The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,252 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
IN the lastest QDMA report they listed the fawn recruitment rates.

PA
2000 0.70
2005 0.70
2010 0.70
2014 0.62
2017 0.57

https://www.qdma.com/2019-whitetail-report/

You have to put your name and email to download report, but it is free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
according to the 36% of fawns in the harvest which was at an all time low for the 17-18 season and the slow decline over the past few years from the long standing avg. of 18-20%. the 15 and 16 season at 37-36% would follow the QDMA report. what is causing the decline is another question. i would think with the increases in buck harvest over the past 3 years that the over all population is on the rise .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
You listed 00, 05, 10. So what does 2015 report? Waugh!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
I guess you missed the fine print. Not in elk county. >:) Waugh!
Actually I guess you really don't know as much as you think you do or you are just making the decision to be obtuse.


The fact is that the fawn recruitment rates here in Elk County have always varied a great deal from year to year. Here are the fawn to doe ratios found in the fall (which equates to the fawn recruitment rate) based on the wildlife survey routes done by volunteers.


Year...………….Fawns/adult doe

1997...……………...0.44

1998...……………...0.55

1999...……………...0.51

2000...……………..0.38

2001...……………..0.53

2002...……………..0.72

2003...……………..0.57

2004...……………..0.62

2005...……………..0.64

2006...……………..0.66

2007...……………..0.70

2008...……………..0.53

2009...……………..0.62

2010...……………..0.68

2011...……………..0.50

No date from 2012-2016

2017...……………..0.37

2018...……………..0.36


After I retired, in 2012, we didn't do the surveys. We started doing some of the routes again in 2017.

I have no idea what happened during the years from 2012 -2017 but it appears there might very well have been a significant decline in the fawn recruitment rates in this area.

Many things can occur that will change the fawn recruitment rate. Breeding and reproductive rates can effect it. The severity and length of the previous winter can and frequently does effect it. Habitat changes can effect it and past deer harvests can effect the habitat values. Predation can effect it and a great many things can effect predator populations from year to year and time period to time period.


There are just too many variables to put the blame at any one thing at his point in time without significantly more research of the subject.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
Please list the number of samples for each year. Waugh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
Obtuse, which comes to us from the Latin word obtusus, meaning "dull" or "blunt," can describe an angle that is not acute or a person who is mentally "dull" or slow of mind. The word has also developed a somewhat controversial sense of "hard to comprehend," probably as a result of confusion with abstruse. This sense of obtuse is well established, and it is now possible to speak of "obtuse language" and "obtuse explanations," as well as "obtuse angles" and "obtuse readers"; however, it may attract some criticism. If you're hesitant about using new meanings of words, you should probably stick with abstruse when you want a word meaning "difficult to understand."


Wow. I guess this is my week. RSB has actually lowered himself to attack the messenger not the message. So sorry to push you to new lows. Keep spreading your misinformation you only fool the real fools not the one you deem to be fools. Waugh!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
Obtuse, which comes to us from the Latin word obtusus, meaning "dull" or "blunt," can describe an angle that is not acute or a person who is mentally "dull" or slow of mind. The word has also developed a somewhat controversial sense of "hard to comprehend," probably as a result of confusion with abstruse. This sense of obtuse is well established, and it is now possible to speak of "obtuse language" and "obtuse explanations," as well as "obtuse angles" and "obtuse readers"; however, it may attract some criticism. If you're hesitant about using new meanings of words, you should probably stick with abstruse when you want a word meaning "difficult to understand."


Wow. I guess this is my week. RSB has actually lowered himself to attack the messenger not the message. So sorry to push you to new lows. Keep spreading your misinformation you only fool the real fools not the one you deem to be fools. Waugh!
All I have done is provide what the deer themselves are providing. If people want to accept it then they can't if they don't want to they don't have too.


Of course we all also know that some people will not accept the data deer provide because it isn't what they want to believe or goes against their desires and agenda. I guess everyone can figure out for themselves which are which and what category each falls into.


Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
We were told that when we reduced the deer herd, more fawns would be recruited because more available food......

We were told breeding rates would increase when we corrected the buck to doe ratio. They didn't. We didn't have a breeding problem.

QDMA, years ago, said if you have a recruitment rate below .5, you had serious issues.

They also said 1 was good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
I'm newbie here on HPA, but all these studies are in a specific area and all areas can be very different. To speculate that these studies represent a state-wide trend is plain wrong. PA hunter harvest reporting renders these studies questionable. IMHO :smile2:
I respect your opinion.

What studies are you posting about? All the data collected from harvested deer come from all over the state. All data collected from road killed deer comes from all over the state.

The Fawn survival study comes from two areas but those areas represent a majority of the rest of the state. Not sure if the first fawn survival study was in the same area as this one is being conducted. I am sure I could look it up but not sure right now.

The formula they use has been proven to be accurate enough for deer management purposes during an audit conducted by an outside scientific group (WMI).



The lack of hunter harvest reporting hurts the estimated numbers we as hunters hang on. These numbers don't really matter. The trends are what matter. Waugh!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
Though the data make it appear that the fawn recruitment rate for Pennsylvania has declined over the ten year after giving it more thought it might not be as much a decline in the fawn recruitment as it is a change the method used for determining the recruitment rate.


At one time the annual fawn recruitment rate was determined by taking the known number of fawns that were going to be born, based on the embryo checks done on the highway killed deer, then applying an estimated mortality rate to that number. But, about ten years or so ago they stopped collecting that data because the Game Wardens across most of the state were no longer handling road killed deer to collect the reproductive data. That meant they had to find a new way of calculating the fawn recruitment rates. Now the fawn recruitment rates are calculated based on the percentage of juvenile deer in each year's antlerless deer harvest.

At this point I will not say that the fawn recruitment hasn't dropped but I am serious thinking the biggest change might just be a change in the data being used to make the estimate.


Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,840 Posts
Though the data make it appear that the fawn recruitment rate for Pennsylvania has declined over the ten year after giving it more thought it might not be as much a decline in the fawn recruitment as it is a change the method used for determining the recruitment rate.


At one time the annual fawn recruitment rate was determined by taking the known number of fawns that were going to be born, based on the embryo checks done on the highway killed deer, then applying an estimated mortality rate to that number. But, about ten years or so ago they stopped collecting that data because the Game Wardens across most of the state were no longer handling road killed deer to collect the reproductive data. That meant they had to find a new way of calculating the fawn recruitment rates. Now the fawn recruitment rates are calculated based on the percentage of juvenile deer in each year's antlerless deer harvest.

At this point I will not say that the fawn recruitment hasn't dropped but I am serious thinking the biggest change might just be a change in the data being used to make the estimate.


Dick Bodenhorn
Is there enough data going back from when the process change was made to calculate what the recruitment rate would have been under the current method even back then? That way, the true trend could be estimated???
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
Odd the 5 year set was disrupted. Waugh!
I agree that at first I found it odd and questionable.

I don't really know for certain but I suspect the reason they switch to few years in the more recent years though has to do with the fact they wanted to show the most recent year they had data for, 2017, with the highest possible degree of relevancy. Had they used the normal five year period after 2015 they would have had to jump then directly to 2017 which would have only been a span of two years. I suspect they went four years (from 2010 2014) then they would have three years (from 2015-2017) to make the comparison years for the more recent period a little more relevant for a valid comparison.

Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
More bears, more coyotes, more bobcats, more dogs running free, what could possibly go wrong?
I agree that those are all valid factors that can influence fawn recruitment.

But, there are many others as well. Some of them would include the lack of fall mast crop, the winter snow depth, the length of the winter, the existence of more invasive or less nutrition plant species, decline or degradation of more nutritious native browse species, decline in amount of forest in seedling sapling stage, Increase in he number of deer impacting the food supply, fewer does being bred, fewer adult does and more juvenile does being bred and the list goes on and on and on.


Dick Bodenhorn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,560 Posts
I agree that at first I found it odd and questionable.

I don't really know for certain but I suspect the reason they switch to few years in the more recent years though has to do with the fact they wanted to show the most recent year they had data for, 2017, with the highest possible degree of relevancy. Had they used the normal five year period after 2015 they would have had to jump then directly to 2017 which would have only been a span of two years. I suspect they went four years (from 2010 2014) then they would have three years (from 2015-2017) to make the comparison years for the more recent period a little more relevant for a valid comparison.

Dick Bodenhorn

Does it make the comparison relevant? To me 5 year data sets can only be compared to other five year sets. That is without knowing if the years used in the sets are consecutive or on both sides of the sets's date.

If the data originated in Pa and I am not mistaken we use a method that is not year specific, meaning we use data collected in multiple years. If that is the case than the last 2 are not valid for comparison to the five year sets. Waugh!


If they switched methods or years used it would be like going from our estimated harvest report back to what was reported. The other thing about the way we do things in PA is that these type of stats are often expressed in a range vice a hard number and all these could be within the same range.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,722 Posts
Whatever the reason R.S.B,.'S 2017 and 2018 are disturbing numbers no mater how anyone wants to spin it.
I assume you mean the years 2014 and 2017 since those were the years used.

Maybe but maybe not. Since they have been using the percentage of fawns in the antlerless harvest to estimate the fawn recruitment rate during the more recent years (probably about the last ten yeas or so) I am not so sure that is a sensitive enough measure for real reliable and comparable data. There are just too many things that can and will influence when hunters target adult does verse fawns for that to be a real strong indicator of whether any change is from fawn recruitment changes or just hunters target changes.


It is close enough for safe management direction but perhaps not good enough for valid and meaningful comparison of short term recruitment changes.


Dick Bodenhorn
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top