http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/antlerless_allocation_handouts.pdf

Some great stuff here on habitat, health, CAC recommendations etc...

Frank1...

Welcome to the message board,

I sent an E-mail to Harrisburg to try and get an explaination... we'l  see what happens...

I did not notice that.  Hmmmmm...  

On that subject, how do they determine "herd health"?

Quote :

frank1 wrote : I think what happened is that since breeding rates and productivity didn't increase as the herd was reduced

Your opinion or do you have some info on rates and productivity?

I have seen some data from Elk County that shows prior to AR/HR about 85% of adult does were bred.  Since AR/HR, that percentage has grown to 98%.  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-05-01 12:13:55 --

Quote :

Doc, I'll have to get into the web site's deer management section and take a look. I would find it very hard to believe all areas are meeting the healthy level, since juvenile breeding rates are part of that equation. I am sure the juvenile breeding rates in at least the northern tier don't meet the healthy herd levels. Hopefully the comment wasn't based on the fact that most units are in stabilization mode. That is just a position of keeping things at the same level for the time being, which is probably more politically motivated then based on sound management principles. I'll take a look when I get the chance and see what I can find out. Later, xxxxxxxx

 

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-05-01 17:26:44 --

Not to argue with Frank but I took this direct from the PGC Pamphlet titled


You'll see some difference in these 2006 figures and those that Frank posted above..

Quote :

MANAGING FOR HEALTHY FOREST HABITAT Deer, like many other forest wildlife species, depend on healthy forests for food and cover. But what is healthy forest habitat? Ask a hunter, a farmer and a forester and you will likely get three very different answers. That is the challenge. The Game Commission uses forest regeneration— the presence of young seedling and sapling trees—as the primary indicator of forest habitat health, because a healthy forest can maintain and replace itself. Of course, deer are just one of many factors influencing forest regeneration. Oaks, for example, are affected by gypsy moths and hemlocks by the wooly adelgid. For this reason, to check forest health, the Game Commission monitors a variety of tree species —oaks, maples, black cherry, hemlock, birches and beech. Data are gathered annually and the Game Commission regularly reviews its indicator of forest habitat health to ensure it is using the best information available.

Quote :

ADVANTAGES OF THE GAME COMMISSION’S MEASURE OF FOREST HEALTH ARE: 1) It includes only plots that receive enough light for regeneration. 2) It includes a variety of tree species, so the effect of specific non-deer factors, such as gypsy moth caterpillars that prefer to eat leaves of oak trees, is limited and cannot greatly impact the overall measure. 3) It is useful for comparing WMUs because it represents average regeneration conditions. 4) It includes tree species of value to wildlife and Pennsylvania’s wood products industry. 5) It reflects changes in the amount of damage being caused by deer because the effects of deer browsing on forest regeneration are related to deer abundance.

Quote :

MANAGING FOR A HEALTHY HERD Getting deer to line up for an annual physical obviously is not an option. However, this does not mean scientific methods and techniques are not available to assess a deer herd’s “bill of health.” The one health measure that research has shown to be related to deer population health, which meets all the established criteria, is reproduction. Simply, female deer in good physical condition produce more fawns than those in poor physical condition. Fifty years of research have shown that measures such as pregnancy rates and embryos per doe provide direct information about deer health. The Game Commission uses these two measures to assess the health of the deer herd. Annually, jawbones and fetus data are collected from road-killed does. Ages from jawbones and the fetus data are entered into a database, and summarized by deer age class and WMU. Deer health is rated good, fair or poor based on this data. In 2006, deer health was poor for two WMUs, fair for twelve WMUs, and good for six WMUs. The deer health measure was qualified as uncertain in two WMUs, because of small sample sizes that limited the ability to make conclusions.

 

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-05-01 18:19:53 --

I printed out the allocation report mentioned at the start and want to expand on it somewhat...

The actual TOTAL picture looks like this..

Deer Health...
Only 2 WMUs are above target - 1B  and 5C
and only one is below target - 3D

Which seems to support the E-mail I posted above... the deer health is not improving to above the target figures yet...... it appears more like the E-mail from the WCO states... sort of holding its own for a while...


HABITAT Health --

good... 2 WMUs....  and the CACs recommend increasing the herd size... 4B and 4E

4 WMUs have continued with POOR habitat.
1B, 2F, 2G, 5C and from my observations I'd say 2G is very very poor still....

The balance of the WMUs are rated as Fair....

So my opinion is -- things are getting a little better in some areas but it will still take time to get to the PGC goals and a healthy deer herd that will start to make Pa deer hunters that want to see more deer happy once again and allow for the desired re-generation..

I think the forests were in worse conditions than many thought when the programs started.

You have to keep in mind the habitat.

The habitat will also control the number of deer in the area.... an area with alot of good protein food sources will allow for more dpsm...

Treasure Lake was running about 60 dpsm a couple years ago and there was next to nothing growing in the wooded areas.. the deer were living of the golf courses and peoples' yards and plants plus many were feeding the deer....

Also keep in mind that 5D had a Reproduction rating of good/excellent in 2003-2004.....and the 4 year study shows the population is stable... not increasing or decreasing.. and the harvest figures show that to be true...

They're harvesting around 1.300 bucks each year and they were averaging about 4,200 antlerless until last year when they harvested 5,200... with 20,000 tags issued... that will go to 22,000 for 2008...

~~~once again proving -- if the food is there the deer will be too ~~~ !!!!!!!!

Quote :

Even in 2B the herd is as healthy as the herd in 2G where the herd has been reduced to 12 pre-season deer PSM.

2B is averaging 14 deer harvested per square mile ????

Not sure you can compare those two WMUs...


Note the habitat is different in each too -- poor in 2G fair in 2B...


A 2G question..... IF the 12 pre-season dpsm is true why are hunters only harvesting a little over 3 deer per square mile ?????????

Quote :

The harvest rate in 2G is only 3 DPSM because 8 or 9 overwintering deer only produce a sustainable harvest of less than 3 DPSM.

I do not believe that at all....

Here's my thoughts on why it's only 3 harvested deer per square mile.

#1... fewer hunters in 2G....

a.. older hunters retired
b.. many younger hunters stopped hunting the 2G area years ago because of the poor habitat and lack of deer...
c.. areas like Renova have had few to NO deer since about c. 1995..

also.. much of Potter county lost the deer population and many hunters prior to HR/AR...

I remember when camps were pratically being given away in the late 90s up there...hunters had found new areas to hunt...and were leaving the Potter County area.

#2... with much of the habitat GONE finding the deer that are still there is harder than ever...

#3.. many are listening to locals complaining and not even thinking about going to 2G to hunt....

I personal know guys that are harvesting as many if not MORE deer than ever in 2G and the first thing they all say is they are seeing NO HUNTERS... DEER YES... HUNTERS..NO....

If you do not have the hunters you don't have the harvest numbers....

If you do not have the habitat you don't have
the deer...

At 3dpsm harvested why isn't the population growing..


simple ...

POOR habitat as the PGC states...

Quote :

frank1 wrote :  The PGC goal for 2B in 2002 was 10 DPSM but the herd was at 30 DPSM and the 2006 AWR indicated the herd was still increasing. If the herd is 3 times the carrying capacity of the habitat,why is the herd in 2 B as healthy as the herd in 2G  where the herd is 40% the goal.

The herd is high in 2B(where I live).  I do not believe that habitat is the issue.  I believe that the deer/human conflicts are the reason for trying to reduce the population there.

Too many corn piles and bird feeders and shrubs etc.....  The habitat can support pretty large numbers but the conflict potential is high.

By the way, Frank1, welcome to the boards.  Keep it coming.

Here is another reply from the PGC on Frank's orginal comments..

Quote :

Hello Dave, I did take a look at the report in the PGC web site and I don't really have a good answer to the question. It appears that it is based on the adult doe reproductive rates but I also see there is a wide spread of the adult reproductive rate among the units indicating a healthy herd status. I suspect it is mostly an attempt toward justification of not increasing the antlerless allocations in spite of the fact they know they should do just that in some of the units. In other words I suspect we are in the process of doing the wrong thing for the best possible future of the habitat and the deer, again, to get the badly needed license increase. We will just have to wait and see how it all plays out in the future. If I get a chance to talk to Bret or Chris I will ask them about it.

 

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-05-06 21:37:47 --

I'm still waiting to see if I get a reply from Bret myself. ??

That last email is a bummer.