It's not being reduced by tag allocations. Let's hear the spin. How's the huntin' going deerfly ? Pretty nice day out there.

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

It's not being reduced by tag allocations. Let's hear the spin. How's the huntin' going deerfly ? Pretty nice day out there.

You're not going to hear any spin, but you will get facts that you simply can't handle or refute. In 1997 the buck harvest was 177K and 640K doe tags produced a harvest of 220K with just a 3 day season. Now compare that to the 2009 buck harvest of 108 K and an antlerless harvest of 201K ,with 800+ antlerless ,plus DMAP. So in 2009 the PGC issued more than 300K doe tags than in 1997 when a harvest of just 220K doe kept the herd stable,even though the 2009 herd was at least 40% smaller than in 1997.

Two points
1. The herd has been reduced in many areas where even with reduced doe tags the predators will more than make up the difference. We were getting a predator kill on fawns in excess of 20% with a population of 1,600,000 if you believe that number. Now that number is 40+% less than with the same or more predators needing their protein.
2. 30% of our deer kill is now in archery season so those bigger bucks don't pass their genes on. Also all the fawns that get bred are with scrubs or those 6 points without brow tines. It doesn't happen overnight but even the PGC will only say large scale reduction is unlikely and they haven'r released any studies to prove it. They only critize the studies from the states showing that it does.
2a. Had to take the afternoon off to start removing 29" of snow from my roof. In to my waist in places this morning with no fresh tracks. Two places 5 miles apart, one with about 25" and one over 40". The bear have the right idea.

Ar= Yes
Hr+ No

Well, then, when collecting data, one should have a beginning and end point and state so in the instructions. since there was no end point mentioned, Doc made one after responses semmed to tail off.

You're right, I should have posted directions to insure that the thread was not trashed.
To hell with courtesy, I guess.

Carry on...

Ironhed

Yep.. you produced facts alright. And you did it comparing 1997 to 2009. Ahhh.. DUH, that's going to show HR. I wouldn't expect you to look at tag allocations for recent years.. that would screw up your theory.

Obviously you e missed the point I was making . I didn't compare 1997 to 2009 to show HR., I compared the two to show that the PGC is still issuing 300K more tags to control a herd that is 40% smaller than the herd was in 1997.

Maybe you would like to explain why the herd decreased in 19 out of 22 WMus from 2008 to 2009!!

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"I wouldn't expect you to look at tag allocations for recent years.. that would screw up your theory."

Ummm, no, not so much. I see he mentioned 2a, which is one im familiar with so i'll expand. The years in 2A from 2000 until 2004 we had 32000 to 40,000 antlerless tags.

Ever since, the goal has been "stabilization" yet the allocation was not dropped, or even kept at previous levels. It went to 55,000 and has been there every year since, except for one absolutely off their rocker year of 60,000.

Bad part about it, we'd STILL have 60k or more, only reason we dont is because that year we only were able to sell 56,000. So we are basically at the max that can be sold with 55k, because at 55k even some years all do not always sell, with a few left.

Course, if youd like, you can point to the just over 100 tag reduction this year that was because of the dmap change! lmao.

So you see, we have a reduced herd (some reduction was beneficial here imho) but it continues, and has even since we were supposed to be in stabilization mode We have far fewer deer now than we did in the year 2000, thats a given. Yet we now have 12 to 13,000 more tags than we did before when we were reducing a much larger herd!

Btw, as for some of the other units, it very possible to have FEWER tags and still reduce the much smaller herds. It take less harvest to stabilize or reduce a herd that is much smaller than it was previously.

Pick and chose the WMU you want. Don't fear the big picture.. it won't bite.

"Pick and chose the WMU you want."

I didnt pick and choose anything. 1. it was one of the couple of wmus mentioned before i jumped in. 2. Its my wmu.

" Don't fear the big picture.. it won't bite."

I dont fear anything, and there's not alot i can say about the big picture that ive not already stated many times. If you are interested in the reductions deerfly speaks of, dont be so darn lazy and consult the annual reports. They clearly show the decline in the majority of wmus exactly as deerfly has stated. I have copies of those reports printed out, and they are available to you on the pgc website. Hows that for bite?

Btw, they allow for a significant percentage of decline per year, and still consider it "stabilization. Which is fine for their purposes, im sure, but only if hunter consideration isnt a concern.

Most years the decline is not significant, until you look at the trend along the years of what was supposed to be stabilization and add it up. Going strictly by memory, i believe the audit said that pgc considered anything under 20% reduction for a year as acceptable for the goal of "stabilization". Sounds to me like they dont mind being a little "fast and loose" with our deer herd, and their idea of "stabilization" might not be what most rational nonpgc personell would call "stabilization".


On the audit report, the last herd estimates given luckily were 2006 and 2007. (you mentioned 2006). I think we can all agree this was supposed to be a year of stabilization NOT REDUCTION. Well the herd DECREASED statewide by 105,059 deer according to the audit that year. The total population for the state in 2006 was 1134760. In 2007 it was 1029710. And declines were as follows, First row 2006 second row 2007. These were the mean herd estimates per wmu for each unit that experience decline.
____2006______2007_____
1A--52275...........37395
1B--58740...........56167
2A--64282...........58691
2B--48449...........38028
2D--84623...........74811
2E--38722...........31320
2F--54393...........46516
2G--72358...........55589
3A--38404...........37318
3C--60539...........50421
3D--39160...........37101
4B--39183...........30867
4C--50460...........43892
4D--62288...........50608
4E--33902...........31864
5B--59755...........51700
5C--68149...........64265
5D--10165............8430


And those certainly werent the first or last years where stabilization was the goal yet the majority of wmus were decreased. In fact, i havent found one year where that wasnt the case on pgc annual reports.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"Pick and chose the WMU you want."

I didnt pick and choose anything. 1. it was one of the couple of wmus mentioned before i jumped in. 2. Its my wmu.

" Don't fear the big picture.. it won't bite."

I dont fear anything, and there's not alot i can say about the big picture that ive not already stated many times. If you are interested in the reductions deerfly speaks of, dont be so darn lazy and consult the annual reports. They clearly show the decline in the majority of wmus exactly as deerfly has stated. I have copies of those reports printed out, and they are available to you on the pgc website. Hows that for bite?

Btw, they allow for a significant percentage of decline per year, and still consider it "stabilization. Which is fine for their purposes, im sure, but only if hunter consideration isnt a concern.

Most years the decline is not significant, until you look at the trend along the years of what was supposed to be stabilization and add it up. Going strictly by memory, i believe the audit said that pgc considered anything under 20% reduction for a year as acceptable for the goal of "stabilization". Sounds to me like they dont mind being a little "fast and loose" with our deer herd, and their idea of "stabilization" might not be what most rational nonpgc personell would call "stabilization".


On the audit report, the last herd estimates given luckily were 2006 and 2007. (you mentioned 2006). I think we can all agree this was supposed to be a year of stabilization NOT REDUCTION. Well the herd DECREASED statewide by 105,059 deer according to the audit that year. The total population for the state in 2006 was 1134760. In 2007 it was 1029710. And declines were as follows, First row 2006 second row 2007. These were the mean herd estimates per wmu for each unit that experience decline.
____2006______2007_____
1A--52275...........37395
1B--58740...........56167
2A--64282...........58691
2B--48449...........38028
2D--84623...........74811
2E--38722...........31320
2F--54393...........46516
2G--72358...........55589
3A--38404...........37318
3C--60539...........50421
3D--39160...........37101
4B--39183...........30867
4C--50460...........43892
4D--62288...........50608
4E--33902...........31864
5B--59755...........51700
5C--68149...........64265
5D--10165............8430


And those certainly werent the first or last years where stabilization was the goal yet the majority of wmus were decreased. In fact, i havent found one year where that wasnt the case on pgc annual reports.

 
It's not that I'm lazy, it's just that I have no need to revisit it.  I lack desire to go pick the audit apart and make up anything and everything I can to try to discredit the pgc like some people.     I stated allocations have been less and less and that's true.   If it was a true reduction, allocations wouldn't lessen and harvest would drop every year.   I know I know, last year was 108,000 but for whatever reason, the folks that run with that #, don't mention that 5 Saturdays in archery and the first day of rifle were rainy and the first Saturday was a blinding snow storm for much of the state.  What if the harvest would have been 150,000 ?  Would you be whinin' that too many were shot ?  What if this years the buck harvest is greater than 108,000.  Would that be reduction ? 
 
It's all reduction in your eyes because you're anti-pgc.  Enjoy.
 
 

"It's not that I'm lazy, it's just that I have no need to revisit it."

I guess thats why you discussed it in your last several posts now?

I lack desire to go pick the audit apart and make up anything and everything I can to try to discredit the pgc like some people."

I dont see where anything was "made up" (with exception of your rediculous current analysis of course). All i did was post the data showing exactly what you asked for. Didnt add or make up "anything". It speaks for itself. Sorry you ended up looking foolish though. Wasnt my intent. I thought youd be smart enough to know some of us dont make claims we cant substantiate with the facts.

"I know I know, last year was 108,000 but for whatever reason, the folks that run with that #, don't mention that 5 Saturdays in archery and the first day of rifle were rainy and the first Saturday was a blinding snow storm for much of the state."

Sorry no dice. First off, that didnt have athing to do with the herd estimate data. Second, Those werent the conditions where i was hunting, though i heard some areas of the state that was the case. That goes for the archery and the first day. Even if it were true, whats the excuse for the year before that? And the year before that? lmao. Also the data i posted was not harvest data. It was actual HERD SIZE ESTIMATION data. PGCS HERD SIZE ESTIMATION DATA. That was only available on and because of the audit. So there goes that arguement straight out the window eh? lmao. You can also see the decreases on the annual reports per year in different format, but this one illustrated clearest for those who may not understand anything but the basics.

"What if the harvest would have been 150,000 ? Would you be whinin' that too many were shot ?"

Nope. Especially not if it were a SUSTAINABLE harvest at that level. Show me an average harvest of 150k bucks over for say, the next few years, and i'd say that would be respectable harvest. As long as it werent simply a one year deal out of 10 pathetic ones. Where it was the product of poor weather during a couple of years prior, and perfect conditions that particular year.


"What if this years the buck harvest is greater than 108,000. Would that be reduction ?"

I didnt determine what was or wasnt a reduction in the data i supplied. That was pgcs estimates of the herd size bud. Want information on how they made the estimates, please feel free to shoot them an email for complete explanation of the process.


Glad i could clear up your confusion. Im hitting the hay. Will be out bright and early tomorrow drivin' for a couple kids. Now you have a good evening sir!.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I stated allocations have been less and less.  Do you understand that when 2G went from 52000 to 26000 to whatever it is now, is not reduction.  4D went from originally in the upper 40's to 30000 or so.  4A headed that direction as well.  So are other WMU.  That is not herd reduction.   That is all I said and you took it into a spin as usual.  

Are you really as ignorant as that statement indicates you are? the PGC data shows that reducing the doe tags to 26K in reduced the herd in 2G by 40% from 2008 to 2009. In 4d the 2008 allocation reduced the herd by 24% and in 4A it reduced the herd by 26%.

Try again!!!

Deerfly online again. Pretty nice outside. You like manipulating pgc data more than hunting ?

We can agree that the pgc does not know total deer counts. How can one reduce a herd by 40% without knowing how many 100% is ?

2G is now 15210. Major herd reduction there in the largest WMU in the state. Weren't there collared deer .. like a couple hundred and only a few got shot. Oh I remember, you guys argued about how the collared deer were purposely put far off the road and that is why most didn't get shot.

Penn State did the same thing a few years back. It was like a single % were shot. It was also ironic watching guys on this very board complain about no deer in that immediate area.

We can agree that the pgc does not know total deer counts. How can one reduce a herd by 40% without knowing how many 100% is ?

Wrong again!!! Every year the PGC calculates the estimated DD for each WMU but they refuse to release that data so they can confuse and manipulate hunters who refuse to become informed. Furthermore,every year the PGC estimates the statewide deer density and the buck harvest is used as the starting point for that calculation. So ,when the buck harvest decreases by over 40 % it is a clear indication that the statewide herd decreased by over 40%.

Deer Population Trends
We used multiple methods to monitor deer population trends including a modified sex-
age-kill (SAK) model (Eberhardt 1960, Creed et al. 1984, Skalski and Millspaugh 2002),
antlerless hunter success index (i.e., estimated antlerless harvest divided by the number of
antlerless licenses), and an antlered harvest index (i.e., estimated antlered harvest for a WMU).

We modified the standard SAK model to account for Pennsylvania’s antler restrictions to
monitor deer population trends. Modifications involve estimation of 1.5-year-old and 2.5-year-
old and older male populations. Population trend monitoring relies on research data from
Pennsylvania (e.g., Long et al. 2005), harvest estimates, and deer aging data. Population
monitoring began with adult males (males 1.5 years of age and older) and progressed to females
and fawns.

The modified SAK procedure began by estimating males 2.5 years of age and older from
harvest estimates and adult male harvest rates. Once the population of males 2.5 years of age and
older were estimated, we determined the 1.5-year-old male population. Because protection levels
of 1.5-year-old males varied among WMUs and harvest rates could also vary, we worked back in
time to generate harvest rates for 1.5-year-old males. First, we determined the pre-hunt
population of 1.5-year-old males in the preceding year using current year population estimate of
2.5-year-old males, survival rate from 1.5 to 2.5 years of age, and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-
old males in the preceding year. Harvest rate of 1.5-year-old males from the preceding year was
then calculated using the pre-hunt population and estimated harvest of 1.5-year-old males.
Current year’s population of 1.5-year-old males was determined using a 3-year running average
of harvest rates of 1.5-year-old males from the 3 previous years. Following determination of the
1.5-year-old males and males 2.5 years of age and older, calculation of female, fawn, and the
total populations followed procedures similar to Skalski and Millspaugh (2002).

But in 2006 the majority of the state was still considered in reduction. And I believe that goes for 2007 as well. 2G may have been the sole WMU that really dropped allocations in those years. So I'm not sure the years you've posted has any meaning in terms of stabilization.

That is absolutely not true and you can't provide a single bit of evidence to support that claim.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

But in 2006 the majority of the state was still considered in reduction. And I believe that goes for 2007 as well. 2G may have been the sole WMU that really dropped allocations in those years. So I'm not sure the years you've posted has any meaning in terms of stabilization.

That is absolutely not true and you can't provide a single bit of evidence to support that claim.

So are you telling me those years were not reduction years ? I see an increase in tag allocations in some WMU.

Well, according to you, every year is a reduction year, so you're not making any sense.

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: deerfly

But in 2006 the majority of the state was still considered in reduction. And I believe that goes for 2007 as well. 2G may have been the sole WMU that really dropped allocations in those years. So I'm not sure the years you've posted has any meaning in terms of stabilization.

That is absolutely not true and you can't provide a single bit of evidence to support that claim.

So are you telling me those years were not reduction years ? I see an increase in tag allocations in some WMU.

Well, according to you, every year is a reduction year, so you're not making any sense.

No, I am telling you that the PGC claimed that they have been trying to the herd stable in the majority of the WMUs since 2005, but instead have continued to reduce the herd in all but a few WMUs.