What the heck, middle of winter and we all have time on our hands. Hold Old Paint for me while I take a few more swings!!.WF

I couldn’t open the link that had previously been provided, but since I am quite familiar with the research project I knew first hand that the research was still on going. Therefore, I also knew any report he was referencing was not the final report, just as I was pointing out, and which he argued wasn’t true even though it clearly is true.

Now that I have had an opportunity to read the report he was referencing I am even more convinced than before that he is both extremely biased and unqualified to be critiquing wildlife management projects and reports.

R.S. Bodenhorn

How could you be so familiar with the research project when you didn't even know what one it was he was talking about until after all your arguing in support of it.


Sounds like a lot more double talk which we have become used to.

Your prior post to Dardys----You did not provide a link to the study you are referencing nor did you post the entire report, therefore we do not know what study you are making reference to. I can’t even find the information you are referencing on the Game Commission web site so I have to question where you are even finding all of these alleged errors you claim exist.

Just provide a link to the report you are quoting from so we can all see it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

You really do need to keep better track of which story you are telling on which of the various sites you are telling them on.

------PS, Still waiting on that data to support your claims of Known Legal Bucks, Recent surveys supporting your claim the majority still support the PGC deer management, Biologists reports supporting your claim of the breeding window being improved, the procedure/policy for Peer Reviewing your research, and what Scientific Publications they are posted in. You made the claims, we are simply asking for proof.

RSB, this is junior high science class level stuff.

If a a study or experiment is flawed in its DESIGN - which DarDys has clearly shown from a hard, scientific standpoint - it doesn't matter how many reports are issued during the course of the study or experiment. The reports, findings, conclusions - whatever you want to call them - will not be scientifically valid.

So does science matter in the PGC, as you claim it does? Or is pseudo-science good enough?

As is par for your course, when the facts have proven you or the PGC wrong, you resort to insults and name calling. Way to represent a state agency in public

ORIGINAL: S-10

I couldn’t open the link that had previously been provided, but since I am quite familiar with the research project I knew first hand that the research was still on going. Therefore, I also knew any report he was referencing was not the final report, just as I was pointing out, and which he argued wasn’t true even though it clearly is true.

Now that I have had an opportunity to read the report he was referencing I am even more convinced than before that he is both extremely biased and unqualified to be critiquing wildlife management projects and reports.

R.S. Bodenhorn

How could you be so familiar with the research project when you didn't even know what one it was he was talking about until after all your arguing in support of it.


Sounds like a lot more double talk which we have become used to.

Your prior post to Dardys----You did not provide a link to the study you are referencing nor did you post the entire report, therefore we do not know what study you are making reference to. I can’t even find the information you are referencing on the Game Commission web site so I have to question where you are even finding all of these alleged errors you claim exist.

Just provide a link to the report you are quoting from so we can all see it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

You really do need to keep better track of which story you are telling on which of the various sites you are telling them on.

------PS, Still waiting on that data to support your claims of Known Legal Bucks, Recent surveys supporting your claim the majority still support the PGC deer management, Biologists reports supporting your claim of the breeding window being improved, the procedure/policy for Peer Reviewing your research, and what Scientific Publications they are posted in. You made the claims, we are simply asking for proof.

 
I had read that report when it first came out but I read dozens of reports each year and without looking at the reports again I simply do not remember which information goes with which report.
 
But as I posted right from the get go he was not reporting final results of the study because I know the study is still on going. I know it is ongoing and what REALTY is concerning the project because I have had the opportunity to be involved in various parts of the study. Therefore, there are many parts of the project I don’t need to read about to know what is going on with the research project. I get to talk directly with the people with the boots on the ground doing the research when I have questions about it.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: rsquared

RSB, this is junior high science class level stuff.

If a a study or experiment is flawed in its DESIGN - which DarDys has clearly shown from a hard, scientific standpoint - it doesn't matter how many reports are issued during the course of the study or experiment. The reports, findings, conclusions - whatever you want to call them - will not be scientifically valid.

So does science matter in the PGC, as you claim it does? Or is pseudo-science good enough?

As is par for your course, when the facts have proven you or the PGC wrong, you resort to insults and name calling. Way to represent a state agency in public

 
There was and is nothing flawed about the research. The only thing that was flawed was the critique DarDys posted of it. He did not even know it was not a final report even though it clearly stated that it was not the final report.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

I had read that report when it first came out but I read dozens of reports each year and without looking at the reports again I simply do not remember which information goes with which report.

But as I posted right from the get go he was not reporting final results of the study because I know the study is still on going. I know it is ongoing and what REALTY is concerning the project because I have had the opportunity to be involved in various parts of the study. Therefore, there are many parts of the project I don’t need to read about to know what is going on with the research project. I get to talk directly with the people with the boots on the ground doing the research when I have questions about it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

1. Once again you admit you spent several days claiming the PGC research was fine and those critising it didn't know what they were talking about----And You Didn't Have A Clue Which Reaearch Was In Question. How did you know in the beginning the study was ongoing when you admited you didn't know what study he was talking about.
2. As stated by different people, it doesn't matter if the study is ongoing or not. If the method used in the beginning is wrong the end result will be wong.
3. It would appear more likely that all these paragraphs of your opinions and filler words are just an attempt to move a few pages past the embarrassing hickups and false claims you got caught making the last few days.
4. Did you forget to finish answering a few prior claims you made or are they what you are trying to move past.

Still waiting on that data to support your claims of Known Legal Bucks, Recent surveys supporting your claim the majority still support the PGC deer management, Biologists reports supporting your claim of the breeding window being improved, the procedure/policy for Peer Reviewing your research, what Scientific Publications they are posted in, and a explaination of why you claim AR wasn't used as a ploy to sell HR when the PGC's own "Deer Management" publication says it was.. You made the claims, we are simply asking for explainations and proof.

ORIGINAL: S-10

I had read that report when it first came out but I read dozens of reports each year and without looking at the reports again I simply do not remember which information goes with which report.

But as I posted right from the get go he was not reporting final results of the study because I know the study is still on going. I know it is ongoing and what REALTY is concerning the project because I have had the opportunity to be involved in various parts of the study. Therefore, there are many parts of the project I don’t need to read about to know what is going on with the research project. I get to talk directly with the people with the boots on the ground doing the research when I have questions about it.

R.S. Bodenhorn

1. Once again you admit you spent several days claiming the PGC research was fine and those critising it didn't know what they were talking about----And You Didn't Have A Clue Which Reaearch Was In Question. How did you know in the beginning the study was ongoing when you admited you didn't know what study he was talking about.
2. As stated by different people, it doesn't matter if the study is ongoing or not. If the method used in the beginning is wrong the end result will be wong.
3. It would appear more likely that all these paragraphs of your opinions and filler words are just an attempt to move a few pages past the embarrassing hickups and false claims you got caught making the last few days.
4. Did you forget to finish answering a few prior claims you made or are they what you are trying to move past.

Still waiting on that data to support your claims of Known Legal Bucks, Recent surveys supporting your claim the majority still support the PGC deer management, Biologists reports supporting your claim of the breeding window being improved, the procedure/policy for Peer Reviewing your research, what Scientific Publications they are posted in, and a explaination of why you claim AR wasn't used as a ploy to sell HR when the PGC's own "Deer Management" publication says it was.. You made the claims, we are simply asking for explainations and proof.

 
All I had to do was read DarDy’s post to know he was making reference to one of the collared/tagged deer study reports, there have been several put out so far you know. I have read all of the various studies and report but I don’t have them memorized either so just seeing a convoluted critique of one isn’t enough for me to pick out which one is being referenced. Therefore, since I knew for an absolute fact the research is still ongoing I also knew he was NOT reading final report as he claimed.
 
There was nothing wrong or flawed about the methods or the beginning of the research so there was nothing wrong with what was being learned either. The only thing that was wrong was DarDy’s critique, in fact he was very wrong, he didn’t even understand many of the parts he commented on including the data some of the data referenced. After reading his critique it is obvious that he simply is not qualified to be critiquing deer management research projects or reports.
 
As for your other questions I have answered them time and again, you just don’t like the answers because they didn’t fit your agenda so you try to make it sound like you have not get an answer even when you have. But, I will play you childish little game of answering those questions again one last time.
 
I know most of them were legal bucks because many of them were already legal when they were tagged or collared. Many were also observed throughout the fall before, during and even after the hunting seasons.
 
The fact that the majority support the current deer management is based on the fact that I have worked some of the deer management open houses, have talked with way hunters in a year and year in and year out than any of you have, I also read a number of hunting boards besides this one and even though nearly all hunters wish there were more deer the vast majority do know that herd reductions had to occur and they do support the current deer management objectives. Besides my personal observations there have also been independent surveys done on hunter satisfaction and those independent and scientifically constructed and conducted surveys that I have read all support the fact that most people, including hunters, are for the most part supportive of the current deer management direction. Even the Deer Management Audit reported that the majority supported the current deer management direction. If you think it isn’t true then you do the research to disprove it. I already know it is supported and don’t have to prove anything to people who wouldn’t believe it even if GOD himself explained it to them.
 
As for the Biologists needing to say the breeding window has improved, well you might need that but I don’t since I collected the data that clearly proved the breeding window improved tremendously in this area. Since this is America you can believe what ever you want on the subject but I will believe what the deer themselves have proven to be reality.
 
As for Peer Review; here you go read all about it.
 
 [color=#800080 size=3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
 
The Game Commission research papers and journals are available for Peer Reviewed by just about every other Professional Wildlife Biologist in the nation and even other countries if they have an interest and desire to do so.
 
As for antler restrictions I know why they were instituted because I was there when they were first being discussed by Doctor Alt and the other members of the deer management team and even though it was known some hunters would kill a doe if they were not permitted to kill the first animal with a glint of antler that was not the reason for needing antler restrictions. The antler restrictions was all about improving the buck/doe ratio and attempting to get it back to something close to what nature intended for it being.
 
You might not like the answers but I am getting a bit sick of having to tell you the same thing over and over again simply because the answers don’t fit your agenda or what you want to be true.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

You might not like the answers but I am getting a bit sick of having to tell you the same thing over and over again simply because the answers don’t fit your agenda or what you want to be true.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Not near as sick as I am of you making BS claims knowing you have nothing to back them up and when asked for data from someone else besides your own opinion/claim you simply repeat the same BS claims.( As you say, you tell us the same things over and over again)
It's now quite obvious we are not going to get anything concrete from you so after pointing out each unsupported claim or claim your own people dispute I am moving on.

1. You claimed the collard 2G study showed only 8% of the 1-1/2 and 29% of the known legal bucks are being harvested in that WMU. I earlier did and posted the math to prove that claim/research impossible/wrong since there would have to be nearly SIX times as many bucks as does living in WMU 2G for it to be true based on the PGC harvest data and estimated population. (In Less Of Course THE METHOD USED IN THE COLLARD STUDY WAS FAULTY)

2. You claimed the breeding window was shorter even though your own biologists said it wasn't. You claimed that was because of the late breeding fawns. The Biologists know as you do/should the purpose of shortening the window was to prevent the fawns from being eaten and late fawns get eaten. In the Deer reports they (the PGC) state this goal failed.

3. I asked for the policy/procedure for Peer Review and the Scientific journals the reports are published in by the PGC. You give me a site (not PGC) that tells what is Supposed to happen. I've done them, I know what is SUPPOSED to happen. I asked how it happens in the PGC.

4. The reason for AR is published in the PGC's Deer Management report and discussed several places on the internet by various state game agencies including ours yet you claim the reason was something else.---It was done to facilitate HERD REDUCTION and you appear to be the only one on the planet that won't admit it.

5. I asked for some of these independent,scientifically constructed studies in the last three years you say show the majority of hunters still support the current PGC deer management and you simply repeat the claim.

6. As far as your reference to God-----------In God we trust, all others offer proof.

ORIGINAL: S-10

You might not like the answers but I am getting a bit sick of having to tell you the same thing over and over again simply because the answers don’t fit your agenda or what you want to be true.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Not near as sick as I am of you making BS claims knowing you have nothing to back them up and when asked for data from someone else besides your own opinion/claim you simply repeat the same BS claims.( As you say, you tell us the same things over and over again)
It's now quite obvious we are not going to get anything concrete from you so after pointing out each unsupported claim or claim your own people dispute I am moving on.

1. You claimed the collard 2G study showed only 8% of the 1-1/2 and 29% of the known legal bucks are being harvested in that WMU. I earlier did and posted the math to prove that claim/research impossible/wrong since there would have to be nearly SIX times as many bucks as does living in WMU 2G for it to be true based on the PGC harvest data and estimated population. (In Less Of Course THE METHOD USED IN THE COLLARD STUDY WAS FAULTY)

2. You claimed the breeding window was shorter even though your own biologists said it wasn't. You claimed that was because of the late breeding fawns. The Biologists know as you do/should the purpose of shortening the window was to prevent the fawns from being eaten and late fawns get eaten. In the Deer reports they (the PGC) state this goal failed.

3. I asked for the policy/procedure for Peer Review and the Scientific journals the reports are published in by the PGC. You give me a site (not PGC) that tells what is Supposed to happen. I've done them, I know what is SUPPOSED to happen. I asked how it happens in the PGC.

4. The reason for AR is published in the PGC's Deer Management report and discussed several places on the internet by various state game agencies including ours yet you claim the reason was something else.---It was done to facilitate HERD REDUCTION and you appear to be the only one on the planet that won't admit it.

5. I asked for some of these independent,scientifically constructed studies in the last three years you say show the majority of hunters still support the current PGC deer management and you simply repeat the claim.

6. As far as your reference to God-----------In God we trust, all others offer proof.

1. I provided the exact facts provided by and about the real deer that were harvested by real hunters and what percentage that was of a known number of deer in each study area. It is only logic supported by scientific research, with supporting controls, that hunters would be harvesting a similar number of the unmarked deer as they were the marked deer.
 
Perhaps they didn’t know that every single one of those 2 ½ and older bucks was legal but by darn they know for an absolute fact that the vast majority of them were in the 3- point restriction areas were. The fact that the hunters harvested a higher percentage in the 4-point area than they did in the 3-point area further attests to the fact that the older bucks nearly always meet the antler restrictions.
 
You and many of the other that post on this site just don’t want people to believe the FACTS provided by the REAL deer because the data the REAL DEER provides goes a long ways toward proving hunters are certainly not over harvesting the existing deer populations.
 
2. The breeding window FOR ADULT DOES most certainly is narrower that it had been before antler restrictions. That is not only a FACT but it is also a positive for the future toward having better fawn recruitment.
 
The fact that more fawns are being bred and keeping the breeding window at the wider range is also a positive since that means in many areas there are FINALLY enough bucks out there to get those cycling juveniles bred.
 
If you want to prove your argument then just explain to everyone how it would be more beneficial to go back to when it was taking over five months to get only 80 to 90% the adult does bred, with the remaining 10-20% of the adults not being bred at all and most of the breeding mature and cycling juveniles not getting bred at all from a lack of bucks to do it, like we had before antler restrictions.  
 
3. They are done the same as they are with ANY OTHER scientific paper from ANY OTHER profession.
 
If you want to know who all gets notified of their availability, I don’t know and don’t care since I know they are widely viewed and examined by the leading researchers in the wildlife management profession from all over North America.
 
I know for a fact that Pennsylvania’s deer and other wildlife management professionals do travel to various conferences with their Peers and that they do get their work published after it is Peer reviewed. That is also a FACT that can be found by goggling any number of deer research topics, reading the reports and looking at the credits to find out how much of the information came from the work of a Pennsylvania Wildlife Biologist.
 
4. Herd reduction in SOME AREAS of the state was part of the expected affect of antler restrictions but it most certainly was not the leading reason for them. I know that because I was there to hear and participate in many of the discussions before antler restrictions were implemented.
 
I also still have a copy of the videotape with Doctor Alt explaining to the public why we needed antler restrictions. I also collected a fair amount of the data from the REAL DEER that proved we needed antler restrictions or some other method of keeping more bucks in the population so I do know not only why antler restrictions were implemented but that you and your goofy opinions and agenda are not what is best for the future of sound deer management.
 
5. Goggle them if you want to read about them. I have many more important things to do with my free time than sit here digging up reports for you. Why don’t you find some that don’t support what I have posted about hunter support?
 
If I get time today I will see if can dig a couple up for you but many of the ones I have are in hard copy or on PDF file that will not allow a direct link.
 
6. Though that is true some of us also accept the answers provided by the REAL DEER as proof of what works and what doesn’t work toward their best management. Some of you not only refuse to accept the information the REAL DEER provide but then sit there and work hard to get others to reject that information as well because the REAL FACTS don’t support your misguided agenda. THAT has been going on for decades and is a major problem for having the best possible deer management, deer populations and deer hunting for both today and future.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

When the does give birth the ratio is about 50-50 (actually just slightly favoring bucks) so if man wasn't involved nature would kill off animals of each sex equally thereby leaving you with a 1-1 ratio. Actually, it is nearly impossible to have the ratio skewed much more than 3-1 in spite of all the early claims of 10-1, 15-1, etc, used to sell herd reduction unless you only target one sex and kill none of the other for a long period of time. If anyone claims different have them show you the math. It is not necessary for breeding purposes to be 1-1, just means less sex for more bucks.

Talking about seeing deer.. this I find was very informative...

http://drsems.tripod.com/kipsdeer.html

Before you get us both booted off the site--- here is one of the articles using that (proven accurate research) that gets talked about. The rest of the article is found on the net (Are Antler Restrictions Working in PA) by Jason Miles. I think a claimed 14/1 ratio is close enough



Are Antler Restrictions Working?

Over the three year study, it appears that antler restrictions are working. Pennsylvania's doe harvest has increased by 65 percent to an average of 315,000. Buck harvest has dropped 24 percent to roughly 154,000. The yearling buck mortality has dropped from 85 percent of all bucks harvested to 57 percent of all bucks harvested allowing them to live longer and grow bigger racks as predicted. Probably the most significant finding is that the ratio of adult does to adult bucks has gone from 14-1 to almost 2-1 in just three years of monitoring (see table 1). The radio collars that were attached to the deer that were captured allowed researchers to monitor their survival. They found that nearly 90 percent of all adult bucks that survived the 2002 hunting season were still available to hunt in the 2003 season. After the first year of the new antler restrictions, the average age of all bucks harvested went up from 1.5 years to 2.5 years of age. Researchers predict that this year the average age of all bucks harvested will be 3.5. In 2003, almost half of the yearling bucks and a third of two and a half year old bucks survived the hunting season. Gary alt stated, "for the first time in my life a lot of three year old bucks are coming into the population. Moreover, according to the game commissions extensive research study, twice as many bucks are surviving the hunting seasons than had been in the past before the new antler restrictions. Of the 551 bucks that were tagged during the study, 260 of them are currently still walking the landscape of Pennsylvania.

Table 1

WINTER WINTER WINTER
2002 2003 2004
before after after
implementation first season second season

% of captured % of captured % of captured
deer that were deer that were deer that were
adult bucks adult bucks adult bucks
2% 3% 13%

ratio of button ratio of button ratio of button
bucks to adult bucks to adult bucks to adult
bucks bucks bucks
15:1 9:1 2:1

ratio of adult ratio of adult ratio of adult
does to does to does to
adult bucks adult bucks adult bucks
14:1 10:1 2:1

You know the numbers are bogus, I know the numbers are bogus, but many people don't and they were being used to sell the program.
If you need more I can find more. Right now I have snow to shovel/plow

Notice where the PGC researchers predicted that in 2004 the AVERAGE age of ALL BUCKS HARVESTED will be 3-1/2 years old. OOps

ORIGINAL: S-10

So the vast majority of deer hunters on the hunting boards you watch do support the current deer management objectives do they. You post on hunting pa and anyone with a anti PGC view doesn't last long there. They tried their best to word one question on their survey to get the answer they wanted and failed didn't they.

Why do you believe Gary Alt and the Pa.GameCommission are right ?
Choice Votes %
He is dedicated to it 519 16.42
Great job with the bear 288 9.11
Lots of facts 404 12.78
Best man for the job 194 6.14
I don't believe them 1550 49.04
I don't have any better ideas 206 6.52


What is your definition of VAST MAJORITY

On their question of ----How do you feel about the PA deer population 21.5% said they were satisfied.

If that's all the more support you can gather on a Forum that doesn't allow much Anti PGC deer management posting and is loaded with PGC employee posters like you it's no wonder the agency is lacking in credibility.

 
I don’t put much stock in any of the various message board surveys, but I do think paying attention to what the majority of the hunters encounter both in the field and on the message boards are saying about the management indicated a high degree of support for the current direction even if most hunters, including me, wished there could be more deer.
 
It isn’t that some hunters don’t want more deer. All hunters wish there were more deer but the majority of today’s hunters are now well enough educated on the deer management issues that they realize deer numbers have to be maintained within balance of their habitat and food supplies if you want the maximum possible deer populations in the future.
 
That is why the majority of today’s hunters do support the current deer management objectives. But, as I said if I got time I would see if I could find a copy to an online hunter satisfaction survey.
 
Here is on one I found easily and another link that covers some of the other opinions that get floated around on this site.
 
[color=#800080 size=3]http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/PAGameCommHuntervol1.pdf
 
Some of the exerts from the 2004 Responsive Management Hunter Satisfaction Survey:
 
Ø Hunters’ overall satisfaction with hunting in Pennsylvania is quite positive: 79% were very or somewhat satisfied with their hunting experiences in Pennsylvania over the past 2 years; only 10% were dissatisfied.
 
Ø A majority of 2000-2001 license holders (63%) rated the Pennsylvania Game Commission as excellent or good at managing and conserving Pennsylvania’s wildlife; only 10% rated it as poor.
 
The following link isn’t exclusively a hunter satisfaction survey but it does address some of the misleading yet frequently used comments seen on this site.
 
[color=#800080 size=3]http://www.rural.palegislature.us/future_hunting07.pdf
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

post edited by RSB - 2012/02/12 18:37:51

S-10

did ya miss the part that said he was talking about comparing ADULT does and ADULT bucks..... ??

He did not say the buck to doe ratio was out of whack.. just that not many adult bucks were in Pa... and that is easy to understand for the time period....

AR (as planned) allowed more bucks to be considered adult (mature) so naturally the ratio of adult males to adult females would get better and more in line with the buck/doe ratios for the entire herd....

You have to remember we were killing 80% of all the bucks before AR... so there were very very few adult buckls roaming our woods....

Duh--that's the way you determine the B/D ratio and per the PGC it was 14 to 1.

Probably the most significant finding is that the ratio of adult does to adult bucks has gone from 14-1 to almost 2-1 in just three years of monitoring (see table 1).

You challenged me to show where they were claiming 10-1 or 15-1 and I just did, using the PGC's own claims. 1-1/2 yo bucks are considered adults. Where are all those 3-1/2 yo bucks, in your cellar