( If you understood your Biometrician correctly)

Gotta remember to take into account that biometrician is ROSENBERRY. The man left to replace and carry on Alts legacy.

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.

Are you really saying DR. R. chose a method of evaluating the data in such a way as to misrepresent the true statewide breeding rates which shows no improvement due ARs or HR?Can you explain why he would have chose that method when he could have simple added the breeding rates for each WMU and divided by 22. This very simple method totally eliminates the effects shifts in sample size in various WMUs?

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.

You proved that you don't even have a basic understanding of how to analyze data when you claimed that since we harvested 80% of our buck before ARs, in order to improve the B/D ratio we would have to harvest 80% of the adult doe. If that were true, for every adult buck that was harvested hunters would harvest two adult doe, with a 1:2 adult B/D ratio. The truth is that a harvest ratio of 1 buck to 1.5 antlerless deer not only reduces the herd but keeps the B/D ratio stable.

I guess I was on pg#5 and was refering to the chart that RSB put in. Showing the highest number of record book bucks
were shot in the 1941-1950 decade.

ORIGINAL: S-10

RSB---For four years of my working career I made my living as a data analyist and what your saying ( If you understood your Biometrician correctly) really does not make sense. First, to give more weight to a particular WMU simply because you took more samples defeats the purpose of taking samples across the WMU's. EX. You have 22 WMU's, you take 110 samples in one and 5 in each of the others, in your example the one would carry more weight than all the others together and the data would be truly worthless. If you gave equal weight to each WMU regardless of sample size (as you should) then if there was an increase or decrease in breeding rates it would show in the statewide data and the results would be more reliable. The situation your describing would make the results totally reliant on where the samples were taken and would be totally unreliable. Are you sure you understood him correctly?

 
The statewide data is used for absolutely nothing when it comes to the deer management program and is simply shown as a public interest number. The data used to manage the deer populations is from the individual WMUs. The Wildlife Management Institute reviewed that WMU management data and made some recommendations for further improvement in sample and data collection.
 
The deer management program for each WMU is both valid and comparable. But, the fact still remains that comparisons from the past to the present statewide breeding and reproductive data are not of any importance in deer management even if the data comparison didn’t represent a level of bias.
 
And, yes I understood him correctly; making sure of that was why I asked the question to begin with.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

When the PGC put out the statewide data to the various interested parties did it come with the disclaimer that it was virtually useless for any comparison and had a bias in the calculation or was the public left to discover that themselves the way we just did?

WOW =====

the last time the record book bucks average antler size was bigger than it has been since AR started was in the 1940s...

INTERESTING..

so ARs must be leading to the average buck going into the book since AR having bigger antlers... thus bigger bucks since AR ... right ???

NOw who was it that said we would have some bigger bucks in Pa because of letting them live longer and getting bigger... Gary somebody from the PGC .. back in 2001 if I recall correctly ???

Since the WMUS didn’t exist before 2003 it would be impossible to make a comparison by WMU instead of simply comparing the statewide data from before to afte

That simply is not true since the PGC obviously has the data regarding the location of each doe checked and that data could be used to calculate the breeding rates for each WMU going back to the 1980s. They did it for deer densities going back to 1999.

There is no intent to hide anything. Since people have asked for the data, from before to since herd reductions and antler restrictions, it has been released, as statewide data, because that was the only comparable format in existence.

If there was a significant improvement in breeding rates anywhere in the state the PGC would surely point to these areas as proof that ARs and HR produced the predicted results. Instead they seem to do everything they can possibly do to hide the breeding rate data for adult doe by reporting embryos/doe instead , while only reporting breeding rates/WMU for fawns.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

WOW =====

the last time the record book bucks average antler size was bigger than it has been since AR started was in the 1940s...

INTERESTING..

so ARs must be leading to the average buck going into the book since AR having bigger antlers... thus bigger bucks since AR ... right ???

NOw who was it that said we would have some bigger bucks in Pa because of letting them live longer and getting bigger... Gary somebody from the PGC .. back in 2001 if I recall correctly ???

 
Doc,
 
While you are jumping up and down about this data, please consider some of the following:
 
Do you think it was more likely for people to have their antlers measured in 1910 when most people did not have cars to travel to do so than in the period 2001 to 2007 when most households have multiple cars?  That would be like saying air travel is less safe in 2010 because X number of people have died in airplane crashes than did previous to when the Wright brothers flew.  Your point would be correct, but thinking would be flawed.
 
Do you think it was more likely for people to have their antlers measured in the 1920's, 1930's during the depression?  I mean it was probably more important to have your name in a record book than it was to have a deer to eat.  Right?
 
Do you think it was more likely for people to get their antlers measured during WWII because getting into the record book was more important than the war effort for those that were not in the service?
 
Do you think it was easier to harvest a deer, any deer, let alone a record book buck in the 1960's when more than likely half or more of the rifle hunters used open sights vs. today's modern optics?
 
How likely do you think someone was to drive during the gas shortage in the 1970's to get their antlers measured?
 
 
Do you think that the influence of TV shows that measure success now by antler measurement have any bearing on whether antlers get measured or not?  I recall the progression of what was deemed being a successful hunter over the last 40 years .  First it was "I got a deer."  Then it was "I got a buck."  Then it became "I got an X-point buck."  That was followed by "I got an X-point buck and it was Y-wide."  And now its "I got an x-point buck and it measured XYZ."  In order to provide evidence that "my hunting show is better than your hunting show" which translates directly into sponsorship dollars, show producers had to up the ante because seeing 10 point after 10 point killed, without some criteria to show that one was better than the other, made one show just like the others and they were losing market share.
 
How many sets of antlers from 1910 until 2000, when measuring antlers became all the vogue (ask your older customers if they ever heard of having a deer measured before 2000), are in the basement, garage, or were thrown away because antlers didn't make the deer, antlers made the deer legal.
 
Do you think that the upswing in archery hunting, and I don't mean licenses sold, I mean the amount of hours put in, the modern equipment including compounds, trail cameras, advanced camo, scent technologies, better information, etc., along with a 6 week season have any bearing on the number of record buck bucks harvested?
 
Do you think the upswing in private ground hunting, leasing, installation of food plots that provide as good or better nutrition that most cattle get has anything to do with increased record book buck size?
 
Everything has a context.  That is why when real DOE (design of experiment) are conducted, there is a single variable changed and a consistent control each time.  In this case there are so many variables that no conclusions can be made.
 
And lastly do you think that having 167 record book entries that measure less than three inches bigger on average (could you tell a difference of three total B&C or P&Y inches at 100 yards, 50 yards, 20 yards, or even in your hands without a tape measure and a score card?) over a nine year period (that's less than 17 per year) is a worthwhile balance to over 7.5 million hunters that hunted during those same nine years?  In other words, do you think that the 99.9978% of hunters that didn't put a buck in the record books give two shakes about the 0.00002% that did?
 
Do you think that less than 3 inches in record book size average was worthwhile to those that didn't kill a buck at all because they did not see one?  Do you think it was worthwhile to those that would have killed a buck under the old rules but in the name of bigger bucks, about 3 inches bigger in combination of length, width, and diameter (so more than likely less than an inch in any one measurement), now kill about 50% of what they did as little as 10 years ago?
 
Ask the hunter that previously killed a buck every year, every other year, or even every 5th year that now kills one every 7 years or has not killed one since the second year of AR, how important those almost 3 inches of record book average are to them.

The 2006 and 2007 slight decrease in antler mass could signal a trend but it is way too early to say that. As stated, 2001 and 2002 bucks were a product of conditions prior to AR/HR.

But doesn't three years of decreased rack sizes after 2004 tell us something, considering that the 2.5 bucks that survived during 2002 and 2003 should have been reaching maturity from 2005 to 2007? Wouldn't one expect the average rack size of our largest buck to be increasing during this period?

Deerfly--3 years of decreasing antler mass could portray a trend (especially when other states have documented a decrease as a result of AR)but most number crunchers would tell you that there are too many variables (weather,mast crop, etc)that could skew the numbers when there is such a small number of deer and short timeframe being considered. If the trend continued awhile longer then there is real cause for concern but it is just too soon to make that distinction. One thing you can take from the charts is taking the numbers from previous decades and projecting them forward this decade should have seen a significant increase in large bucks without AR/HR both in number and antler size.

Dr Rosenberry did start by saying in Pa.... which to me means state-wide... ??

Would you prefer that he would have said NY or NJ? If there was a significant improvement in breeding rates as RSB claims,why wouldn't Dr. R. point to those increases to show how ARs produced the predicted results. Instead he said their was no significant change,which means he couldn't cite any WMU's where significant improvement occurred.

Since ARs were implement statewide in 2004, there should have been an improvement in the breeding rates in every WMU if the lack of enough buck was the reason for the pre-AR breeding rates and if that happened the statewide average would have increased despite any shift in sample size or location. Furthermore, by using the correct method for analyzing the data ,one can entirely eliminate the effects of those changes and I am sure Dr. R. was smart enough to do just that.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Since the WMUS didn’t exist before 2003 it would be impossible to make a comparison by WMU instead of simply comparing the statewide data from before to afte

That simply is not true since the PGC obviously has the data regarding the location of each doe checked and that data could be used to calculate the breeding rates for each WMU going back to the 1980s. They did it for deer densities going back to 1999.

There is no intent to hide anything. Since people have asked for the data, from before to since herd reductions and antler restrictions, it has been released, as statewide data, because that was the only comparable format in existence.

If there was a significant improvement in breeding rates anywhere in the state the PGC would surely point to these areas as proof that ARs and HR produced the predicted results. Instead they seem to do everything they can possibly do to hide the breeding rate data for adult doe by reporting embryos/doe instead , while only reporting breeding rates/WMU for fawns.

 
Perhaps there haven’t been any units with significant improvement though there certainly have been areas of units with significant improvement. Should the better management objectives be scraped because they haven’t resulted in huge improvement? I think we should be happy with even moderate improvements in the results.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Is that a diplomatic way of saying that your personal observations showed a significant improvement in your area ,but that you can't document a similar improvement in other districts? Was elk Co. the only area in the state where there weren't enough buck to breed the doe?

 
There has been improvement in many areas of the state. Elk county is just one of the many areas with improvement.
 
There are also many habitat related improvements that anyone with a reasonable knowledge of both the before and after can readily see. Hunters and other outdoor oriented people are also talking about seeing more deer than during the past few years so it seems the deer management program is working as intended for a brighter future for the deer, their food supply and ultimately also the hunters.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

"There has been improvement in many areas of the state. Elk county is just one of the many areas with improvement."

Aint too many, or the overall average wouldve had no choice but to improve.

"There are also many habitat related improvements that anyone with a reasonable knowledge of both the before and after can readily see."

Audit didnt see it that way. They said statewide regeneration actual declined slightly. IF im not mistaken dcnr isnt exactly tickled pink with the results thusfar either.

"Hunters and other outdoor oriented people are also talking about seeing more deer than during the past few years so it seems the deer management program is working as intended for a brighter future for the deer, their food supply and ultimately also the hunters."

I guess then you didnt buy pgcs excuse about the weather causing the low harvests the last few years? Because if you did, you wouldnt say the herd would be in your opinion increasing due to "the deer management plan working" instead. So now the weather, which was pgcs excuse the last few years for low harvest, ISNT responsible? If it were responsible for the lower harvests, then it would also directly responsible for any increase in the deer herd due to more surviving and more to be seen this year as you suggest.

On the other hand, Im not hearing alot of people saying they are having deer sightings that are out of line with the usual of the last 2 or 3 years around here anyway. Seeing some deer. Nothing out of the modern day norm. Though i certainly cannot vouch for your area.

Well said, DarDys.I can't even imagine an argument for that statement....WF