You do know that's a 25 year time span ... and that's only an additional 49,000 bucks...who's to say how many will be killed in 2035 .. 25 years from now...????

Maybe 49,000 more than this year ???

In fact I would not be surprised that we could get an extra 49,000 bucks killed just by dropping ARs for a year....

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The point I was making is that the experts told the hunters the habitat couldn't support any more deer and if the herd was allowed to increase they would destroy the forests ,the deer would be unhealthy and in the future we would have even fewer deer. However, over the next 25 years the herd increased from 18 DPSM to 45 DPSM, and the amount of forested acreage continued to increase. Which means the hunters were right and the experts were wrong. Furthermore, the data on breeding rates proved that todays experts were wrong just like the experts in 1950.

 
I don’t think the harvest history data for the tradition north central deer range supports those estimated deer densities you like to hang on to or your opinions about the deer/habitat relationship.
 
It appears to me that just what the experts warned of happening when you carry too many deer for too long end up just the way they said it would, with damaged habitat and crashed deer populations.
 
When I get the time I will post the harvest history for the north central counties that support that fact.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

It appears to me that just what the experts warned of happening when you carry too many deer for too long end up just the way they said it would, with damaged habitat and crashed deer populations.

I think we all agree that if we have too many deer for too long the herd will eventually crash. But, the question remains as to how many deer the habitat can support and for how long and who gets to decide that number will be. Even the PGC can't seem to make up their mind since they changed the DD goals within just a few years after they established the new DDs goals in DPSM.

Furthermore, despite more than 70 years of much higher DDs than the PGC claims the habitat can support 2F and 2G are still 90% forested and the habitat can still support more than 20 DPSM on a sustainable basis.

On page 19 of this link you can see the population trends for the deer in the NC counties.

http://deerandforests.org/resources/Deer%20Carrying%20Capacity.pdf

I am glad to hear you admit that the habitat can control the number of deer an area can sustain.
 
The link you posted might be reasonably accurate for the various time periods within the Allegheny National Forest, which is there the link references, but it is not a good representation of the deer densities across most of the north central and traditional big woods deer range. Most of the north central deer range has had a problem of the deer populations declining for a long, long time when you look at the harvest history facts.
 
Actually the real experts in deer management in 1950 were proven to be very much correct even though standing up for what was right for the deer and their habitat did cost at least one of them his position with the Game Commission.

I don’t think there is any question that if the hunters and the Game Commission had listened to Dr. Latham and followed his management direction back in the 1950’s we would have a lot more deer in the northern tier now that we do.

As for the history of the north central you are talking about I am very aware of the real facts of the hunter reported harvest history of the area and will post them fro all to see.

Here are the facts as to how many bucks hunters reported having harvested over the years in the counties that make up the heart of the northcentral. All data is in harvests per square mile based on how many bucks the hunters reported harvesting.

Years……Cameron………Clinton…….Clearfield……Centre……..Elk……..McKean 


15-19………0.20………….0.20…………0.16…………0.14………0.07……..0.00
20-24………0.49………….0.40…………0.50…………0.43………0.30……..0.07
25-29………1.09………….0.87…………1.00…………0.97………0.69……..0.15
30-34………2.58………….1.95…………0.88…………1.67………1.82……..0.90
35-39………1.97………….1.39…………0.60…………1.32………1.96……..1.86
40-44………2.39………….1.77…………1.09…………1.50………2.39……..2.15
45-49………2.01………….1.33…………1.05…………1.34………2.56……..2.19
50-54………2.14………….1.22…………1.21…………1.27………1.99……..1.43
55-59………1.88………….1.40…………1.26…………1.68………2.05……..1.43
60-64………1.66………….1.39…………1.41…………1.51………1.56……..1.11
65-69………2.78………….1.93…………2.23…………2.30………2.46……..1.95
70-74………1.84………….1.30…………1.91…………1.43………1.91……..2.06
75-79………2.64………….1.85…………1.76…………1.68………1.73……..1.96
80-84………2.09………….1.61…………1.80…………1.71………1.74……..2.03
85-89………2.45………….1.80…………2.20…………2.28………1.98……..2.14
90-94………1.55………….1.11…………2.05…………1.80………1.59……..1.71
95-99………1.57………….1.09…………1.97…………1.72………1.45……..1.57

Though there have been changes in the hunter reporting rates it would be highly unlikely that the reporting rates declined enough over the years to account for the estimated deer population increases you claim occurred.

I think it is pretty clear that the deer populations in much of the north central peeked in the 30s and 40s. Some areas the populations appear to have peeked in the late 60s and then started to decline. I suspect that was largely due to the differences in when the forests out grew their deer herds but the fact remains that the deer populations obviously started to decline.

That evidence alone seems to disprove your opinion that the deer herd improved in the years following the 1950’s deer management professionals pointing out the follies of keeping too many deer. But, there is even more evidence that proves they were correct when you look at what happened with the quality of the bucks that were being harvested across the time periods of the north central.   

Here are the historic record book buck data for the north central region of the state.
 
Time period…………..# of entries…………..average inches of antler


Pre 1921………………..5………………………..153.175
1921-1930……………..36……………………….154.000
1931-1940……………..39……………………….151.920
1941-1950……………..24……………………….152.563
1951-1960……………..17……………………….151.618
1961-1970……………..17……………………….149.309
1971-1980………………7……………………….145.107
1981-1990……………..20……………………….146.344
1991-2000……………..19……………………….147.756
2001-2007……………..15……………………….146.592

Notice how the number of record book bucks started to decline the forties and continued that downward trend until the 1980s when the first real attempts were made to bring the deer populations back into the limits of the habitat? Notice how not only the number of bucks making the book declined but how the antler size of the entries also declined?
 
Those are all more than just indications but pretty good evidence that the deer herd was in a rather slow but steady state of crashing in the north central since the 1940. It all turned out pretty much the way those expert deer managers said it was going to go if hunters didn’t allow management and hunter harvests that brought the deer herd into balance with the existing habitat. It appears to me that Latham was right after all.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

Actually, on the deer taken per sq mile, if you calculate the numbers taken per square mile in the fifties and read the games news at the time where the PGC claims approx a 55% reporting rate and compare to the 90's where the PGC claims a approx 40% reporting rate and do the math you will find the result a bit different than you state. I believe they are now claiming a 38% reporting rate. As you stated, in the 80's was the first real attempt to reduce the herd which would account for the slightly larger kill in the 80's and slightly smaller kill in the 90's but I think your trying to read something into that chart that isn't there. That's what happens as a result of changing the variables in the calculation Ex- 55% to 40% harvest reporting rate and going from counting actual report cards to estimating kill numbers.

There was a buck killed in Mckean county in 1905 that measured 185.1. If you take that buck out of the mix and average the rest the average drops to 145.193.

On the same note .. what happens if I take out the smallest buck for the period since AR.. the average would go up ...

so what's your point ???

RSB posted what he has... the averages .. they are what they are..

the average is in the 140's to 150's

right.. and in 2006 and 2008 .. 2F had two entries that were 174+

plus we have the Pisarchick buck (170+) from last year that will be in there at some point...

so I'll wait a few more years to see what another scoring session or two has to say about the years since AR/HR... especially when dealing with averages for size comparison...

I'll still base most of my opinions on what other hunters are telling me and what I hear from local taxidermists.. and the photos in the local papers of successful harvests and how the "scrubs" are not showing up in the paper as much but the page is still FULL of pictures..

That's correct but RSB said he averaged the non typs in with the typs in the charts he has been posting so I'am not sure of your point. Also the Pisarchick buck (a great one for sure) didn't come from the counties RSB is talking about. If you want to use it as proof of something from Jefferson county since AR don't forget about the 203 NTyp Jim Roles killed in Jefferson. The year-- 2000

Your a bit misleading there aren't you doc? I count nine prior to antler restrictions having anything to do with them. 1 in 2000, 1 in 2001, and 1 in 2002, also 1958, 1942, 1949, 1951, 1948, 1966. Did you learn your math at the Ross Leffler school? Half of 10 is five where I went.

I do see one thing interesting..

I think we all agree the PGC actually started HR before the 2002 AR/HR concurrent season...

so lets look at those 200s and keep in mind when the PGC started to reduce the herd size..

firearm=
1966-200.4
2002-201.4
2000-203.1
1948-207.4
1951-207.7
1949-213.6
2001-230.2
1942-238.6


archery ==
1988-203.3
2007-209.1



break it down ===

1940s === 3 over 200
1950s === 1 over 200
1960s === 1 over 200
1970s === 0 over 200
1980s === 1 over 200
1990s === 0 over 200
2000s === 4 over 200


Looks like there were quite a few 200s running around before all the 1950s stuff I wrote about...

then the herd grew and the number of deer increasing allowing for less and less food for all the deer to eat..

so with an out of control herd we went 50 years with only 3 trophy 200s bucks..

now in 10 years of the 2000s we already have a record setting 4 in the books ..


looks like reducing the herd in itself is helping to get bigger bucks,

since as S-10 pointed out most of those were before AR but after the antlerless tags were raised to a record high and bonus tags were started as well as DMAPs...


Wonder why increasing the doe harvests has lead to more 200 bucks in the book ??????????

Id say its much more important how many we get from here on out to be fair when considering the deer plan. Because what we have now is not what we had when the herd was much different size in the early 2000's, and the results gotten from that herd are in no way representative of what we have TODAY.

I dont think alot of hunters wouldve minded if buck harvests of early 2000's were in place either. But to use statistics from years where we harvested 150- 200k bucks to attempt to portray CURRENT results is not at all accurate, when our herd is so small it only permits harvests of 108-120k on a good year now.

If we were doing so good harvesting does in the 90's then we didn't need the AR/HR did we

Prior to HR the need for increased doe harvests was to reduce the number of does period .. IMHO....

The need for further reduction to allow for the protected bucks in the over winter herd called for more of an increase, thus the 2 weeks and increased harvest.. a.k.a. == AR/HR

Interestingly even the non-typical firearm totals in the book show the same trends...increasing antlerless harvest means more big buck going into the book....

1930s = 15
1940s = 22
1950s = 6
1960s = 13
1970s = 6
1980s = 18
1990s = 22
2000s = 24

The need for further reduction to allow for the protected bucks in the over winter herd called for more of an increase, thus the 2 weeks and increased harvest.. a.k.a. == AR/HR

No there is an amazing revelation!! I had no idea we reduced our herd by over 500K to make room for the 50 K buck saved by ARs.

Interestingly even the non-typical firearm totals in the book show the same trends...increasing antlerless harvest means more big buck going into the book....

What you should have said is that increasing antlerless harvests that allowed the herd to increase to 1.6 M deer meant more big bucks in the record book. It should also be noted that 50 years of harvesting 80% of our yearling buck had no effect on the genetics of the herd so there was no biological reason to implement ARs.

We are having a similar debate on the QDMA MB and no one can provide a reason why we need a better age structure.

#1...we don't know what the record book will show for the later 2000s...

#2...Comparing a job to deer harvests is just plain silly...........

BUT..

If that were the case rather than complain about it I'd find another job.... just like finding an area with a better deer population to hunt in..

"#1...we don't know what the record book will show for the later 2000s... "

And if we dont know...we dont know. Then we shouldnt post information in a manner that doesnt apply.

"#2...Comparing a job to deer harvests is just plain silly..........."

Maybe....But i think you got the point, and it explained similiar logic simplified.

"If that were the case rather than complain about it I'd find another job...."

Well lets just say you had no choice, because there were no other openings, you had 12 kids, and a third mortgage on the house. lol..

Wow, great buck bings. Id say that might be a shooter eh? lol. Id have never guessed it scored quite that high. Course im not much into scores anyway. I like big bucks, but im not into all the measuring an inch here and inch there, deduct this, nonsense anyway.