ORIGINAL: wayne c

Ohhhhh Rsb...Rsb...Rsb....(sigh)

" When you further factor in the reality that Fayette County and other portions of counties making up unit 2A always had even fewer over winter deer per square mile that would even further reduce the total over winter average for unit 2A from the very get go of the management units."

Greene is a median county. Higher than fayette, and lower than Wash. was starting out...

"In other words there was never anything close to a 50% reduction in the over winter deer population for the unit."

Sorry, not seeing that.

" There simply has not been any significant harvest increase in the unit;"

Its been explained. Reread my previous post. Then read it again.

"therefore if the population has declined it is a natural decline instead of a hunter-induced decline."

LMAO. So what youve been saying all along + now is: There is no decline, there is no decline, there is no decline,... But if there is a decline its not because of 55-60k tags its habitat induced.

I see. Nice to see your position so solid on that "no decline". lol..

"As for your comments about the deer being reduced because of the number of antlerless license….well even though that is what antlerless license are intended to do it is still a fact that the issuance of more licenses in 2A did NOT result in hunters harvesting more deer."

Sure did.

The antlerless harvests were 12-13k in the late nineties for the areas that now make up our unit. And since its escalated to 18 and as high as 19,000+ Throughout the 2000's. Dropping heavily the last three years, even though we've still had the highest allocations.From 2000 to 2005 we harvest anywhere fronm 16600 to 19600 antlerless every year. With the same allocation our numbers as follows were: 2006--1700 2007--14300 2008--15300 And of course as id shown, our buck harvest was cut by more than half.

Harvest was low.... Then it went WAAAAAY up high, then it dipped back down, but still not to the levels of the late 90's because of 25000
more tags!

"In fact the one-year with an increase in licenses the hunters actually harvested fewer deer that year than they had when they had fewer licenses."

All you did was highlight your ignorance in regards to our unit down here. That was 2007. First, 3500 of those tags didnt sell, and even more importantly- THAT WAS THE YEAR EHD HIT HERE. Late summer & fall of 07 chief.

"But, the bottom line still comes down to the simple fact that hunter harvests in 2A have been stable for a long, long time."

Um no. Half the buck harvest, and unsustainable doe harvests that are 3000 lower despite having 20,000 more tags than the year 2000 isnt "stability". More importantly if we are to look at it scientifically, neither is a buck harvest that has undeniably dropped by over half.

Also, given a postseason dd per square mile of mid 20's which is the median of the dd chart shown and also is what you have with a 40dpsm preseason herd, which was data that was given for ENTIRE WMU for 2006) and when accounting for the 40% of land that ISNT forested, you end up with a postseason herd in the neighborhood of 35 deer per FORESTED sm. Now that we can compare apples to apples, subtract that from the 69 owdpFsm deer in Greene (which is not the highest dd yet it is entirely within the wmu and is in the median range of dd) we had back in 1999 and the decline of very close to half is evident. Use Washington, the difference is even greater. Those 2 units also make up the huge majority of the unit.

And you also left out the fact that we have had more reduction SINCE the supposed stabilization and even since 2006 which is the last data we were discussing with these losses.


.

"It is obvious that you don’t like to work from facts or reality but your failure to understand or accept facts and reality certainly don’t change either the facts or the reality."

Thanks for the kind but unfitting words. Desparate means call for desparate measures i guess.

Have a good'n.

 
I read what you posted. I just pointed out how far off you were in you comments about a 50% reduction in deer in the unit and how you can’t mix over winter deer per forested square mile with data that is expressed in deer per actual square mile, as you did, without converting everything to a common denominator, which you didn’t do. What you did was a simple misrepresentation of the facts to make a point. That Sir was a dishonest thing to do. Now you are trying to mix the old county harvest data with the harvest results from the multiple counties that make up the entire WMU. Though that can be done on a very limited bases it certainly needs to be clarified when you are doing it. The way you did it is misleading and a misrepresentation of the data results. In other words it appears you are trying to pull off a scam.   
 
But all other issues aside, there obviously still isn’t anything close to a 50% reduction in the 2A deer population or the harvest numbers would have declined much more than they have. Between the highest to the lowest doe harvest years (with the same number of antlerless licenses allocated) there is only a 29% reduction. I wouldn’t even be surprised to see this year’s harvest numbers back on par again with those once higher harvest numbers since it has been a couple years now since EHD NATURALLY reduced the  herd.
 
The buck harvests from the highest to lowest year, since antler restrictions and the inception of WMUs, has only changed by 22% from the highest to lowest year. Therefore, all of the FACTS simply scream out that there has not been anything close to the 50% herd reduction you claim.
 
I never said there hasn’t been a herd reduction. I simply said there hasn’t been a significant herd reduction and that it is obvious from the stable hunter harvests. I also said that even if there was a 50% reduction it could only have been natural causes that reduced the deer numbers to that level since the FACTS prove hunter harvests have not reduced the population by 50%.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

"I read what you posted. I just pointed out how far off you were in you comments about a 50% reduction in deer in the unit and how you can’t mix over winter deer per forested square mile with data that is expressed in deer per actual square mile, as you did, without converting everything to a common denominator, which you didn’t do."

Oh yes, but i DID account for, i told you straight up that you had to convert square miles to forested to match the other data set, to come up with my end result. And anyone who wants to see how full of ** you are, can go back and read my post when i ENLARGED the text and made it RED in a quote just so you could go back and find it! lol. Really hard to find too, just go back one page (page 11) in this thread.

"What you did was a simple misrepresentation of the facts to make a point. That Sir was a dishonest thing to do. Now you are trying to mix the old county harvest data with the harvest results from the multiple counties that make up the entire WMU. Though that can be done on a very limited bases it certainly needs to be clarified when you are doing it. The way you did it is misleading and a misrepresentation of the data results. In other words it appears you are trying to pull off a scam."

You sir are clearly nothing but a liar and i cannot even believe you just had the gall to say that to ME! Im the one whos dishonest?? Im trying to pull a friggin scam?? It was totally undeserved and you know it. You can take your slander and shove it. Anyway, with the low regard you have for honesty and integrity, its not hard to see why your superiors no longer want you to put your credentials at the bottom of your posts. Representation in such a manner is unacceptable and they knew it. Gives the agency a worse name than they have already. Clearly you share the same obtuse thinking and do or say whatever it takes for the agenda, as those extreme minded individuals spoken of in the eveland report.

has been a couple years now since EHD NATURALLY reduced the herd.

Um, yeah. Unfortunately that NATURAL reduction wasnt even added in with the reduction id spoken of because the reduction we were discussing was for the mostpart up to the year 2006, the ehd didnt hit until 2007!. And by then, the vast majority of the reduction had already occurred prior to that. Remember, the data you claimed i didnt change to match the 1999 data? lol That was PRIOR to 2007. So you still are up the creek without a paddle. There was added reduction since of course. And as for a higher harvest this year, i dont know, but wouldnt doubt it. The weather throughout was absolutely picture perfect for a very "efficient" harvest and use of those 55k tags. Unfortunately for the antlerless.

"But all other issues aside, there obviously still isn’t anything close to a 50% reduction in the 2A deer population or the harvest numbers would have declined much more than they have."

Ive proven otherwise. Sorry you dont like the facts, but i suspect sometime over this fine Christmas season, you will get over it.

"I never said there hasn’t been a herd reduction. I simply said there hasn’t been a significant herd reduction and that it is obvious from the stable hunter harvests."

A buck harvest thats been cut in half isnt a stable harvest. Nor is a Doe harvest that is 3000 to 5000 lower despite having 25,000 more tags! You intentionally ignore these things and show complete lack of being rational. Complete lack. I can only assume that its intention thinking you can buffalo the poor stupid readers of these posts. I tend to give them more credit than that, i dont think you are fooling a soul, that is, if they read the posts instead of just passing because you shoveled so much crap over the discussion its barely even comprehensible, and some probably wont even bother to read through it all at this point. When i made the original statements, it shoulda been one and done. Wasnt much room for disagreement given the facts of the matter..

You are obviously very reading deficient if that is what you garnered from my posts.

I know that was intended for s10, but thats exactly what i got as well from reading your posts. IVe seen pretty much every single one of the contradictions he posted from your quotes and then some.

The only thing consistent is the inconsistency.

The buck harvests from the highest to lowest year, since antler restrictions and the inception of WMUs, has only changed by 22% from the highest to lowest year. Therefore, all of the FACTS simply scream out that there has not been anything close to the 50% herd reduction you claim.

Herd reduction in 2A did not begin in 2002 when ARs were implemented, it began in 2000 when the antlerless harvest increased from 124K in 1999 , to 181K in 2001 and 184K in 2002. In 1999 the D/B sex harvest ratio was 1.1 /1 but every year since 2003 it has been over 2.1:1. That fact alone proves that the harvests have been reducing the herd despite your ridiculous claims that the habitat is controlling the herd and that the herd has only decreased by 22%.

Even the antlerless harvest dropped significantly since 2002 when the harvest rate was 10.8 DPSM and 32K tags were allocated. In 2009 the harvest rate was 7.48 DPSM which was a decrease but it took a much larger antlerless allocation to produce a much smaller harvest.

BTW, here is one of your more notorious comments about HR.

"

That series of comments makes it rather apparent that you don’t really understand what the deer management objective really is.

In most areas of the state the goal is not really to have fewer deer during the fall and the hunting seasons, though there are a few areas where that would or perhaps would likely be the case if we got the deer in balance with the habitat, food supply and socially acceptable densities.

The deer management objective in most areas of the state is only to carry fewer over winter deer so the deer don’t destroy their own food supply. Then if you had the correct buck/doe ratio during the fall the majority of those over winter does are bred, finding enough winter and spring food and producing a lot of healthy surviving fawns the next spring. Since the fawns aren’t impacting the habitat much through their first summer though you should still have improving habitat conditions all summer. Then when the fall hunting seasons arrive you need to once again harvest the same number of deer, both bucks and does, as what they annual fawn recruitment rate had been.

That is how you have long term sustainable deer harvests and deer populations for ever and ever provided the habitat stays healthy and isn’t lost to other factors such as urban sprawl, highway/home construction, etc. That is also why the best possible fawn recruitment rates are such a major part of a good deer management program."


Based on that , it is obvious that what we have is not good deer management since the harvests have dropped from over 500K to a little over 300K!!!!!!

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Again... common sense in what people heard Alt say...


In Jefferson County the first 2 years of HR we killed three years worth of female deer, now how could someone think ( believe) by killing a lot more females and protecting many bucks.. harvest would grow or return to pre-AR/HR numbers..


what ALT said was a "more normal harvest" for Pa .. he never said return to the "good old days" ...

It's just the way you look at and comprehend the words.. "more NORMAL harvest figures"....

well off to work =====

as for what alt said....

I saw MORE bucks this year than I have in about 15 years of rifle hunting here ...

several were the biggest I have ever seen here... and as a whole they were BIGGER deer...

look at the size of the spike the girl shot that I posted that was a BIG deer for being a spike... took two of us to hoist it up the meat pole...

 
Doc,
 
Ever heard the term "return to normal?"  To most folks that don't have the PGC ensignia tatooed on their butt, that means return to what you are used to -- that's the normal part.  His use of the term normal was the BS that he used to sell HR.  He fundamentally used hunters' gullibility to make them think that this was a short term thing and in one to two seasons things would return to normal.  That was not true and he knew it.  Or if he didn't know it, he had no business being in the posiiton he was hired for.  Kind of like being the manager of the bear program for about a decade and having to admit that he didn't know that bears ate fawns.  One owuld think that if you were an expert in any wildlife field that knowing their food sources would be one of the first things that you learned -- right after what they looked like.
 
That's great that you saw more bucks this year.  Kill any of them?  Do you like to go to strip clubs?  Seeing bucks and not killing them and going to strip clubs just means that one is a vouyer.  They like to look, but don't care what happens after that.
 
And don't say the deer are WHOLE lot bigger.  A former coworker of mine lives next to 2000 acres of privately held, QDMA managed property that keeps the most meticulous records by their professional, full time game keeper and over 15 years the size of their bucks has increased from the first year -- no management at all except the start of QDMA practices -- to now, by a whopping 5 pounds per buck.  Are you sure you are not adding some Miracle Grow to that corn you bait those deer in with?
 
And if that spike had grown so well and was so large that it was a WHOLE lot bigger, then it probably wasn't a 1.5 year-old, which means that its inferior genetics, becaus eit wasn;t harvested as a 1.5 year-old, are now permeating their way through your local deer population.  That may mean a WHOLE lot more buck that you can see and not shoot.

And don't say the deer are WHOLE lot bigger.

 
And don't tell me what I saw...
 
 
you have no idea what I saw....
 
I have never said all the deer in the dang state are bigger.. I said there are bigger deer because of HR and AR in many areas.. especially based on my sightings this year around here... you dis-agree and that's fine... but don't tell me I am wrong when I say I saw more bucks or bigger deer this year than in the past.. you were not here or with me at the time....
 
 
 
gheez...  It's almost Christmas can't you guys curtail your dis-like for me personally for a few days ???????

How can you say that the deer are bigger? You only hunt a small area of the state. Are you sure Doc that you don't have your bi-focals on upside down ?

On which of those days in rifle season did you see all these big bucks your talking about?

 
to use your FAVORITE statement ... back at ya...
 
remember I have posted countless times I had not seen a legal deer  since AR while hunting.... so naturally I could not have harvested one... and BTW is your #1 reply on this board...
 
 
so If I only saw the one I missed I could truthfully say I saw more legal bucks than ever since AR....
 
how many. ??
 
does it really matter if it was 1 or 6 or even 10.. I saw more than since AR..
 
 
I'll stop with this reply before SOMEONE does us all a favor and locks these threads that now have NOTHING to do with hutntng and are now about putting me down.....

 

Gotcha again, That's what happens when you post different stories on different sites. I'am done.

You got NOTHING !!!!

you have to read what someone posts.....

so If I only saw the one I missed I could truthfully say I saw more legal bucks than ever since AR....

how many. ??

does it really matter if it was 1 or 6 or even 10.. I saw more than since AR..

I was saying "IF" that one buck was the only one I saw.. I did not say it was the only one nor did I post how many I did see... I posted saying I was targeting an 8 point and a 10 point.. so that's at least two.... and of course you knew that from reading my board daily...

I do not believe I posted anywhere the TOTAL number of legal bucks I saw... I wouldn't want others coming in and shooting them

I'am done.

ME TOO !!!!

ORIGINAL: Johnny_Johnson
 

AR screwed me out of my buck the first year it was in place.  I couldn't see if it had brow tines.  I didn't buy a license again until this year, and AR got me again.  How anyone can count tines when a buck is running full speed through trees is beyond me.  From most of the folks I talk to it's a case of shooting and hoping that there are brow tines.  That ain't my style, and it really makes me wonder how many deer are being left in the woods because of it.  MAYBE, that crap would work in archery/muzzle loader, but it's a load of BS in rifle season unless you are hunting private property with really low pressure.  Oughta be great when everyone switches to archery to have a chance at getting a deer, and all the bucks start running around looking like porcupines.

So you are upset that you couldn't "crack" some shots off at a buck, running at full speed through trees? Heaven forbid you should pass on a terrible shot. And then you claim that all the bucks will look like porcupines as a result of archery. Classic....lmao

How in the world did we get two threads about Dr. trout at the same time?

Well it looks like RSB has finally conceded that the harvests in 2A reduced the herd by over 50%. he was online for almost an hour and didn't post a rebuttal so I guess he is finally waving the white flag.

same arguements...different headlines......