Herd Stabilization and Population Estimates

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Since the PGC released the population estimates I have been wondering why they went to such great efforts to hide the the actual deer densities in each WMU. But, I may have found the answer in a PGNs article from 2002. I found the following quote about the 2001 harvest to be quite revealing.

Thanks to those,along with excellent weather, the population was stabilized at a post season density of 23 DPSM(39 per square mile of forest) which is still 86% above the commission's goal of 12 DPSM (21 DPFSM)

In 1981 the PGC said the herd was at 21 DPFSM or 12 DPSM ,and as S-10 pointed out, the calculated buck harvest using a 56% reporting rate ,would have been 130,932 which is over 28K more buck than we harvested in 2009.

That means that since 2001 the PGC has reduced our herd from 23 DPSM to less than 12 DPSM. Is it any wonder the PGC would want to hide the OWDD when they reduced the herd to fewer deer than we had in 1981.

 
To anyone who understands the deer population estimates, of the past or those just released, it is pretty obvious that you really don’t understand the data or how it relates to the deer management goals at all.
 
There was a tremendous variance in the deer density estimates of 1981 the same as there is a tremendous variance in the most resent population estimates. It is guys like you that make it pretty obvious that releasing such data to the public is not a wise thing to do. They don’t understand it, draw totally incorrect conclusions from it then use those incorrect conclusions to file frivolous law suits that end up costing all hunters and tax payers money that could better be spent managing wildlife.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

Or someone could copy & paste any one of about a half dozen threads. And save wear and tear on ya'lls keyboards.

Naw--there will be a brand new batch of deer harvest numbers out then and we can scientificaly evaluate them using the most up to date Audubon approved methods to determine which ones have a stirrin stick planted in their

That means that since 2001 the PGC has reduced our herd from 23 DPSM to less than 12 DPSM.

That sure as hell isn't true around here.

Ironhed

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

That means that since 2001 the PGC has reduced our herd from 23 DPSM to less than 12 DPSM.

That sure as hell isn't true around here.

Ironhed

And that is precisely why you fail to understand how the DMP has negatively effected the vast majority of the hunters in the state.

How would you feel about the DMP if you only saw 2 non-AR legal buck and no legal buck from July through Jan.? How would you feel about the DMP if you only saw 3 or 4 deer during the concurrent season?

I'd have to go to some other WMU to do that... the population is much better than that around here.. I just posted photos of 4 bucks that NOT ONE of the dozen or so I talked to that hunted here this season saw and there was 7 deer in my backyard at 7pm tonight... and I already posted about how many I saw running around here in rifle season... we have to have at least 20 deer per this square mile... and RSB has already posted about the numbers he is seeing.. maybe you need to look in some other areas ????

That is just another example of how the PGC is mismanaging our herd. I haven't seen 4 buck since July in an area with the best habitat in the state. If you have over 20 DPSM you are 8 DPSM above the PGC's DD goal , so the HR plan was a failure in your are and therefore your opinions and observations do not represent what the average hunter is experiencing.

Same here.

Used to drive 70 miles one way to archery hunt for three hours.  That was during a time that most consider better than today.

Now I have areas closer to home.  

If you have over 20 DPSM you are 8 DPSM above the PGC's DD goal , so the HR plan was a failure in your are and therefore your opinions and observations do not represent what the average hunter is experiencing.

I'm under the impression the PGC is manageing the herd to keep it stable in this WMU and that is what is happening here... I think they gave up the dpsm stuff a few years ago....

What area do you hunt... I'm sure I can find someone who has a totally diifferent opinion of the deer hunting in your area, after all as other keep saying.. look at the harvest figures for your WMU.. can't be all that bad...

just like 2F.. the figures support a stable herd.. harvest figures have been very similar year to year for the past 5-6 years... some years up some years down, just like always... only not nearly as many killed with a reduced herd and protected bucks..

Without a doubt they stopped using DPSM and that is the point of this post. Even though they stopped using DPSM the data shows that the statewide herd has between reduced below the previous goal of 12 DPSM and that is the last thing the PGC wants hunters to know

The PGC never stopped using deer numbers or dpsm. They just stopped telling the public what the numbers were to prevent the public from holding them accountable for their actions and the results of those actions.
Deer management is all about numbers. Without numbers the scientists would have nothing to plug into their formulas and calculations to see what was happening. All the deer science does is analiaze the results of various numbers of deer and their impact on the land under different situations.
Total number of deer, number of deer by sex, number of deer by age, eestimated winter kill, estimated harvest, number checked by WCO's, number checked at processors, number killed per WMU, per sq mile, per tag, impact per dpsm on forested landscape, cropland, etc, etc, etc.
Deer management is and always has been a numbers game and anyone who trys to tell you different is either lying or ignorant of the facts. As long as the PGC can keep the numbers from the public there is no way to tell exactly what they are doing or hold them accountable if what they are doing is wrong.
There was a reason they changed every standard of measurement before starting herd reduction.

let's "mess" with numbers again... since we all just love making them support our beliefs..

Living here for so many years I see that there are times we have a good (high harvest) year and is usually followed by a not so good (lower harvest)

so with a high pre-season count in 2006 (101,797, your figure) it would follow that later that year it should be a good harvest.. which it was... 15,200 deer..... 2009 was after a fall we harvested 16,100 deer (a good year) so the herd was thinned and thus what you reported (64,850 your figure)... so with less to go into the fall of 2009 what happened... yep fewer deer killed.. only 11,800....

To me it is only common sense that a high pres-season count would lead to a higher kill that year and would then lead to a smaller pre-season the following year and thus a lower harvest..

2F has been like that for years... a good year followed by a lower year..followed by a good year...


Year.... deer harvest per square mile.... total deer killed ...
2006....6.31....15,200
2007....4.94....11,900
2008....6.68....16,100
2009....4.89....11,800

so this fall should show another good year with about a 5.7dpsm... 14, 600 total .. allowing for the TOTAL "rain-out" on Tuesday.....


so in my opinion it shows that the heard is being managed to provide about 15,000 on a good year and 11,000 on a not so good year.. and it has been that way for the past 5 years and I think I could handle calling that stable....

I don't think or worry when you guys try to make deer hunting like some one's job or wages... apples and oranges in my book ..

BUT if I did == sure I'd say stable.. my "wages " have not changed except this year (only shot 1 deer).... so that's no biggie.. I'll be back on track next year.. I just won't passt on any good legal shots ... I should have remembered that lesson from my earlier years of archery hunting..


I'd call 2F stable .. and recommend the area to anyone for good odds of a succesful hunt... since 2004 we have averaged 5.75 deer per square mile killed and that's NOT BAD !!!!....

so that fact alone makes me think our dpsm must be about 15-20 over-all for the whole WMU..... and especially this area.. I would NOT suggest many other areas (ANF) because the deer herd is not good there... BUT I see folks hunting and complaining about hunting there every year..

"I don't think or worry when you guys try to make deer hunting like some one's job or wages... apples and oranges in my book .. '



not when your talking percents, like you suggested. Nearly a 25% swing is not stable in terms of wages or deer numbers

what's percentage would be for stable then.. ??



year after year the exact same harvest numbers...

I'd say that would definitely be stable but IMPOSSIBLE to achieve...


that has NEVER happened and NEVER will ..... weather alone will screw that up from year to year.... severe winters, mast crops... and thus the population will always change from year to year and there will as a result always be a swing..

if you think 24% up one year down the next-- up one-- down one === is bad -- check out some other WMUS.....

when a WMU's havest number stays with 2 dpsm year to year (male and females)... I call that stable.... not decreasing nor increasing .. it's stable within two deer per square mile...

I'm not with you on this one Doc. Even for a few days of bad weather, the season is so long, things should even out. Bad mast crop in one area, you may have good area close by. The deer still gotta eat something so they should be available to people somewhere. Those swings are a little too great to be described as stable in my book.And if the swings are greater in other WMU's, that is even worse..WF

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

what's percentage would be for stable then.. ??



year after year the exact same harvest numbers...

I'd say that would definitely be stable but IMPOSSIBLE to achieve...


that has NEVER happened and NEVER will ..... weather alone will screw that up from year to year.... severe winters, mast crops... and thus the population will always change from year to year and there will as a result always be a swing..

if you think 24% up one year down the next-- up one-- down one === is bad -- check out some other WMUS.....

when a WMU's havest number stays with 2 dpsm year to year (male and females)... I call that stable.... not decreasing nor increasing .. it's stable within two deer per square mile...

You are confusing terms again, Doc.  The term you are looking for is "predictable," not stable.

In any data series there will be peaks and troughs.  The closer those two are together, the more stable the data.  In the world I come from anything that greater than +/- was considered out of control for production numbers and +/- 0.5% was considered out of control for quality specifications.

So, no 25% is not stable.

In this instance I would say that year-over-year, where factors such as weather have an effect, something in the 5-8% range would be a stable situation.   But with multiple years as you presented, I would say more in the 3-5% range.  And if things were truely stable, the more years that were added, the smaller that percentage would be.

The trend, however, is predictable.  But predictability has absolutely nothing to do with to with stability.

As for using your WMU or any others as a basis for stability, don't do that.  Just because one is more out of control doesn't make the one that is less out of control, but out of control nonetheless, stable.
 
As for using DPSM, unless your WMU is 1 square mile, that is meaningless.  It is not a large enough sample size.