Nissan..

Yes I received your E-mail and sent a reply that you must not have received ???????

It's interesting that you say you hunt the moore bridge area, and yes I used to fish that area often when I 'creek stomped", which I do not do much of anymore...  although I did go over to the "forge..old damn" just upstream from moor bridge for a walk earlier this spring.

There are several guys who come into the store that also hunt that area... One guy shot a MONSTER buck above Moore Bridge on the third day of the first week last year.. and others were successful in that general area too...  Several on the land Seneca owns.

The area back by Clear Run was also VERY successful with some NICE 10 pointers and folks that live back there were talking about all the bucks they saw AFTER the season... and are looking forward to this fall...

I have never been trying to say that 2F has the 30-50 dpsm that we had before HR/AR...
I'm saying that it is not nearly as bad as some hunters make it out to be... and some area are still over populated...


The area right around my house is going to get hit hard for the new sprouts coming up because there were NO harvest last fall.. instead of 3 deer visiting almost every eveninig in the summer of 2007, this year I am averaging 5-7 adults, and so far the twins I posted last year are still appearing with MOM but I see no fawns from any of them... the twins ( if female) should have fawns.. and MOM too..... ????????

One of my favorite examples of deer denisites comes from pellet counts done on clear creek state forest BEFORE HR/AR .... we had one that we calculated at 35 dpsm and 2 miles away we had an area that we figured had ZERO.... that's right we found NOTHING.... other areas had 5,  10,  30, 70, etc... each area was DIFFERENT.. and continues to be that way today...

The area above Moore Bridge on the EAST side is THICK with Laurel and Rhodendrum... GREAT Bedding areas... most of the successful hunters in that area I know put on drives the past couple years...  

NOT much natural food left... I'll try to get over Tues or Thurs and get some habitat photos of the area you referred to for the members here..

There is also more posted land over there too now... so that means less hunters and less pressure to move the lower deer herd, especially after they get into the security of the cover...


Also moore bridge is an area that is FAMOUS around here for its Black Bear population.. so I am positive the bears take a SMALL toll of fawns each spring too... and with the newly posted grounds near by that population is growing too...

Alot of that area is also TIMBER company land
and a mature forest with little to no understory... bad secuirty for fawns..and wide open in the fall for deer to see movemnet along ways off... oh well I'll be getting photos to show all this later... so I'll close this for now...  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-16 09:37:06 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote : Quote : Once again I will have to point out that deer are not managed with the statewide data results. Even this statewide data does not really show anything that would be cause for any alarm or concern even though to you I guess it must mean something negative. Thank you so much for the data  the size of the samples used to determine breeding rates.  I found them to be very interesting and informative since they allowed me to test your theory regarding the effects of decreased sample sizes in areas with high breeding rates. For example, if you combine the samples from the SE and SW and assign a 95% breeding rate  and then assign a breeding rate of 85% ,you get a statewide avg. breeding rate of 88.2% for 82-01. If you then leave the breeding rate at 95% for the SE and SW , but increase the breeding rate in the rest of the state  , you get a statewide average breeding rate of 90.9%. Therefore, the fact that the sample sizes decreased in the SW and SE is not the reason  breeding rates dropped even with the combined effects of HR and ARs.So, it is obvious ARs did not improve breeding rates or shorten the breeding period as predicted. And, BTW , DR. Rosenberry agrees. The data you provided for 2 F &G doesn't tell one much of anything  about the effects of antlerless allocations on deer densities. Using 5 year averages covers up changes in deer densities so in order to determine the effects of antlerless allocations you need to post the yearly deer density, antlerless allocation and antlerless harvest. Then it would be quite clear how the PGC has been using antlerless allocations to control the herd for the past 27 years.

When you are managing through the use of scientific data, as is the objective in this state, you don’t work with “ifs” as you have just done.

What you did with your example really has nothing to do with the reality of what they breeding rates are or were. Breeding rates within any geographic can and often do have a pretty good range of variance from one year to the next which can change the data results pretty significantly. All I provided was the average number of deer sampled in the regions for the two time periods. To determine what really did happen with the breeding rates across the state you would also need the breeding rates for each region for the same periods and you don’t have that.

Even in your example you failed to use realistic adult breeding rates for either area. The adult breeding rates in the poor area of the state have often been much lower then the 90% you used. I have seen the adult breeding rates in my district come out as low 76.9 % for a year. Those annual variances have many likely causes that could range between the previous year buck harvest verse doe harvest to the fawn recruitment rates for the previous several years. There are far too many variables involved to be trying to make any evaluations of the success or failure at this point.    

Besides those point I also need to point out that using “ifs” in deer management makes about as much sense as it would using “if” to figure out “if” pigs had wings could they fly.

The fact is the sample sizes changed in every region of the state from the before to after and it didn’t change equally in all of the areas. That establishes a bias that makes all of the statewide data invalid for making a statewide management decision. But that isn’t a problem since decisions aren’t made on a statewide bases anyway. All that statewide data does is provide some very general information that can be released to the public. It isn’t and shouldn’t be used for making management decisions, developing theories or coming up with conclusions that could affect any individual management units. It is simply still too early to make any determinations on the affects of antler restrictions on the long term breeding rates. But, everything I have seen from any individual units looks pretty darn positive toward a better future for deer management and for hunting.

Why are you so opposed to the possibility of an improved future for the deer breeding rates. Improved breeding rates and time periods could only lead to improved fawn recruitment, better deer management and even higher fall deer populations for the future? I simply don’t understand anyone’s objections to anything that leads toward even a likelihood of improving the future. Perhaps we could all endorse your views a little easier if you can explain why you are trying to prove it isn’t working by grasping at those statewide data straws. Even the statewide data doesn’t indicate it isn’t working and only indicates it didn’t make a large improvement. Should we scrap a slight improvement because we wanted to see a huge improvement?

Just enlighten us on what your objective really is and why you are using this line of argument and we can go on from there.

Dick Bodenhorn  

--Last edited by RSB on 2008-06-16 10:30:25 --

I still agree with Mr. Bodenhorn where do you see ifs.  It is just set up now to keep the current herd as close to where it is as possible.  The forest need time to regenerate from the over browsing.  In time things will balance out and you will see more deer.

I believe that Mr. Bodenhorn is a much better source of knowledge than most of us due to access to information athat has not been made public.  

Once again I am glad I am a trapper and could care less about the deer herd.

RSB,

Next time you see several groups of 20-60 deer along the route you described please take a some photos. I along with about 500,000 other PA deer hunters would like to see them. Even back in the "good ole days" seeing 50-60 in the McGackey Feilds was not all that common. I'm sure you know exactly where I'm referring too. Maybe you remember it as the Wes King farm. (That has to take you back a few years) Last fall when I went spotting we saw 4 deer in those fields.

I'm very familiar with the route you described and the last time I was there I didn't seen anyways near the amount of deer you describe. That was earlier this spring just as the snow was disappearing. The largest group we saw was 5-6. The rest were singles and doubles. Total amount was about 25-28 deer.

Your explanation of why the deer herd decreased in 2004 just reinforces what I said on another post a few weeks ago. On that post I disagreed with the PGC setting anterless allocations at their April meeting....like they've done for years. You proved my point much better than I did. If they would have waited until later in the summer then they could have "tweaked" (Carl Roe words) the anterless allocation for the very reason you are hanging your argument on.

I'm sure, given your reasoning, that you would have made someone aware of the low fawn survival rate and thus allocations could have been reduced. Wasn't that the "beauty of system" (more words from Carl Roe)?

To make matters worse, according to you, this same thing happened 2 years in a row...no mast crop and harsh winter....yet allocations were unchanged. WHY???

Now the PGC is throwing the deer hunters a tiny crumb by reducing the concurrent season in 4 WMUs....and again Carl Roe only supports this because "he wants us to see just how many deer there really are for the first 5 days of regular season."

I would really like to believe that our deer herd is as stable as the PGC indicated. IMHO it's not. It's still decreasing. I see less and less deer every season since HR began.

When do you see allocations being reduced and the herd being allowed to increase? I'll bet you a "Pepsi" it won't be anytime soon.

Doc....I did not receive a reply from you  "kyote007@yahoo.com"
Those are zeros. Good luck with you habitat expedition. I hunt north and west of the Moore Bridge.

Nissan

Quote :

Actually the current deer management plan was based on ifs. We were told if they implemented ARs and reduced the herd breeding rates would increase and the breeding period would decrease.. We were also told we would have more and larger buck than ever before ,but none of those things happened.

The changes in the deer management plan were not based on “ifs” at all.

The knew for a fact that the deer populations throughout the state were higher then the habitat could support for the long term health of the deer herd or their food supplies. Thus the need for the herd reduction.

They also knew that the adult doe breeding rates were declining all across the state and that it was taking over five months to get even the adult does bred. Since adult does should pretty much all be bred within 30 days they knew with out a doubt that there was a problem. They also knew that all over Pennsylvania we were harvesting an abnormally high number of the adult bucks and not keeping enough to have the good breeding rates or timing. Thus the need for antler restrictions.

Quote :

Dr. Rosenberry has the data you referred to and he agreed that breeding rates din't increase in 20 of the 22 WMU's. The reason they didn't increase in all 22 WMUs was because two WMU's didn't have sufficient data.

You are going to have a very hard time convincing me that Doctor Rosenberry told you or anyone else that. I am pretty confident that you are basing your pointless comment on that very general statewide data that was made available in a report released to the public.

If you have something to document that Doctor Rosenberry made such a statement, about a decline in the breeding rates within individual units, please provide it so we can sort out why that data would be arbitrary to other such data.

Quote :

What I provided was simply an example to demonstrate that if statewide breeding rates were increasing, the fact that the size of the samples from the areas with the best breeding rates decreased.,would not result in a decrease in the statewide breeding rate. But, statewide breeding rates did decrease, which mens breeding rates had to decrease in the majority of the WMU's despite the fact that the buck age structure improved and despite the fact that we reduced the herd.

Actually it is entirely possible to have improved breeding rates in every individual management unit and still have the statewide data show a decrease when you have had a reduction in the sample sizes for every unit combined with a major shift in the areas leading with the majority of the data.

From what I understand there simply isn’t enough data available yet to come to any conclusions one way or the other. There is nothing though that even remotely suggests that the present management objectives are not an improvement over the past management, and that includes the antler restrictions. All the evidence I have seen to date is very promising toward a better future.  

Quote :

I am not opposed to improved breeding rates , breeding periods or recruitment. I am simply pointing out that ARs and herd reduction hasn't accomplished those goals. Maybe the PGC needs to explain why statewide breeding rates decreased instead of increasing and why all but 1 WMU suddenly reached their goal for herd health, despite the fact that breeding rates have not improved.

I am certainly glad you are not opposed to improved management. You should be willing to see if you can learn more about the topics then. If you have an open mind we can probably all learn some things that will hopefully lead to a brighter future for wildlife and hunting.

I already pointed out that I don’t believe the breeding rates did decline in the individual units, so perhaps the fact that all but one unit is now showing that the herd health has improved is just more evidence of that fact. Did you give that any thought or are you just convinced that you must be right so I have to be wrong?

I too have some concerns about the herd health being expressed as healthy in some of the units though. It kind of raises the question in mind if the bar for classifying the herd as healthy hasn’t been set too low. It is possible that adjustments will need to be made in that arena as the professionals learn more about this new method of evaluating the goals and objectives.

Quote :

When we had more deer you and the PGC said it caused over browsing. The carrying capacity of the forests will decrease as the percent of saw timber decreases, so why would you expect the herd to increase?

 
What makes you believe the carry capacity of a healthy forest decreases as the percentage of saw timber declines?

Quote :

I belive Dr. Rosenberry is a much better source of information than WCO Bodenhorn, since he is a biometrician and has access to alll te data.

Absolutely, he has a lot more data available to him then I have.

The issue though is in the fact that most of the data is not released to the public, in raw data form, and only released to the public in a general news release and only once all research and associated data have been fully evaluated.

Furthermore, with pending law suits and a legislative funded audit of the deer management program some data isn’t likely to get released until those issues have been resolved.

The bottom line though is that it is still too early to draw any conclusions of the program. But, with Doctor Rosenberry as the man in charge of the entire program I would have to say that he believes the program is working since we haven’t seen any movement on his part to abandon or change the present direction.

Dick Bodenhorn

well I made the trip based on Nissan's earlier post about the craft and shippen area ABOVE the bridge...  the repeort is in the Habitat section under Moore Bridge Habitat... any discussion from that trip should be made there...enjoy the webpage...

RSB wrote ===

Quote :

Furthermore, with pending law suits and a legislative funded audit of the deer management program some data isn’t likely to get released until those issues have been resolved.

Now with Frank1 ( a.k.a. Crazy Horse --real name John T.) being a spokesperson and BIG supporter of the USP is it any wonder he uses ..just the figures he has from the PGC and those he chooses/wants to use from the PAST..  and is so hell bent on stating they are the figures from the PGC....


anything to make the PGC look bad or dishonest..that's the USP way...remember they (USP) say we only have 500,000 deer IN THE STATE  

I am surprised he has not posted the figures are not accurate YET.... and the harvest figures are not true... another USP claim..

COME ON JOHN.. make up your mind.....these figures and half-truths are getting old..


You stated Dr Rosenberry "agreed" they decreased in most WMUs ..20 of 22...

Now you show  where he
wrote that "they  did NOT CHANGE in 20 of
22

BIG DIFFERENCE  -------


Decreasing and NO change are no way near the same thing and I find it
hard to believe you or anyone would not know that...????

That is until RSB brought it to our attention that is was BULL.....


I think it shows one more thing...


your credibility may not be what it appears to be....

And from what year IN THE PAST was this "fact" taken from. ????

Quote :

Because  the PGC states that saw timber can support 20 DPFSM while pole timber can only support 5 DPFSM.

I see dpsm so I know for fact is nothing recent....

I find it interesting when everyone with hidden agendas (USP supporters) can find only things that have to do with the past...

what I used to see
how it used to be
what it was
in the past
dpsfm
dpsm

this is 2008 and the PGC plan has been in effect since basically 2000...

WHO cares what it use to be..

it ain't gonna be that again for awhile...

with or without the PGC plan the habitat can no longer support the herds of the PAST

It's all about CHANGE some like change and some don't....

as long as more folks support the current plan the better the chance of seeing improvements..

abandon the plan and deer hunting will become extinct...

BTW.. I find it VERY interesting you have no explaination of your attempt to be deceiving about the doctor's statements...

That type of thing tells me all I have to know about the character of a person... you just want to avoid the subject and pretend you did not do it.. and move on with more BS... hoping no one will "catch" those errors...  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-16 20:00:29 --

Quote :

frank1 wrote : Quote : What makes you believe the carry capacity of a healthy forest decreases as the percentage of saw timber declines? Because  the PGC states that saw timber can support 20 DPFSM while pole timber can only support 5 DPFSM. At a harvest rate of 1% /yr. the percentage of saw timber decreases and the percentage of pole timber increases.

Doesn't 1% of pole timber mature to saw timber? It doesn't stay in the pole stage forever. Remember, you're only cutting 1% a year. Maybe you mistakingly, just forgot about it.

Quote :

RSB wrote :   Even the statewide data doesn’t indicate it isn’t working and only indicates it didn’t make a large improvement. Should we scrap a slight improvement because we wanted to see a huge improvement? Dick Bodenhorn

That is what kills me about some of these discussions.  If a goal or a prediction by the PGC is off for any reason, even slightly, the nay sayers will claim victory.  If a goal or prediction is met, the nay sayers will claim the data is wrong.

How do you win??

Quote :

frank1 wrote : We were also told we would have more and larger buck than ever before ,but none of those things happened.

Maybe you missed my earlier post and someone elses about the scoring session coming up.  It is by appointment and the bucks must already meet a certain minimum because the response has been overwhelming.

We will see shortly the effects of AR's on the maturity of the bucks in this state.