The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A rolling dialog of habitat, deer & Deer Numbers.

This thread is for those with issues with or support for the deer program, issues with the estimates of population or harvest - or support there of.

This thread is for all things deer and can serve as the source for other independent threads for issues needing separate and more dedicated discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
So whats new???






In case anyone missed it....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,623 Posts
ok, in continuing one of those side discussions from another thread.....

if we're counting the number of trees in my yard and you think theres 17 and i say theres 24, we can simply go count them. unfortunatly, deer harvest numbers aren't so easy. and for the sake of discussion, lets say the pgc estimate is wrong. but unless the reason it is wrong is changed evey year, and it isn't, it shows a trend even if the exact number isn't accurate. would you agree with that?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
234 Posts
Yellodog, we don't need to count the deer or trees to speak of the point I made. I think you and probably everyone else understood what my point was.

You said;
"i'd say you're right, not much has changed. still a vocal minority trying to convince the rest that theres a catastrophy going on right in front of us. but the facts are we harvest over 300,000 deer in this state every year. now if you're going to dispute that number, please give me the actual harvest number and your source. facts, not opinions."
And I said this;
"Yd, the only minority among we hunters is that which support current deer numbers. That has been shown in scientific polls. Pgcs own in fact.

And I am not trying to convince you of a thing. I post my views just the same as you do.

I do dispute the harvest numbers, to a point and I do not need another estimate of my own to do it, when its clear the procedure is flawed. That is all I need to know. And that is a fact. Not an opinion. My inability to give an exact harvest figure has no bearing on whether pgcs number is accurate or not.

As an example, if you tell me 4+4= the number of trees in your yard, and I so, oh, you have 8 in the yard, and you tell me no there are 17! I know something is amiss in that math, and I do not have to know how many trees are in your yard to recognize that fact."

You inferred the statement that the numbers were inaccurate could not be true if I myself could not give a better total. And my point with the trees was simply showing we did not need to know the total to be able to tell if the process itself could add up to an accurate total. Thats it.


This harvest reporting is a topic that has probably been hashed and rehashed too many times as it is. I think that the other thread about the harvest reporting rates not accurate explains things pretty well.

I don't have any different deer management issues that I have much more to say about right now. But I think some conversation worthy material will be coming soon after the January meetings. Just a feeling I have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,623 Posts
ron, the anology about the trees made no sense since we could actually both see the trees and if nessesary, we could psyically count them or at least agree theres about a couple dozen there. it would be reasonable to count, estimate, or take an educated guess at the number of trees due to the fact that the number was small enough to be in our veiw.

how could you compare that to estimating thousands of deer killed on thousands of sq miles? your opinion would come from a small amount of information that you could gather, plus the information & opinion of a few other hunters. the procedures used by the pgc have been proven accurate, so if you don't beleive them, we will just put that on the list of proven facts that you simply refuse to accept. i can't say the harvest estimate is absoutly precise, but it's more than you or anyone else could do more than guess at, and it shows harvest trends which proves the herd is doing fine, despite the doom & gloom predictions of some hunters. yeah, theres less deer now, that was the idea whether you agree with the reasons for it or not.

feel free to hang your hopes on the big meeting. iv'e been here long enough to see those hopes not realized before. they won't cancel doe season, they won't go back to a 3 day season, they won't go back to county allocations, and they won't cut the doe tags by 70%. some small adjustments, probably, but a few hunters panicing about wiping out the herd ain't gonna change too much again this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,621 Posts
Nice thread BT. Timely too.

I just spent the week revising a manuscript we submitted for publication this fall and was looking up a few references to cite. During this time, I found several other papers related to deer that I thought may be of interest to the members of the forum.

The first paper is a publication from the Journal of Wildlife Mgt. that Norton et al. (2011) published on PA buck harvest rates. There was a good statement made at the end of the paper that I think everyone needs to bear in mind when thinking about harvest estimates, deer population numbers, and any other hard and fast numbers. The paper suggests that managers need to put less emphasis on management decisions that don't acknowledge model uncertainty such as absolute population abundance but rather place more emphasis on population trends.

After doing quite a bit of population modeling over the past few years, I couldn't agree more. There is entirely too much emphasis and demand on exact numbers which are never exact if estimated due to random effects and other known effects.

This is largely the reason why I am not concerned if reporting rates for deer are low but more interested in being able to estimate the reporting rate to correct the estimated harvest from those that do report. This is also why I am not in favor of check stations or reporting at the time of buying a license. These methods may seem intuitive, but they could lead to even more variation in harvest reports which would affect the harvest trends.


The second paper I read dealt with genetic structures of wild and captive deer herds in response to selective harvest based on antler size. This paper Webb et al. (2012) simulated both changes in antler points and total B&C score of antlers in a captive herd and a free ranging herd.

In the captive herd, the simulation indicated about a 2-4 antler point increase and 2-4 inch increase in B&C score in an 8 year period when the largest bucks were selected for and spikes were selected against in both the bucks and does.

In the wild herd, the simulations assumed a closed population (no deer moving in or out of the study population) and tested a number of selection scenarios such as B:D ratios, age structure, etc. The average number of points and B&C score did increase but not significantly after a simulation of 20 years. Since the simulations assumed a closed population which would not occur in a natural population, the chances of altering the genetics for antler potential through antler selection in a free ranging herd would be difficult if not impossible under normal circumstances.

Only a simulation but I found it interesting nonetheless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Thats the purpose of this place and this forum.

The side benny is we all get real good at typing and can get jobs doing data entry if things get rough.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
101 Posts
feel free to hang your hopes on the big meeting. iv'e been here long enough to see those hopes not realized before. they won't cancel doe season, they won't go back to a 3 day season, they won't go back to county allocations, and they won't cut the doe tags by 70%.
I think you are seeing things that aren't there. Your emotions are getting the better of you. Maybe you can point out for us all, where did Ron say he had any hopes of anything? He simply said there might be things to talk about which there should be after their arguably biggest meeting of the year.

Don't worry, the non-game commission will have way too many tags again. D-map will also be there. Those rotten deer won't gobble up of your corn this year.

And the posts here pretty much take care of the spirited yet inaccurate harvest estimate accuracy rant.

http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2874088&page=1
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
101 Posts
Furtaker Ron said:
Yellodog, we don't need to count the deer or trees to speak of the point I made. I think you and probably everyone else understood what my point was.

You said;
"i'd say you're right, not much has changed. still a vocal minority trying to convince the rest that theres a catastrophy going on right in front of us. but the facts are we harvest over 300,000 deer in this state every year. now if you're going to dispute that number, please give me the actual harvest number and your source. facts, not opinions."
And I said this;
"Yd, the only minority among we hunters is that which support current deer numbers. That has been shown in scientific polls. Pgcs own in fact.

And I am not trying to convince you of a thing. I post my views just the same as you do.

I do dispute the harvest numbers, to a point and I do not need another estimate of my own to do it, when its clear the procedure is flawed. That is all I need to know. And that is a fact. Not an opinion. My inability to give an exact harvest figure has no bearing on whether pgcs number is accurate or not.

As an example, if you tell me 4+4= the number of trees in your yard, and I so, oh, you have 8 in the yard, and you tell me no there are 17! I know something is amiss in that math, and I do not have to know how many trees are in your yard to recognize that fact."

You inferred the statement that the numbers were inaccurate could not be true if I myself could not give a better total. And my point with the trees was simply showing we did not need to know the total to be able to tell if the process itself could add up to an accurate total. Thats it.


This harvest reporting is a topic that has probably been hashed and rehashed too many times as it is. I think that the other thread about the harvest reporting rates not accurate explains things pretty well.

I don't have any different deer management issues that I have much more to say about right now. But I think some conversation worthy material will be coming soon after the January meetings. Just a feeling I have.
Don't worry Ron you made yourself perfectly clear. Everyone here understands including Mr. yellodog. He's just trying to put on a show and be argumentative by not conceding to even your most basic and undeniable points. I wouldn't even bother replying further to people like that if I were you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,335 Posts
Would it really be that hard to put up the actual number of reported big game harvest right next to the estimate? Thought this whole new plan was about being transparent?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,335 Posts
A thought just crossed my mind in regards to overestimating the harvest. Lets say thats true for this arguments sake.

Had it been the real number, the numbers could be read in such a way that the harvest is not effective based on the numbers they think they have within a WMU. If the number was actually lower and not estimated high, this shows less of a success rate which we all know leads to more tags.

Im not sure that overestimation is bad for those of us who think something is a miss.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
100 Posts
Jlh, that is not how it works. Overestimation of the harvest each year would not raise or lower tags. But if it were that simple, the opposite is actually closer to the truth, overestimation would be morely likely to equal more tags , since it would show that there are were more deer not less there to be harvested.
 
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
Top