ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: S-10

Before you get too critical of Zug you might want to remember that there are many in the PGC and others that agree with him that 2G is too large and with too varied a habitat for one WMU. If I'am not mistaken it is one of the WMU's under consideration at the present time to be broken down into two or more units.

Below is the official version of why we went to WMU's in the first place. I'll resist commenting.

Why did the Game Commission change from smaller county-based units to larger WMUs for deer management?


First, WMUs were not designed specifically for deer management. They were designed for all wildlife species management programs.


Second, it is commonly argued that smaller WMUs are better than large WMUs. This would be true if enough data were collected in each of the small WMU to support management recommendations. Unfortunately, limited time, personnel, and resources combine to prevent adequate data collection at county, or smaller, management units. As a result, larger WMUs were implemented to provide data for making defendable deer management recommendations. The PGC previously combined 67 counties into 31 groups to improve precision of deer-related estimates. Twenty-two WMUs improves precision of and increases confidence in management recommendations within each unit.


Third, unlike the 31 county groups, WMUs are created considering land use, land ownership, urbanization, and geography. WMUs are more similar within themselves than they are to other units. County groups were simply based on map location. Also, defining unit boundaries by roads and other physical features like rivers makes them easily recognizable. County boundaries are lines drawn on a map. There are no lines in the woods between counties.

I am very aware that there is a very really likelihood of making some adjustments to some of the WMU. The original management plan called for evaluating the WMUs next year. I also completely agree that there are some advantages to having smaller units provided you can also get the scientific data required to provide better management within each of the additional units. But, making smaller units without FIRST having the required data is not likely to provide better management and might very well make it worse instead of better.
 
I am also very familiar with the area Zugbug is talking about and seriously doubt there will be any change in the WMU lines in that area. In fact the two areas he is complaining about have ALWAYS had totally different management objectives since the old county line boundaries split the area up much more than they are split up now with the WMU lines.
 
In the past when the area he is complaining about was managed with the old county lines the area was influenced by the management objectives for Elk, Clearfield and Jefferson County. They all had totally different management objectives, as I will demonstrate by posting the average antlerless allocations and total deer harvests for the five-year period prior to management by WMU and then the more recent WMU data. All data is based on the number per square mile for the five years prior to WMUs and then the first five years with WMUs.
 
Area…………………antlerless allocations………..total deer harvest
Elk Co……………………11.42………………………..6.76
Clearfield………………...16.63………………………..11.56
Jefferson…………………22.26………………………..13.77
 
2F………………………..14.44…………………………7.14
2G…………………………8.26…………………………4.00
 
As anyone wanting to be the least bit honest and objective can see that area has always had great variance in the management objectives because unit lines have always divided it. Before WMUs it was divided by three sets of county unit lines but now only two WMU lines divide it.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

In 2001 the goal for Clearfield and Elk was 21 DPFSM and the goal for Jefferson was 19 DPFSM. Therefore anyone that wanted to be the least bit honest and objective would have to admit there was little difference in the management objectives in the three counties listed. The management objective for 2F was 17 DPSM and the management objective for 2G was 15 DPSM,so once again there was little difference in the management objectives.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

There must be some nice bucks getting whacked along that section of highway during the summer too, many I have seen laying along there have had the antlers cut off...... and I do not think anyone would take the chance of getting caught for a "scrub"...

I've been told that the SGL along there gets hunter pretty hard, although I have never hunted or scouted the game lands.. but know successful hunters who do hunt it regularly.. good for grouse too I am told...

 
I pass thru the summer range June-Sept of the deer I hunt later in the year.  I came across a small roadkill 4 pt in Sept some years ago on the way home from work one evening.  Buddy passes thru there at 5 am and called and said a deer had its head cut off where I saw the 4 pt.  On the way home, I verified it was the same deer.
 
We don't miss a beat when it comes to watching for roadkills near our hunting grounds.  People cut scrubber heads off all the time.
 
They must carry a saw in their vehicle cause it doesn't take long.

I'm interested in hearing RSB's reply. ???

The PGC previously combined 67 counties into 31 groups to improve precision of deer-related estimates. Twenty-two WMUs improves precision of and increases confidence in management recommendations within each unit

That is what S-10 quoted and here is RSB's response.

RSB QUOTE = Deer were not really managed by county before because there simply wasn’t ever enough data to manage on that small of unit. There were typically three to five counties of data lumped together much the same as there is now with the WMU management. In fact even with multiple counties added together they frequently had to use the data from multiple years and average it to have enough data for sound management direction. The management goals and objectives were then the same for each of the counties within that block of data collection counties.

If the PGC previously combined 3 - 5 counties there would have either been 22 units or 13 units, but the PGC stated there were 31 units ,not 22 or 13!!!!!! Furthermore, even with the large WMU we have today the PGC still doesn't gather enough data to manage the herd based on year to year changes. They use 3 year averages for herd health and 5 years of data for forest health, which is based on very limited data spread over a large area.

But the real problem isn't the size of the units, the problem is the PGC is managing both 2F and 2G at densities that are much lower than the densities we had in 2002 and at OWDD that are much lower that the previous goals of 17 DPSM for 2F and 15 DPSM in 2G. Based on the data from the Audit ,2F has been reduced from 32 DPSM in 2002 to 15.8 DPSM in 2007 while 2G dropped from 22.9 DPSM in 2002 to 10.9 DPSM in 2007.

Actually if you were trying to be honest or understood deer management goals and objectives you would have both known and explained that those deer per forested square mile numbers you are so fond of using were nothing more then the estimated number of deer each county could support through the winter based on the amount of forest habitat in each of three separate categories.

Those estimates and goals were based on 20 years of research ,plus more than 50 years of harvest data. Todays goals on based on the personal preference of the stakeholders with the most political influence, DCNR and the timber industry. BTW, the new and improved DM team used those estimates to establish the goals under the new DMP.

ORIGINAL: S-10


That means the PGC took counties with competing management objectives and lumped them into a Larger WMU in order to PGC QUOTE = "Improve percision and Increase confidence in management recommendations for the unit". Perhaps you should quit explaining the process before you dig the hole any deeper.

That makes even less sense than your stating there are fewer bucks in 2G now than in 2001 at the same time you posted PGC research you claim is accurate that shows there are several times as many now as compared to 2001. I'am still waiting for you to do the math to show us the results of having a buck kill in 2G of 5200 in 2009 while at the same time only killing 8% of the 1-1/2 year olds and 31% of the 2-1/2+ year olds.

 
That lack of sense you are referring to concerning the old method of lumping counties together was exactly why going to WMU management was an improvement.
 
It seems to me that it is you who should make up your mind. You complain about using WMUs based on using like habitat and want to go back to the old ways then complain that they were even worse. I think you are just to pigheaded to accept anything the Game Commission has a hand in as being anything but wrong.
 
Your comment in your quote makes that even more apparent. The research data from the study areas showed exactly how many, and thus the percentage, of the monitored deer harvested by hunters. Just because you don’t understand or accept the results doesn’t make the results any less valid. It simply proves you refuse to accept facts you don’t like.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn    

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Actually if you were trying to be honest or understood deer management goals and objectives you would have both known and explained that those deer per forested square mile numbers you are so fond of using were nothing more then the estimated number of deer each county could support through the winter based on the amount of forest habitat in each of three separate categories.

Those estimates and goals were based on 20 years of research ,plus more than 50 years of harvest data. Todays goals on based on the personal preference of the stakeholders with the most political influence, DCNR and the timber industry. BTW, the new and improved DM team used those estimates to establish the goals under the new DMP.

 
That old method of managing based on only using forested habitat of only of three habitat indices had a lot of issues when it came to providing quality deer management.
 
First of all the habitat types were only evaluated once every ten years or more which resulted in making management decisions based on long out dated forest inventory information.
 
The next supper large problem was that the forest inventory didn’t prove ANY information on how much of the seedling/sapling cover was actually suitable as deer food. It told you how much of the forest component was within reach of the deer but then if you managed for 60 deer per square mile in seedling/sapling that was all beech brush, striped maple, black birch or buckthorn (and that happened a lot) you were making a huge mistake because those habitat types couldn’t support more than a handful of deer. That mistake was what ultimately led to keeping way more over winter deer in parts of the northern tier than the habitat could sustain and the crashed population we ended up with.
 
Then there was the problem of managing for no deer in any habitat types other than forest land even though we all know deer exist in higher numbers around fields and various edge habitats.
 
The current deer management objectives strive to monitor a much more realistic sample of how many deer really can live on the various habitats because it actually monitors those habitats instead of just measuring if the habitat is within reach of the deer.
 
And, this newer method of monitoring the habitat values will result in better deer management for the future too. We just have to get past the crashed deer numbers we ended up with from managing the way you think we should go back to.
 
You are also totally wrong about deer now being managed for the benefit of some outside influence too. The deer are being managed for the best interest of the habitat being able to long term sustain the correct numbers and balances of deer as well as the best possible hunting opportunities forever into the future. 
 
R.S. Bodenhorn   

Prior to 2004 the herd was not being managed based on herd health , so they did not need the reproductive data in order to make management decisions that were based on the deer density goals that were established for each county.

You don’t seem to have a clue what you are talking about or about how deer have been or currently are being managed.
 
The data used from highway killed deer had been used for decades in determining what the breeding and reproductive rates were for each management unit. That data was then plugged into the deer management model to help in the determination of how many antlerless licenses were needed for the year. The number of hunter-harvested deer for each unit was also used in that determination. Therefore, the amount of data from each was and always will be crucial to the best possible management objectives.

WRONG AGAIN!!! The data provided in the AUdit, the harvest data and the data in the DMP all show that the herd is being managed at much lower densities than in 2002. The fact that the PGC claims they are not managing the WMUs at a specified goal is the pure bologna in this discussion. After the PGC reduced the herd in 2G to 8 DPSM they said that the goal was to keep the herd stable. Therefore, 8 DPSM became the management goal or objective for 2G. The same logic applies to all WMU's where they claimed they wanted to keep the herd stable since 2005.

Yes deer are being managed at a lower density because of the reasons I pointed out in a resent post. Now that they actually look at the quality of the habitat within the reach of the deer it is perfectly obvious that much of what was once classified as being able to support 60 deer per square mile is now known to be of junk that supports almost no over winter deer. Therefore, the habitat and the deer are proving that those old density estimates you want to hang onto were totally inaccurate. What is even worse is they lead to the false impression that the habitat could support way more deer then it really could. And the recent crashed in deer numbers proves that to be true. Whether you like it or have enough sense to accept it or not is totally irrelevant to what reality is.

That is absolutely not true. The SCS audit specifically stated that over browsed hardwoods could support more than 30 DPSM and still be below the MSY Carrying capacity of an over browsed forest Furthermore, the deer have proved repeatedly that the habitat in 2F and 2G could support more than 30 deer PSM ,if it wasn't for the antlerless harvests.

I really don’t care who says the 2F or 2G habitats will support more deer; the deer have obviously totally and completely proved they are wrong.
 
Units 2F and 2G can only support more deer during periods of ideal environmental conditions and those ideal conditions don’t last for extended periods so we will always have significant peeks and valleys in the deer populations of the big woods units even if we harvest way fewer deer like has been occurring now for past seven years. If the habitat could support more deer the population would have increased significantly over the past seven years of greatly reduced doe harvests. It didn’t happen because nature simply will not allow more deer than the food supply can sustain. That is how nature works and it doesn’t matter who accepts or rejects that fact, it will still always be a fact.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

The current deer management objectives strive to monitor a much more realistic sample of how many deer really can live on the various habitats because it actually monitors those habitats instead of just measuring if the habitat is within reach of the deer.
 

The current system for managing for forest health does not even come close to measuring the carrying capacity of the habitat since it is based on regeneration of preferred species of trees rather than on the number of deer any given area could support. It is a method based solely on the personal preference of DCNR and the timber industry with no regard for the interests of hunters. Furthermore, the previous goals were not based upon the habitat in reach of the deer since saw timber was assigned a CC of 20 DPFSM.

And, this newer method of monitoring the habitat values will result in better deer management for the future too. We just have to get past the crashed deer numbers we ended up with from managing the way you think we should go back to.

I actually feel sorry for any WCO who can't accept the fact that the record antlerless harvests from 2000 to 2004 were the reason the herd crashed. But, I guess there will always be those that can't face reality when it conflicts with their unsupported opinions.

ORIGINAL: S-10

I think you are just to pigheaded to accept anything the Game Commission has a hand in as being anything but wrong.

Your comment in your quote makes that even more apparent. The research data from the study areas showed exactly how many, and thus the percentage, of the monitored deer harvested by hunters. Just because you don’t understand or accept the results doesn’t make the results any less valid. It simply proves you refuse to accept facts you don’t like.

R.S. Bodenhorn

That's the old RSB we all know and love, when you can't produce the facts to back up your claims you resort to name calling. You are the one that claims the PGC data that shows we are harvesting only 8% of the 1-1/2 year olds and 31% of the 2-1/2+ year olds in 2G is good data for the WMU. You are also the one who claims there are fewer bucks in 2G than in 2001.-------- ONE OF THOSE STATEMENTS HAS TO BE FALSE.--------- Just do the math for a change (if you can) and see how far off you are. I don't even care which one you want to pick to hang your hat on but I do get tired of you posting data to support two different claims 180 degrees apart and swearing both are accurate. "DO THE MATH"

 
Look the research data is what it is and it is totally valid for the study area and for the period of the 2009 season within that study area.
 
If you are willing to accept the data of what it is showing then you bet you are being pigheaded. I have never had any reservations about pointing it out to people when someone is just being obstinate because of their preconceived opinions. You presently seem to fit that mold to a tee so you can take it any way you want.
 
The debate started when Deerfly tried to say the Game Commission harvest data had to wrong because there were more 2 ½ and older bucks in the harvest than he expected. I proved the ACTUAL research results on the percentage of both 1 ½ and old bucks for several study areas across the state. Those actual and factual results unequivocally prove that hunters did fail to harvest anything close to 50% of the 1 ½ year old bucks in 2009 and thus there is absolutely no reason, other than being pigheaded, not to accept the fact that the number of 2 ½ and older buck would be higher in the 2010 season.
 
Like it or lump it, that is the way if is and I don’t need to do any math or prove anything since the FACTUAL data was already made available. The facts were already been proven in the research and then made available, for anyone who isn’t simply being to pigheaded to accept it.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

ORIGINAL: S-10

RSB QUOTE--That lack of sense you are referring to concerning the old method of lumping counties together was exactly why going to WMU management was an improvement.

It seems to me that it is you who should make up your mind. You complain about using WMUs based on using like habitat and want to go back to the old ways then complain that they were even worse. I think you are just to pigheaded to accept anything the Game Commission has a hand in as being anything but wrong. END QUOTE

What I won't accept is your claim that merging counties with different management goals into one WMU is going to improve on anything. I also won't accept your claim that now we have obtained enough information from those large WMU's that we have been treating as one unit to NOW go back to smaller units. What I would accept is your admitting that the PGC has realized that some large WMU's were a mistake and they are going to take action to correct that mistake.
Pigheaded---That's a new one from you, usually it's goon, thug, idiot, or lacking a functioning brain cell. You can't even make up your mind what to call folks you don't agree with.

 
With deer management based on the present units, instead of counties, the management objectives are the same within the unit. That is why they used basically like habitat types, landownership (public vs. private) and human population dimensions when setting the WMU lines.
 
It was in the past with the old county management boundaries that we had units with different management objectives sometimes being lumped together for data collection.
 
What you are complaining about is precisely why they went to WMUs and why WMUs are better management then the old county management system had been.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

That's not what I'am complaining about. My problem is they lumped counties with different management goals into one WMU and claimed it would increase accuracy. What they did was no different than what you say they were doing before. Now they are going to breakup some of the WMU's into smaller units (which I support)But you agree with it and seem to be indicating they now have the data necessary to do it. They can't have the scientific data required to support smaller units since they have been managing the WMU as a unit.But yet you say this---------

RSB QUOTE: I am very aware that there is a very really likelihood of making some adjustments to some of the WMU. The original management plan called for evaluating the WMUs next year. I also completely agree that there are some advantages to having smaller units provided you can also get the scientific data required to provide better management within each of the additional units.

Why don't you just admit that even your PGC can and does make mistakes and making some of these large WMU's was a mistake and one that looks like will be corrected.

ORIGINAL: S-10

That's not what I'am complaining about. My problem is they lumped counties with different management goals into one WMU and claimed it would increase accuracy. What they did was no different than what you say they were doing before. Now they are going to breakup some of the WMU's into smaller units (which I support)But you agree with it and seem to be indicating they now have the data necessary to do it. They can't have the scientific data required to support smaller units since they have been managing the WMU as a unit.But yet you say this---------

RSB QUOTE: I am very aware that there is a very really likelihood of making some adjustments to some of the WMU. The original management plan called for evaluating the WMUs next year. I also completely agree that there are some advantages to having smaller units provided you can also get the scientific data required to provide better management within each of the additional units.

Why don't you just admit that even your PGC can and does make mistakes and making some of these large WMU's was a mistake and one that looks like will be corrected.

 
What units have different management objectives?
 
I am pretty confident that anyone who has actually seen the overlays of how they set the unit boundaries based on habitat types, land uses and ownership (public verse private) and population dynamics wouldn’t agree with your opinion.
 
The WMUs were set using the best knowledge available at the time. That doesn’t mean they can never be adjusted based on more current information. Scientific management isn’t supposed to be static it should be flexible to fit the continuously changing dimensions of wildlife management data and information. I don’t doubt they can make some of the units smaller and still have a suitable management goal by simply pooling the data, like they did with the counties, but that doesn’t mean it will be any improvement. It will just provide hunters what they think they want. Giving hunters what they wanted was how we got the WMUs though in the first place.
 
I certainly will admit that the Game Commission makes mistakes, lot of them. Most of the major mistakes have occurred when they have spent too much time listening to and trying to appease hunter demands instead of listen to the Wildlife Management Professionals and the biological data our wildlife populations provided. If they had been listening to the professionals and the resources instead of hunter demands over the past decades we would have a lot more deer as well as other wildlife today. I have a strong suspicion we are about to see yet another of those major mistakes again too.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

I certainly will admit that the Game Commission makes mistakes, lot of them. Most of the major mistakes have occurred when they have spent too much time listening to and trying to appease hunter demands instead of listen to the Wildlife Management Professionals and the biological data our wildlife populations provided. If they had been listening to the professionals and the resources instead of hunter demands over the past decades we would have a lot more deer as well as other wildlife today. I have a strong suspicion we are about to see yet another of those major mistakes again too.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Spoken like a true California enviromentalist. Listen to the Audubon professionals, the anti hunters, and Eco nuts. Hire a few more to join the 14 you have already hired with the hunters dime. Sorry RSB, IMO you have done nothing on this site except show your utter distain for the states sportsmen and your anti hunter bias. I've had enough of your B.S. for tonight.

I have all the respect in the world for hunters or anyone else who take the time to learn about the realities of both nature and proper wildlife management that benefits both wildlife and hunters. You will never meet a more avid hunter than I am even though I don’t have as much time as I wish to participate. That is going to change though once I retire.

I have no respect, and never will, for people, hunters or not, who insist on standing in the way of what is best for the future of our wildlife resources and hunting, since they both mean so much to me.

If either of those shoes fits then go ahead and wear it and if it doesn’t, leave it alone, it wasn’t intended for you.

R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: World Famous

Come on RSB, quit blaming everyone else. Then one wonders why the distrust issue exists!!.....WF...{I really didnt want to post this ,it was pressure from outside sources}

The history clearly shows the affects hunter and political demands have had on deer management over the decades. It is very well documented for anyone willing to open their eyes enough to see it.

R.S. Bodenhorn