It only took 31 wolves in Yellowstone to reduce elk density to the point where tree seedlings are able to grow.
At the very least, PGC should begin producing an annual map of coyote harvest by county. That would cost next to nothing and would help track their abundance per region as the years go by.
Originally Posted by Bluetick
But according to the human dimensions specialist while discussing the archery study and the proposed split concurrent season study, you need 400 responses to accurately predict a population of 100k. This is how they do voter polling during elections and provide a confidence of 3~3.5% error rate.
The above 400 responses give a statistician a 95% confidence level in the results.
Now, if Rosenberry is using the percentages you stated, he is getting a confidence level of far better than 95% with his data.
400 ÷ 100,000 = 0.4% by pollsters
vs. 0.5% by Rosenberry
Okay, I’ll give you that in terms of confidence level. However, he’s only surveying the hunted population, and it’s only a snapshot of the herd *during the rifle season*.
Remember, the PA fawn study found some predation deaths occurred AFTER the hunting season in Feb & Mar when they were nearly full grown. And this was in relatively easy hunter-access portion of QWA as noted by the poaching occurring during the study. We can only imagine the predation rates associated with the “large remote” portions of 2G that R. S. B. and dce are always telling us about that either are hunted lightly or not hunted at all. The only way to gage predation loss here (so that it can be improved) is by a fawn survival study.
Plus there have been studies elsewhere documenting significant predation of adult deer while giving birth, deep snow, etc. These are all counted as basic “mortality” when the new herd estimate comes out each year, but it’s something that could potentially be improved by addressing predators.
Because of DCNR’s “wild lands” policy, there is no way we can improve the habitat in Quehanna Wild Area by cutting trees. And since we can’t seem to get PGC to cut more trees than about 50% of their biologist’s recommendations on SGL’s, the one thing we CAN address is the density of predators. Kinda like the acid deposition deal in that we can’t change the rain, but we can control the over-winter deer density.
Originally Posted by Bluetick
Since you weren't there back in 2009 when USP had the floor for 15 uninterrupted minutes to make the case with studies from the pine plantations of the south....and the devastating coyote carnage and how it was the same as in PA... .....
Rosenberry and Matt responded to focused BOC questions exactly as they did Monday. Mark Ternet also responded in kind.
so the response was not new or unexpected.
Rosenberry is a biologist first and always. Nice guy. personable and easy to talk to. But put him in front of a mike and he goes all professional.
Staff doesn't want to do the study. Not five years ago - not today.
For me, we need a population study on coyotes in PA. They are either manageable or out of control - likely somewhere between in terms of population. But, there is a lot we don't know about them in this state, and that is before we ever talk about the deer and yote connection.
Yes, I missed that dog & pony show. That helps to explain Rosenberry’s response. I like that he is blunt and just flat out asked the commissioners what they want the study to look for when he sees no reason for it, but my goodness he seems so annoyed by the thought of a study, like he’s taking it personally.
Lovallo, on the other hand seemed receptive and was very cooperative in discussing it.
Originally Posted by Bluetick
Last point, the more deer crowd dismissed the 2001 study as flawed and a spin of the numbers.
As much as I think the study should happen, really - why bother? If it doesn't appease and stroke the positions of the opposition - it will be dismissed, those doing the study will be smeared with innuendo, and any including the peer reviews will of course be in cahoots with the GC.
Yikes! A predator study should be for wildlife management, NOT to produce results that “satisfy” a segment of the public. Even if it finds no change in predation rates or no way to address predators numbers, it would still be worth it to know that is the case. Obtaining those answers can only strengthen our management program.
I think you have to do the study just to keep up with other surrounding states, and to keep on top of the changing landscape. There is no doubt whatsoever that predators are more abundant, widespread, and diverse in species than just 10 years ago, and certainly more so than any time in the PGC’s history. Again, this level of a predator-prey dynamic is uncharted territory, and to disregard this by doing no study is foolishness. It’s akin to saying grouse flush rates by hunters have not declined significantly over time, therefore “we can’t sit here and justify” a Christmas Bird Count by Audubon. When in reality, the number of grouse hunters & grouse have both declined.
Originally Posted by JohnS
I suspect his interpretation of his date is a lot more accurate than yours is. Cuting and pasting others data is nowhere the same as accuratly interpreting it.
0.5%, is 0.5% of a population.
Would you prefer to work from the PRE-hunt population? If so, add about ~12,000 harvested deer to the ~60,000 which reduces the percentage to 0.4% of a population. Now we’re about to breach the “95% confidence level”. You’re right though, that’s probably a more accurate way of looking at it, but I was trying to do Rosenberry a favor by being conservative.
The point is he’s basing his opinion of fawn recruitment trends on a very, very small sample size. A sample derived from hunters who are harvesting the healthiest deer in the region. Even still, the fawn recruitment is a pee poor ~0.30 fawns per doe.
2G is in all likelihood the most predator-rich region in PA, maybe the entire east coast, considering what we know about bear density variations. In other words, 2G has tremendous potential for improvement in both fawn recruitment and predator reduction. Meanwhile, Rosenberry is scoffing at the idea of attempting to address it. He is looking squarely at the numbers and not considering the greater scope surrounding the data. I find it fascinating to watch.
Feel free to share YOUR “interpretation” for us. I welcome all contributors to my threads.