Working as intended??? - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-24-2012, 10:53 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jimbridger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: kunkle, pa
Posts: 16,205
Back To Top
Working as intended???

How could this be? If AR is working; and we all know it is not about antlers, right, it is about the B ratio to help breeding, the Age structure that is said also to help breeding and having more bucks around to do the left over breeding. One might ask. What left over breeding? Well lets just call it the breeding of the fawns. I know it sounds silly to stress our young Doe fawns over winter with the burden of producing fawns but that was part of the plan on how to have more with less.
Low be it me to suggest it is silly to force fawns to reproduce before there body is developed enough and they barely have enough weight to make the winter by then self. But who cares they don't give us antlers. Right?

We all know that it is ok to burden a 6 or 8 month old female but it is a sin to allow a 1.5 year old male to mate because it could affect his rack size the next year.

Any way it seems that there has been no improvement in deer health from before AR to last season. ( this year's is not on the street)

I used 1999 because it is the oldest on the PGC page I used to look it up. It represents before AR but not before some HR took place. Seems fair to use because it shows more of any effect or lack of effect of AR vice HR/AR.
I used 2011 because it is the latest and greatest.

So here it is back in 99 according to the data we had 91% of our adult females bred and 29% of our fawns bred.

Remember the D:B ratio was just on the low side of 3:1 ( <3:1 ) and we had many more yearling buck as part of our harvest. 3:1 is considers poor so we were just north of having a poor ratio. Not to mention it has been said that the age structure was skewed toward younger buck. That is said to be a bad thing especially for breeding purposes. Seems like we needed AR to fix this problem, at least that is what was being said and still is being held onto as a reason we needed AR.

Jump to the present and it is now 2011 when we check the data to see how far we have come in our progress. According to the data we had 89% of our adult Doe bred and 24% of our female fawns bred.

One could say it is not progress it is regress. I say it is a stalemate. No change.

So keeping antler size out of it. What has AR done for the health of the herd?

99- Pregnant fawns averaged 1.30 embryos each. Where pregnant adults averaged 1.79 embryos each.

11- Pregnant fawns averaged 1.20 embryos each. The pregnant adults averaged 1.75 embryos each.

Again it looks like a stalemate. Or IMHO AR still did nothing.

Now the kicker. When barren females are included into the mix it seems we have lost some ground. It seems there were more barren females in the sample from 2011 than from 99. That is it seems that way unless someone can explain away the resulting net loss in embryos per female in both age classes and in all age classes collectively.

It would suggest that the additional "saved" bucks are not getting the job done no matter the slight increase in age. Don't believe me. Look it up it is on the PGC web site. Need a link just ask. Waugh!

Quote:
WCOs provided usable reproductive data from 1,703 females examined during the 1999 prefawning season.
The 1999 sample was 3% smaller than in 1998. Twenty-nine percent of the fawns, 87% of yearlings, and
91% of the adults were pregnant. Pregnant fawns averaged 1.30 embryos/doe, pregnant yearlings 1.74
file:///C|/Game/pgc/reports/wildlife_rep/99wmar/21001-99.htm (2 of 17) [10/29/2003 11:18:59 AM]
Estimating County Deer Population Sizes & Growth Rates
embryos/doe, and pregnant adults 1.79 embryos/doe. The average reproductive rates for pregnant and barren
fawns, yearlings, and adults were 0.37, 1.51, and 1.63 embryos/doe, respectively. The average reproductive
rate for all females was 1.06 embryos/doe.
Quote:
Deer Health
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) personnel examined 917 females during the 2010 pre-fawning season. Five hundred and forty-three were pregnant. Twenty-four percent of
21001
6
the fawns, and 89% of the adults were pregnant or lactating. Pregnant fawns averaged 1.20 embryos/female. Pregnant adults averaged 1.75 embryos/female. The average reproductive rates for pregnant and barren fawns and adults were 0.28 and 1.53 embryos/female, respectively. The average reproductive rate for all females was 0.99 embryos/doe (Table 1).







AR is only a pacifier.You will never grow if it's not in your genes.
jimbridger is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-24-2012, 11:03 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: State of Euphoria
Posts: 1,344
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

*
bawanajim is offline  
post #3 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 12:08 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lancaster County, 4B
Posts: 629
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

Yaaaawwwwnnnn. AR is good. Get over it.
PerryTuscarora is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 12:20 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
jimbridger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: kunkle, pa
Posts: 16,205
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

With those results if it was a stock would you buy it? Waugh!

AR is only a pacifier.You will never grow if it's not in your genes.
jimbridger is online now  
post #5 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 12:56 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 1B/Corry,Pa
Posts: 16,019
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

Create another poll about AR jim and see how many support it or think that it is working.

Many polls have been taken both on this site and by the PGC and the consensus is that right around 60-65% of hunters are in favor of it. You are obviously not one of them.
TraskOutdoors is offline  
post #6 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 01:21 AM
Frequent Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Central PA.
Posts: 559
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

I personally do not agree with AR. Most people are happy with AR because they like to see bigger bucks so they say AR is working because you see more big bucks on average than years ago.
Its like not being able to carry 1 dollar bills in your wallet and then saying that the average size of bill in your wallet is bigger than when you could carry 1 dollar bills.
Right to Bear is offline  
post #7 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 01:37 AM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lycoming county
Posts: 2,266
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

AR was made for one reason, bigger antlers. I also think it was used to get hunters to accept HR more readily. Anyone who disagree's with that is living in denial. Just by chance if it was brought about to be conducive to breeding, then those that thought it would help werent very smart and they need to get over it. That being said, i support AR.
Buck Whisperer is offline  
post #8 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 01:47 AM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
Dale Sholder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Williamsport , PA. 17701
Posts: 4,333
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

So what is it Trask? How do we manage deer by popular consensus or by biology? Since even the PGC's own biologists have said AR wasnt needed. Sure people are going to want big antlers and thats their choice. There are also those of us that could care less and before you get on shoot the doe kick I have shot a lot more doe than bucks so using that argument isnt going to mean anything to me.

Dale
Dale Sholder is offline  
post #9 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 01:53 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: State of Euphoria
Posts: 1,344
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

Alt was a great salesman, there is no way hunters would sign on to the herd reduction we no have, without the fore site of big racks.

I too am a fan of AR but killing most of the deer was unnecessary in Crawford county.
bawanajim is offline  
post #10 of 124 (permalink) Old 02-25-2012, 02:03 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: springfeild twp,mercer co
Posts: 11,894
Back To Top
Re: Working as intended???

i don't have a problem managing by popular concensus on issues that don't impact anything. ar doesn't impact the harvest, the habitat, hunter success, or herd health. i know some hunters who don't like ar, but more who do or don't really care.

why don't you like ar's? it's an honest question, not some sort of trick. give me an honest answer, and i'll accept it even if i disagree. i just can't see any downside to ar's personally.

Pence/Putin 2024
yellodog is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome