There you go stirrin the pot with logic and facts again...

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: Esox_Hunter

Come on, surely you can do better than using data compiled in 2004 and citing information from 2000/2001?

I think most hunters would agree that the PGC policy and management strategies have undergone just a few minor changes within the last 8 years, and maybe just a couple more within the last 12 years.

Actually there have not been any significant chances in deer management over the past eight years that I can think of and what changes were made were what hunters were asking for.
 
Another very recent independently conducted public survey is about to be completed. They will then be releasing their findings of what people think about deer management as well as a number of other Game Commission programs.
 
Any one want to beat of whether or nor the majority support the current deer management plan and objectives?
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

"There have not been any significant changes in deer management over the last eight years..."

Did part of the state change from four on a side to three-up?  If so, that was a significant change in deer management.

Did certain WMUs go from a 12 day concurrent rifle season to a split season?  If so, that was a significant change in deer management.

Did the mentored season go from antlered deer only to include antlerless with the proper tags (may not have happened yet, but may have passed to happen)?  If so, that was a significant change in deer management.

Were any special seasons such as the early inline season added (not sure when that happned)?  If so, that was a significant change in deer management.

Did certain WMUs get extended firearms seasons?  If so, that was a significant change in deer management.

Did any WMUs see a change in antlerless allocations, in either direction, exceeding 5%?  If so, that was a significant change in deer management.

Were any new weapons permitted such as crossbows in archery season?  If so, that was a significant change in deer management.

Did all, a majority, or some of the above happen in the last eight years?  If so, there have been significant changes in deer management in the last eight years.

 
The fact is not one of those is a significant change.
 
The three up antler restriction change only affects a very small percentage of the buck population and then only in four units of the state. It was estimated that even if hunters killed all of the bucks that would have been legal under the change it would have only increased the harvest by about 13%. Since hunters most certainly are not going to kill al of the bucks affected by the change it was an insignificant change in deer management. Besides it was what the HUNTERS in those units ASKED FOR.
 
The split season is not a significant change either since the deer management professionals came up with an antlerless allocation that fits a 12 day season and a sperate one with more anlterless licenses being allocated if it is only a 7 day antlerless season. But the shorter antlerless season was not something the deer managers suggested and they have never supported doing it. That too was what the HUNTERS ASKED FOR and the BOC went along with the hunter’s wishes and demands.
 
The mentors being permitted to harvest an antlerless deer is not a significant change either since they still have to use the antlerless tag of someone who got an antlerless license. That too was WHAT the HUNTERS ASKED FOR.
 
Early inline and the Junior/Senior October seasons began well before AR or HR. They started back in the mid 90s and have had no significant change in deer management since everyone participating in those seasons has to have an antlerless license.
 
Only special regulations units got an expanded doe season where they are trying to reduce deer populations and that has been the goal and objective in those areas since the mid eighties.
 
No there were no significant changes in antlerless allocations in either direction other than more licenses being allocated where they shorted the antlerless season for 12 to 7 days. That is no different than how the allocations were significantly reduced when the antlerless season whet from 3 to 12 days concurrent with buck season.
 
Adding weapons are not a significant change in deer management since hunters are only allowed one buck per year regardless of weapon used and antlerless deer harvests required an antlerless license that comes out of a set allocation.
 
As I posted before there have been NO significant changes and the changes that have occurred were the ones the HUNTERS ASKED FOR. Is that not what all of you keep saying that the Game Commission needs to listen to and do as the HUNTERS ASK?
 
But, when they give the hunters what they ask for and demand it just infuriates someone else that is also a hunter.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

What WOULD constitute a significant change? How could hunters ask for something from the PGC? They don't know nothin! The audacity of them GOONS!!...WF

ORIGINAL: wayne c

No it isnt. Those that dont want ar wanted no ar. Most of us that supported it supported the 4 pt. The reason the change was made, is because the buck havest in some of those units took a SEVERE nosedive. Despite claims of herd stabilization in some of them. This adding to the buckharvest is supposed to disguise that decline, and make the trend less "sharp". PERIOD. Its no coincidence it was just prior to the change, discussed by commissioners and staff about the declines in those units buck harvests.

 
For what it is worth, I do give more weight to the idea the change was made becuase one commissioner was hearing from alot of sportsmen about eliminating brow tines. He attends alot of sportsmens meetings.
 
I, as well, am concerned about the plummeting antlered harvests in certain units. If the buck harvest does not rise in 2A, for example, with this lower AR, the antlered herd is in serious decline as is the overall deer population.

quote:

The mentors being permitted to harvest an antlerless deer is not a significant change either since they still have to use the antlerless tag of someone who got an antlerless license. That too was WHAT the HUNTERS ASKED FOR.

No. It was pushed by a coupla folks (and pgc) because they wanted more antlerless deer killed. PERIOD.

NOT AROUND HERE ... every where I talked about the idea of mentored youth hunting I had parents and other adults jumping up and down in favor of it... it was a chance to get their younger kids involved.. so YES for sure around here folks wanted the mentored youth hunting and were and still are in favor of any additional opportunities for youngsters to enjoy and participate in the sport of hunting.

Anytime there are more opportunities given to kill a critter more critters will be killed. That is just a fact of life.

TRUE-- Let me rephrase----The percent of the available critters that will be harvested increases in proportion to the time/opportunities given to harvest them. That is just a fact of life.

For what it is worth, I do give more weight to the idea the change was made becuase one commissioner was hearing from alot of sportsmen about eliminating brow tines. He attends alot of sportsmens meetings.

Not buying it. At all. Im not saying that nobody has complained. Im saying that wasnt the reason or even close. There is support and nonsupport for just about EVERY issue that we could discuss. And the complaining didnt just start this past year, and it was no "higher" this past year towards ar than had been the previous several, and there had been just as much if not more support. There have been folks against alot of things, including the ar, for years now. The reason the change was made NOW was due to the steep VERY steep decline in the buck harvest, a condition which has only recently been pointed out and discussed in depth period.

Besides, its STILL necessary for guys in 3 total point zone which is most of the state, to count browtines. I guess their eyes are better everywhere else?

I, as well, am concerned about the plummeting antlered harvests in certain units. If the buck harvest does not rise in 2A, for example, with this lower AR, the antlered herd is in serious decline as is the overall deer population.

Barring a miracle, it should rise. Unless there was significant reductions since just a year ago, the 2010 season, the buck harvest should have little choice but to rise for the unit for this past seaseon (the 2011/12 season) due to the split season and the ar change. Only way it likely wouldnt would be with signficant declines having occurred during the one previous year, which is highly unlikely since the decline over the last several years has been a slow steady drain as attested to by the data, not an all in one shot large one year or two year decline. I think the harvest should be somewhat similiar, but a little higher. What will that tell me about whether the herd has declined stable or increased? Probably not much. But the trend leading up to these changes speaks for itself.

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

Not really sure who wanted the change has anything to do with wether it was SIGNIFICANT or not.

Sounds like if the hunters ask for something it can't be a significant change..

Somebody is blowing smoke again..


I think the crossbow inclusion was a very significant change..
Anything that would increase the buck harvest over 10% in an area would be very significant.

 
None of the changes were significant and none of the resulted in any significant changes in the harvests either.
 
As for the crossbows that might have resulted in a slight increase in the archery harvest but since those are just hunters that then cannot harvest a buck during the firearms season it did not have any affect on the total buck harvest, therefore it did not result in ANY significant change in the deer management picture.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: wayne c

No it isnt. Those that dont want ar wanted no ar. Most of us that supported it supported the 4 pt. The reason the change was made, is because the buck havest in some of those units took a SEVERE nosedive. Despite claims of herd stabilization in some of them. This adding to the buckharvest is supposed to disguise that decline, and make the trend less "sharp". PERIOD. Its no coincidence it was just prior to the change, discussed by commissioners and staff about the declines in those units buck harvests.

For what it is worth, I do give more weight to the idea the change was made becuase one commissioner was hearing from alot of sportsmen about eliminating brow tines. He attends alot of sportsmens meetings.

I, as well, am concerned about the plummeting antlered harvests in certain units. If the buck harvest does not rise in 2A, for example, with this lower AR, the antlered herd is in serious decline as is the overall deer population.

 
You have made that statement about buck harvests plummeting in unit 2A before but I just do not see it when I look at the facts.
 
When I look at the facts I see a couple of things. One fact is that the initial intent was to reduce the 2A deer population. It is also a fact that in 2007 EHD, not deer harvests, reduced the 2A deer population. It is also a fact that since EHD hit the unit the goal has been stabilization. Everything I see shows that unit 2A still have a very good deer population and to show those points I am going to post the antlered harvests per square mile for the state, unit 2A and all of the combination of the five 4-point units for each year.
 
Year_______Statewide buck harvest_____2A buck harvest______4-point buck units
2003____________3.14_________________4.32_________________3.58
2004____________2.75_________________4.31_________________3.43
2005____________2.66_________________4.69_________________3.70
2006____________2.99_________________4.47_________________3.89
2007____________2.41_________________3.64_________________3.22
2008____________2.70_________________3.70_________________3.44
2009____________2.39_________________3.76_________________3.29
2010____________2.71_________________3.20_________________3.40
 
What I see is that unit 2A is still way above the statewide buck harvest average and that in all years but one (last year) it was also well above the average buck harvest for the 4-point restriction units.
 
I do not see anything that would cause any reason for concern beyond the point the unit very well might still have more deer than should be living on the habitat and food supply based on what is happening in the other areas of the state.
 
Besides even if the 2A population has declined it certainly seems that the decline came from the 2007 EHD outbreak (a totally natural occurrence) instead of hunters harvesting too many deer.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

What I see is that unit 2A is still way above the statewide buck harvest average and that in all years but one (last year) it was also well above the average buck harvest for the 4-point restriction units.

Those numbers mean nothing because you cannot compare 2A with any WMU except itself unless the habitat is the same as you have been telling us for years in trying to defend what has gone on in 2G.

Compare the harvest numbers in actual deer numbers for the WMU 2A over the years and you may get an altogether different picture.

Since there was no significant change in the total buck harvest following the inclusion of crossbows the change obviously had no significant management impact.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Since everyone (including you) knows that more time or opportunity to hunt an animal results in a higher percentage of animals killed we can only assume that your definition of SIGNIFICANT MANAGEMENT IMPACT is far different than ours. We know 12% is not considered significant by the PGC and your 26-28% inflation in archery kill is not considered significant so your statement is propably correct from the PGC perch.

That is just the way it works in the real world that most of us, and all of the deer, exist in. If you want to live in your make believe world you certainly can, but that does not change what the facts have proven to be reality.

Not sure a comment is really necessary there.

If someone had not harvested them in archery season they would have been available for harvest in gun season and many of them, or some other buck, would have been harvested if those archery season successful hunters had been a field buck hunting during the gun season. That is just a reality whether you want to accept it or not.

Nope. Wrong answer slim. Time matters. Longer seasons = more harvest than otherwise. There really is no debate. Dont know if you are really that slow to understand facts, or just playing stupid to cloud the issue. While technically, they didnt "lengthen" the season, they may as well have, its the same exact effect. Fact is, more hunters now have more time to hunt if theyve decided to go out and buy a weapon to hunt in a season they never had before...on top of their rifle season theyve always hunted. And the increase is archery season participation is clearly the case.

And thats just ONE of the added "new" opportunities.

Since there was no significant change in the total buck harvest following the inclusion of crossbows the change obviously had no significant management impact.

How much lower would the harvest have been if it werent for the added opportunities due to other factors, not the least of which continued herd reductions to some units as well as other things?

ORIGINAL: S-10

What I see is that unit 2A is still way above the statewide buck harvest average and that in all years but one (last year) it was also well above the average buck harvest for the 4-point restriction units.

Those numbers mean nothing because you cannot compare 2A with any WMU except itself unless the habitat is the same as you have been telling us for years in trying to defend what has gone on in 2G.

Compare the harvest numbers in actual deer numbers for the WMU 2A over the years and you may get an altogether different picture.

 
I did provide the comparison of 2A to its self with the annual buck harvests.
 
Just because you and your ilk do not like the results does not make the results and facts they reveal any less valid or meaningful.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn
 

First of all you pointing out anything with your biased and goofy opinion means pretty much nothing in the world of reality.

Sorry you made yourself look foolish. For me, this stuff isnt personal. Just the facts.

It is also obvious that EHD was just localized and nothing of significance in the big picture since unit 2A has always been, both before and since EHD, well above the statewide deer harvest in both buck and does.

Thats funny. I didnt realize we were managing all the units based on RSBS determination of wether the harvest were appropriate or not? I had thought that we set goals of increase, decrease or stabilization, and stabilization was supposed to be the goal and adhered to just like many of the other units where it wasnt. Oh my. Silly me. And gee, wonder why the doe harvest has been so high with 55-65k tags! lmao. Which is exactly why the buck harvest is declining.

In fact it has also been well above the harvests for the other units within the 4-point restriction areas so it is obviously not hurting in deer population numbers unless it is possible from still having more deer than the habitat can sustain.

Only if you believe the absurd contention that you throw around regularly that you cannot reduce a deer herd even with unlimited tags (which is what we have here basically, as many as can be sold).

Heck I have even seen pictures of dead deer in unit 2A that very clearly died of starvation during the winter a couple years ago.

Untrue. I saw the pics. And it was frozen VERY young fawn,g which you dont have a clue how it died. And even if it died due to starvation, which i likely didnt, it was one year, one deer in one very localized area. AND it was provided by someone who is 100% antideer and very untrustworthy.

But, I also can show you bigfoot pictures on the internet. Proof positive he is alive and well. Perhaps he killed that late born fawn?

When that is occurring it is not because you do not have enough deer, it is because nature is trying to tell you that you have too many deer.

Uh, no it isnt. The habitat wasnt even poor when we had twice the overwinter deer...let alone now! lol.

As for Doctor Rosenberry’s comments it is true that 2A is in stabilization mode and also that the deer population has been reduced. The fact is though that it was EHD that reduced the population instead of hunters harvesting too many.

lol. No. But if it were true, nothing has been done to address it, even when the harvest was much higher when the herd was supposed to be "stabilized" years earlier... And the harvest has declined further since the ehd 4 years ago to level even lower. And STILL no adjustments made. = mismanagement & lies.

As for your deer harvest numbers how ingenious of you to mix harvests from before antler restrictions to the years with antler restrictions.

Pretty clear you make these posts for attempt at damage control and nothing more. You know Ive addressed that exact statement 100 times on here with you. Just deciet by acting as if I hadnt. The numbers shouldnt be all that different ar without herd reduction vs. non-ar without herd reduction after the first year and even less difference thereafter. Only difference would be in the very few bucks that are never legal that never get taken by even a kid or those lost to natural mortality. Thats it. Course thats probably all a little too complex for you to understand what Im talking about.

And you think unbiased people that do not have a biased agenda as goofy as yours would not be smart enough to see just how biased you are?

YOU calling someone else goofy. Thats rich -Rich.

Again, didnt mean to get your emotions flying, but you try to repeat the same nonsense 100 times even though its 100% refuted each and every time. I dont understand how you could ever think the results wouldnt be exactly the same when you do the exact same in another month and a half. Heck even a monkey wouldnt stick his finger in an electrical outlet more than twice.