ORIGINAL: fishin coyote

A more alarming number is the # of bucks killed in gun season verus the # in bow season 41% of all bucks were killed in bow season. That is not good considering that gun hunters out number bow hunters approx. 2-1

Mike

Archery hunters get first crack at those deer.

ORIGINAL: fishin coyote

A more alarming number is the # of bucks killed in gun season verus the # in bow season 41% of all bucks were killed in bow season. That is not good considering that gun hunters out number bow hunters approx. 2-1

Mike

 
Just a point. Currently 42% of "deer" hunters are participating in archery seasons. With about 300,000 archers, and 700,000 "deer" hunters, the ratio is closer to 1/1 than 2/1. 
 
We have about 300,000 archery hunters and 400,000 exclusively firearms hunters.  

What a great idea!!! What Emperor thought up that? Pork, you hit it on the head! Open buck season in September and close it on April 15. We should show an increase in the buck harvest which obviously means we have a growing herd......WF...Man, you can do all kinds of cool things with numbers

Here are some more fun facts to chew on.

1.We started managing for a STABLE DEER HERD in 2005.
2.We no longer estimate deer numbers for 3 WMU's

3.For the 19 WMU's we do estimate deer numbers for since 2005 ( managing for a stable herd) we HAVE DECREASED the deer herd by an additional 119,000 Animals.

Sure hate to see what they call managing for a decrease in the herd.

Some more numbers for antlered deer.  Success rates for archers was 14%.  Success rates for firearms was 13%. That is if every hunter with a valid tag hunted.

Wonder how many days the average archer hunts compared to the average firearms hunter?

ORIGINAL: S-10

More fun with numbers

calculate the 13% increased buck kill going to 3up in 5 WMU's was going to create and add it to last years total harvest. Then compare it to this years total harvest and the 4.0% increased buck harvest they are claiming becomes ---.0028% when comparing apples to apples.

Of course that's after ignoring their own research that shows they are inflating both the archery and muzzleloader harvest and assuming we had an all time low reporting rate as stated. But heck, they are only numbers, right.

One again, the statement made claimed we would see a 13% increase in legal bucks available to harvest, not that 13% more bucks would be killed.

I still remain skeptical of the 13% increase in legal bucks as it sounds high to me. 

I could have sworn it said 13% increase in bucks available not harvested.  Oh well, I can't find the statement and it isn't all that important anyways.

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

ORIGINAL: Pork

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: dpms

This was last years harvest breakdown for 1A. 2010/2011

WMU 1A: firearms, 3,400 antlered, 8,700 antlerless; archery, 2,440 antlered, 1,870 antlerless; and muzzleloader, 60 antlered, 1,330 antlerless
 
Looks like a decrease this year for both archers and firearms in 1A. Appears a decreasing population if weather conditions were favorable which I think they were?

Reduction is the new stabilization, don't ya know.

With -22%, -4% and -9% reductions in antlerless harvests (kills, whatever) across the respective seasons in 1A...
there's only one real way to combat this problem.....

Increase the antlerless allocation, thus getting that harvest number back up!
Brilliant!

And BTW dpms, yes...the weather this season was much better than last...
last year was the worst season, weather wise, I've ever seen.

Guess you haven't been listening to RSB..

You want more deer you have to issue more tags, Gheeeeeez thought you all knew that by now...

 
Any of the reasonably nature knowledgeable readers that have been listening to what I have been saying for years most likely already understand just how far off base your comment really was.
 
Nature knowledgeable people already understand that many things besides hunter harvests can and do influence changes in deer populations from one year to another. They therefore also know that harvesting fewer deer and keeping more deer through the winter can and sometimes does result in having fewer the next fall. It is also true that harvesting more deer and keeping fewer through the winter can and often does result in having more deer the next fall. Both possibilities are dependant on any number of variable environmental factors from mast crops to winter snow depths to predator populations to changes in forestry practices that can influence food availability or even escape cover that influence fawn birth and survival rates.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: fishin coyote

So after crunching some numbers for my WMU 1A. The outcome is very bleak.

We should of according to the PGC had an increase due to the 3up rule. but instead we had a 13.4% decrease in bucks and a 21.4% decrease in does. for an overall decrease of 18.6%.

A more alarming number is the # of bucks killed in gun season verus the # in bow season 41% of all bucks were killed in bow season. That is not good considering that gun hunters out number bow hunters approx. 2-1

Mike

 
One year of data does not really mean much of anything except that the harvests were off for the year. They might be completely the other direction a year from now. To have any type of indication of what is happening you have to look at harvest trends over at least a three year period and five years is even better.
 
Here are the harvest trends for the counties that make up unit 1A in harvest pre square mile.
 
Period____________Antlered__________Antlerless
83-87_____________2.67______________3.11
88-92_____________3.67______________4.96
93-97_____________3.99______________5.93
98-02_____________4.79______________7.18
03-07_____________2.95______________7.65
08-11_____________2.98______________6.09
 
Based on the harvest history it appears that the goal in 1A was to reduce the deer population and that they most likely succeeded to some limited extent. It appears that they have backed off of the antlerless harvests to some extent and also that the buck harvest trend have remained stable over the past nine years since antler restrictions.
 
But, unit 1A is also constantly losing wildlife habitat to ever increasing urban sprawl so you really should expect to have both increased deer harvests and declining deer populations until that habitat reduction trend turns around.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn   
 

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: S-10

Actually, the biologists did say they expected a 13% increased buck kill. Remember, the reason they needed the projected buck kill was to determine the effect the 3 up rule would have on the overall buck population.

You are wrong and what Esox_Hunter said about the 13% is correct. No one said the buck harvest would or should increase by 13%.
 
When the Commissioners asked the Biologists how many additional bucks would be legal if they went to three up instead of a straight four point restriction the Commission was advised that based on the number of bucks harvested in the other units that didn’t have brow tines it would add about 13% to the number of bucks legal for harvest.
 
I don’t think anyone that applies commonsense ever expected that hunters would harvest all of the additional bucks that now meet the newly changed restriction. It simply meant that the maximum increase could possibly be as much as 13% and that is assuming that the percent of bucks without brow tines would be the same in the four point areas as it was in the three point areas, which it may or many not be the same.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

 
Forgetting the worthless collared/tagged deer study in order to determine how many of a population is harvested for a moment (actually forever because it is not a valid conclusion for the study, you know it, we know it, your biologists know it and it doesn't need rehashed again) and let's go with what the PGC has long said -- hunters historically harvest about 80% of the available bucks -- that's what they said when pushing AR as a protection.  Doing the math that would mean that 80% of the 13% now available in 3-up should have been harvested.  So an increase of approximately 10% should have been seen in those WMUs.
 
Did that happen?
 
 

ORIGINAL: fishin coyote

dpms,
I probabaly should not have used that comparison, for the reason that you point out, but since we can make numbers do anything we want.
Let us add the # of unsuccessful archers to the number of rifle hunters.
300000 archers -the 14% who were successful = 258000+ 400000 rifle hunters = 658000 total hunters in gun season. Which is a little more than 2-1.
Mike

I understand.  The point I was trying to make was that when discussing archery versus rifle, the two groups are not necessarily distinct. 

I hear quite frequently that firearms hunters are disgruntled becuase 30% of the bucks are killed in archery season. Well, 42% of firearms hunters also archery hunt.  That was what I was getting at with the 1/1 figure.
 
In the past there was a great majority that only rifle hunted. That is not the case these days. 

dpms
Not a problem. It is one of those things that can be seen both ways there is no clear line seperating the two groups.
Mike

Fishing coyote has grounds to be concerned contrary to RSB's contention.

1. In 2005 the deer population for 1A was 81,482 per the PGC
2. The PGC started managing 1A for a stable herd in 2005
3. In 2010 the deer population for 1A was 68,974 per the PGC-------That's a 15% DECREASE while allegedly managing for a STABLE herd.
4. While the doe harvest does depend on tags issued the buck harvest does not
5. The average buck harvest for the eight years prior to last year was 5,453
6. That is a 5% reduction in a year when 3up should have increased the harvest
7. The deer health is stable, forest health fair and stable and CAC recommendation is to INCREASE the deer herd.

I don't know how he defined urban sprawl but 9% of the WMU is considered developed. The rest is forest or farmland.

Any of the reasonably nature knowledgeable readers that have been listening to what I have been saying for years most likely already understand just how far off base your comment really was.

Nature knowledgeable people already understand that many things besides hunter harvests can and do influence changes in deer populations from one year to another. They therefore also know that harvesting fewer deer and keeping more deer through the winter can and sometimes does result in having fewer the next fall. It is also true that harvesting more deer and keeping fewer through the winter can and often does result in having more deer the next fall. Both possibilities are dependant on any number of variable environmental factors from mast crops to winter snow depths to predator populations to changes in forestry practices that can influence food availability or even escape cover that influence fawn birth and survival rates.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Nature knowledge readers---now that's a new one. Is that because the Wildlife Professionals you always talk about don't agree with your contentions?
1. The Wildlife Professionals are on record stating there has been no winters severe enough to significantly impact the States deer herd for decades.
2. The Wildlife Professionals are on record stating the percent fawn harvest (which means fawn production) hasn't changed in decades.
3. The Wildlife Professionals are on record stating that the increasing predator numbers are not significantly impacting the states deer herd.
3. The Wildlife Professionals are on record stating that hunter numbers and doe tags issued determine the mortality rates of the deer herd.
4. The Wildlife Professionals are on record stating that increased fawn production will not make up for a decreased doe population.
5. Sounds like your advocating the Wildlife Professionals start listening to the hunters. What a novel idea.

Never stop trying do you. Your school must teach different math than mine did.

2006 bucks= 5791
2007 bucks= 4895
2008 bucks= 5392
2009 bucks= 5500
2010 bucks= 5918

Show me how you got an average of 5148 from the 5 year average YOU used.