ORIGINAL: RSB

Well about all I am going to say on this topic at this point is that you guys are wrong about the vast majority of what you think and post. But, this is America and you can be as wrong as you want for just as long as you desire to be wrong and stay so uneducated about the REAL facts of deer management and how the deer/habitat relationship affects the future.
 
The sad part is you and the others like you of both the past and present have done more damage to the deer herds, their habitats and the future of hunting than anti-hunters have ever managed to do.
 
For decades it has been almost like the movie “Groundhog Day” where the same ignorance just keeps repeating over and over. Many of you, it seems, would like to keep playing that same scene over and over forever until there is no place left in the state that has enough habitat to support more than low deer populations.
 
Fortunately the professional resource managers are finally paying more attention to what they learn from the scientific research provided by the deer and their habitat instead of being forced to repeat the same mistakes guys like you would insist on time after time.    
 
I just hope that people who listen to you or read your incorrect, misleading and flat out foolishness are not gullible enough to jump on your bandwagon and continue to cause even more harm to the future of hunting, our deer and other resources.
 R.S. Bodenhorn

WOW, sounds to me that you've thrown in the towel?

Facts are facts, and obviously you haven't proven them.....at least on here?

For over 45 years of my hunting career I had the highest regard for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. I had immediate family members directly involved in it, close friends directly involved in it, co-workers directly involved in it, rode along and worked with them on patrols and other projects, and was on the verge of becoming a member myself. I spent a few years as a District Justice and had game law cases brought before me. I truely thought they walked on water.

Gary Alt gave me a rude awakening. Because of him I now question everything they say, research all their claims, and look for their hidden motives. Not because of AR/HR itself as I have followed my own AR for decades and agree some areas had way too many deer, but because of all the false claims, half truths, misleading statements, and downright lies they used to sell the program and are still using in many cases. Sorry for the rant.

For decades it has been almost like the movie Groundhog Day

I agree Rsb. The enviromentalists and other interests have made power grabs for our deer management off and on for decades. Back in the 50's folks like Latham tried to force their extreme ideals and visions on the pgc, and were run out of dodge on a rail for their extreme deer management ideas. Now, they have made a much more concerted effort with more political backing, that finally succeeded.

I spent a few years as a District Justice...

LOL
Enough said!!!

Ironhed

p.s. I sense Cold putting out a new hunting blog in the near future...lol.

I meant no offense.  Chill out.

Ironhed

Those are some things actually good about the collared deer studies, that type of information. The dispersal stuff, travel distances, home range info etc.

IF the results show such low percentages of the collared deer being shot, as rsb alluded to, then it wouldnt be surprising that those deer get some age on them.

Yeah, during those dispersals, Ive heard theyve been shown to go as much as 20 or 25 miles or more sometimes, but thats further than the norm I guess. Imagine they at times go through some pretty surprising places, especially at night.

Thats some old deer, no doubt. Just curious, did you happen to get the weight on those?

Thats some old deer, no doubt. Just curious, did you happen to get the weight on those?

No we didn't. We have since purchased a scale.  I would estimate 100-115lbs? I have harvested larger doe though.

Ironhed

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

I still love that statement,- of the known legal bucks out there--...WF

You ever kill a collared deer, WF?

By the sounds of it...probably not.

Of the 2 collared bucks our group took, the biologists were able to tell us that one of them was trapped as a 3yr old 8-point.  He got whacked with a Rage 3 months later and now resides on my buddies wall.
The other was trapped as a BB, traveled 7 miles in 3 months and was harvested at 1.5yrs old.(No way to tell if legal as a BB) He was harvested with a flintlock(You'd be proud!).

I suppose the biologist guessed about the 3yr. old's legality, eh?

Other interesting info(to me):
2 of the tagged doe that we harvested were both tagged as adults.  They were both harvested within 400 yards of where they were trapped.  Last I knew, both doe were #1 and #2 in the state as far as "estimated oldest harvested doe in the state under the tag/collar programs".  That may have since changed in the last 2 seasons, though.

Ironhed

 
This type of information and the travel data posted here are what that type of study is intended for.  It does an okay job of that.
 
It is not intended for determining hunting survival rates.  If it were, it would state so in the purpose section of the study and would include substantiating information concerning why and how the DOE attempted to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
 
That is not to say that there cannot be unforeseen "that's interesting" observations or such that are not the stated or main purpose of a study that occur during a study, but any researcher worth their salt does not come to any conclusions based on outlying observations, but rather they will note it in their results and often propose that further research be done on that specific observation.  That further research is then designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated using the correct DOE methodologies to accurately measure the outcomes of the research and will include such study critical itmes as proper sample size, proper test and control groups, one variable testing, etc.
 
To attempt to use one study, that does not have as its main focus via design in an attempt to "prove" something the research was not designed to do is either foolhardy or an intentional effort to mislead.

This type of information and the travel data posted here are what that type of study is intended for. It does an okay job of that.

It is not intended for determining hunting survival rates. If it were, it would state so in the purpose section of the study and would include substantiating information concerning why and how the DOE attempted to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

That is not to say that there cannot be unforeseen "that's interesting" observations or such that are not the stated or main purpose of a study that occur during a study, but any researcher worth their salt does not come to any conclusions based on outlying observations, but rather they will note it in their results and often propose that further research be done on that specific observation. That further research is then designed, developed, implemented, and evaluated using the correct DOE methodologies to accurately measure the outcomes of the research and will include such study critical itmes as proper sample size, proper test and control groups, one variable testing, etc.

To attempt to use one study, that does not have as its main focus via design in an attempt to "prove" something the research was not designed to do is either foolhardy or an intentional effort to mislead.

21015-08z.pdf
I do not know how to link the above.

Ironhed

1. Per the PGC annual report, all the collard deer trapped for the hunter related mortality study were trapped Jan-April so that 8 point must have been part of a different study.
2. If (as you say) the deer was trapped 3 months before being harvested it is reasonable they knew what size he was since he had his antlers of the year and a short time period between collard and shot.
3. The PGC states that to determine a deers age past 30 months with any reliability they have to send the tooth away to be cross sectioned.
4. Sounds like a nice buck but I'am not sure of it's relevance to the topic of the claim of--KNOWN LEGAL BUCKS in the particular study being discussed.

1. I cannot answer that.
2. It was an estimate but the biologist, or biologist aid, knew he was an 8-pt.  We escorted him onto my buddies farm(higher on a hill) so they could "spot him" with their radio telemetry 3 months before he was killed.  Regardless of how, when or why...we were told he was an 8pt the day they were on the property AND when the tag number was called in after harvest.
3.I understand that.
4.See #2

Ironhed

Thanks Pork!

Ironhed

Not really Ironhed. There was a considerable number of bucks where I used to hunt. On a normal opening day, I would see 3 to 7 bucks.As I was not the only one in the area, someone would see the ones others didn't and we all compared our sightings. It was mean terrain and always held 4,5 or 6 truly big bucks.Trail cams would have been nice but we knew the area well and spent a lot of time there...WF

Ironhed, did they happen to mention how often in the course of a study they check on(or try to find) each of their deer?

Yes. Once per week, if memory serves me right.

Gotcha, WF.

Ironhed