deerfly 
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
2010 Fall deer Chronicles
Here is the link to the Fall Deer Chronicles. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=574291&mode=2 The section on hunter success rates is a prime example of how the PGC selectively uses the data to mislead and deceive. Dr. R. compares the buck harvest rate of 14% in the 80s to the current buck harvest rate of 16% in an attempt to convince hunters that hunting is just as good now as it was in the 80’s and that HR and ARs didn’t have a negative effect on the quality of hunting now compared to in the 80s. Although he mentions that the number of deer hunters decreased from 80’s until now he failed to explain the magnitude of the decrease, nor did he mention the buck harvest success rates when the current DMP was implemented in 2000. Here are the buck harvest success rates based on the buck harvests and the number of deer hunters as provided in the PGC DMP. 1997---19.4% 1998---20.2% 1999---22% 2000---22% 2001---23.6% So, would anyone believe that the hunting today is anywhere close to as good as it was in 2000 or 2001?
|
DanesDad
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3087
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/03/21 15:35:43
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 00:02:58
(permalink)
Sounds like The Doctor was comparing the success rates of the 80s to those of today, not the late 90s and early 2000s.
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 09:17:02
(permalink)
The chart on page two does in fact include the harvest rate for the 90s , but for some strange reason leaves out the the harvest rates from 2000 to 2004. Many in the past have accused me of cherry picking data to support my position ,but Dr. R. has me beaten by miles. Also, note that they know that we harvested 17% more 8 pts. than in 2001, but they can't or won't tell us if antler size is increasing or decreasing.I wonder why?
|
Ironhed
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1892
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/11/07 19:10:08
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 09:36:16
(permalink)
So, would anyone believe that the hunting today is anywhere close to as good as it was in 2000 or 2001? Absolutely. I feel it is better and my harvest rate has been the same for the last 23 years(except for last year). Ironhed
|
dpms
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3561
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 09:37:33
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly
Also, note that they know that we harvested 17% more 8 pts. than in 2001, but they can't or won't tell us if antler size is increasing or decreasing.I wonder why?
In regards to antler size. In addition to the info that PGC personel gather during field checks and visits to processors, a antler size study would have to include rather precise measurements of the antlers down to 1/8 inches. Obviously, our 1.5 y/o would average out larger than in the past because of the AR. The meat of it would be the 2.5 y/o, 3.5, 4.5 and so on. Right now they only age for 2.5 plus. That would have to change to undertake a study of antler mass. It is rather easy to age between 1.5 and 2.5. Not so easy or fast after that. Add in precise antler measurements and you are looking at a lengthy check process which surely would reduce the sample size unless personel is increased. That would take money which is in short supply at the moment. Now with all of that being said. Does the PGC have any data to compare it too? Antler measurements of enough pre HR/AR of 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 y/o bucks to allow a comparison. If there was an increase in antler mass among same age class bucks, I would attribute it to HR. While I do not believe our same age class bucks are appreciably larger in antler mass than previous, I do believe that Pa. hunters have access to a higher percentage of older bucks than in the past. At the same time, our total buck population is down which many are not in favor of.
My rifle is a black rifle
|
ShutUpNFish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3834
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/03/16 10:31:34
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 09:42:06
(permalink)
If anyone believes the PGC can acquire any sort of accurate (or anywhere close) harvest report #s using the system they use (harvest report cards); they are sadly confused or what I call "bamboozled"! Unfortunately, most of the hunters I know, never even fill out those report cards. When do you ever remember the PGC telling hunters of poor numbers or a down year? The hunting ALWAYS seems to be better or the heard needs reduced according to the PGC.  So my answer is a clear NO...the hunting is no better than it was when I first started hunting. Is the quality of bucks better? NO, it is not for me....I'm still seeing the spikes, 4 points and little bucks I've always seen and most importantly, I'm not seeing more bigger bucks or better bucks then I did 15 years ago. I'm seeing more hunters in the woods hunting for longer periods of time because they are waiting for that "legal" buck or "trophy" buck. If I had my own plot of 500 acres, I believe heard management and AR would work fine, but we are talking about a state with over a million hunters and lots of pressure. Big difference. There are ways and happy mediums that would make for books of discussion, but bottom line is that I feel the current system/regs need revised and changes made to improve it even further....however, according to the PGC everything is peachy and I disagree.
post edited by ShutUpNFish - 2010/12/26 09:53:52
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 09:49:17
(permalink)
While it may be better for a individual dependent on their particular situation the facts prove that statewide that is not the case. We are the only state where the number of deer hunters has decreased more than hunters in general since 2001. I see they had to change the way they work the numbers to get the answer they want. Remember the PGC comparing 1985-86-87------95-96-97-----05-06-07. Try that now with 1987-88-89-------97-98-99-----2007-08-09 and see what you get. Next year will be even more revealing. It's the old adage. figures don't lie but the PGC figures. BTW-my best decade for number and size bucks was 1992-2002.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 10:15:39
(permalink)
That would have to change to undertake a study of antler mass. It is rather easy to age between 1.5 and 2.5. Not so easy or fast after that. Add in precise antler measurements and you are looking at a lengthy check process which surely would reduce the sample size unless personel is increased. They found the money to have Alt and company tour the state selling HR/AR and at the time touted the start of what they called THE GREATEST ANTLER RESTRICTION STUDY IN THE WORLD which would prove they were right. We are still waiting on the results of that. As of 2008 when comparing the average measurement of all bucks over 140 entered in the PA record book before AR with all bucks over 140 since AR there was less than 1% difference between the two.
|
dpms
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3561
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 10:46:05
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
They found the money to have Alt and company tour the state selling HR/AR and at the time touted the start of what they called THE GREATEST ANTLER RESTRICTION STUDY IN THE WORLD which would prove they were right. We are still waiting on the results of that. I too would like to see a study done. Pa. has a unique opportunity here with statewide AR to undertake a comprehensive series of studies that I am quite sure other states and hunters would love to see. Good or bad. But, I also understand that money and personel would be needed.
My rifle is a black rifle
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 12:03:08
(permalink)
Right now they only age for 2.5 plus. That would have to change to undertake a study of antler mass. It is rather easy to age between 1.5 and 2.5. Not so easy or fast after that. Add in precise antler measurements and you are looking at a lengthy check process which surely would reduce the sample size unless personel is increased. That would take money which is in short supply at the moment.
The PGC does in fact have the data on the percentage of each age class in the 2.5+ buck harvest up to 5.5 yrs. At one point they released the following data for the 2006 harvest of 2.5+ buck. 2.5 buck 71%=43,114 3,5 buck 21%= 10,090 4.5 buck 5% = 2,402 5.5+ buck 3%=1,441
post edited by deerfly - 2010/12/26 12:28:22
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 17:22:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly
Here is the link to the Fall Deer Chronicles.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=574291&mode=2
The section on hunter success rates is a prime example of how the PGC selectively uses the data to mislead and deceive. Dr. R. compares the buck harvest rate of 14% in the 80s to the current buck harvest rate of 16% in an attempt to convince hunters that hunting is just as good now as it was in the 80’s and that HR and ARs didn’t have a negative effect on the quality of hunting now compared to in the 80s. Although he mentions that the number of deer hunters decreased from 80’s until now he failed to explain the magnitude of the decrease, nor did he mention the buck harvest success rates when the current DMP was implemented in 2000.
Here are the buck harvest success rates based on the buck harvests and the number of deer hunters as provided in the PGC DMP.
1997---19.4%
1998---20.2%
1999---22%
2000---22%
2001---23.6%
So, would anyone believe that the hunting today is anywhere close to as good as it was in 2000 or 2001?
The “Fall 2010 Deer Chronicles†article written by Doctor Rosenberry shows the buck harvest success rate at about 14% through the 80s and at about 18% through 90s. The nid range level of those two percentages is the 16% we have seen the past few years. It makes perfect sense to me that as the deer populations increased in the southern part of the state, and you were longer cramming all of the state’s hunters onto just half of the state, that the buck harvest success rates would have improved. I am not surprised or even going to question the statewide buck harvest success rates of 20%, as Deerfly points out, for the statewide average during the early 2000s. It most likely was that high since all evidence indicates the state’s deer populations were increasing at the time, even to levels that were too high for the existing habitat in many areas of the state. It is also likely or at least entirely possible, based on some of the harvest statistics, that hunters were starting to over harvest the buck populations in the late 90s and early 2000s in at least some areas of the state. So what Deerfly has actually pointed out is the precise reason it was a wise management decision to institute antler restrictions to bring the buck harvest rates back to a more normal level and one that benefited the future for good deer management instead of just benefiting hunter harvests. The fact that the buck harvest success rates are still at 16%, which once again is a rather mid range level of the historic success rates, is pretty much testament that the current program is working as intended while still maintaining a reasonably stable hunter success rate. Hopefully everyone noticed that neither Doctor Rosenberry nor I said the success rate was higher than in the past or even unchanged, but simply that it has remained similar to the success rates of the past. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 17:47:59
(permalink)
“Fall 2010 Deer Chronicles†article written by Doctor Rosenberry shows the buck harvest success rate at about 14% through the 80s and at about 18% through 90s. The nid range level of those two percentages is the 16% we have seen the past few years. It makes perfect sense to me that as the deer populations increased in the southern part of the state, and you were longer cramming all of the state’s hunters onto just half of the state, that the buck harvest success rates would have improved. By the 80s the deer herd had already been well established in the southern tier ,so that comment is meaningless. t is also likely or at least entirely possible, based on some of the harvest statistics, that hunters were starting to over harvest the buck populations in the late 90s and early 2000s in at least some areas of the state. So what Deerfly has actually pointed out is the precise reason it was a wise management decision to institute antler restrictions to bring the buck harvest rates back to a more normal level and one that benefited the future for good deer management instead of just benefiting hunter harvests. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claim that hunters were over harvesting the buck prior to ARs. Breeding rates and productivity did not increase as a result of ARs or HR. Furthermore, in 2002 we harvested 52,900 buck which means we carried over at least 60K buck from 2001. Hopefully everyone noticed that neither Doctor Rosenberry nor I said the success rate was higher than in the past or even unchanged, but simply that it has remained similar to the success rates of the past. By pointing out that the harvest rate was 14% in the 80s and 16% the last few years Dr. R. is in fact saying the success rate is higher now than in the 80s.
|
World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 17:48:18
(permalink)
Looks like the deer hunters were better hunters 10 years ago then we are now. Must be true that we have lost our hunting skills .Just sucks gettin old....WF
|
woodnickle
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 8563
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 17:48:35
(permalink)
I would like to see a study on private verses public kills.
On the harvest report , have a box to check "pv" or "pl".
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 17:54:07
(permalink)
I'll bet you had a hard time keeping a straight face as you were typing that explanation. Keep digging that credibility hole deeper.  Page 31 Draft Deer Management Report = The largest harvest of deer occurs at deer population levels of approx 50-60% of maximum carrying capacity.
|
RSB
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 932
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 20:01:44
(permalink)
“Fall 2010 Deer Chronicles†article written by Doctor Rosenberry shows the buck harvest success rate at about 14% through the 80s and at about 18% through 90s. The mid range level of those two percentages is the 16% we have seen the past few years. It makes perfect sense to me that as the deer populations increased in the southern part of the state, and you were longer cramming all of the state’s hunters onto just half of the state, that the buck harvest success rates would have improved." By the 80s the deer herd had already been well established in the southern tier ,so that comment is meaningless.
Though they were well established in the southern counties by the eighties they obviously had not reached the population levels they achieved in the nineties. To prove that point I am going to post the buck harvest results for the years between 1982 and 2001 in five-year averages for both the northern and southern tier counties. All data is expressed in buck harvests per square mile of landmass. Area…………82-86………87-91………..92-96…………97-01 North…………3.32………..3.97…………3.78…………..4.33 South…………2.51………..3.20…………3.51…………..4.21 From this several things seem to be pretty obvious. First of all it is obvious that the deer populations were continuously increasing through the 80s and 90s. It is also obvious that the deer populations in the northern tier were fairly stable through the 80s and early 90s but were on the increase in the late 90s and early 2000s to help bolster the higher statewide hunter success rate that was occurring through those time periods. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claim that hunters were over harvesting the buck prior to ARs. Breeding rates and productivity did not increase as a result of ARs or HR. Furthermore, in 2002 we harvested 52,900 buck which means we carried over at least 60K buck from 2001.
I guess that is a matter of opinion and though there might not be any definitive proof I believe there is ample evidence that points toward that likelihood or at least possibility.
By pointing out that the harvest rate was 14% in the 80s and 16% the last few years Dr. R. is in fact saying the success rate is higher now than in the 80s.
Yes, exactly! That was the entire point of the article. Buck hunter success rates today are comparable to past harvest success rate history and thus aren’t as bad as some disgruntled hunters want people to believe. R.S. Bodenhorn
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 20:14:13
(permalink)
I guess that is a matter of opinion and though there might not be any definitive proof I believe there is ample evidence that points toward that likelihood or at least possibility. Please provide the ample evidence that points to the fact that we were over harvesting the buck prior to Ars. There is no such evidence and your position is based on nothing more than your personal opinion. Yes, exactly! That was the entire point of the article. Buck hunter success rates today are comparable to past harvest success rate history and thus aren’t as bad as some disgruntled hunters want people to believe. Wrong again. The past harvest success rates just prior to the current HR and AR plan were much higher than after the new DMP was fully implemented. Furthermore, buck harvest success rates do not accurately assess the quality of hunting that the average hunter is experiencing. The PGC has done almost everything they possibly could do to make hunting less enjoyable for the average hunter.
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 20:24:37
(permalink)
Yes, exactly! That was the entire point of the article. Buck hunter success rates today are comparable to past harvest success rate history and thus aren’t as bad as some disgruntled hunters want people to believe.
R.S. Bodenhorn
(in reply In order to attempt to make that case you first had to select narrow time frames containing the numbers you wanted and disregard the six years leading up to AR/HR. Then you have to ignore the fact that approx 200,000 of the least successful deer hunters gave up hunting since 2001 because of your actions in addition to the normal loss of hunters. It is only by manupliating the numbers and ignoring the facts that you can make a tounge in cheek claim that we are killing over 40% fewer bucks than before HR but still enjoying about the same percentage success rate. It's the old adage(figures don't lie but--------------------) dig that hole. 
|
dpms
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3561
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/08/28 12:47:54
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 20:54:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly
The PGC has done almost everything they possibly could do to make hunting less enjoyable for the average hunter.
Common sense says that as success drops for some it has risen for others if one believes the numbers presented in the deer chronicles. I suspect that many of those that no longer hunt deer did so very infrequently before. Were they the "average" hunter you speak of. Opportunities to enjoy our sport have never been greater. Seasons are longer, new weapons have been introduced, youth and mentored opportunities, tags are plentiful, bobcat tags are OTC, bear are underharvested, turkeys and squirrels are abundant and yes, we manage to kill around 350,000 deer a year. If someone cannot find some enjoyment in all of the opportunites that we are lucky enough to have, I am afraid that inflating deer numbers again will not solve the problem.
My rifle is a black rifle
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 21:55:56
(permalink)
Common sense says that as success drops for some it has risen for others if one believes the numbers presented in the deer chronicles.  I suspect that many of those that no longer hunt deer did so very infrequently before.  Were they the "average" hunter you speak of.Â
Their is nothing in the data that supports that claim. Despite the drop in deer hunter numbers the success rate of buck hunters still decreased from over 20% in 2001 to 16 % in 2008 ,even with a lot fewer hunters.
|
ShutUpNFish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3834
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2007/03/16 10:31:34
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/26 23:59:40
(permalink)
On a positive note...I think one of the best things the PGC did was to impose the different units of the state. My thoughts are they did this to regulate specific areas according to the deer population which is a good thing IMO. You cannot feasibly manage a heard statewide as a whole, especially in a diverse state like PA terrain-wise. IMO there needs to be more units that need to go to a slug gun only rule. There are clearly some management areas which need to do away with rifles all together. IMO, less long shots and an effective way to ensure hunters their game with higher percentage shots closer in range and in areas with more developments. This is proven way more effective than AR as well, just take a look at OH and their quality of bucks and heards. The units such as mine, 1-A, have been hit hard in the past few years with all the issued tags and the deer population has been IMO devastated. The current laws are certainly putting a hurting on the smaller woodlots that are private but still open to local public hunters. The concept of "QDM" is not something locals in my part of the woods grasp easily. For most, if they are alloted the right, they are going to take full advantage to fill every tag they can. Archery, rifle, and muzzleloader seasons alike. At this point, in 1-A every hunter could be alloted two deer; a buck and a doe and that would be plenty enough. After that, we would see where the heard goes in 1-A then manage accordingly. The same could go for every other management unit...manage according to the numbers/quality in your area. IMO this is the only logical approach of managing a deer population in such a diverse state as ours. If in fact managing a quality deer heard is in our authorities' best interest...Sometimes I wonder.
|
DarDys
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4961
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
- Location: Duncansville, PA
- Status: online
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 08:15:28
(permalink)
"... Seasons are longer..."
Really?
For the average Pa hunter, that is the 70% of adult license holders that hunt with a gun, the season has not gotten longer. It used to be two weeks of bucks, plus three (two for us oldsters) of doe. Now it is two weeks, whether you slice it as two weeks of both or two weeks of buck and and a week plus one for doe running concurrently -- still only two weeks. All of the season increases pertain to special interest groups -- archers, youths, seniors, in-line muzzlerloader hunters, etc. -- and not the general deer hunting public. And with the 20% percent decrease in those that identify themselves as PA deer hunters, it doesn't seem that they are being drawn to these increased opportunities at all.
Yes, they are the "causal" hunter. No, they don't work as hard at it as those that have a great passion for it. But they supply the bulk of the funding. In any supply economics model when there are fewer people buying, the price must go up. The price here is not the cost of a license (although it could be), but rather a cost in voice. As fewer and fewer PA hunters identify themselves as deer hunters, that means there are fewer to voice opposition because they see it as doing no good. This gives those that may have alterior motives the opportunity they seek.
The poster formally known as Duncsdad Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
|
deerfly
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1271
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 08:36:28
(permalink)
On a positive note...I think one of the best things the PGC did was to impose the different units of the state. My thoughts are they did this to regulate specific areas according to the deer population which is a good thing IMO. But, the PGC is not managing the herd based on deer densities or on the quality of the habitat. They claim they don't know how many deer we have and that knowing he number of deer doesn't matter. furthermore, they claim they are managing the herd based on forest regeneration, but regeneration decreased in most WMUs as the herd was reduced.
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3242
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 09:08:20
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly
So, would anyone believe that the hunting today is anywhere close to as good as it was in 2000 or 2001?
Where I hunt 2F the numbers are down big time, but I still manage to bag one, but I know quite a few that gave up hunting since AR
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 09:45:13
(permalink)
The PGC cherry picked the numbers in a attempt to prove there was little change in success rate and want us to forget it was partly because nearly 200,000 deer hunters quit because of their actions. I would suggest the following numbers are closer to reality. Since the PGC originally used a three year average a decade apart I will do the same NOT using 2000 and 2001 which were our highest harvest years. I will assume 930,000 hunters since that is approx what we would have had were it not for the PGC's actions forcing them out.
1997-1998-1999 avg % success = 20.8%
2007-2008-2009 avg % success = 12.2%
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 13:16:00
(permalink)
I will assume 930,000 hunters since that is approx what we would have had were it not for the PGC's actions forcing them out.
Why assume ??? use the real number of license sold for 2007, 2008,2009 ... what do you get then for a success rate?? I know you know it was not near 930,000 deer hunters ..
post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/12/27 13:19:07
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 13:23:15
(permalink)
|
S-10
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5185
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 14:12:50
(permalink)
I was not using those so I could compare decade to decade as the PGC did on their original comparison. Just to please you I will use a 3 year average with 2000 and 2001 included 1999-2000-2001 avg success rate = 22.5% 2007-2008-2009 avg success rate = 12.2 Happy now
|
psu_fish
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 3242
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
- Location: PA
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 14:18:12
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: S-10
I was not using those so I could compare decade to decade as the PGC did on their original comparison. Just to please you I will use a 3 year average with 2000 and 2001 included
1999-2000-2001 avg success rate = 22.5%
2007-2008-2009 avg success rate = 12.2
Happy now
refute that doc
|
Dr. Trout
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 4417
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
- Location: Jefferson County (2F)
- Status: offline
RE: 2010 Fall deer Chronicles
2010/12/27 15:35:08
(permalink)
OKAY I WILL ==== Just why did he pick those three year combos... to prove his opinion that's all.... then he turns and in an attempt to "save face" he lumps the 2000s in with the 1990s... REALLY ????? 1999-2000-2001 avg success rate = 22.5%
2007-2008-2009 avg success rate = 12.2
how about these three year periods EXACTLY a decade apart figures... 1990, 1991, 1902 compared to 2000,2001,2002... that's the same first three years of a new decade in deer hunting in PA.... bet he will not show those succes ratios.. because they would DIS-PROVE his opinion... people can work figures to prove whatever they wish if they work at it 
|