Seems pretty prophetic to me.

Quote :

frank1 wrote : That is still the same today. In 1965 13% of the buck harvested were 3.5 or older and 33% were 2.5 or older.

What?  You are going to tell me that the average age of our male herd has not increased since the PGC implemented it's new deer managemant plan as compared to recent history?  Not 43 years ago.

So, lets say 2000, you believe that over 50% of our antlered harvest was greater than 2.5 y/o?  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-06-11 13:36:46 --

Here is a link to another thread on this board where I produced some figures about buck harvest from the largest taxidermist in this area..... check it out and try to say the bucks are not getting bigger .....

http://drtrout.aceboard.com/270293-1839-2348-0-More-Bigger-Bucks.htm

Just in case folks do not want to go and check it out here it is here in this thread....  

Quote :

We have all heard and talked about those words... Here's some supporting figures from one of the largest taxidermy outfits in this area... Let's start with a comparison of the four years PRIOR to ARs to the 4 years after ARS .. MINUS 2002.(the transition year) Bucks received == averaged 291 prior to ARs 1998-2001 averaged 328 after ARs 2003-2006 Points == averaged 8.499 prior to ARs 1998-2001 averaged 8.672 after ARs 2003-2006 Spread == averaged 16.144 prior to ARs 1998-2001 avergaed 16.978 after ARs 2003-2006 That's a 22.8% increase in the number of bucks received after ARs That's a 2% increase in the average number of points after ARs That's a 5.2% increase in spread after ARS MORE AND BIGGER   Let's now look at the 2006 bucks he received... Total number received in 2006 was 419.... no typo.... 419 received... averages for those 419 buck= points = 8.762 spread = 17.260 remember the averages prior to ARS were = points = 8.499 spread = 16.14 BIGGER BUCKS and 419 is sure more than the 291 average number received prior to ARs NOT WORKING ????? A collection of 95 jaw bones and matching antlers were taken and aged and scored by professionals.. Of those 95 bucks here is the break-down by age... 1.5 = 6 2.5 = 37 3.5 = 33 4.5 = 13 5.5 =  4 6.5 =  2 averages for those same 95-- SPREAD= 1.5 = 13.083 2.5 = 16.130 3.5 = 17.434 4.5 = 18.558 5.5 = 17.563 6.5 = 18.688 POINTS= 1.5 = 8.17 2.5 = 8.22 3.5 = 9.03 4.5 = 8.69 5.5 = 8.00 6.5 = 8.50 Smallest of the 95 by age group== (I added points and spread together) 1.5 = 8 point...12 inch spread 2.5 = 8 point...12 inch spread 3.5 = 7 point...14.5 inch spread 4.5 = 8 point...17 inch spread 5.5 = 8 point...16 inch spread 6.5 = 7 point 16.5 inch spread Largest of the 95 by age group== (I added points and spread together) 1.5 = 8 point...15.25 inch spread 2.5 = 14 point...23 inch spread 3.5 = 14 point...17.375 inch spread 4.5 = 8 point...22.5 inch spread 5.5 = 8 point...19.250 inch spread 6.5 = 10 point..20.875 inch spread In total (of the 95 aged) 9 had spreads of over 20 inchs 11.750 was the smallest 23 inchs was the largest 37 had more than 8 points.. 3 with 6 points were the smallest 2 with 14 points were the largest Just some more to think about before we say that ARs are not working.. you can definately see they are working by this outfit's record keeping..

 

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-11 14:03:47 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote : It is also a fact that 1.5 buck still make up the majority of our adult buck population.

According to who?  Maybe that age class is highest if you compare that specific group to say 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 in the total population.  I would like to see that study you refer to on wild free ranging deer in Pa.

Compare that same 1.5 class to all others and I am sure the difference now compared to then is dramatic.  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-06-11 13:47:10 --

     

Thank you for proving and admitting that one of the goals of AR's was met.  Now if you would admit that is beneficial to the herd we are getting somewhere.

there is also no documentation that says it hasn't.
" improved breeding rates ,shorten the breeding period  and reduce the number of late born fawns "

Maybe time will tell.  Any way you can explain the negative effect on genetics?  I can't seem to understand why they would be negatively effected.  A balanced Buck to Doe Ratio should improve the genetics I would think.  

--Last edited by Flyfisher on 2008-06-11 16:53:41 --

Frank,

Would you agree that having a male deer herd with a balanced age structure is a benefit to that particular herd?

Quote :

frank1 wrote :   The only way to achieve a balanced  buck age structure would be to not harvest buck.

There are many ways to accomplish it other than no buck harvest.

Would you like to answer the question I posed to you 2 posts up.

Forget Pa's deer herd for a second.  By your responses I believe you know what a balanced age structure is.  

Let me re-word the question by defining a balanced age structure as what the age structure of a deer herd would be without unnatural influence or mortality.

With that in mind, do you believe that the age structure of that hypothetical herd would benefit the herd.

Again talking male deer.

In response to Frank 1’s comments I want to address a few of his concerns and comments.

First of all he is right that there is a report that would seemingly indicate that the breeding rates and time periods have not improved. But, that is a very misleading report in the fact that it doesn’t go on to explain that in 2000 the majority of the doe sample size (female examined after being killed on the highway) was coming from the southwest and southeast regions of the state. Those two area have always had the best breeding rate and reproductive rates. The breeding and reproductive rates were highest in those areas most likely because of the better soils, farmlands habitats and the fact that the antler less deer harvests have traditionally been much higher in those regions of the state.

But, things changed since 2000 in the fact that most of the highways in those two regions of the state have since been under contract with PennDOT for highway killed deer removal. That resulted in the embryo check sample size from the southwest region declining by 85.6 % between 2000 and 2003. That embryo check sample size from the southwest and southeast is still very low today compared to the samples coming from the north central and northeast regions of the state.

The significance of that shift in where the majority of the statewide embryo sample comes from is that in the past, during and prior to 2000, came from both the best habitat areas of the state and where the best buck/doe ratios were being maintained with the high antler less deer harvests. Conversely during the more recent years the highest deer embryo samples have been coming from the north central and north east, where worst habitat and traditionally lowest antler less deer harvests have occurred.

That shift in sample location resulted in a major bias of the statewide data comparison from the years prior to antler restrictions to the years since antler restrictions. But, we still have the data from each WMU to use for the comparison of individual units and that data is still validly comparable though even that data will have less reliability in some units where the sample size is so small in recent years.

The data from the individual management units is very promising and is showing that antler restrictions are working to provide both better breeding within the correct time periods and thus improved fawn recruitment rates. The Agency will likely start to release some of that data in the future once it has been fully compiled and evaluated.

At this point in time I can and will post the breeding rates and reproductive rates from the adult does I collected over the past ten years.

Years…………….Adult doe breeding rate
1999.…………………81.8 %
2000.…………………80.0 %
2001.…………………89.5 %
2002.…………………76.9 %
2003.…………………88.9 %
2004.…………………93.3 %
2005.…………………100 %
2006.…………………100 %
2007.…………………100 %
2008.…………………100 %

Time period……….Adult doe aver. breeding rate……..Adult doe aver. reproductive rate…..fawn born/doe  
Prior to AR…………………84.4 %……………………………….1.58.………………………..1.33
Since AR……………………98.0 %……………………………….1.66.………………………..1.63

That is an average of about 30 additional fawns being born each year since antler restrictions. Just getting them born isn’t enough though unless can’t keep them alive after they are born. That objective of keeping them alive after they are born is partly influenced by the time the doe was bred, the health of the doe and available food supplies through the winter and spring and also the condition of the habitat and ground cover in the home range.

I will now address each of those primary influencing factors and what that means from the past and also toward to future.

In the past we had does all over the state that were being bred later then normal or not at all because we didn’t have enough adult (breeding mature) bucks available during the fall rut to get all of the cycling does covered during their first estrus cycle. Many of even the adult does weren’t getting bred during not only their first but even their second or third cycle and as you can see in my Elk County district in many years 20% or more weren’t getting bred at all. I had adult does bred as late as February 23rd. That results in fawns that are born too late to survive the following winter even if they did survive the greatly increased rates of predation that occurs from an extended fawning time period. That was why antler restrictions were needed, why they were implemented and why both the breeding rates and time periods have since been improving. And, yes the breeding times are improving. Since the first year antler restrictions could have put more adult bucks into the fall rut (2003 with a spring of 2004 improvement in the does sampled for breeding rates or times) all of the bred does in my district have been bred in less then two months instead of the five months it used to take. In fact I haven’t checked a doe that was bred after the end of November during the past three years and maybe even four years. This spring I even checked a juvenile doe that was lactating (had already dropped at least one fawn) on May 28. That means that even that juvenile doe had been bred before the end of November last fall.

The habitat affects fawn survival in that it affects the amount of food the does have through the winter and spring. When the doe doesn’t get enough food she produces an under weight fawn in the spring. Under weight fawns have a very low survival rate even without the affects of predation. In some studies that show that fawn mortality from poor nutrition following harsh and late winter conditions can be as high as 92.9% and that is before normal fawn predation has any affect.

Poor habitat also makes it easier for predators to find fawns since there is limited ground and escape cover for the new born fawns.

To help show the fawn recruitment trends here in Elk County I will post some data from the wildlife survey routes run by volunteers here in Elk County since the fall of 1997. The volunteers have been traveling the same routes during the same six week period each fall. During their route trips they count deer and categorize them into ages and/or buck/doe categories. By doing that we know how many fawns they see per adult doe.

Here are those results:

Year…………fawns/adult doe
1997.…………..0.44
1998.…………..0.55
1999.…………..0.51
2000.…………..0.38
2001.…………..0.53
2002.…………..0.72
2003.…………..0.57
2004.…………..0.62
2005.…………..0.64
2006.…………..0.66
2007.…………..0.70

As you can see the fawn recruitment rates do appear to be improving since antler restrictions. That to me is a very positive sign for the future.

I also have to question the comments concerning the adult buck/doe ratios prior to antler restrictions. Since the survey teams separate the bucks from the adult does we can also use that data to develop some trend on the adult buck/adult doe ratios.

Here are the adult does seen per adult buck since 1997 on the Elk County survey route:

Years…………….adult doe/adult buck
1997.…………………3.70
1998.…………………3.56
1999.…………………3.34
2000.…………………3.45
2001.…………………4.67
2002.…………………3.53
2003.…………………4.02
2004.…………………2.62
2005.…………………2.58
2006.…………………2.97
2007.…………………2.81

I do suspect that adult bucks might well be more reclusive and less viewable then does though so the buck/doe ratio might be a slightly closer then this data suggests.

Since the beginning of antler restrictions the survey teams have also put the bucks they see into spike, not antler legal and antler legal categories.

Here are those results:

Year…………Number seen…………..% spike…………..% not antler legal…………..% antler legal
2002.……………95.……………………33 %…………………57 %……………………..43 %
2003.…………..139.……………………26 %…………………53 %……………………..47 %
2004.……………94.……………………41 %…………………59 %……………………..41 %
2005.……………78.……………………28 %…………………50 %……………………..50 %
2006.……………82.……………………18 %…………………36 %……………………..64 %
2007.……………92.……………………20 %…………………61 %……………………..39 %

There are a number of things we can surmise from this data. One point is that with the percentage of spikes declining we can assume that the habitat is improving and also that more of the male fawns are being born at the correct time. We can also see that the affects of the long harsh winter of 2003/2004 had an adverse affect on the antler growth the next spring, summer and fall. We can also see that the harsh winter likely resulted in fewer surviving male fawns which resulted in fewer bucks being seen in 2005, 2006 and even 2007 though the numbers are once again on the increase.

We can maybe discuss this even more in a future post.

Dick Bodenhorn