The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
101 - 120 of 138 Posts
Wiz said:
Shoot! PA doesn't have many coyotes or ticks for that matter. If you want to see what a healthy coyote and tick population looks like, come to the bright sunny south.

I've been spending a lot of time reading the peer reviewed literature on coyote ecology over the past few months.
In 2G/2H, the number of surplus deer at the start of new deer program allowed us to regularly harvest 30% of herd, now the harvest is HALF that, and the population stays "stable" according to Rosenberry. So, if it is NOT predators, then what has caused this decline in productivity?
 
Curl Maple said:
R. S. B. said:
You just proved beyond all doubt exactly what I suspected. You misrepresent statements and then use them to make it sound like something that was never said or intended. That Sir is plan and simple deception of the facts, or in other words flat out lying.
I have heard both you and members of the BOC use such reasoning when justifying the pheasant program.

I used that fact in reference to Bridger's quote. I wanted to point out that sometimes spin occurs that deflects away from the actual truth.
According to PGC , the bear population in NC PA alone has easily DOUBLED since the inception of the new deer plan, yet some folks cannot bring themselves to acknowledge even these basic facts. Difficult to have a civil conversation aimed at progress with such steadfast denial.

R. S. B. said:
Sure the statewide bear, coyote, bobcat and fisher numbers are growing. But that is largely from range expansion into new areas where they didn't previously exist. Not seeing anything that indicates the predator numbers are any higher in this area than they were ten or even twenty years ago.

Dick Bodenhorn
Borden811 said:
Facts you say? What are you doing throwing facts and actual biological data into this conversation?

Haven't you figured out graphs from the bubble you live in, and opinions are the only thing that matter in discussions like this?
Examples from all the major NC WMU’s with lots of public land:




From the harvests numbers, to the measured lack of achieving the needed 20% harvest rate year after year, to the population estimates themselves – all scientific indicators point to massive increases in bear. This was never part of the deer plan. We were told the bear pop. goal was 10,000 bear, but now the population totals more than twice that!

PGC led us to believe coyotes numbered about 20,000 during the same time period. Today PGC has revised their stance and says they now believe the population was closer to 80,000 coyote at the start, and more than 100,000 today.

With these increases, surely predators take more of the surplus game today.
 
jimbridger said:
Rosenberry (PGC biologist) has stated there are cold spots.
He more or less conceded the theory being kicked around and asked by the legislatures was possible. He went on to state wild deer could not be managed to the small areas such as sections of SGLs or counties.

No biologist coined the term. It was one of the congressmen. ( I think maybe Alloway but could be mistake.) The theory is if there are hot spots, ( places with more deer than the habitat could support), there must be cold spots where the habitat could stand to have additional deer.

He also said these so called cold spots would fix themselves without any changes. Waugh!
The biologists coined the term "deer focus area" or what say are hotspots. Those areas didn't do it on their own. Concentrated area with a combination of various timber and habitat cuts with well maintained food plots.

Also they are the predator focus area.

The "cold spots" are everything else being left alone. They are recovering to become old growth ecosystems.
 
He also stated that it was the responsibility of hunters hunting cold spots to police themselves and refrain from shooting antlerless deer in these areas. Since for most hunters identifying an acorn is as deep as it gets as far as habitat knowledge, how would he expect them to know weather it was a cold spot or just low deer numbers due to poor habitat. The truth of the matter is most hunters are going to shoot a legal deer even if it is the first deer they have seen in 2 days and he knows this.
 
grundsow said:
In 2G/2H, the number of surplus deer at the start of new deer program allowed us to regularly harvest 30% of herd, now the harvest is HALF that, and the population stays "stable" according to Rosenberry. So, if it is NOT predators, then what has caused this decline in productivity?

The simple and most logical answer is a decrease in predators and decrease in effort by those predators.

Over the last 5 years of hunting public land or private land open to public hunting, I rarely see another hunter, rarely hear shots, always hear complaining, yet have consistently seen 15+ deer by noon. When there is snow on the ground, I rarely see tracks of hunters or gut piles. In one case I even watched a hunter get within about 30 yards of a nice buck and the hunter never even seen the deer when it stood up and watched him.

Does this mean there are no deer or does it mean the pressure that was once there all day long is no longer there or there all day long? This has been the same observations that several of my friends have made as well. One friend had to take his nephew home early last season because he got a buck and was blown away by the number of hunters sitting in their trucks at the local convenience store at 11 AM on the opening day. I'm sure our WCO's see the same thing.
 
LONZO said:
He also stated that it was the responsibility of hunters hunting cold spots to police themselves and refrain from shooting antlerless deer in these areas. Since for most hunters identifying an acorn is as deep as it gets as far as habitat knowledge, how would he expect them to know weather it was a cold spot or just low deer numbers due to poor habitat. The truth of the matter is most hunters are going to shoot a legal deer even if it is the first deer they have seen in 2 days and he knows this.
Now they steer hunters to the hot spot (focus area), that draw the deer from the cold spots that you are supposed to police yourself from harvesting too many.
 
In my area of 3A, I believe the bear population has dropped since they extended the season into regular rifle. That's not saying I believe the bear population is at a low point. Before they extended the season it was becoming ridiculous. It took a number of years of issues building and requests, before the extended season was approved. The BOC didn't move on it over night.

From that experience, the odds of that same thing playing out in other areas is rather good.
 
The biologists coined the term "deer focus area" or what say are hotspots.
Correct. It is also what I said.
However biologist did not coin the term cold spot. In this case the opposite of hot spot is NOT cold spot. It is an area where goals were met.

Also they are the predator focus area.
That would make sense but I have never seen any documented proof. It also would be along the lines of what I had been saying. The predators hunt where the hunting is good and leave the areas when the population makes it harder to hunt.
Thus your so called cold spots would be just about void of predators. So they can't be keeping it down.

The "cold spots" are everything else being left alone. They are recovering to become old growth ecosystems.
Cold spot can mean just about anything. When it was used in an attempt to reduce doe tags and close seasons or parts of seasons it was used out of context of any biological management of game or habitat.

Cold spot is a political term. It has nothing to do with old growth.
To me a cold spot would be someplace where I have to have a fire while on post. Waugh!
 
He also stated that it was the responsibility of hunters hunting cold spots to police themselves and refrain from shooting antlerless deer in these areas.
Really or did he say if there are few deer there hunt someplace else.

Since for most hunters identifying an acorn is as deep as it gets as far as habitat knowledge, how would he expect them to know weather it was a cold spot or just low deer numbers due to poor habitat.
Your view of most hunters is enlightening. That is why he never really said that. There is no difference between a cold spot due to over harvest or poor habitat. The fact remains if there are few deer it is a cold spot. Back in the day we called them places to avoid when hunting.

The truth of the matter is most hunters are going to shoot a legal deer even if it is the first deer they have seen in 2 days and he knows this.
If you did not see a deer in two days and did not intend to shoot a deer why would you go out on the third day?
Me, I would try a new place after two days of no deer. If you don't want to shoot deer than leave the sporting arm home. Waugh!
 
Jim, I heard him say that hunters need to police themselves, not hunt somewhere else, although I can't remember the exact words. Kind of amazed me when he said it. Possibly he was telling the hearing that we can't lower antlerless tags for a WMU to compensate for a few cold spots lets move on. A cold spot is a cold spot
 
In 2G/2H, the number of surplus deer at the start of new deer program allowed us to regularly harvest 30% of herd, now the harvest is HALF that, and the population stays "stable" according to Rosenberry.
Did you miss the part of the new deer program that included the herd being reduced to about half of the size when it started?


So let me get this straight. When we reduced the herd it made it harder to harvest deer. OK I follow so far.
When we reduced the herd it made it easier for predators to harvest????
Sorry this is where I start to get lost.
The predators were taking deer back when the herd was large. I follow that part.
The predators are taking deer now that the herd is reduced. I still follow that.
The preds are taking more deer now that the herd is reduced. Off track again and can't find my way to buying this.

Somehow someway I always find myself trying to understand how the predators started increasing about the time we started decreasing deer numbers if the predators were using the deer as a main source of food. No way does this make sense.
That is like saying the fastest way to increase the deer population would be to use agent orange on our forest and remove most of the food. It just don't add up. Waugh!
 
Now they steer hunters to the hot spot (focus area), that draw the deer from the cold spots that you are supposed to police yourself from harvesting too many.
That is how tags are filled and surplus deer removed and the herd held stable.

Now tell me again why these hot spots draw deer from these cold spots? Ya that is what I was thinking.
Waugh!
 
Jim, I heard him say that hunters need to police themselves, not hunt somewhere else, although I can't remember the exact words.
I believe you but if not used in the same context it could have different meanings.
I recall he said hunters needed to police themselves when it came to hunting and filling doe tags on SGLs. This was when there was an attempt to more or less make SGLs limited harvest areas where something like DMAP would be the only allowed tag. He was against the micromanagement approach and said along the lines hunters need to police them-self if not seeing deer to not shoot deer in that area.

Possibly he was telling the hearing that we can't lower antlerless tags for a WMU to compensate for a few cold spots lets move on.
Yes he was possibly pointing out that the tags are issued by WMU and he could not tell hunters where in that WMU to fill those tags. Hunters would have to police themselves by harvesting deer. I recall something like that.

A cold spot is a cold spot clever
Yes so no hunting within 200 yards of a SGL parking spot. Just make it a safety zone for ATV riders.
Waugh!
 
Wiz said:
grundsow said:
In 2G/2H, the number of surplus deer at the start of new deer program allowed us to regularly harvest 30% of herd, now the harvest is HALF that, and the population stays "stable" according to Rosenberry. So, if it is NOT predators, then what has caused this decline in productivity?
The simple and most logical answer is a decrease in predators and decrease in effort by those predators.

Does this mean there are no deer or does it mean the pressure that was once there all day long is no longer there or there all day long?
No longer all day???

PGC announces every year that the overwhelming majority of harvest has always occurred on first day, and I'll say it's done primarily before 9:00 am.

Never has been many hunters after that point, never been a need for it, the needed harvest had already been delivered.

But getting back to my question you avoided, if it's not predators (4-legged variety), then what is responsible for decreased productivity of deer herd in 2G/2H?
 
jimbridger said:
In 2G/2H, the number of surplus deer at the start of new deer program allowed us to regularly harvest 30% of herd, now the harvest is HALF that, and the population stays "stable" according to Rosenberry.
Did you miss the part of the new deer program that included the herd being reduced to about half of the size when it started?
Here is a concept, 30% is 30% productivity, it does not matter how many deer there are per sq mi.

Somehow someway I always find myself trying to understand how the predators started increasing about the time we started decreasing deer numbers if the predators were using the deer as a main source of food. No way does this make sense.

Waugh!
So why then do you keep repeating that prey controls predators, and deer are their main source?

I've repeated, ad nauseam, that PGC states preds in PA are nowhere close to bcc, and therefore NOT controlled by prey.
 
dont forget the automobile predator

"State Farm reported 126,275 collisions in the state from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015."

if 50% of those deer were doe and each doe had twins there would have been 189,412 more deer in PA.

had they not been hit by a car.
 
bohunr said:
dont forget the automobile predator

"State Farm reported 126,275 collisions in the state from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015."

if 50% of those deer were doe and each doe had twins there would have been 189,412 more deer in PA.

had they not been hit by a car.
Last years fawn mortality study ...

52% survived to 10 weeks of age.
11 fawns eliminated by one predator or another.
5 eliminated due to natural causes.
1 eliminated by a vehicle.
 
Here is a concept, 30% is 30% productivity, it does not matter how many deer there are per sq mi.
Trying to make percentages into whole numbers and playing with phony math is just another reach.

We are not losing HALF of the surplus deer to predators. Deer become surplus after the predators have hunted not after the humans have hunted. We are limited to the surplus.

Have you looked at the make up of the herd? Back when, we had more doe as a percentage of the herd.
Now we have a higher percentage of males in the herd over winter. These bucks may grow larger racks as they age but they fall very short on producing fawns.


Yes we get less bang for our buck.


Smaller herd with less females will yield less and that means after natural mortality there is less surplus.


AR has always been a big part of HR beyond gaining approval. We all know it was used to make some take their eye off the goal but many still do not accept it is big in maintaining the goal of a reduced herd.

So why then do you keep repeating that prey controls predators, and deer are their main source?
Well there is that funny thing called rules of nature and all that.
Waugh!
 
101 - 120 of 138 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top