ORIGINAL: deerfly

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Try this link.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=563677&contentid=http://pubcontent.state.pa.us/p

I don't why the PGC didn't post the full report on the previous link.

I'm still waiting for RSB to post a link to the survival rate of 92% for 1.5 buck.

Your link still doesn’t work.
 
I also already told you where I got the 8% harvest rate for the 1 ½ year old bucks being monitored during the 2009 season in unit 2G. The data is on the DVD power point program provided to Game Commission Officers so we have the CORRECT information when questioned by the public.
 
At some point I suspect the data for each year will be put on the web site. But, there is a lot of perfectly accurate and valuable information we have that you will not find on the web site. If you want the data from someone else, to prove that I provided incorrect data on the 2009 harvests of monitored deer in unit 2G, you call Harrisburg and ask them for it. The FACT is though that I provided the correct data whether you can find it on a web site or not.
 
But, the real fact is guys like you don’t want the correct information because it disproves a lot of the misinformation and nonsense you post.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

I didn't say you provided incorrect data for 2G. What both S-10 and I are saying is that the results from the study are flawed and couldn't possibly reflect the average harvest rates for all of 2G , or any other WMU for that matter.

Here is a quote from the Sept. 2010 issue of the PGC that gives the average survival rates for all WMUs in the study.

uck Survival
Prior to APRs about 80 percent of bucks (a majority of which were yearlings) were
harvested by hunters each year. This led to buck survival rates of less than 20 percent.
Protecting most yearling bucks would increase buck survival, thereby increasing adult bucks
in the population, the goal of APRs.
Based on survival rates of hundreds of radio-collared bucks, yearling buck survival increased
from less than 20 percent to 64 percent after APRs. Adult buck survival increased to 36
percent as well.

When you factor in the bias of the study due to the visible radio collars, those numbers are much more believeable than a 92% survival rate for 1.5 buck in 2G.

Here is the age composition of the buck harvest in 2006 as presented By Dr. R.

-DRAFTFebruary
2, 2010
KINZUA QUALITY DEER COOPERATIVE REPORT 2009
prepared by
David S. deCalesta, Ph.D.
Certified Wildlife Biologist
The Program is Working:
Stay the Course
by…
• Adjusting number of DMAP licenses as needed. Past
adjustments have resulted in retention of deer density at
goal, and maintained lower impact levels.
• Improving forage quality and quantity by increasing
timber harvest and reducing use of fencing to protect
regeneration sites. This in turn will improve quality of deer
and permit slight increases in deer density.
• Encouraging, maintaining, and communicating better
with the core of dedicated, successful hunters to promote
long-term successful management of deer and forest
habitat. Also, recruit younger hunters to supplement the
core.
• Maintaining the program of monitoring habitat and deer
with volunteers to direct management and provide
information for managers and deer hunters.
2
Executive Summary: Indicators used to monitor deer density, deer impact, herd sex
and age ratios, recruitment, deer herd health, and hunter satisfaction have trended
2001-2009 with a high degree of synchrony and correlation, implicating that they are
valid indicators and that the program to reduce deer density has resulted in reductions
in deer impact to the point where density is at target level and there have been
significant improvements in deer health and increased hunter satisfaction.
Deer density for the KQDC area in 2009 was 15.3 deer/square mile (and at target level),
a slight but non-significant increase over 2008. Deer impact at coarse and fine grain
levels also increased in 2009, but not significantly over levels 2008. Density and impact
levels were significantly higher than in 2006, when deer density and impact were lowest.
DMAP licenses were used 2003-2005 to reduce deer density to target levels. Since
2005, number of DMAP licenses has been adjusted in a successful effort to keep deer
density at target level. When number of DMAP licenses drops below 800, non-resident
hunters may not obtain enough to help maintain deer density at target level. An
adaptive management recommendation is to provide 1,500 DMAP licenses in 2010 to
increase participation of non-resident hunters and help maintain deer density and
impact at desired levels. Such a move assumes that local and resident hunters would
not also utilize more DMAP licenses and result in an untoward reduction in deer density.
Density and impact in 2009 were higher on the Private Sector (Bradford Watershed,
Collins Pine, Forestry Investment Associates and RAM forest Products) than on the
Public Sector (Allegheny National Forest). It is hypothesized that deer density has
increased disproportionately on the Private Sector because: 1) hunter access and
familiarity with road systems are better on the Private Sector; and, 2) hunters make
disproportionately lower use of Unit 2F and DMAP licenses on the Private Sector.






Sex and age ratios remain below target levels because hunters continue to hunt for, and
harvest, antlered deer, resulting in a deer herd skewed to too many does and too few
bucks. Fawn recruitment, though variable year to year, is consistently below optimal,
possibly because the shrub layer habitat is still missing, making fawns highly
susceptible to bear and coyote predation, and because deer forage is less than optimal
due to low harvest and success of regeneration and other forage plants.
Weight of harvested deer increased, indicating that the reductions in the deer herd have
resulted in more forage available to deer as there are fewer deer competing for the
same amount of forage, year-to-year. Fawn weights increased such that there likely is
little winter fawn mortality. Antler characteristics have improved over time and are
significantly better than when the KQDC project started in 2001.
Hunter satisfaction, measured since 2007 with a survey of (successful) hunters bringing
deer to check stations, indicates that hunter satisfaction has increased with increases in
deer quality. About ¼ of hunters would like higher deer density and the biggest reason
given for hunters to stop hunting the KQDC area is if deer density declined farther.

Hunter satisfaction, measured since 2007 with a survey of (successful) hunters bringing
deer to check stations,

In many areas that would be considered just a decent 2-1/2 year old rack.

Nutrition Important to Deer Antler Growth

When of the biggest factors which will affect whether your area is producing trophy racks is nutrition. The bottomline on deer antler growth is that if the area does not hold the nutrition to support the genetics of the species, then that area will simply not grow trophy whitetail deer antlers. Because we’re dealing with tissue the antlers of deer require nutrients. Much like the weightlifter who properly consumes the correct amount of carbohydrates, protein, etc., the weightlifter need nutrition to build his tissue and muscle. So are the needs of the whitetail deer in regard to antler production and the ability to store fat, and build muscle. This is why the Midwestern United States gives birth to the biggest bucks in the world. The Midwestern United States contains the richest dirt in America and grows the most nutritious agricultural crops afforded to the whitetail herd.

Body growth takes precedence over antler growth. Any deficiency in dietary energy, protein, calcium, phosphorus or certain vitamins during spring and summer can have strong negative effects. There are only two possible solutions to poor nutrition. One is to reduce deer numbers to more closely match the capacity of the natural habitat. The other is to improve the habitat by cutting, burning, planting or fertilizing to restore the land’s capacity to support healthy deer. This is one reason why shooting doe’s is a vital part are producing deer antlers that grow big and fast on your bucks. If it would only stand to reason is there were fewer doe’s a more abundant Food Supply would be available to the bucks in your area. The modern day whitetail enthusiast knows in order to have whitetail deer antlers abundantly that part of a quality deer management program is to harvest does.

The organic makeup of antlers during the growing stage is almost entirely protein. Even after mineralization (hardening) is complete, a good portion of protein remains in these antlers. To grow the best set of antlers that his genetics and age will allow, a deer needs food containing at least 16% to 18% "digestible" crude protein. (Not all proteins are digestible to a deer.) The most important factor in growing trophy antlers is to provide the buck with nutrient rich food during the growth period from April through October.

Calcium is another element needed by deer during and after the antler growth period. Although a deer can borrow calcium from bones in other parts of his body and utilize it for antler growth, he still needs foods that contain a minimum of 0.45% calcium.


Phosphorus is also needed for antler growth. Although dietary phosphorus requirements are not completely known, it is believed that the lowest level a deer needs for adequate antler growth and other body functions is 0.30%.


Vitamin D is important in promoting calcium absorption and mineralization of bone. A deer gets all the Vitamin D he needs by absorbing ultraviolet light through its skin and eating vegetation that has been in direct sunlight.


Vitamin A is important to antler development once the bone hardening begins. Carotenes in "green" leaves can be converted to Vitamin A. Green leaves can become scarce during the winter months, but remain an important part of the deer's diet.

The most important concept to understand is the difference between an individual bucks genetic potential and his actual antler expression--in essence, how much antler material he actually grows. First, no buck in the wild ever expresses all of his genetic potential. Dealing with the stresses of life in the wild draws away too much of his bodily resources to allow those resources to go fully towards antler production. Exactly how much of his potential he expresses is largely determined by the local conditions--food resource volume and quality throughout the year especially during winter, how severe the winters are, the herd dynamics of the area, etc.

Second, most bucks do not express their maximum antler size until around 6 1/2. Again, the difference between maximum expression at 6 1/2 and genetic potential is determined by local conditions. In the Midwest, the difference between the two will be much less than in TN, as the Midwest has such superior food resources in both volume and quality (nearly unlimited quantities of agriculture grown on the most fertile soils in North America). Exactly how much the difference actually is is unknown. That experiment hasn't been done yet. But if someone forced me to guess, I would have to say that in TN, the average fully mature buck at peak antler development, in the wild, probably grosses around 130, while if those animals had been raised in captivity with all stresses of life removed and fed unlimited volumes of high-quality food they might produce on average 50 more inches of antler growth.

But back to the discussion at hand, first, no buck in the wild ever expresses all of his genetic potential. Second, a buck has to reach full maturity to express his maximum antler development. Young bucks express very little of their genetic potential because so much of the resources they consume are used for body growth instead of antler development. However, when all young bucks are being born at about the same time, hence have equal growing time in their early years, antler expression as a yearling may be an indicator of their genetic potential. In essence, large-antler yearlings tend to be larger antlered mature deer and small antlered yearlings tend to be smaller antlered mature deer, but only when they all have equal growing time and equal access to food resources as fawns and yearlings. However, these differences in expressed antler development and their link to future expression show up strongest only in controlled experiments, where each young buck is given equal food resources. In the wild, this rarely occurs because bucks have different quality mothers. Some mothers are more dominant than others, hence have access to more/better food resources and will produce more milk for their fawns leading to healthier button bucks and yearling bucks. So far, the only "in the wild"
study that are showing this link between yearling antler development and later development are in areas with phenomenally tuned-up deer herds, such as the King Ranch, where 50+% of the buck population is 5 1/2 or older. Considering nowhere in TN has a buck age structure that good, I question whether anywhere in TN would see the same link except in the most extreme cases of genetic potential (very high or very low).

Commonly in the Southeast, where buck age structures are below optimal and sex ratios favor females, the rut is not as tightly timed as it could be, resulting in fawning dates that are not as tightly timed as they could be. When fawning times are not tightly timed, the later-born bucks are generally "behind the curve" in both body growth and antler development. These late born bucks generally do not catch up in antler development until at least 3 1/2 and often 4 1/2. And they generally never catch up in body growth. Lost body growth opportunities as a young buck are apparently lost forever.

But in 2001 ,41% of the yearling buck in Elk. Co were spikes and in Cameron Co. 44 % were spikes, while in Allegheny Co. only 14% were spikes and in Beaver it was only 10%.