|
Post by duff on Feb 18, 2010 22:22:49 GMT -5
Tell him it's bogus data but make sure you give an acceptable alternative plan to gather the same data within his budget.
The biologist have nothing at all to do with the govenor. It just sounds like you have another ax to grind. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by oneshot on Feb 19, 2010 6:34:06 GMT -5
I'm glad some hunters had a successful season. Worst season for me in over 30 years. I too thought the count would have been down. I flat out didn't see many deer.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Feb 19, 2010 6:39:15 GMT -5
I would have guessed the numbers would be low. I killed two, but I didn't have that many sightings. Seemed like everyone I talked to thought the population was down. Amazing! What is everyone predicting next year? I hate to say it, but it seems like this has got to drop off a cliff sometime. Of course next year actual sightings by actual hunters will be down but the number of deer killed will be another record year. It's in the state's interest to keep the kill numbers up as it keeps the insurance companies happy, the sportsmen happy and buying more tags, the legislature happy and off their arse and it hides any errors in the current management style. Record years are win, win, win, wins so why not have one every year!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 19, 2010 6:58:55 GMT -5
I would have guessed the numbers would be low. I killed two, but I didn't have that many sightings. Seemed like everyone I talked to thought the population was down. Amazing! What is everyone predicting next year? I hate to say it, but it seems like this has got to drop off a cliff sometime. Of course next year actual sightings by actual hunters will be down but the number of deer killed will be another record year. It's in the state's interest to keep the kill numbers up as it keeps the insurance companies happy, the sportsmen happy and buying more tags, the legislature happy and off their arse and it hides any errors in the current management style. Record years are win, win, win, wins so why not have one every year! So I guess the complete report was made up ...Interesting Let me guess, it was the " GOOD OLD BOYS" network in action ...lol
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Feb 19, 2010 8:32:38 GMT -5
GEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ... Guys ..... Sometimes the truth can be a bitter pill to swallow. Take your meds like a Man and stop the crying......... This datat came from the DNR biologists. You know the guys that you think should be in charge of herd management?.......Well now you have the numbers and no arm twisting involved................... Long live OBR................... Debate on....... See you all at the show this weekend. Not even the " GOOD OL BOYS" could sway numbers like that.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Feb 19, 2010 8:57:57 GMT -5
I love it, Gundude shows up every now and then just to do an in-your-face- post to stir the pot. Ok then, it's been an OBR for 8 years and he still cant kill a buck. Do you think that all these other states have an OBR? QDMA Articles: Deer Harvest Trends – 2008 More importantly, the percentage of yearlings in the buck harvest declined from an average of 51% in 1999 to 45% in 2005. During this same period the percentage of 2.5-year-olds increased from 28 to 32% and 3.5-year-olds or older increased from 19 to 23%. Some states made tremendous advances such as Pennsylvania dropping from 80 to 52% yearling bucks. Wisconsin dropped from 68 to 51% and Mississippi dropped from 50% to a nationwide low of 12% yearlings! Kudos to the Magnolia state! Arkansas followed a close second with 20% yearlings. Pennsylvania used to lead this undesirable category but is now around the national average with at least six other states harvesting a higher percentage of yearlings, including neighbors Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Ohio (data not provided by Delaware or West Virginia). Michigan, New Jersey and New York now tie for the national lead with 63% of their buck harvests being 1.5 years old. Two states regressed in this statistic with South Carolina and New Hampshire both harvesting a higher percentage of yearlings in 2005 than in 1999. South Carolina increased from 48 to 55% and New Hampshire from 46 to 51% yearlings. In fairness to South Carolina, it was ahead of the curve in 1999 and is still doing well today especially considering that more than half of the state has a four-and-a-half-month season with no buck limit. Also, New Hampshire has already established a procedure to reduce their yearling harvest rate. In 2005 the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department published their 2006-2015 Big Game Management Plan and Objective 2-1 of that plan states, “Manage regional deer populations to ensure that yearling males don’t exceed 50% of the adult male population.” From 2004 to 2006 the percentage of yearling bucks had exceeded 50% of the buck harvest in one of the state’s wildlife management units (WMU). Therefore, the Department organized an ad-hoc deer advisory committee to determine the preferred strategies for reducing the yearling harvest rate in that WMU, and they implemented the chosen strategy in 2007. This component of their deer management plan is arguably one of the most progressive QDM procedures implemented by any state agency, and since its implementation the percentage of yearlings in the buck harvest has dropped to 24% in that WMU and 45% statewide. With respect to 2.5-year-olds, Maryland doubled their percentage in the harvest from 23% in 1999 to 46% in 2005. Nebraska increased from 29 to 56% and Indiana increased from 25 to 35%. Pennsylvania only separates their buck harvest into yearlings and 2.5 years and older, and the Keystone state improved from 20 to 48% bucks that were at least 2.5 years old. In actual numbers, these percentages represent an increase from nearly 39,000 to 58,000 bucks. With respect to bucks 3.5 years old and older, Mississippi leads the nation with 60% of their buck harvest reaching this age category. This percentage has tripled in Mississippi since 1999. Texas is second with 49% and Arkansas is third with 38%. Other notables include Rhode Island with 37%, North Carolina with 28%, and Wisconsin jumped to 20% 3.5 years old or older (double their percentage in 1999). www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=159
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 19, 2010 8:58:04 GMT -5
it is easy relitively easy to tell Not for the DNR guys. I had the misfortune of watching some of the "aging", comical at best. From what I saw last season (in three different counties), there were more 3-4 year old bucks in the herd than compared to the last 10 years. The aging and estimation is a joke, everyone knows it.
|
|
|
Post by hunter7x on Feb 19, 2010 9:01:49 GMT -5
Ahh the annual there is no way those numbers are right thread!
lol
My friends in Missouri have one of these posts every year too right after their deer and turkey numbers come out lol I dont think I have ever seen a harvest report that the hunters agree with.
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Feb 19, 2010 9:04:27 GMT -5
Back to the real subject.
IMHO -
Aging - There is no way that the IDNR deer biologists can age sample every deer killed. They can make statisically valid sampling and that is what they do.
Numbers - Pretty well shows that we have a growing deer herd IN SOME AREAS. Other areas might not be as fortunate. The EHD epidemics just slowed the growth progress down for awhile. Look for some more drastic deer control as the biologists know that a big herd is harder to control than a small herd. They need to get a handle on it pronto.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 19, 2010 9:28:43 GMT -5
Woodmaster, xizang and myself saw that first hand at the Prophetstown park hunt. The biologist there was aging deer that was brought in. He was aging these older deer, but a LOT younger than anyone in the crowd was aging them. Great big gnarly 220 pound bucks he was stating “2 ½ years old”. A hunter checked in a 130 pound doe and he said,” one and half years old”. ?Most of the hunters were standing around and could not believe what he was saying. Aging by the teeth is a very inaccurate science....if it is a science at all. Either way this is the method that they have used for years.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Feb 19, 2010 9:37:22 GMT -5
It is embarassing to watch them guess at the age, ridiculous, sad, hard to watch.
|
|
|
Post by cambygsp on Feb 19, 2010 9:41:10 GMT -5
I'm glad some hunters had a successful season. Worst season for me in over 30 years. I too thought the count would have been down. I flat out didn't see many deer. Same boat here!
|
|
|
Post by vectrix on Feb 19, 2010 10:05:04 GMT -5
I'm not trying to start any rumors but I heard Acorn Group did the aging and the check station counts.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Feb 19, 2010 10:15:29 GMT -5
I saw the deer on page 7 and it was huge. I also made page 8 with my opening morning buck.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 19, 2010 10:49:14 GMT -5
I saw the deer on page 7 and it was huge. I also made page 8 with my opening morning buck. By golly that is you, isn't it. Congratulations.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Feb 19, 2010 11:39:41 GMT -5
Interesting science for sure, just boggles my mind how they can come to a number with that approach...way over my head!Wonder how many deer were actually aged. The rub here and devil dwells in the details. The fact is that there is no two counties or check stations that receive the same age or has the same type hunters .Say you take the age structure from a low hunter number county it will be a higher age in most cases .But you take the age average in a high hunter number county the age will likely be much lower . Sorry no two areas produce with any reasonable comparison the same age class deer taken by hunters .This number despite the fluff is just fantasy yep its a way to estimate some sort of number .But hay if you live by estimations then its not likely that your new Toyota has higher odds of being in a catistrophic wreck because of all the recalls than it was just 1 year ago isnt it !!!! Answer "no" its still the same broken junk it was 2 years ago . You just had some body estimate your chance of a wreck higher is all. Answe Exactly!!
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Feb 19, 2010 12:39:13 GMT -5
I'm not trying to start any rumors but I heard Acorn Group did the aging and the check station counts. Hey that was a pretty good one.lol The numbers are what they are folks........................ Oh and for whoever said I was here to stir the pot. Well no I'm not. I have better things to do................. It's all good guys. You will all be in a tree stand next fall.. Hopefully when you get there you wont be thinking about anything but just enjoting the moment....... I need to pack for Texas now........ debate/whine or hunt on.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Feb 19, 2010 13:01:18 GMT -5
.... Oh and for whoever said I was here to stir the pot. Well no I'm not. I have better things to do..................... Now that is a good one! I bet you poke bees nest every time you get a chance. Don't you? You can't do drive by post and claim you ain't doing it to chum the waters no matter what other important things you got going on!
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Feb 19, 2010 14:08:07 GMT -5
Woodmaster, xizang and myself saw that first hand at the Prophetstown park hunt. The biologist there was aging deer that was brought in. He was aging these older deer, but a LOT younger than anyone in the crowd was aging them. Great big gnarly 220 pound bucks he was stating “2 ½ years old”. A hunter checked in a 130 pound doe and he said,” one and half years old”. ?Most of the hunters were standing around and could not believe what he was saying. Aging by the teeth is a very inaccurate science....if it is a science at all. Either way this is the method that they have used for years. I've only had the opportunity to witness the DNR attempt to age deer on one occasion (at the Crane hunt) The "biologists" doing the exams were Purdue students, none of them with degrees. Some of the ladies involved were even turning shades of green. They were so hung up on measuring teeth, they ignored other obvious age indicators that should have been factored in. Not the most scientific procedure by any means.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Feb 19, 2010 15:20:05 GMT -5
.... Oh and for whoever said I was here to stir the pot. Well no I'm not. I have better things to do..................... Now that is a good one! I bet you poke bees nest every time you get a chance. Don't you? You can't do drive by post and claim you ain't doing it to chum the waters no matter what other important things you got going on! Point noted Duff............ Thanks
|
|