not yet, as long as Im breathing , there will time for more

Why is it that after two decades of lower doe harvests the deer populations are still low and possible still declining even as hunters harvest fewer and fewer deer? If harvesting fewer does worked why wouldn’t there be the more deer hunters expected after two decades of reduced harvests?

Oh boy, I can see it now..."That is simply not true!" or "...200,000...".
Although I did lose yesterday's SuperBowl bet.

Ironhed

FYI - http://www.lockhaven.com/page/content.detail/id/529238/Pa--Federation-of-Sportsmen-s-Clubs-partner-with-Keystone-Energy-Forum.html?nav=5003

Yep s10, we can look to rsbs wwisdom in attempting to selectively interpret inappropriately one unit by dissecting the ebbs and flows of 40 years of allocations and herd size to fit his position. lmao.

Or we can look at the clear concise facts that spell it out without needing hocus pocus and a whole lotta grotesque distorting and twisting to fit ones agenda. By ignoring the fact it takes fewer tags to have same effect on far fewer deer etc, and reading things into numbers that just isnt there. lmao.

Top 4 All Time Total Deer Harvests as promoted by the PGC as necessary to reduce the deer population.

1. 2002 517,529
2. 2000 504,600
3. 2001 486,014
4. 2003 464,890

I mean, what more really need be said??

Doc wrote:That is TOTALLY AN OPINION === and he can provide no written facts to back that statement up --at best just other folk's opinion

Why are you trying to pick a fight Doc? We already had that discussion months ago and many folks posted info showing that or stated that was what was happening. That is old history and I just mentioned it in passing. If you want to discuss something why not keep it in regards to what Essox-Hunter posted. That is very interesting news and a bit unusual for a sportsmens club to get in bed with the oil and gas industry. Give us your input on that issue rather that trying to re-argue old history.

Picking a fight ... LMAO... that's you're method of posting..

what does this that YOU posted .. have to do with the link that essox posted ---- I see no mention of coal or gas ... just a negative comment about the PFSC ...??????

The PFSC was in danger of going bankrupt because of the loss of so many members due to their position on herd reduction and the perception they were being taken over by the greens.

you posted that simply because you knew I would come to the defense of such an outrageous claim...

unusual for a sportsmens club to get in bed with the oil and gas industry

again your opinion.. I find it VERY appropriate to have a relationship with these type things...


what's the saying about getting close to keep an eye on your enemies ????


oil and gas could be the next acid mine drainage problems type thing that effects our
environment....

I have seen the damage demonstrated on the dangers and damage waste water from Marcellus drilling can do... and I am not sure they even know all of the dangers that are under-ground that may be happening..

Being kept informed, being concerned, and keeping an eye on things that effect the habitat and our environment,. while you may think have nothing to do with hunting, fishing, or wildlife, are things I feel need be be watched and the closer the eye the better.............

you just love looking at everything from the negative side.... and no one is going to every change that attitude...

"1...adding senior citizens to the same AR restricions as Junior hunters..."


Is that science based?

What goals of the PGC DMP (if we knew them) would that support?

I have to admit you really are a nice guy. Not many guys would provide the ammunition to an adversary to blow them to bits, but you just did it. Thanks a lot.

All data is for the heart of unit 2G (Elk, Cameron and Clinton Counties) and expressed in license or harvests per square mile of landmass. Antler restrictions started in 2002 as noted by the * after the buck harvest that year. From 2003 on the data is from the WMU 2G license and harvest data per square mile of landmass.

Year…….Allocation…………ant’less harvest………..buck harvest… OWDPSM( over wintering deer PSM)

01…………8.22………………….2.67………………….2.82…………….. 15
02………..12.90………………….4.18………………….2.42 *…………... 14
03………..12.64………………….4.95………………….2.46…………….. 12
04………..12.64………………….2.58………………….1.60…………….. 11
05…………7.05………………….1.51………………….1.22…………….. 10
06…………4.62………………….1.12………………….1.75…………….. 9
07…………6.32………………….1.60………………….1.24…………….. 8

So, based on that data even the village idiot should be able to see that 7 years of harvests that exceeded recruitment reduced the OWDD from 15 DPSM in 2001 to 8 DPSM in 2007. So with 8 OWDPSM and a B/d ratio of 1;1.7 there would be 3 males and 5 females in the OW herd. Of the 5 females at least one or two would be female fawns that weren't bred, so with a recruitment rate of 1 fawn/doe
the max. recruitment rate would be 4 DPSM and that does not account for non-harvest mortality. when you account for non-hunting mortality, 8 OWD can only support a harvest rate of less than 3 DPSM, which explains why the harvest rate in 2G in 2009 was only only 2.28 DPSM.

I really don't know much about the PFSC, but I do find it odd that a group representing sportsman has such close ties with a pro-drilling group. Especially one that openly admits that their main focus is on the economy and barely even mentions any environmental implications or loss of land.

What does the PFSC stand to gain from all of this?

What does the PFSC stand to gain from all of this?

PFSC recognizes the need for responsible energy development and the economic benefit. Drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation will leave a footprint on our environment. We must work together to minimize the impact to Penn's Woods while extracting this valuable resource. We hope our partnership with Keystone Energy Forum will serve as a platform for which to gain knowledge about natural gas drilling, as well as be a voice for concerns with regard to human safety and the environment.

Not sure the goal was to gain anything...

As these guys stated I think the goal is to make sure the drilling leaves the least impact to our environment and wildlife and human life since there appears to be some danger with water supply contamination from the fracking..

Some of these guys are purposely breaking laws because the fines are less than the "cost of the correct way to do things" and knowledge of these operations (how to do them correctly)is not one of Pa's best known subjects.... someone needs to keep their eyes on the drilling companies...

The PFBC is watching this stuff REALLY closely .... and I hope the PGC is too ??????

Some of these guys are purposely breaking laws because the fines are less than the "cost of the correct way to do things" and knowledge of these operations (how to do them correctly)is not one of Pa's best known subjects.... someone needs to keep their eyes on the drilling companies...

Unfortunately, you are correct about that. I see it first hand in various forms quite often.

We can not increase penalties for fear that it may be construed as a conflict of interest. That is the reason permits cost about the same as they did 20 years ago. Apparently they feel the DEP will enforce the regs differently if more monies can be made from penalties/permits

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I have to admit you really are a nice guy. Not many guys would provide the ammunition to an adversary to blow them to bits, but you just did it. Thanks a lot.

All data is for the heart of unit 2G (Elk, Cameron and Clinton Counties) and expressed in license or harvests per square mile of landmass. Antler restrictions started in 2002 as noted by the * after the buck harvest that year. From 2003 on the data is from the WMU 2G license and harvest data per square mile of landmass.

Year…….Allocation…………ant’less harvest………..buck harvest… OWDPSM( over wintering deer PSM)

01…………8.22………………….2.67………………….2.82…………….. 15
02………..12.90………………….4.18………………….2.42 *…………... 14
03………..12.64………………….4.95………………….2.46…………….. 12
04………..12.64………………….2.58………………….1.60…………….. 11
05…………7.05………………….1.51………………….1.22…………….. 10
06…………4.62………………….1.12………………….1.75…………….. 9
07…………6.32………………….1.60………………….1.24…………….. 8

So, based on that data even the village idiot should be able to see that 7 years of harvests that exceeded recruitment reduced the OWDD from 15 DPSM in 2001 to 8 DPSM in 2007. So with 8 OWDPSM and a B/d ratio of 1;1.7 there would be 3 males and 5 females in the OW herd. Of the 5 females at least one or two would be female fawns that weren't bred, so with a recruitment rate of 1 fawn/doe
the max. recruitment rate would be 4 DPSM and that does not account for non-harvest mortality. when you account for non-hunting mortality, 8 OWD can only support a harvest rate of less than 3 DPSM, which explains why the harvest rate in 2G in 2009 was only only 2.28 DPSM.

 
You just can’t stop with stating the obvious and thinking you have a smoking gun can you? Why don’t you post just ONE TIME were I have said that harvesting more than were recruited didn’t reduce the population. Everyone knows that when the mortality is higher than the recruitment the population crashes. That is not revelation and is simply the red herring you keep throwing out there for people not smart enough to recognize it as just your desperation.
 
Actually it is I who should be thanking you for continuously posting the data that clearly proves that you don’t understand how natural affects reduce deer numbers more than hunter harvests when you try to keep more deer through the winter that the habitat can sustain. That is exactly where that failed recruitment comes from that drives deer populations down when hunters fail to harvest enough to allow for doe going through the winter in good enough condition to have higher fawn recruitment rates.
 
If you want people to think you have it figured, understand what is going on or how nature really works all you have to do is explain why the recruitment in the heart of 2G was high enough to sustain the following six years of higher harvests though the 80s without a population crash. 
Year……allocation………ant’less harv….buck harv……..license/doe
86………..13.16………………….3.18………………….4.11……………..4.14
87………..15.42………………….3.85………………….4.20……………..4.00
88………..17.43………………….5.88………………….4.18……………..2.97
89………..18.00………………….5.62………………….3.72……………..3.20
90………..17.38………………….5.00………………….3.02……………..3.47
91………..13.63………………….3.52………………….2.65……………..3.88  
 
Then explain why the fawn recruitment would be so low in the same area that it can’t support these obviously much lower deer harvests.
 
Year……allocation………ant’less harv….buck harv……..license/doe
01…………8.22………………….2.67………………….2.82……………..3.08  
02………..12.90………………….4.18………………….2.42…………...3.09
03………..12.64………………….4.95………………….2.46……………..2.55
04………..12.64………………….2.58………………….1.60……………..4.91
05…………7.05………………….1.51………………….1.22……………..4.68
06…………4.62………………….1.12………………….1.75……………..4.13
07…………6.32………………….1.60………………….1.24……………..3.94
It is perfectly obvious that the fawn recruitment rates were withstanding the higher harvests back in the eighties. In fact the harvests were higher year after year and have NEVER been as high since as they were for three consecutive years as they were between 1988 and 1990. The antlerless harvest range during the six-year back in the late eighties and early ninnies ranged from a low of 3.18 to a high of 5.88 harvested per square mile. Three consecutive years the harvest was 5.00 or higher.
 
In the six highest harvest years during recent years the antlerless harvest has never been up as high as 5.00 antlerless deer harvested per square mile. The range for the six highest harvest years since 2001 has ranged between 1.60 and 4.95 antlerless deer harvested per square mile. Those six highest years were not consecutive years, none of them was over 5.00, only two of them was over 4.00, three were between 2.0 and 3.0 and the rest have all been less than 2.0.
 
So how about you explaining to everyone why the fawn recruitment rates can’t keep up to the much lower deer harvests we have had in recent years when obviously the fawn recruitment rates kept up to much higher doe harvests back in the eighties and nineties.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Yep s10, we can look to rsbs wwisdom in attempting to selectively interpret inappropriately one unit by dissecting the ebbs and flows of 40 years of allocations and herd size to fit his position. lmao.

Or we can look at the clear concise facts that spell it out without needing hocus pocus and a whole lotta grotesque distorting and twisting to fit ones agenda. By ignoring the fact it takes fewer tags to have same effect on far fewer deer etc, and reading things into numbers that just isnt there. lmao.

Top 4 All Time Total Deer Harvests as promoted by the PGC as necessary to reduce the deer population.

1. 2002 517,529
2. 2000 504,600
3. 2001 486,014
4. 2003 464,890

I mean, what more really need be said??

 
Wouldn’t an honest, honorable or logical thinking person take into consideration the differences in where or what areas of the state those high harvests are coming from?
 
Since deer are managed at a WMU level instead of a statewide level your statewide harvest data is TOTALLY meaningless in any suggestion it is too high or higher than it should be.
 
What drove those statewide harvests up is the attempt to reduce the deer populations in our cities and highly metropolitan areas of the state where deer numbers have been and still are WAY to high.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

What drove those statewide harvests up is the attempt to reduce the deer populations in our cities and highly metropolitan areas of the state where deer numbers have been and still are WAY to high.

The goal was statewide herd reduction until 5 or 6 years ago (not including all supposed unintentional reductions that has occurred since). The pgc biologists were to, and did set the allocations to address that goal of reduction prior to the goal becoming stabilization. The plight is well documented. And it was very effective.

So how about you explaining to everyone why the fawn recruitment rates can’t keep up to the much lower deer harvests we have had in recent years when obviously the fawn recruitment rates kept up to much higher doe harvests back in the eighties and nineties.
 

Fawn recruitment rates haven't changed much from the 80's . The over winter doe are still producing around 1 fawn / OW doe. What has changed is that instead of having 1M OWD as we did in 2000,we now have around 530,000 OW deer. Why anyone would expect 530K deer to recruit the same number of fawns as 1M OWD is beyond comprehension.