reach sexual maturity each year, it is impossible to calculate the percentage of female fawns that should be bred that aren't bred, so you are no factual data to support your claim that there weren't enough buck to breed the fawns before APRs. Furthermore, since fawn breeding rates did not increase significantly after APRs were implemented, proves beyond a doubt your theory was wrong but you still persist in pushing a theory that has no basis in fact.

 
First of all no one has ever disputed that most of the adult does were bred in November. Since the timing of the rut in northern areas of the white-tail range are influenced by the amount of daylight the mean date for white-tail breeding is probably never going to change much at all.
 
But, that certainly doesn’t mean there was and is no room for improvement or reason to make improvements in both the adult buck/doe ratio and also breeding rates. Doctor Rosenberry is only reporting on the statewide data. That is certainly no indication there has not been improvement in many areas of the state. In some of the areas the improvement has been very significant.
 
As for your comments about how many fawns are bred, that isn’t even the issue except for you wanting to use it as a red herring. The problem has never been about how many fawns were or were not bred. The entire issue and concern has been that in many areas of the state many ADULT does were not being bred at all and of those that were it was spread out over way beyond the correct breeding window.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Since antler restrictions the ADULT doe breeding rates in my district have increase from an average of 84.4% bred over five months before antler restriction to where 96.9% have been bred since antler restrictions and the breeding cycle has been reduced to less than six weeks to get all of them bred.

If that were true , it would mean that adult doe breeding rates in another district would have had to decrease by 12.5% in order to keep the statewide breeding rates stable. Can you explain why AR s would produce such a significant increase in Elk while resulting in a large decrease in another district?

The antler buck survey in 2001 showed that 40% of the bucks surveyed were 2.5+ buck ,so there were more than enough buck prior to ARs to breed the fawns that achieved sexual maturity,so why would adding a few more buck produce a significant change in the fawn breeding rates or the length of the breeding window? Furthermore, if ARs produced such a dramatic improvement in Elk , why didn't Dr. R . point to that data to show ARs had a positive effect in some areas ,but not others? Also, can you explain why you are the only one reporting such significant improvement in breeding rates and the breeding window and can you explain why it isn't happening in the rest of the state?

BTW, and adult doe breeding rate of 90% is considered to be very good rate and an indication of good herd health which is why herd health has been rated as good for many years.

The breeding rates wouldn’t have to decline in any WMU for the breeding rates to have improved in some units even while the statewide breeding rates showed no change. But, with that said yes there actually were a couple units that showed some slight decline after the early years of herd reduction but that appeared to be from a major reduction in the sample size of the units with the decline
 
What actually happened was that for many year the southwest and southeast counties and units had the state’s highest road kill does being examined for breeding and embryo data. Since those areas with the most road kills also had the highest breeding and reproductive rates in the state they heavily influenced the breeding and reproductive rate averages for the entire state. Meanwhile the more rural, mountainous and poor habitat areas of the state had far fewer road killed deer to sample even though those they were sampling had much lower breeding and reproductive rates.
 
About the same time (starting in 2000 and 2001 and increasing every year since) the WCOs in most of the counties that made up the southeast and southwest counties quit handling road killed deer and recovering breeding and reproductive data due to PennDOT contracting it out to the private sector. Since those areas had once had both the highest number of statewide data samples and best breeding rates the shift in sample size and location to where the north central and northeast part of the state (areas with traditionally lowest breeding and reproductive rates) were providing a higher percentage of the samples then they previous had. That is why the statewide data remained relatively unchanged even though most areas and WMU of the state did experience improvement in their breeding rates.
 
But, you already knew that because I have provided both the explanation and supporting data for you in the past. But it doesn’t fit your agenda so you dismiss it.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The breeding rates wouldn’t have to decline in any WMU for the breeding rates to have improved in some units even while the statewide breeding rates showed no change. But, with that said yes there actually were a couple units that showed some slight decline after the early years of herd reduction but that appeared to be from a major reduction in the sample size of the units with the decline

That makes absolutely no sense. Just because the sample size decreased in some units doesn't mean there would be a decrease in the breeding rates. Besides, if the lack of sufficient buck was the reason why the breeding rates weren't higher before ARs, the breeding rates should have increased significantly in every WMU. Also, remember that the PGC is using 2 year averages to offset any effect of smaller sample sizes.

About the same time (starting in 2000 and 2001 and increasing every year since) the WCOs in most of the counties that made up the southeast and southwest counties quit handling road killed deer and recovering breeding and reproductive data due to PennDOT contracting it out to the private sector. Since those areas had once had both the highest number of statewide data samples and best breeding rates the shift in sample size and location to where the north central and northeast part of the state (areas with traditionally lowest breeding and reproductive rates) were providing a higher percentage of the samples then they previous had. That is why the statewide data remained relatively unchanged even though most areas and WMU of the state did experience improvement in their breeding rates.

Unless you can prove that the PGC calculates statewide breeding rates by dividing the total number of doe that were bred by the total number of doe that were checked your explanation is totally meaningless and irrelevant If they calculate the % bred in each WMU, which they do, and then add them together and divide by 22 WMUs in order to get the statewide average, then the changes in sample size would have absolutely zero effect on the statewide breeding rate.

 
I will tell you that I asked the State’s Biometrician that very question, about why the statewide data had declined, during an in-house deer management meeting. He very clearly explained it, using supporting sample size data, that it was because of that shift in where across the state the samples came from over the years.
 
It also does actually make perfect sense to people who truly understand data analysis. I would have to say either you don’t truly understand data analysis or you are simply trying to minimize those factors because they don’t support your arguments and agenda.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

Lemme see if i get this right, from what im taking from current discussion, is that sample totals in areas may have shifted. The data shows the same statewide average breeding rates as previous....

Regardless of what area did what.... Despite the statewide reductions... We STILL have the same statewide breeding averages... There isnt a whole lot of ways to hide that under the rug or to sugar coat it. And its presented in a manner intended to be compared in the annual reports. No asterisks...no foot notes...no disclaimers. Just a chart with all the years listed in a straight up 'meant to be compared' manner.

Fact is, nothing changed because nothing was wrong in the first place. 10 years of pgc data show that to be the case. Or at the very least, if you believe pgc regen, herd health etc. data is insufficient as the audit claimed, then what you have is a very extreme decade old deer plan based on absolutely nothing. Which not coincidentally runs congruent 100% with the assessments of the highly accredited Dr. Eveland in the other thread.