ORIGINAL: World Famous

With only 5 doe in my unit, my math couldnot have been off too much, doe normally have twins and isn't fawn mortality about 50%? My question was, if a herd is not allowed to grow, as my example shows,how can one say the carrying capacity was reached? There is no way, in my example, that the amount of deer can possibly increase, even though the food amount can support a large increase.Notice I said in my example....WF

 
Actually with five does you would not normally have anywhere close to ten fawns born. It is actually only about 1.1 fawn born per doe statewide and much lower than that many of the units.
 
Then of those fawns born the number that survive even the first few days of life just from being born under weight will vary between about 12.2% mortality following ideal winter and spring conditions to as much as 92.9% nutritional stress mortality following a long hard winter and spring.
 
Then of the few remaining fawns you can throw in anywhere from about 5 – 50 % or in some cases perhaps even higher fawn predation mortality.
 
Once you factor in all of those variables it really is very easy for deer populations to be in a state of natural herd reduction, or at the natural carry capacity, in areas where the habitat is even slightly marginal.
 
But, yes if you really do have high quality habitat and your deer population isn’t increasing it might be because of an over harvest. But, the evidence shows there are very few such areas where that is likely occurring in this state.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

If you believe what i posted is just my personal opinion, please post the data that shows breeding rates and recruitment increased as the herd in 2G was reduced from 15 DPSM in 2000 to 8 DPSM in 2009!!!

 
I have never said the fawn recruitment rates in 2G have improved. In fact I have repeatedly pointed out that they obviously haven’t or the deer population would be increasing.
 
All you have to do is explain why the deer population didn’t increase in 2G the ten years between 1992 and 2001 when the allocations and doe harvests were so low. Or why they haven’t increased in the past six years with even lower allocations and doe harvests.
 
It seems pretty obvious to me that if harvesting fewer does, like you advocate, really resulted in having more deer in areas of poor habitat the 2G deer population would now be much higher than it is.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

What is negative about having the various species all in a correct natural balance as long as they are still using hunters to reach that correct natural balance across those various species?

Why do you think they have been trying to reduce the deer herd and get it in balance with the habitat? Do you think they just wanted to reduce the deer numbers to discourage as many hunters as possible? Do you think it was all just so more hunters would quit hunting and stop buying a license so both deer and habitat management would be more difficult in the future?

R.S. Bodenhorn

Aaahh but that's the kicker----Eco-system Management only treats hunters as a necessary evil to be used as necessary to achieve the goal of harmony in nature. Ideally, the deer herd will be taken low enough to where hunters are no longer necessary and predators and natural mortality will offset any reproduction. Will it happen on the state forest in our lifetime--who knows. With the state broke and the Marcellas shale in play the whole plan could be scrapped.

The reality is (and you are well aware of it) Eco-System Management just by it's definition cannot allow for deer numbers even close to where they were a few years ago. You know it, I know it, anyone who follows it at all knows it. It is really silly not to admit it and move on.

 
No I most certainly don’t know it, in fact I am 100% certain there is absolutely no imitative by any of the professional resource managers to ever attempt to do away with hunters as really THE ONLY viable management tool used for controlling deer and other wildlife populations.
 
The idea they are trying to take the deer herd down to where predators or any other environmental factors control the population is absolutely absurd. Why in the world would an agency that runs on hunters even think about such an outlandish thing? It simply doesn’t make even one iota of sense.
 
I simply don’t understand where you come up with such ideas.
 
The Game Commission and every forest resource manager I have ever talked to is very concerned about finding even more ability of hunters to adequately harvest enough deer and even predators to keep their populations within the correct balance. They are also constantly trying to figure out how to recruit more hunters, Why would they be doing that is they were even thinking about someday not needing hunters? The fact is we are very concerned that the day will come when we can’t control populations without even more hunters since it appears individual hunters will eventually limit the amount the kill in a year and that it might not be enough per hunter to keep deer number in check.
 
I know you don’t believe it, though I can only guess it is because you want to believe in the boogieman and conspiracies, but I promise you I don’t know of anyone other than a few anti-hunter groups who have any interest in ever eliminating hunting as the method of choice for controlling wildlife population.
 
There simply is no conspiracy against hunters within the resource management profession.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

The PGC does other test periods on other game, grouse and now ringnecks as an example?...WF

What test period is the PGC doing now on pheasants.. I am not aware of it ?????

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

The PGC does other test periods on other game, grouse and now ringnecks as an example?...WF

What test period is the PGC doing now on pheasants.. I am not aware of it ?????

 
I assume he is talking about the current pheasant restoration areas where they released and monitor the wild birds brought in form out west.
 
But, as near as I can figure that is horse of an all-together different color and has no real correlation to this subject.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

There simply is no conspiracy against hunters within the resource management profession

I never said there was. I have never said there was a conspiracy of any kind. That is just you trying to change the focus of the discussion yet again.

The simple fact that you choose to ignore is that it wasn't the resource managers that made the political shift from tying deer numbers to carrying capacity to tying deer numbers to Eco-System management and Old Growth Forests. Resource Managers don't make policy, they follow policy just as you do. There is a huge difference in what that political shift means in allowable deer numbers as you well know but are loath to admit.

Again--Eco-System Management and Old Growth Forests are not being put in place to increase deer numbers. Deer numbers are being reduced so that Eco-System Management and Old Growth Forests can be put in place.

Eco-System Management by it's very definition cannot permit the deer numbers we have had the last decade.

Actually with five does you would not normally have anywhere close to ten fawns born. It is actually only about 1.1 fawn born per doe statewide and much lower than that many of the units.
 
Then of those fawns born the number that survive even the first few days of life just from being born under weight will vary between about 12.2% mortality following ideal winter and spring conditions to as much as 92.9% nutritional stress mortality following a long hard winter and spring.
 
Then of the few remaining fawns you can throw in anywhere from about 5 – 50 % or in some cases perhaps even higher fawn predation mortality.
 
Once you factor in all of those variables it really is very easy for deer populations to be in a state of natural herd reduction, or at the natural carry capacity, in areas where the habitat is even slightly marginal.
 
But, yes if you really do have high quality habitat and your deer population isn’t increasing it might be because of an over harvest. But, the evidence shows there are very few such areas where that is likely occurring in this state.
 

That is absolute nonsense. According to Bret Wallingford the statewide average recruitment rate is 1.1 fawns/OW Doe. If that wasn't true, there is no way 1M OWD in 2000 could have produced a PS population of 1.5M. Based on the ridiculous mortality rates you posted the herd would have only produced around 300,000 fawns that survived until hunting season and if that were true the harvest of 500K deer in 2000 would have reduced the herd by over 200K, but the PGC claimed the harvest kept the herd stable.

So who isn't telling the truth? Is it you or the PGC?

ORIGINAL: deerfly

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

If you believe what i posted is just my personal opinion, please post the data that shows breeding rates and recruitment increased as the herd in 2G was reduced from 15 DPSM in 2000 to 8 DPSM in 2009!!!

I have never said the fawn recruitment rates in 2G have improved. In fact I have repeatedly pointed out that they obviously haven’t or the deer population would be increasing.
 
All you have to do is explain why the deer population didn’t increase in 2G the ten years between 1992 and 2001 when the allocations and doe harvests were so low. Or why they haven’t increased in the past six years with even lower allocations and doe harvests.
 
It seems pretty obvious to me that if harvesting fewer does, like you advocate, really resulted in having more deer in areas of poor habitat the 2G deer population would now be much higher than it is.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

But, you did say breeding rates and recruitment would increase as the herd was reduced and as usual you were flat out wrong.

The allocations and doe harvests were not low from 1992 to 2001. The harvests equaled or exceeded recruitment which is why the herd didn't increase and that is the same reason the herd didn't increase from 2001 to 2009. If no doe were harvested in 2G from 2001 to 2009 the herd in 2G would currently exceed 40 DPSM just like in the 70s. Obviously that would not be good deer management and it is not what I am advocating, but it is the truth, as document in the George Reserve study.

 
I think the historic harvest facts for 2G speak for them selves. Anyone being objective can clearly see that harvesting fewer does hasn’t resulted in more deer. That is the bottom line and no mater how much work at twisting and spinning you can’t change that fact.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Actually with five does you would not normally have anywhere close to ten fawns born. It is actually only about 1.1 fawn born per doe statewide and much lower than that many of the units.
 
Then of those fawns born the number that survive even the first few days of life just from being born under weight will vary between about 12.2% mortality following ideal winter and spring conditions to as much as 92.9% nutritional stress mortality following a long hard winter and spring.
 
Then of the few remaining fawns you can throw in anywhere from about 5 – 50 % or in some cases perhaps even higher fawn predation mortality.
 
Once you factor in all of those variables it really is very easy for deer populations to be in a state of natural herd reduction, or at the natural carry capacity, in areas where the habitat is even slightly marginal.
 
But, yes if you really do have high quality habitat and your deer population isn’t increasing it might be because of an over harvest. But, the evidence shows there are very few such areas where that is likely occurring in this state.
 

That is absolute nonsense. According to Bret Wallingford the statewide average recruitment rate is 1.1 fawns/OW Doe. If that wasn't true, there is no way 1M OWD in 2000 could have produced a PS population of 1.5M. Based on the ridiculous mortality rates you posted the herd would have only produced around 300,000 fawns that survived until hunting season and if that were true the harvest of 500K deer in 2000 would have reduced the herd by over 200K, but the PGC claimed the harvest kept the herd stable.

So who isn't telling the truth? Is it you or the PGC?

 
I don’t have time to look up the most up to date data on the state computer right but the data for 2002 is right here in front of me in hard copy. The reproductive rate for all does was 1.1 in 2002 and I doubt there has been such a major increase as to have fawn recruitment even remotely close to being that high now.
 
Therefore based on the facts, I believe you are once again confused between fawn birth rates and recruitment rates. It isn’t the first time you have tried the use them interchangeably but they are certainly not interchangeable. It is the fawn birth rates per doe that are 1.1. Fawn recruitment rates are much different than birth rates and also typically much lower that the birth rates.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

quote:

There simply is no conspiracy against hunters within the resource management profession

I never said there was. I have never said there was a conspiracy of any kind. That is just you trying to change the focus of the discussion yet again.

The simple fact that you choose to ignore is that it wasn't the resource managers that made the political shift from tying deer numbers to carrying capacity to tying deer numbers to Eco-System management and Old Growth Forests. Resource Managers don't make policy, they follow policy just as you do. There is a huge difference in what that political shift means in allowable deer numbers as you well know but are loath to admit.

Again--Eco-System Management and Old Growth Forests are not being put in place to increase deer numbers. Deer numbers are being reduced so that Eco-System Management and Old Growth Forests can be put in place.

Eco-System Management by it's very definition cannot permit the deer numbers we have had the last decade.


Even now you are indicating there is a conspiracy to reduce the deer numbers to appease some special interest groups.

It isn’t true. The only reason anyone is trying to reduce deer numbers is because they are so out of balance with the habitat it isn’t good for the deer, their food source or the future for any of our natural resources.

I also have some other news for you. If we had more been using eco-system decades ago we would probably have a lot more deer living on our state forest today than there are. Eco-system management is simply trying to have things in the correct natural balance. If we had the plant and tree species in the correct natural balance there would be enough food out there to support a more deer than we presently have.

Why are you so afraid of nature being in the correct balance?

R.S. Bodenhorn

In this case rather than arguing with you I will just let you argue with the QDMA experts. Even they will admit what I've said is true and they support most of what the PGC is doing. Eco-System Management by Definition means fewer deer. It will not work with the deer numbers we have had. This is just the portion concerning our topic of a longer QDMA article on animal welfare and hunting

The Future
Public concern for animal welfare, and the debate over deer hunting effects, likely will intensify in the future. This trend, coupled with greater emphasis on a “natural” approach to resource management will take center stage. And, as a result, the nonhunting public will play an even more prominent role in dictating deer management policies. These nonhunting, animal welfare advocates ultimately will be the ones who decide whether or not we hunt deer.

In the future, management of forests and wildlife on public lands will strive for biodiversity, for maintaining old–growth forests, and on utilizing ecological approaches to resource management. The goal will be to produce plant and animal communities more like those that existed prior to the white man’s arrival on this continent. In some areas, this equates to fewer deer. Therefore, as the general public becomes more nature sympathetic, the debate over the ethics and impact of recreational deer hunting will intensify.

John Ozoga is a former Wildlife Research Biologist for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources where he spent more than 30 years conducting deer research. He now devotes much of his time to consulting and popular writing and is a panel member for QDMAs Whitetail Wisdom column.

Just a view from afar-   YOTES
  My nearby Deer numbers have increased despite numerous Doe being taken from the local herd compared to past decades. At the same time I have noted fewer and fewer Yote tracks during Winter walks  on the snow. Have also noticed that 'gut piles' seem to last for many days now -on average-as compared to a few years ago when night howling was commonplace and guts disappeared overnight. Now it seems they are being eliminated by crows most often.
  I have observed numerous Yote hunting stories from PA as well as those Yote tree photos. It would seem that you folks have a huge number of those mutts and we all know how much they predate on fawns.
   Dont know what caused their decline here as they are rarely hunted and few trappers are left. With an increasing deer herd one would think the predator numbers would be increasing but they are not.
      I  can only surmise that with our huge tick infestation -and many dogs with killer lyme -that it may have had devastating affect on the predator population- much to the betterment (at least locally) to the Deer herd.
  No Science or hard biological facts but only the observations of a hunted area right in my backyard for over 40 years.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I most certainly didn’t say anything that would indicate fawn recruitment has declined or is really any different that it has always been. Fawn recruitment is extremely variable in the northern tier areas and largely influenced from one year to another from mast crop and winter severity mostly of deep and prolonged snow cover.

You most certainly did claim that recruitment rates decreased when you claimed the habitat was decreasing the herd. Yje only way the habitat can reduce the herd is if it decreased recruitment and survival rates.

What you have just demonstrated though is that you have no idea about the difference between fawn reproductive and recruitment rates and that they are not interchangeable in management objectives. Fawn reproduction, what you got from Wallingford is simply the number of fawns examined dead does were carrying. Fawn recruitment is how many of the fawns were born and remained alive into the next fall deer population.

WRONG AGAIN!! Unlike you I double check what I post to make sure it makes sense and correlates with other PGC data. In Jan.2000 we had 1M OWD and around 670K females with a recruitment rate of 1.1 fawns/doe they would produce around 737,000 PS fawns. Now in order to determine net recruitment you have to subtract the non-hunting mortality of around 230,000 and you come up with 507,000 net recruitment. Funny how that number matches the 2003 harvest of 505K,which kept the herd stable. In other words, net recruitment equaled recruitment with a recruitment rate of 1.1 fawns/doe.

 
 
It is actually rather pathetic for someone who is trying to convince people they know what is going on in the world of deer management when you still don’t know the difference between fawn reproductive and fawn recruitment rates.
 
As an example of how much variance they can be between fawn birth rates and fawn recruitment rates I am going to post the reproductive rates I collected in Elk County and then show the number of fawns/doe counted by the volunteer survey teams the same fall.
 
As far as the reproductive rates though all they can be used for is to show some relative trends since the sample size fro just my district is too low for to have a reliable confidence interval. This is just to show that fawn recruitment rates are always lower than productive rates and often far below the reproductive rate.  
 
Year…….Reproductive rate from highway killed doe….fawns/doe in fall surveys
1997…………………………0.98…………………………….0.44
1998…………………………0.73…………………………….0.55
1999…………………………1.00…………………………….0.51
2000…………………………0.85…………………………….0.38
2001…………………………0.86…………………………….0.53
2002…………………………0.82…………………………….0.72
2003…………………………1.19…………………………….0.57
2004…………………………1.05…………………………….0.62
2005…………………………0.79…………………………….0.64
2006…………………………1.08…………………………….0.66
2007…………………………1.20…………………………….0.70
2008…………………………1.28…………………………….0.53
2009…………………………1.22…………………………….0.62
2010…………………………0.98…………………………….0.68
 
As you can see there is a large difference between fawn reproduction (birth rates) and fawn recruitment (survival rates) per doe. There is also a significant variance in the fawn recruitment rates form year to year sometimes as well.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The variance in fawn production is irrelevant because the PGC uses five year averages when estimating recruitment. Unless you can provide the recruitment rates from 1995 until 2009, you are just blowing smoke. The PGC has the data and you have access to that data if you wanted it. But ignorance is bliss and you are probably a very happy camper.

 
It is you who is blowing the smoke since you don’t know the difference between reproductive data and recruitment rates. You are right about the data being five year averages though even if you don’t know what it is or means.
 
I’m not going to provide anything from Harrisburg for you to give to the USP though. Remember I trusted you once and you just give them the data. Funny how it ended up in the hands of the USP, though? They even admitted, when deposed, how they go it from you. In the future when you want data out of Harrisburg you can simply request it through the proper channels. I’m not going to fall for another of your deceitful tricks. Honorable people simply don’t resort to such tactics and tricks.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

It is you who is blowing the smoke since you don’t know the difference between reproductive data and recruitment rates. You are right about the data being five year averages though even if you don’t know what it is or means.
 

If you are so sure I don't know the difference between the reproductive data and recruitment rates, just post the data that proves I am wrong. none of the PGC data is confidential info protected from the sunshine law ,so just post the dat that proves I am wrong You won't and you can't do it because the data will prove I am right.

Rsb, i dont need to hear excuses. Any honest person would be forthcoming with anything and everything that pertains to managing OUR wildlife. There should be NO SECRECY. Im not busting your chops here, i feel what is right is right. And it should not be up to you or anyone else to decide who is and isnt "honorable" or "honest". And it shouldnt be the "gods" at pgc or your judgement call as to who can and who cannot interpret the extremely complex brain throbbing rocket science deer data. lol.

If the information is sound then it will stand on its merit. If it doesnt it wont and shouldnt.

I couldnt care less about usp having it. Or pennfed. Or audubon. Or anyone else. And they shouldnt need a flippin court order to get it!

Anything that goes on at Elmerton avenue should be a wide open book. The fact it is not, is one of the reasons why pgc has no credibility with many hunters today.

Not that it matters one way or the other anyway to this argument, but didnt the usp court case end anyway? So why the fear?