#2...There are 200K less hunters even trying to harvest a buck, surely that would reduce the harvest rate also[

Typically the people who quit a sport(any sport) the earliest, are the ones that are the least successful at it. That means the ones that are left are the most successful so the harvest rate should INCREASE if there were enough legal bucks available to allow it. If it were not for those 200,000 hunters dropping out last years 14.8% harvest percentage would be "closer" to 11.6%. Try comparing that to the 2001 rate of 23.6% with all those hunters still out there.

IMHO the QDMA is a great thing to help like minded people with the time, money and land to breed, feed, and raise quality bucks. But, as was stated, they spend the money and do the work necessary to manage their land for 40-80 quality DPSM. Jeff Foxworthy spoke at one of their meetings and was talking about the 170+ buck he killed on land he bought and improved over a period of years. He said he could have shot that type buck on a Texas ranch for $10,000. By doing it himself the QDMA way he only had $10,000,000 invested in it.
I believe the QDMA is doing themselves more harm than good by trying to force their philosophys on public land statewide with mostly casual hunters who have many diverse ideas of what deer hunting success is.

What can I say.. I'm wasting time trying to talk intelligently with some one who honestly says they think 200K more buck hunters in the woods would not increase the buck harvest figures

When trying to compare buck harvest to doe harvest you must consider MANY good successful deer hunters are shooting multiple females each year...

LMAO.. wayne wants to debate a woman who is not posting on this thread but on another board..

hey wayne ...go over there and take her on.. IF YOU CAN... we don't need to hear about it here ..plus you are only giving us your side of what she did or did not say...

What can I say.. I'm wasting time trying to talk intelligently with some one who honestly says they think 200K more buck hunters in the woods would not increase the buck harvest figures

Well , here is a test of your intelligence. In 2001 ,764K antlerless hunters harvested 283K antlerless deer, but in 2009, 836K antlerless hunters harvested just 201K antlerless deer. So why did more hunters in 2009 harvest 82K fewer antlerless deer than in 2001?

And, BTW the 836K antlerless hunters in 2009 is based on the number of tags sold ,rather than on the actual number of antlerless hunters.

You can not compare success rates for bucks to those of antlerless IMHO and here is why =

every single person who buys a general license can then go out and hunt (shoot) a buck...

pretty much the same folks year after year...

NO SO for antlerless....

example.. last year 10,000 folks could not even get a "doe tag" if they wanted one because the BOC cut the allocations , same was true in other WMUs.. It's a lottery drawing... talented successful hunters did not get tags while some others may have got one and burned it... others did not get one because of selling out within a few days in their WMU ..

so the people out hunting antlerless year to year are not always the same ones nor with the same abilities, nor the same goals.... so those rates are more liable to vary greatly from year to year...

If everyone who bought a general license could shoot an antlerless deer every year you'd get a much better (stable) success rate from year to year... otherwise it is going to vary from year to year.. some good years and some bad years... and that does not even factor in weather conditions..

So why did more hunters in 2009 harvest 82K fewer antlerless deer than in 2001?

I can't believe he even thought about asking me that question ======

maybe I should take a sip of whatever he is drinking ???

Oh well HE DID ASK WHY....


deerfly...

You may not have noticed but there are/were ALOT fewer antlerless deer running in the woods in 2009 than there were in 2001.... it was called HERD REDUCTION !!!!

however I will still hold fast to my claim that if in 2009 they would have sold 10,000 more tags (even more hunters) in the woods in 2F the number of antlerless killed in 2F would have gone higher than it was thus the toal harvest for the state would have been more than 83K also... 2G even had major cut back and thus less hunters in the woods... plus other WMU that had reductions...

PLUS somewhere in 200K more buck hunters some of them would have to have killed some more bucks to increase the total..

You may not have noticed but there are/were ALOT fewer antlerless deer running in the woods in 2009 than there were in 2001.... it was called HERD REDUCTION !!!!

Which is the exact reason that having those additional buck hunters would not have increased the buck harvest by any significant amount in 2009. You answered your own question.

Which is the exact reason that having those additional buck hunters would not have increased the buck harvest by any significant amount in 2009

"any significant amount" .. interesting words .... that would mean it would be open to opinion...

well here's mine .. 200K more buck hunters would probably add a thousand to the total state wide ... ....... and too me a thousand more killed would be significant ...

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Which is the exact reason that having those additional buck hunters would not have increased the buck harvest by any significant amount in 2009

"any significant amount" .. interesting words .... that would mean it would be open to opinion...

well here's mine .. 200K more buck hunters would probably add a thousand to the total state wide ... ....... and too me a thousand more killed would be significant ...

 
I was going to ask you, out of curiosity's sake, not to debate, what percentage you thought of the 200,000 additional hunters would be successful if they were still hunting, given the reduce herd size.  20%, 10%, 5%, 1%?
 
From the numbers you state above -- 200,000 more hunters = 1,000 more harvested bucks statewide that would be a 0.5% success rate for those 200,000 hunters.  Is that what you thought?
 
Using round numbers to make the calculations easier, if the 200,000 hunters are added to the 700,000 that there are, that would be a total of 900,000 hunters (those that have the actual numbers, feel free to sharpen the math).  Now the current 700,000 killed 110,000 bucks for a success rate of 15.7%.  Add in the 200,000 hunters plus the 1,000 extra bucks they would harvest, according to you, and that would be 900,000 hunters harvesting 111,000 bucks for a success rate of 12.3%.  So if your numbers are right, the extra hunters would actually cause a decrease in the success rate.
 
Now, just for fun, lets say that the 200,000 hunters were not as bad at it as you think they are and they have the same success rate. 15.7%.  In order for that to happen, they would need to harvest an additional 31,400 bucks.  That would take the total buck harvest to 141,400.  Somewhere in this jungle of posts, it was written that before AR we killed 80% of the avialble bucks and that is true after AR as well.  (Please do not cite the collared fawn or collared buck studies because both have already been exposed as poor research techniques and not worth the paper the grant proposal was written one.)
 
If that is so, I can't say, but I am sure that someone can provide that data.  If that is true and the 110,000 that is now being harvested reflects 80% of the harvestable buck population then that, by extrapolation, makes the total harvestable buck population to be 137,500.  Some how it would seem to be difficult to harvest 141,400 bucks out of the 137,500 that are available.
 
So let's say that these guys aren't great huters at all, but not as bad as only a 1/2 of percentage success rate.  If the harvestable buck population model is correct, then if they were 13.7% successful, they would kill 100% of the harvestbale buck population.
 
If they were 10% successful they would kill 94.5% of the population.  If they were 5% successful they would kill 87% ofthe population.
 
The point is, Doc, do you really think that the 200,000 extra hunters would kill 103% of the population, 100% of the population, 95% of the population, or even 87% of the population?
 
No, you think they would be 0.5% successful, dropping the success percentage from 15.7% to 12.3% and that additional 1,000 bucks, statewide is significant in your opinion, but 50,000 to 70,000 LESS since AR/HR is not because 5 more bucks (or 0.004% of all bucks harvested, if they were ALL in 2009) in 2009.
 
Yeah, I can see where it was worth it.

ORIGINAL: World Famous

I agree with Doc. We probably would only take 1,000 addtional bucks of the 200,000 hunters that quit because the PGC said we lost our hunting ability and the bucks are SO much smarter then they used to be...WF

 
I forgot about that.

Doc, You have already admitted your math skills are not the best. It's just being pointed out to you that the increased kill you talked about from the 200,000 additional hunters would not influence the percent harvest rate for 2009. It would have taken an additional harvest of nearly 30,000 bucks just to keep it at 14.8%. Your 1000 would have moved the number from 11.6% to 11.7%

I'm fine with the results,


my point in posting was that it would increase the harvest and if you check that was in reply to someone saying that the 200K would LOWER the harvest... which I say is still silly and not true.. 200K more hunters and the harvest goes up ... PERIOD

in reply to someone saying that the 200K would LOWER the harvest... which I say is still silly and not true.. 200K more hunters and the harvest goes up ... PERIOD

Now your trying to change the topic, we, and that includes you, were discussing the harvest success rate, and you said it would go up. We showed you the math that made your claim impossible. No one said anything about killing an extra few deer, it was all about changing the success rate.

quote:

#2...There are 200K less hunters even trying to harvest a buck, surely that would reduce the harvest rate also[

Typically the people who quit a sport(any sport) the earliest, are the ones that are the least successful at it. That means the ones that are left are the most successful so the harvest rate should INCREASE if there were enough legal bucks available to allow it. If it were not for those 200,000 hunters dropping out last years 14.8% harvest percentage would be "closer" to 11.6%. Try comparing that to the 2001 rate of 23.6% with all those hunters still out there.

I don't know if you just forgot what this discussion was about, are trying to change the subject, or if your having one of those senior moments but to refresh your memory I posted your original quote and my reply.(notice you say Harvest Rate) I think this horse is dead.

Okay senior moment I guess...

At our age we are allowed one on occasion