Hunting hasn't changed, the B.S. has. To further DarDy's post,need special camo clothes[ not cheap], masking scents, spray so you don't stink, grunt tubes, rattlin horns, camo bags to store your stuff in, special spotting scopes to watch the deer you want to "harvest" and quads to ride and drag your animal out of the woods.Don't know how us "old guys" EVER got a deer. Number 1 and 2 look pretty good to me....WF

1-yes!  2- depends on the gmu

ORIGINAL: deerfly

t doesn’t make any difference which data you used since you didn’t apply it correctly to come up with the fawn recruitment rate no matter which data you used in your misguided attempt to prove a point. The fact remains that you didn’t use fawn recruitment rates for ANY group of deer and fawn recruitment rates is what counts when applying fawns toward the number of deer available the next fall.  

I used a fawn recruitment rate of 1.1 fawns /adult doe which was much lower than the 1.55 fawns/adult doe reported for 2G in the 2009 AWR. therefore I erred on the low side rather than inflating the data as you do repeatedly. Using the 1.55 reproductive rate instead of the 1.1 rate I used. the preseason herd in 2g would have been 27 DPSM ,while the PGC data shows the PS herd was only around 8 DPSM in 2009.

You have direct access to all of the PGC data ,so i challenge you to provide any PGC data that supports your claim that the herd is increasing in 2g. The PGC data shows that the preseason herd in 2G has been reduced to around 8 DPSM.

 
You didn’t use a fawn recruitment rate for any age group, you used a reproductive rate and that is a LONG WAYS from being a fawn recruitment rate.
 
Furthermore you used only adult does instead of the total of the age group being represented in the harvest data presented. In fact all of the numbers you have posted are reproductive data instead of recruitment. There is a HUGR difference between the two. In short you either completely failed in your knowledge and understanding of the difference between fawn reproduction and fawn recruitment or you are intentionally used misleading data results in your desperation to promote your misguided agenda.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

The interesting thing I see is even if you disregard the year 2000 and compare the 6 years leading up to 2000 with the last 6 years we were putting way more bucks in the books even with a harvest 40% greater than we have today and 5 of the 7 best years in the last 15 were before AR/HR. Not bad for a bunch of stunted starving deer.

 
I wouldn’t be too hasty with that thought process if I were you or you will most likely find yourself eating crow in the future.
 
As some others have already pointed out it typically take about ten years to get the majority of the bucks for any given year in for measurement and thus entered into the record book.
 
As for the large number of entries for 2000 I can’t say with any thing more than an educated guess but it seems logical to me that the series of several years of good mast crops being combined with the series of mild winters we had prior to 2000 probably lead to an abnormally higher number of record book bucks coming from all areas of the state. Since the data I posted includes archery bucks that only have to be 115 inches and the fact that a higher than normal percentage came from areas outside the southeast and southwest areas of the state that seems like a logical likelihood to me.
 
A couple other things I find interesting about the data is how the number of record book bucks is declining in the southwest region and increasing in the southeast the past ten years. I have to wonder if the habitat hasn’t possibly started to decline in the southwest to the point the big bucks just aren’t going to be there in the future. But then perhaps it is just that they are finally starting to get the deer populations in check in the southwest and as a result there aren’t as many old bucks there as there once was.
 
The southeast though still seems to be holding its own for a high percentage of record book bucks. It is kind of evident though that most of the state has poor habitat and not many older bucks though since two regions of the state seem to typically produce about 50% or more of the record book bucks.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

And there is not one bit of evidence that indicates the average rack size of 2.5 buck increased since ARs or you and the PGC would be flaunting it. All you have to do is post the data that shows the average 2.5 8 pt. has a wider spread, longer beams ,increased mass and longer tines than the average 2.5 8 pt. harvested before ARs. you can't and won't do it because the PGC is hiding that data.

So your saying the PGC has years worth of data compiled on 2.5YO bucks that it is hiding?

You do understand that a bucks rack at 2.5YO is not the greatest indicator as to a bucks antler potential? A 2.5YO is not mature and has not realized its potential in terms of antler growth.

No one ever said, suggested or expected any specific age class of bucks to have larger antlers after antler restrictions than they had before.

I'am going to take exception to that statement. That is exactly what we were told would be one of the benefits of reducing the herd. The remaining deer would have more good browse which in turn would lead to better antler development as a part of a more healthy animal. Remember the starving scrub runts we were told about when selling AR/HR.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

t doesn’t make any difference which data you used since you didn’t apply it correctly to come up with the fawn recruitment rate no matter which data you used in your misguided attempt to prove a point. The fact remains that you didn’t use fawn recruitment rates for ANY group of deer and fawn recruitment rates is what counts when applying fawns toward the number of deer available the next fall.  

I used a fawn recruitment rate of 1.1 fawns /adult doe which was much lower than the 1.55 fawns/adult doe reported for 2G in the 2009 AWR. therefore I erred on the low side rather than inflating the data as you do repeatedly. Using the 1.55 reproductive rate instead of the 1.1 rate I used. the preseason herd in 2g would have been 27 DPSM ,while the PGC data shows the PS herd was only around 8 DPSM in 2009.

You have direct access to all of the PGC data ,so i challenge you to provide any PGC data that supports your claim that the herd is increasing in 2g. The PGC data shows that the preseason herd in 2G has been reduced to around 8 DPSM.

You didn’t use a fawn recruitment rate for any age group, you used a reproductive rate and that is a LONG WAYS from being a fawn recruitment rate.
 
Furthermore you used only adult does instead of the total of the age group being represented in the harvest data presented. In fact all of the numbers you have posted are reproductive data instead of recruitment. There is a HUGR difference between the two. In short you either completely failed in your knowledge and understanding of the difference between fawn reproduction and fawn recruitment or you are intentionally used misleading data results in your desperation to promote your misguided agenda.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would know that the reproductive rate is the same as the recruitment rate, but I realize that is expecting entirely too much from a WCO.

If you think the data I used is flawed, please provide the recruitment rates for female fawns and adult doe for 2009 in 2G. You won't and can't do it because you have no idea what the recruitment rates are for adult doe in 2G and you don't inderstand that productivity rates equal recruitment rates.

 
There you go mixing terminology and using it incorrectly again.
 
Anyone who really knows much of anything about deer management and/or research knows there is a HUGE difference between reproductive rates and recruitment rates. Reproductive rates are the number that are born while recruitment rates are the number born that then survive to their first year of life or in the case of deer or other hunted species until the beginning of fall hunting season.
 
And, I see you are still using deceptive tactics such as interchanging words like reproductive and productivity to try to trap people. What do you do just post hoping people will not notice your deceptive and flim-flam tactics so you can go back and try to discredit them when they don’t catch your deceptive tricks?
 
No, I don’t have the data on the 2G recruitment rates and either do you. It changes every year and is thus a very moving and fluid number. It is however estimate in the deer model each year based on a number of other deer population modeling criteria.  I typically have no need for the data so I don’t have it on hand and wouldn’t share it with you even if I did; knowing your affiliation with the USP and their law suit.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn   

ORIGINAL: S-10

No one ever said, suggested or expected any specific age class of bucks to have larger antlers after antler restrictions than they had before.

I'am going to take exception to that statement. That is exactly what we were told would be one of the benefits of reducing the herd. The remaining deer would have more good browse which in turn would lead to better antler development as a part of a more healthy animal. Remember the starving scrub runts we were told about when selling AR/HR.

 
Absolutely having the deer herd in balance with the habitat, and thus more food per deer, will result in better antler development but that really has nothing to do with antler restrictions.
 
Antler restrictions does nothing more that pump some older bucks into the deer population. It is the food supply and winter conditions that change the quality of the antler development for any specific age class of bucks.
 
Herd reduction has probably had an influence on antler development for the age classes but that can be countered any year by the winter conditions the deer had to survive through the previous year.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

You have been wrong about that for the last three years. I'am sure we will touch on the subject over the next three.

You do understand that a bucks rack at 2.5YO is not the greatest indicator as to a bucks antler potential? A 2.5YO is not mature and has not realized its potential in terms of antler growth.

It doesn't matter if 2.5 buck show their true potential or not since the vast majority of 2,5 never survive to become 3.5 + buck.

"A couple other things I find interesting about the data is how the number of record book bucks is declining in the southwest"

OF COURSE IT DID! Thats generally what happens when the herd gets cut in half.

"I have to wonder if the habitat hasn’t possibly started to decline in the southwest to the point the big bucks just aren’t going to be there in the future."

Um, no. Having hunted and otherwise roamed these hills for 30 years or more, and being somewhat educated in "woodsmen botany", the habitat here is as good or better than its ever been. And im not talking about in the localized area around the one proverbial stump. I hunt deer and other game + scout properties all across this unit. Also, when you are lucky enough to see or harvest a buck with any kind of age on it, its generally a "good'n". in this unit. There just arent many hitting those ages necessary for max antler growth. Per age class, the antler growth of the mountain deer of nearby units for example, on average dont come close to comparing having seen bucks taken from both areas for many years now.

"But then perhaps it is just that they are finally starting to get the deer populations in check in the southwest and as a result there aren’t as many old bucks there as there once was."

I believe thats a reasonable explanation, and wouldve been exactly the one id have given had anyone asked. Thing is, that doesnt equate to more and bigger bucks no matter how you slice it, yet thats exactly what we were promised by the rack waving Alt, in exchange for our support on hr.

ORIGINAL: World Famous

Hunting hasn't changed, the B.S. has. To further DarDy's post,need special camo clothes[ not cheap], masking scents, spray so you don't stink, grunt tubes, rattlin horns, camo bags to store your stuff in, special spotting scopes to watch the deer you want to "harvest" and quads to ride and drag your animal out of the woods.Don't know how us "old guys" EVER got a deer. Number 1 and 2 look pretty good to me....WF

 
It almost seems that deer hunting has made the changes that bass fishing did in the late 80's and early 90's.

There you go mixing terminology and using it incorrectly again.
 
Anyone who really knows much of anything about deer management and/or research knows there is a HUGE difference between reproductive rates and recruitment rates. Reproductive rates are the number that are born while recruitment rates are the number born that then survive to their first year of life or in the case of deer or other hunted species until the beginning of fall hunting season.
 

It is truely amazing that a WCO who has been discussing recruitment issues for the past 10 years still doesn't realize that the productivity rate of 1.01 fawns/ doe equals the recruitment rate.Now read this quote from the 2009 AWR and try to comprehend that the 1.01F/D reproductive rate equals the recruitment rate. If the recruitment rate was 50% lower than the the 1.01 F/D in the fall there would only be 1 fawn for every 2 adult doe and even you are smart enough to realize that isn't true. Furthermore, Cal Dubrock used a recruitment rate of 1.1 F/d to explain how the 2001 harvest decreased the herd by 8% and I have a copy of that email.

If the harvests in 2G are keeping the herd stable as the PGC claims,but you deny, it wouldn't be very difficult to estimate the recruitment rate for 2G, especially since I already have the preseason DD estimates for 2G since 2005.

I happen to like the way things are now, you don't.

And I can't blame you since you have found yourself in a hunting situation where HR hasn't hurt you and AR has no doubt helped you to a degree. You stated earlier that on one day of archery season you saw 12 bucks and 19 doe. Who wouldn't be happy with those numbers. That's better than most of us saw even before AR/HR. The thing is that is not what the PGC is trying to accomplish and is not what the majority of hunters across the state are seeing. You are in a unique situation for this state. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Are there deer out there?Of course there are.

And there always will be.

Ironhed