You mean these buck harvests----Yes they do reveal the facts don't they.
They really are valid and meaningful.

2007---------6600
2008---------6700
2009---------6800
2010---------5800

07 ..6600
08 .. 6700 = increase
09 .. 6800 = increase
10.. big decrease..



BUT ..
so next month when we find it was more last year (and it will be) than 2010 we can then say the harvest is definitely INCREASING over the past 5 years........ just like the number of bucks making the record book in that time frame !!!!

Huh? lol. No idea what you are talking about doc. But the buck harvest for the unit will most likely be up this year, and its gonna be due to the change in ar, as well as the split season which put more pressure on the buck herd for the entire first week compared to previously. If the harvest isnt up even though the herd likely didnt increaase, it will be amazing.

And as I said that all why this was done in the first place, to increase the buck harvest temporarily to hide the clear herd decline trend without addressing it.

ORIGINAL: RSB
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.
 

This has been pointed out before.  These are the actual numbers.
2000--------13700
2001--------11600
2002---------9900
2003---------7500
2004---------7800
2005---------8500
2006---------8100
2007---------6600
2008---------6700
2009---------6800
2010---------5800

ORIGINAL: wayne c

So everyone that filled their tag/tags with a crossbow wouldve gotten them filled anyway...or just as many of them filled if they only went a few days rifle hunting and didnt pick up the crossbow?? W-R-O-N-G!

 
Harvest has been shifting to earlier for some time. Before crossbows were on the radar.  Maybe some of these folks that got a buck with their crossbows close to home skipped the trip to camp and it saved a doe or two?  Because a deer was harvested in archery doesn't necessarily equate to a increase to total harvest.

2A Buck harvests. No twisting required.

2000--------13700
2001--------11600
2002---------9900
2003---------7500
2004---------7800
2005---------8500
2006---------8100
2007---------6600
2008---------6700
2009---------6800
2010---------5800


These numbers also show the total slide much better, so ttt for them.

They were killing a higher percentage since. There are just far fewer deer left to harvest from! DUH!

How many times does it need be said....or how hard is it to understand the concept of "more with, that wouldve been the case without"? That doesnt mean 1 or 2 years later with a smaller herd, or 10 years later with half the herd! lol. This stuff is around 3rd grade level comprehension here doc.

And as dpms pointed out those are antlered deer...though if youd like to use actual antlerless stats in a similar manner, just read the above! I was addressing your lack of logic, not the stats themselves.

Those also werent 3 day seasons for everyone like previously.

Antlerless allocations have stayed in the stratosphere all along, selling basically all that could be sold all along and the doe harvest has fallen from a high of 18,400 down to 13500.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Antlerless allocations have stayed in the stratosphere all along, selling basically all that could be sold all along and the doe harvest has fallen from a high of 18,400 down to 13500.

 
Since 2A didn't sell out with the increased allocations, which many of us predicted.  Wonder what is in the pipeline? Back to two weeks concurrent or eliminating the 3 tag limit in 2A.

GOLLY.. I must be getting tired .. or maybe I can claim a lapse in thought processing of this old brain ..LOL .. sorry I got off and started talking antlerless with the buck figures to show it is not all about season length ...... LOL>>>LOL>>>LOL..

But I still think the sky is not falling in unit 2A for the BUCK harvests with the figures we have for the past 4-5 years...


I can not find the stats for 2A antlerless before 2003, when they started using the WMU instead of counties but those counties look like they were around the 20,000 antlerless average in the three day season and now 2A is in the mid-teens.. so I'll still stick with it's not all about having a two week or even a one week doe season determining the harvest.. tags, available deer and weather play a much bigger part than season length under the current PGC deer plan... IMHO

This stuff is around 3rd grade level comprehension here doc.

NICE.. that really added alot to the discussion..

Youre clearly tired. Go take a nap doc.

At least I am not so tired or willing to lower myself as to post things like that towards anyone. either ..

ORIGINAL: dpms

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Antlerless allocations have stayed in the stratosphere all along, selling basically all that could be sold all along and the doe harvest has fallen from a high of 18,400 down to 13500.

Since 2A didn't sell out with the increased allocations, which many of us predicted.  Wonder what is in the pipeline? Back to two weeks concurrent or eliminating the 3 tag limit in 2A.

It doesnt matter. There is no way that we "needed" to sell out just to prevent herd "increase". Due to the fact the exact affects of the tags that did sell + the split season are gonna be largely unknown until trends "right themselves" once again, I wouldnt think it reasonable at all to increase anything. One would think we would need to look at a few more years harvests both buck and doe to see trends. But seeing as they seem to be so dead set to kill off the deer these days, who knows. Wishful thinking for me would be cutting the tags. I figure thats zero chance of happening. If I had to "guess" I would say no change from them. Based on my previous assessment and I also dont think they are overly concerned that this year will equate to herd increase. We were reducing an overwinter herd thats twice the size of the current one with many less tags. After several yars of 55,000 plus and half the deer now, how many more years of 55k plus (or 65k + split the supposed current equivalent) do you think we need just to prevent herd growth? I think none would be a good guess. For stabilization especially at levels where we were supposed to stabilize years ago, we dont need nearly so many.

I would guess they will be comfortable, for this year at least, with no change.

I predict further reductions in the not too distant future, Because the herd simply isnt gonna be accepted at anything higher, long term, than some maximum biodiversity sustaining level. I believe that EXACTLY how they attempt to go about it, will likely depend largely on if Sunday hunting is granted within the next coupla years or not.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

where are the states that started it off by reducing their entire deer herd by some 40% and added antler restrictions at the same time... or do you still believe those had nothing to do with today's lower harvest figures ???

Dont know what the "where are the states" mumbo jumbo's all about, But I think Ive explained everything about the ar, quite well. Go back and reread posts if you need to. Its easier than me copying and pasting them again.

or do you still believe those had nothing to do with today's lower harvest figures ???

Compared to hr, VERY little. But you really need to understand the dynamics of it, and you clearly do not, despite my best efforts of explaining it as rock bottom basically as possibly quite a few times over the last year or so.

ORIGINAL: wayne c
 Due to the fact the exact affects of the tags that did sell + the split season are gonna be largely unknown until trends "right themselves" once again, I wouldnt think it reasonable at all to increase anything. One would think we would need to look at a few more years harvests both buck and doe to see trends.

 
I hope so, anyway.
 

 After several yars of 55,000 plus and half the deer now, how many more years of 55k plus (or 65k + split the supposed current equivalent) do you think we need just to prevent herd growth? I think none would be a good guess. For stabilization especially at levels where we were supposed to stabilize years ago, we dont need nearly so many.

I would agree.  My concern is because the increase allocation didn't sell, changes that are not needed will be eyed in the future for a unit with a decreasing population.

One cannot just pick out a point in the (study, process, research. whatever) and only use information from that point unless the attempt is to manipulate or hide the real/actual information to ones advantage. The buck kill has gone from 13,700 to 5800 in the last eleven years based on the PGC's own data.

Interesting post.. If what you wrote is the case .. and that picking out one particular point and going from there to prove one's point ... is an "" attempt is to manipulate or hide the real/actual information to ones advantage."""

Is that why you chose 13,700 as your starting point...

why not start with the harvest in 2004 or maybe back in the 1980s ?????????

or look at the trend I post about .. 3 of the past 4 years the harvest has increased over the preceeding year.... ???



No one is saying that AR and HR did not cause the lower harvest of today... did you not know we have less deer now ??? but as I have posted what I am saying is the sky is not falling... the harvests are running pretty stable since 2003-2004 and that's a nice 7-8 year window....

a little up one year a little down the next.. just like the over-all trends have ALWAYS been in Pa..

BTW.. I got my rose colored glasses at the same shop where you bought that tin-foil hat of yours ..

Dpms, I dont think hunting is "terrible" but I certainly dont want to see it decline further. Nothing wrong with wanting to protect what we have, or possibly even better it a bit. We've all seen how low many units have been taken, and as youve said, the trends are clear here. If absolutely nothing else happens here, at the least, that trend needs to end. And not just put a bandaid on the buck harvest for a year by manipulating ar.