Thanks RSB- you have answered most of the questions I had a bout returning and it looks OK to me. The sucses ratios are quite acceptable and considering AR the buck harvest seems to be very acceptable in  my general area as well.  Although 1B wasnt specifically adressed I would believe it was in the NW area and it still looks  quite huntable to me.  Now to get a property to hunt in my old areas. Guess Ill have to call family still there and see whats up..

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Now the data for the same units between 2008 and 2010 when the average statewide antlerless allocation was 844,808.
 
Unit….% of state in unit…… allocation / %……bucks / %…………..antlerless / %
2F……….5.3 %…………….26,049 (3.1 %)……6200 (5.3 %)……….7133 (3.5 %)
2G………9.1 %…………….22,403 (2.7 %)……6233 (5.3 %)………..5633 (2.8 %)
2B………3.0 %…………….68,000 (8.0 %)……4100 (3.5 %)……….16,000 (8.0 %)
5C………4.8 %…………..121,960 (14.4 %)……8567 (7.3 %)………22,467 (11.1 %)
 
From this data everyone can see that the percentage of the antlerless allocation used in the big woods units of 2D and 2G is way below the percentage they make up of the state while the allocations for the metro units of 2B and 5C is well above their percentage of land mass. It is also clear that the doe harvests and even the buck harvests are higher per unit size in the metro areas and still increasing.
 
This is a very good illustration that the professional deer managers long have been and still are on top of the shifting deer populations. It is also a good demonstration of the fact that we have not been issuing increasing number of antlerless licenses in the highest deer population areas and fewer in the areas where deer populations aren’t as high.

Thanks RSB for once again providing the data that shows the negative impact that the high antlerless allocations and harvests in 2003 and 2004 had on the herd in 2g. What was once the prime hunting area of our state has been reduced to the worst hunting area in the state. It is truly pathetic for the largest WMU in the state with 90% forested habitat to only account for 2.8% of the antlerless harvest even though it is 9.1% of the state. You also did a fine job of showing how hunting is much better in areas where the PGC has failed to achieve their herd reduction goals. Just imagine how low the buck harvest would be in 5C if the PGC had reached their goal of 6 DPSM.

It is also a good demonstration of the fact that we have not been issuing increasing number of antlerless licenses in the highest deer population areas and fewer in the areas where deer populations aren’t as high.

What in heavens name are you talking about? There has been a dramatic decrease in the antlerless allocations and season length in 2G while the antlerless season was extended and allocations were increased in 5C.

 
I agree and have always pointed out that unit 2G is has low deer numbers but the facts and evidence all prove that the low deer numbers are not from hunters harvesting too many.
 
The fact is the areas that make up unit 2G have had the worst deer hunting in the state for a long time, and way more than the past twenty years. It is so poor because of a combination of hunters demanding that we carry too many deer on those poor soils and the affects harsh winters and environmental conditions have on deer survival and fawn recruitment rates.
 
I also agree that since unit 2G makes up 9.1% of the state it is pathetic that the unit only makes up 2.8% of the state’s antlerless harvest. But then what would one expect when the unit only get 2.7% of the antlerless allocation?
 
Since the unit has 5.3% of the state’s buck harvest it certainly would be logical to harvest an equal amount of antlerless deer.
 
After rereading the other quoted you referenced I agree that I need to go back and edit the word “not” out of that sentence. I just don’t proof read my posts well enough before sending them.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: retired guy

Thanks RSB- you have answered most of the questions I had a bout returning and it looks OK to me. The sucses ratios are quite acceptable and considering AR the buck harvest seems to be very acceptable in  my general area as well.  Although 1B wasnt specifically adressed I would believe it was in the NW area and it still looks  quite huntable to me.  Now to get a property to hunt in my old areas. Guess Ill have to call family still there and see whats up..

 
Here is the data for unit 1B, since you expressed an interest in it:
 
Period…….% of land…….Allocation / %…….Buck harv. / %…….Antlerless harv. / %
03-07………4.7 %………..31,400 (3.3 %)……..6262 (5.0 %)…………12,616 (4.9 %)
08-10………4.7 %………..29,281 (3.5 %)……..6033 (5.1 %)…………10,700 (5.3 %)
 
The following data might also help put things in perspective for you concerning the hunting conditions in unit 1B and the other units of the state.
 
These are the 2010 harvest ranking for each unit in deer harvested per square mile.
 
Rank…WMU…….Antlerless harv…….Buck harv………Total harv……license/doe
1………5C………….11.06……………..4.33…………….15.39…………5.08
2………2B…………..9.54……………...2.94…………….12.47…………5.23
3………2A…………..7.46……………...3.20…………….10.66…………4.07
4………2D…………..7.24……………...4.62…………….11.86…………2.78
5………1A…………..6.44……………...3.20……………..9.64………….3.50
6………2E…………...4.76……………...3.33……………..8.09………….3.40
7………4C…………..4.64………………3.15……………..7.78…………4.09
8………5B…………..4.52………………2.49……………..7.01…………4.06
9………5D…………..4.43………………1.32……………..5.75…………5.95
10…….1B…………...4.35………………2.60……………..6.94…………3.03
11…….3A…………...4.31………………2.52……………..6.83…………3.88
12…….3C…………...3.85………………2.87……………..6.72…………3.18
13…….4A…………...3.69………………2.19……………..5.88…………4.30
14…….4E……………3.40………………2.77…………….6.16…………4.56
15…….3B……………3.38………………2.40…………….5.78…………4.44
16…….4B……………3.21………………2.83…………….6.05…………4.34
17…….2C……………3.10………………2.74…………….5.84…………4.59
18…….5A……………2.61………………1.85…………….4.46…………5.37
19…….3D……………2.52………………1.79…………….4.31…………5.75
20…….2F……………2.36………………2.65…………….5.02…………3.89
21…….4D……………2.00………………2.29…………….4.30…………5.52
22…….2G……………0.88………………1.65…………….2.53…………4.23  
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: retired guy

RSB-
Back  in the 60s / early 70s I used to hear about Potter Co. all the time- I keep reading here about guys going back and forth on 2G and see it on the map  as having a good part of Potter in it. I realize it has its limitations today however dont recall if it was a big harvest there in the far past or if it was big bucks there. But there was a reason I had considered going there instead of whats now 1B as  young guy. Can you help  jog  my memory.

 
Potter County is one of our larger counties and back when the majority of the deer were in the northern tier counties Potter County usually lead the state in deer harvests. That was as much though just from the size of the county as it was in deer numbers.
 
As an example in the five years between 82 and 86 Potter County had an average harvest of 9.8 deer per square mile. For that time period only Forest (12.5), Greene (10.4) and Jefferson (10.0) Counties had higher harvests.
 
As the deer populations increased in the southern part of the state and continued to decline in the northern tier Potter County fell way behind in its ranking to 34th of the 67 counties even though the Potter County deer harvests were still averaging 8.9 per square mile between 1997 and 2001.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 
 

I agree and have always pointed out that unit 2G is has low deer numbers but the facts and evidence all prove that the low deer numbers are not from hunters harvesting too many.
 
The fact is the areas that make up unit 2G have had the worst deer hunting in the state for a long time, and way more than the past twenty years. It is so poor because of a combination of hunters demanding that we carry too many deer on those poor soils and the affects harsh winters and environmental conditions have on deer survival and fawn recruitment rates.

The only way to support your claim that the habitat,not the harvests, are controlling the herd in 2G, is to show that breeding rates and productivity ( number of embryos / adult doe) decreased as the herd increased and increased as the herd was reduced from 15 DPSM in 1999 to 8 DPSM in 2009. If you can't produce the PGC data that shows that correlation, then your theory is flawed and the harvests have in fact reduced the herd just as the professional deer managers said it would.

also agree that since unit 2G makes up 9.1% of the state it is pathetic that the unit only makes up 2.8% of the state’s antlerless harvest. But then what would one expect when the unit only get 2.7% of the antlerless allocation?

I would expect that 2G would have the lowest antlerless harvest PSM because it has the lowest OWDD of any WMU in the state. But, what is truly pathetic is that the PGC is managing the herd in 2g to produce a buck harvest of only 1.65 Buck PSM while every other WMU in the state ,except 5D, had a higher buck harvest rate. But there is no way you can deny that the current DMP reduced the buck harvest in 2G in 2003 from 2.46 buck PSM to 1.26 buck PSM in 2009.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I agree and have always pointed out that unit 2G is has low deer numbers but the facts and evidence all prove that the low deer numbers are not from hunters harvesting too many.
 
The fact is the areas that make up unit 2G have had the worst deer hunting in the state for a long time, and way more than the past twenty years. It is so poor because of a combination of hunters demanding that we carry too many deer on those poor soils and the affects harsh winters and environmental conditions have on deer survival and fawn recruitment rates.

The only way to support your claim that the habitat,not the harvests, are controlling the herd in 2G, is to show that breeding rates and productivity ( number of embryos / adult doe) decreased as the herd increased and increased as the herd was reduced from 15 DPSM in 1999 to 8 DPSM in 2009. If you can't produce the PGC data that shows that correlation, then your theory is flawed and the harvests have in fact reduced the herd just as the professional deer managers said it would.

also agree that since unit 2G makes up 9.1% of the state it is pathetic that the unit only makes up 2.8% of the state’s antlerless harvest. But then what would one expect when the unit only get 2.7% of the antlerless allocation?

I would expect that 2G would have the lowest antlerless harvest PSM because it has the lowest OWDD of any WMU in the state. But, what is truly pathetic is that the PGC is managing the herd in 2g to produce a buck harvest of only 1.65 Buck PSM while every other WMU in the state ,except 5D, had a higher buck harvest rate. But there is no way you can deny that the current DMP reduced the buck harvest in 2G in 2003 from 2.46 buck PSM to 1.26 buck PSM in 2009.

 
The simple fact that hunters in the counties that make up unit 2G have spent the past fifteen to twenty years harvesting fewer and fewer deer without the deer herd increasing should be enough to lead anyone of reasonable intelligence to the conclusion that something other that hunter harvests is a major influence on deer populations. You don’t think Aliens are sneaking in and abducting them or something like that do you? 
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

Compare the number bucks harvested in 2001 in 2G with the number harvested in 2009

I'd like to do that and see what it is ...

where did you get the harvest figure for for antlerled buck for 2001 in 2G .. All I can find is the county totals not for the 2G WMU like the 2009 figure is ????

Have to edit... posted wrong WMU figures

OKAY I got the right WMU now.... the first time was for 2C

The simple fact that hunters in the counties that make up unit 2G have spent the past fifteen to twenty years harvesting fewer and fewer deer without the deer herd increasing should be enough to lead anyone of reasonable intelligence to the conclusion that something other that hunter harvests is a major influence on deer populations. You don’t think Aliens are sneaking in and abducting them or something like that do you? 

Anyone with reasonable intelligence would realize that the 20K antlerless that were harvested in 2003 and the 13 K harvested in 2004 reduced the herd by 8 DPSM and it wasn't due to aliens abducting those deer. It is simply ridiculous for you to claim factors other than the harvests have reduced the herd in 2G when the average harvests in 2G have exceeded 10 K deer/yr. for the last 10 years. Remember we have been told the PGC accounts for poor habitat, predation , the effects of severe winter weather and reduced productivity when allocating antlerless tags. If that is true ,then the harvests are the sole reason why the herd in 2G has been reduced to 8 DPSM and is the least productive WMU in the state.

How does it feel now that you know the PGC made 2G the most pathetic WMU in the state while you have been defending them for the last 10 years?

can't find what WMU you are talking about with the 20K (03)and then followed by a 13K (04)?????

How did the PGC do that ????

The PGC reduced the herd by give or take 50% .. that's all they did..

That statement is only true if you are referring to the last 10 years. But , the PGC has reduced the herd in the NC counties from over 40 DPSM in the mid 70s to 8 DPSM in 2g in 2008, and that is a decrease of 80%.

RSB and I have time and time again talked about deer moving for better food and hunters following them to the southern areas which are now on the top of the list for harvest numbers... and fewer hunters or lack of hunters helps keep the harvest lower in the N/C area of the state.

That would only be true if the harvests were allowing the herd to increase, but the PGC claims that the herd in 2G is stable. That means there are enough hunters to harvest enough deer to equal the number of deer recruited each year,which in turn means the lack of hunters is not the cause for the reduced harvests.

It's just not true to blame lack of hunters on lack of deer in an area that is now experiencing lower harvests. many hunters have simply found new areas to hunt and other have given up hunting in general fotr MANY reasons.

Would you prefer that we blame the lack of hunters on the low antlerless allocations, that are a direct result of HR?. The reason many hunters found new areas to hunt is directly due to the fact that HR worked in 2F and 2G and had much less effect in other WMUs. So are you admitting that the areas where the plan has failed to reduce the herd have much better hunting than those areas where the HR plan was successful?

No .... what I am saying is due to increasing herd populations in the N/C and the destruction of habitat that large population caused deer moved ... and south was the direction and even probably many went into New York improving their numbers and deer hunting there...

That is absolutely pure nonsense and more PGC propaganda. The herds in the NC counties had no way of knowing there was much better habitat in areas that were 50 or 100 miles away from their home range of around 1 SM. The simple fact is that the herd on the edges of what was once considered to be the traditional deer range ,gradually extended their range to areas with better habitat and little if any hunting pressure. By 1980 the herd had expanded it's range to every county in the state and from that point forward it was the deer harvests that determined the size of the herd in every county in the state.

Did those deer send PMs to the deer they left behind telling them about all the great habitat they found? Grow up and get real and apply a little common sense to your replies.

Why do ya think the idiots yard in the same places year after year and eat it to the point of starvation when there is ample food half a mile away.

Preeeeeecisely- If they dont understand over the hill for food  how the heck do folks think  they will go a few counties for it.