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.I guess you missed the fine print. Not in elk county. > 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.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!
I respect your opinion.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:
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???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.
I agree that at first I found it odd and questionable.Odd the 5 year set was disrupted. Waugh!
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.
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.
I assume you mean the years 2014 and 2017 since those were the years used.Whatever the reason R.S.B,.'S 2017 and 2018 are disturbing numbers no mater how anyone wants to spin it.