Deer Population Estimates

Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 18:39:32 (permalink)
The one thing the bilogists and folks that crunch these numbers hate is change. When we had 2 weeks buck 3" spike legal, followed by 3 days doe we had decades worth of good research and trends. Going to WMU's really hurt the data. When Alt came along and changed everything that data became worthless. This is one reason the biologists scream whenever a change in bag limit, seasons, etc for any wildlife is proposed. They deal in neat rows of numbers, charts and trends and things need to be stable for them to mean anything.Allocations wouldn't affect them much because they have a standard number of tags issued per deer harvested that gradually changes as the herd is reduced. Going to split seasons as they did a few years ago and are going to add to this year makes a big difference. The buck harvest is the single most important key to the whole model and one they have had the most trouble with in 2G and 2F and the numbers and controversy show the results.
When someone tells you how great science based deer management is remind them that we had 1,600,000 science based deer in 2001----until they realized the science was wrong. We were also going to move 100,000 science based bucks into the next age group in 2002----except the science didn't allow for a good mast crop and weather allowing bucks to grow larger antlers and get harvested as 1-1/2 year olds.
#31
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 18:55:58 (permalink)
Allocations wouldn't affect them much because they have a standard number of tags issued per deer harvested that gradually changes as the herd is reduced. Going to split seasons as they did a few years ago and are going to add to this year makes a big difference.


I guess that didn't work that well in 2G since the buck harvest exceeded the antlerless harvest in 2009 ,even though the forest health is still rated poor in 2G. As yet I haven't been able to see any correlation between the allocations and the criteria they claim they are using to determine the allocations.
#32
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 26
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 19:39:44 (permalink)
Deerfly,

An example of what I mean by "if the variability of two point estimates overlap":
Look at No 3.  Pop. estimates for 2003-2009.  Compare 2003 to 2004. 
Year           Lower CI     EStimate        Upper CI
2003        69,695           89,758        122,849
2004        55,550           71,772         98,022

The upper confidence interval for 2004 is greater than the lower limit for 2003. Therefore these two estimates are not significantly different.  This is the case for parametric distributions, as I stated before I'm not 100% sure about the MK test, but it's probably the case.

"I wonder how they factor in the effect of the reduced antlerless allocations in a WMU like 2?"

This is the whole idea behind the model.  Change one parameter incrementally and examine the output.  The changes in allocation, harvest etc. is what creates the model.

Wayne C,

Deciding how many deer to have is a value judgment not science, do I think that hunters should be included in this? yes, do I think they should be the only group included? no Do I care? not really.  I don't know anything about trillium or foresters or what ever.  The science presented in this document is sound.  I could care less if they sell 100 or 100,000,000 deer tags, I was just making the point that the science is good in the population estimate.  I'm not saying that the population isn't declining, but this data suggests that the population is stable based on the mann-kendall trend test.  Just because you don't understand why they said the population was stable doesn't make it wrong.  My interest you ask? I was bored and thought I'd shed some light on the how the science and statistics work in this document so hunters could better understand and make informed decisions on how to proceed  based on the available data. If you criticize and think that everything that an agency, political party, user groups does is wrong then you lose a lot of credibility in my opinion. Please don't confuse my passion for science with passion for deer management in PA.

S-10,

With sampling you never know the true number (i.e., how many deer are there), that's why there is a variability associated with the estimates.  This is a very hard concept for most to understand, but it is the fundamental principle behind most sampling and statistics.  As long as they used the same methods for estimating harvest annually the actual number doesn't matter.  As it states in the report, they really aren't concerned with a number of deer but the trend.  They only give estimates to appease the hunters who can't accept this theory.  They do account for the variability of the parameters (i.e., reporting, etc) in the bootstrapping method as described at the end of the document.  The science is always changing as new data is available.  There is a saying about models, all models are wrong some are useful.  I'm not defending the PGC as a whole, just that the science here is very defensible.  There certainly are limitations to science but the alternative is usually not good.
#33
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 20:08:45 (permalink)

An example of what I mean by "if the variability of two point estimates overlap":
Look at No 3.  Pop. estimates for 2003-2009.  Compare 2003 to 2004. 
Year           Lower CI     EStimate        Upper CI
2003        69,695           89,758        122,849
2004        55,550           71,772         98,022

The upper confidence interval for 2004 is greater than the lower limit for 2003. Therefore these two estimates are not significantly different.  This is the case for parametric distributions, as I stated before I'm not 100% sure about the MK test, but it's probably the case.


While I have no doubt that your analysis is correct, the average hunter will look at the decrease in the pre-hunt estimates and the decrease in the buck harvests in those WMUs where the PGC claims the population trends are stable and conclude the population was decreasing. IMHO, the only way the population trends could be defined as stable is if it meant that the rate of the decrease in the herd was stable, rather than that the deer density was stable over that time period.
'm not saying that the population isn't declining, but this data suggests that the population is stable based on the mann-kendall trend test. Just because you don't understand why they said the population was stable doesn't make it wrong.



The PGC did not say the populations were stable, they said the population trends were stable. There is a huge difference between the two claims. Can you provide anything that would prove that the populations in PA remained stable from 2004 to 2009?
post edited by deerfly - 2011/02/04 20:17:02
#34
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 26
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 20:51:19 (permalink)
While I have no doubt that your analysis is correct, the average hunter will look at the decrease in the pre-hunt estimates and the decrease in the buck harvests in those WMUs where the PGC claims the population trends are stable and conclude the population was decreasing.


I don't disagree. In terms of this analysis; the scientific community as a whole decided that the population was stable for the last six years.  If the average hunter can't or doesn't understand that, that's a different matter.  This is why there is a disconnect between the scientific community and the general population.  As a scientist all you can do is try and clearly present your results, as john public all you can do is educate yourself...or complain.    I'm not saying that PGC biologists aren't looking at this analysis and saying that they don't believe that the population is declining and make a change before the decline is deemed significant by the statistics.  They decided to use 90% confidence intervals, but often times if the results are significant at lower levels say 50% then managers may make a decision based on that, particularly if the population is declining and they want it to increase or vice versa.  In general, biological samples use 95%CI's and medical sampling often uses 99.99999% CI so the PGC was conservative in this case.

IMHO, the only way the population trends could be defined as stable is if it meant that the rate of the decrease in the herd was stable, rather than that the deer density was stable over that time period


Deer herd = the number of deer in the population.  Deer Density = the number of deer in the population/ area .  The area doesn't really change significantly from year to year so these numbers are directly proportional (i.e., the same in regards to trends) The chances of the population being exactly the same from one year to the next is very small.  So what if it decreases by one, is the herd declining? if it increases by one is the herd increasing? where do you draw the line?  Keep in mind that you can't know exactly how many deer there are from one year to the next, so you can't possibly know that the herd increased by 1 or maybe not even 10 or 100 or 1,000.  That's why the variability is included in this decision, hence the mann-kendall trend test.

The PGC did not say the populations were stable, they said the population trends were stable. There is a huge difference between the two claims. Can you provide anything that would prove that the populations in PA remained stable from 2004 to 2009?


I understood that "Population Trend=stable" means that the numbers of deer in the state were stable over the last six years.  This was determined by the mann-kendall test of the analysis as I've mentioned (see my answer to your first question).  I don't necessarily think that the trend of the trend means anything.  The mann-kendall analysis was determined over a six year period, to get the trend of the population trend, would be arbitrary and pretty much meaningless.  To get a trend of the trend you need to have two different trends inferring two rates of change and as far as I know they have only estimated one trend.  I understand if you don't understand any of what I just said about trends of trends, I'm not good at typing my thoughts.

post edited by CallJonyCochran - 2011/02/04 20:54:39
#35
RSB
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 932
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:05:38 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: CallJonyCochran

Deerfly,

An example of what I mean by "if the variability of two point estimates overlap":
Look at No 3.  Pop. estimates for 2003-2009.  Compare 2003 to 2004. 
Year           Lower CI     EStimate        Upper CI
2003        69,695           89,758        122,849
2004        55,550           71,772         98,022

The upper confidence interval for 2004 is greater than the lower limit for 2003. Therefore these two estimates are not significantly different.  This is the case for parametric distributions, as I stated before I'm not 100% sure about the MK test, but it's probably the case.

"I wonder how they factor in the effect of the reduced antlerless allocations in a WMU like 2?"

This is the whole idea behind the model.  Change one parameter incrementally and examine the output.  The changes in allocation, harvest etc. is what creates the model.

Wayne C,

Deciding how many deer to have is a value judgment not science, do I think that hunters should be included in this? yes, do I think they should be the only group included? no Do I care? not really.  I don't know anything about trillium or foresters or what ever.  The science presented in this document is sound.  I could care less if they sell 100 or 100,000,000 deer tags, I was just making the point that the science is good in the population estimate.  I'm not saying that the population isn't declining, but this data suggests that the population is stable based on the mann-kendall trend test.  Just because you don't understand why they said the population was stable doesn't make it wrong.  My interest you ask? I was bored and thought I'd shed some light on the how the science and statistics work in this document so hunters could better understand and make informed decisions on how to proceed  based on the available data. If you criticize and think that everything that an agency, political party, user groups does is wrong then you lose a lot of credibility in my opinion. Please don't confuse my passion for science with passion for deer management in PA.

S-10,

With sampling you never know the true number (i.e., how many deer are there), that's why there is a variability associated with the estimates.  This is a very hard concept for most to understand, but it is the fundamental principle behind most sampling and statistics.  As long as they used the same methods for estimating harvest annually the actual number doesn't matter.  As it states in the report, they really aren't concerned with a number of deer but the trend.  They only give estimates to appease the hunters who can't accept this theory.  They do account for the variability of the parameters (i.e., reporting, etc) in the bootstrapping method as described at the end of the document.  The science is always changing as new data is available.  There is a saying about models, all models are wrong some are useful.  I'm not defending the PGC as a whole, just that the science here is very defensible.  There certainly are limitations to science but the alternative is usually not good.


 
You did an outstanding job of explaining your points.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn
#36
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:07:14 (permalink)
I understood that "Population Trend=stable" means that the numbers of deer in the state were stable over the last six years.  This was determined by the mann-kendall test of the analysis as I've mentioned (see my answer to your first question).  I don't necessarily think that the trend of the trend means anything.  The mann-kendall analysis was determined over a six year period, to get the trend of the population trend, would be arbitrary and pretty much meaningless.  To get a trend of the trend you have two have two different trends inferring two rates of change and as far as I know they have only estimated one trend.  I understand if you don't understand any of what I just said about trends of trends, I'm got at typing my thoughts.


That is definitely not true and it is the reason I question the results of this report.. The buck harvest declined from 142K in 2004 to 108K in 2009. Furthermore, the 2009 AWR report showed that the herd decreased in 19 of our 22 WMUs and in 2008 it showed the herd decreased in 10 of the WMUs. Virtually all of the PGC data shows that the herd was decreasing from 2004 to 2009, yet the PGC claims that the herd is stable. Unless you can provide a rational explanation for why the buck harvest would decrease by 34K from 2004 to 2009 in a stable herd you haven't provided a rational explanation to my question.
#37
RSB
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 932
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:26:50 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: deerfly

I understood that "Population Trend=stable" means that the numbers of deer in the state were stable over the last six years.  This was determined by the mann-kendall test of the analysis as I've mentioned (see my answer to your first question).  I don't necessarily think that the trend of the trend means anything.  The mann-kendall analysis was determined over a six year period, to get the trend of the population trend, would be arbitrary and pretty much meaningless.  To get a trend of the trend you have two have two different trends inferring two rates of change and as far as I know they have only estimated one trend.  I understand if you don't understand any of what I just said about trends of trends, I'm got at typing my thoughts.


That is definitely not true and it is the reason I question the results of this report.. The buck harvest declined from 142K in 2004 to 108K in 2009. Furthermore, the 2009 AWR report showed that the herd decreased in 19 of our 22 WMUs and in 2008 it showed the herd decreased in 10 of the WMUs. Virtually all of the PGC data shows that the herd was decreasing from 2004 to 2009, yet the PGC claims that the herd is stable. Unless you can provide a rational explanation for why the buck harvest would decrease by 34K from 2004 to 2009 in a stable herd you haven't provided a rational explanation to my question.

 
Wow. You really don’t get it do you. And, all this time I though you had a better handle on it than you let on and were only promoting a misguided agenda. I now realize that you really don’t understand it at and probably never did.
 
The point is that increasing or declining harvests, even over several years, doesn’t necessarily mean the population increased or decreased. Even though the population could be increasing or decreasing with the annual harvest trends it might not be and might even be moving in the opposite direction of the harvest.
 
One of the things that would result in having both a better coefficient of variation and confidence interval would be having a higher hunter-reporting rate.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn
#38
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 26
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:30:36 (permalink)
That is definitely not true and it is the reason I question the results of this report.. The buck harvest declined from 142K in 2004 to 108K in 2009. Furthermore, the 2009 AWR report showed that the herd decreased in 19 of our 22 WMUs and in 2008 it showed the herd decreased in 10 of the WMUs. Virtually all of the PGC data shows that the herd was decreasing from 2004 to 2009, yet the PGC claims that the herd is stable. Unless you can provide a rational explanation for why the buck harvest would decrease by 34K from 2004 to 2009 in a stable herd you haven't provided a rational explanation to my question.


I'm not saying that the herd isn't decreasing or that they PGC doesn't think it is decreasing.  The buck harvest is incoprorated into the model .  Let's say that we know that there were 200,000 deer in 2008 and 199,999 deer in 2009.  Is the population decreasing? if that's the case then the population will only be stable if 200,000 deer alive in 2009.  Since we can't possibly know how many deer are alive at any point in time, we estimate....again buck harvest is incorporated into this model to make the estimate.  So we estimate but we know that we can't estimate an exact number of deer (we tell the public an exact number because that's all they understand).  But we do know that we can estimate the population numbers with 90% confidence hence the 90% confidence interval .  For us to be sure that the population is declining the high end of the 90% confidence estimate has to be below the low end of the 2008 estimate, otherwise the population is stable.  Keep in mind that all of the model parameters are estimated (buck harvest, sex ratios etc.) this all has variability associated with it that gets accounted for in the total 90% confidence interval.  You are just looking at the point estimate, a scientist or statistician knows that point estimates are meaningless without an estimate of variance.

The point estimates may show that the herd is decreasing but as I said points estimates are meaningless without variability.  The m-k trend tests determine if the variability estimates are different from 2004 to 2009 with the point estimate as a place holder, if they aren't then it's stable.

#39
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:40:08 (permalink)
They work within ranges, hunters go by actual numbers. if the range from hi to low is 20,000 and the harvest is within that range the scientist sees no change, the hunter sees up to a 20,000 change.
#40
World Famous
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2213
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
  • Location: Johnstown
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:45:56 (permalink)
A phrase comes to mind; dazzle them with brillance or baffle them with bull****...WF
#41
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:47:26 (permalink)
"I could care less if they sell 100 or 100,000,000 deer tags, I was just making the point that the science is good in the population estimate."


I can agree to that. I havent much evaluated these latest numbers and given them much thought, but ive had little problem with herd estimates in the past up till now anyway. I believe theyve been good enough to serve their purpose and have stated so on many occassions.

"I'm not saying that the population isn't declining, but this data suggests that the population is stable based on the mann-kendall trend test. Just because you don't understand why they said the population was stable doesn't make it wrong."


Its not a matter of what i know....I dont CARE why they said its "stable" because it isnt stable! lmao. Taking advantage of self serving technicalities be darned, it is what it is!

If you criticize and think that everything that an agency, political party, user groups does is wrong then you lose a lot of credibility in my opinion.


Oh i couldnt agree more... For the record i agree with antler restrictions, the basic concepts of the stated goals...Manage deer for herd health, habitat health, human conflict... i agree that many of their population estimating and reporting procedures are good 'nuff for their purposes.. and more...

But there are also serious unacceptable problems that exist. Some of which are documented in the "eveland report".


post edited by wayne c - 2011/02/04 21:52:17
#42
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 26
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:48:34 (permalink)
You seem to understand this somewhat S-10, you should know that they can't estimate to the actual number.  Which one do you think is more sound? the hunters or the science given that you never know the exact number of deer at every point in time?

It's flawed logic to think that you can operate based on actual numbers when you can't get actual numbers.
#43
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:53:25 (permalink)
Trends cjc. We have clear trends. Those trends are declines.
#44
RSB
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 932
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/11 22:55:57
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 21:59:49 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: World Famous

A phrase comes to mind; dazzle them with brillance or baffle them with bull****...WF

 
That might be a popular quote, but most educated people who take the time to look at all of the information available with an unbiased mind can see the difference between the two.
 
Those that don’t bother to educate them selves or look at things with a biased mind generally never know one from the other, so they tend to spend their time calling it BS because they don’t have the brilliance to provide any other logical rebuttal or response.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn
#45
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 22:04:08 (permalink)
All models have their problems and limitations. We want accurate deer numbers but the scientists are incapable of providing them in this case. The models serve a purpose of determining trends over time if there are no major changes in the data used (seasons, bag limits, etc). Even though the PASAK model uses the same original data used to get the Buck harvest it is not sensitive enough to recognize the trends that hunters see from year to year in the harvest numbers.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/02/04 22:31:26
#46
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 22:22:02 (permalink)
Which one do you think is more sound? the hunters or the science given that you never know the exact number of deer at every point in time?


In the case of the PASAK, the variation which is acceptable to the scientist sitting in his lab is not acceptable to the hunter trudging through the snow trying to find the deer that may not exist. When the buck harvest drops from 142,270 in 2003 to 108,330 in 2009 based on harvest reports and checked kills but the PASAK shows a stable herd based on the same harvest report and checked kills we have a problem. The fact that the PASAK is at least the third such model since the start of AR/HR does little to increase the confidence level of the average hunter. Models are necessary to detect trends but I don't think should be taken as gospel when managing a deer herd. I gave a couple exmples of science gone wrong earlier in this thread. I do not claim to be an expert but I do have an understanding of models and their limitations and uses.

To make the point=== I sat in front of the TV in the mid seventies for several days watching as the scientists of the day explained how their latest computer models were showing the coming ICE AGE that the world is presently experiencing.
post edited by S-10 - 2011/02/04 22:42:15
#47
CallJonyCochran
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 26
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/02/27 21:32:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 22:39:58 (permalink)
Models are necessary to detect trends but I don't think should be taken as gospel when managing a deer herd.


I agree 100% and if they are taken as gospel then yes, there is a problem.  There is little gray area in the models and in the analysis, it's up the the manager to determine what they see as the gray area based on management goals and objectives.  If I was the manager and I see these data and my goal is to increase the herd, then I would conclude that a change needs to be made even though the analysis deems the herd stable, but those decisions are up to individuals not science.  Statistical declines and biological declines aren't the same.  In most reports there is a discussion section that discusses the results I'm sure something similar to what you said would be in most discussion sections of published papers of this sort.

My entire point which I have strayed from is that the science is sound and the analysis is correct in this case.
post edited by CallJonyCochran - 2011/02/04 22:41:23
#48
S-10
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 5185
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/04 22:45:00 (permalink)
It's been an interesting evening but my bed awaits. Good discussion.
#49
World Famous
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2213
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
  • Location: Johnstown
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/05 07:04:03 (permalink)
Calling the kettle black...WF
#50
World Famous
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2213
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
  • Location: Johnstown
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/05 08:37:02 (permalink)
First off,I was and still am in the minority that believed in HR. AR really has not affected me as only 1 year since the restriction have I not had an excellent opportunity to take a legal buck. Mr. Alt said they wanted to take the herd to 1960's levels and that has happened. My problem with the PGC is during the heyday ,when deer populations were way to high, they were to slow to react and have mightly contributed to the population crash. For the last few years , we are told, by your illustrious spokesman, there are lots of deer out there and we are too stupid or lazy to find them; bull. Anyone who refuses to believe, that the extent of maintaining the greatly reduced deer population, has not affected the decline in licence sales is mighty blind. Calling the deer herd stable, when useing the median estimate,shows a continuing reduction in the population in all WMU's is bull. Little smoke screens, like a split season, so hunters get to see a few more deer to give the illusiion of a higher population, AR, bull. I would like to see a spade called a spade, and not propaganda being spewed out coninuing to be spouted by the PGC. If you think the majority of hunters can't see that this has continued to fuel the fire of distrust to the PGC, then you , my friend , and others of the powers that be are the ostrichs. My posts, on these subjects , are not out of greed, but out of concern for the sport, traditons, economics and the future of hunting. Maybe I am wrong in thinking people can handle the truth straight up,but it seems we are not happy with the way it is being poured out now. Nothing wrong about saying mistakes were made in the past by the PGCbut no, hunters are to blame.When someone points out conflicting statements or studies, by the PGC,they are accused of not getting the big picture and cherry pickin. Getting sick of that BULL! Biased, for myself, I think not. Not looking at the numbers correctly? I can make numbers do anything. Not smart enough? Maybe. Not seeing clearly the BIG picture? Maybe far better then you think. Looking at both sides of the facts before making my views? Hey, we all have opinions and this is mine....WF
#51
deerfly
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1271
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
  • Status: offline
RE: Deer Population Estimates 2011/02/05 09:29:58 (permalink)
Here is the data from WMU 2G where the PGC claims the herd has been stable since 2004,even though the buck harvest decreased by 18% from 2004 to 2009 ,while decreasing 28% from 2006 to 2009. Also, the antlerless harvest decreased by 30% from 2004 to 2009. So the population trend may have been statistically stable ,but in the real world the herd was reduced significantly.

Year antlered harvest antlerless harvest harvest PSM antlerless allocation

2003 10,110 20,370 7.4 52,000 2.55 tags/deer
2004 6,400 13,100 4.7 52,000 3.95 tags/deer
2005 5,000 6,200 2.7 29,000 4.70 tags/deer
2006 7,200 4,600 2.8 19,000 4.10 tags/deer
2007 5,100 6,600 2.8 26,000 3.94 tags/deer
2008 6,800 6,500 3.2 26,000 4.00 tags/deer
2009 5,200 4,000 2.28 26,000 6.50 tags/deer
2010 15,210
#52
Page: < 12 Showing page 2 of 2
Jump to: