Is today’s deer herd nutritionally more healthy than prior to pro baiting laws

[archer36]

1 minute ago, Bucksnbows said:

The fatal flaw you’re making is “habitat loss” when the exact opposite is true. Man creates edge habitat. Deer prefer edge habitat. The deer are in yards not because someone removed their forest, they’re there because it is preferred habitat and holds fewer predators.  Ask yourself why NJ big woods deer zones have more restrictive bag limits than areas with more diverse habitat types. 

Yes, and edge habitat makes them more visible and concentrated, not dispersed., giving a false impression of quantity. 

I'm not saying there is no merit to your contentions. I just disagree with an across-the-board statement based on historical data which is flawed in its collection. 

[Pathman]

29 minutes ago, archer36 said:

Yes, and edge habitat makes them more visible and concentrated, not dispersed., giving a false impression of quantity. 

I'm not saying there is no merit to your contentions. I just disagree with an across-the-board statement based on historical data which is flawed in its collection. 

Archer, when surveys are performed the software programs used spit out an average density per mi/2 of a generally large area, so the results are not skewed due to varying habitats as you describe. 
That doesn’t mean that you won’t experience what many hunters in NJ do, which is a stated high per mi/2 density, but then go out to public land and see very few deer, however, that also doesn’t mean that the density is inaccurate. 
The densities will be averaged, and will be fairly accurate overall, but specific properties may not see that number of deer on them. 
Hope that make sense. 

[archer36]

1 minute ago, Pathman said:

Archer, when surveys are performed the software programs used spit out an average density per mi/2 of a generally large area, so the results are not skewed due to varying habitats as you describe. 
That doesn’t mean that you won’t experience what many hunters in NJ do, which is a stated high per mi/2 density, but then go out to public land and see very few deer, however, that also doesn’t mean that the density is inaccurate. 
The densities will be averaged, and will be fairly accurate overall, but specific properties may not see that number of deer on them. 
Hope that make sense. 

OK. But I am questioning the data gathering capabilities of today to 100 years ago. When a statement is made that "there are more deer now than ever", it can't be taken seriously if the method of gathering such info is drastically different. There is much more sophisticated means to do such surveys now. So, a fair comparison can't be made. 

[Pathman]

9 minutes ago, archer36 said:

OK. But I am questioning the data gathering capabilities of today to 100 years ago. When a statement is made that "there are more deer now than ever", it can't be taken seriously if the method of gathering such info is drastically different. There is much more sophisticated means to do such surveys now. So, a fair comparison can't be made. 

I understand what you’re saying in that regard, but what’s the difference at this point, all we can do is use the data we have at our disposal now, what we had 100 years ago is irrelevant other then for a general comparison, the numbers from back then have no bearing on current deer management decisions. 

[vdep217]

12 minutes ago, archer36 said:

OK. But I am questioning the data gathering capabilities of today to 100 years ago. When a statement is made that "there are more deer now than ever", it can't be taken seriously if the method of gathering such info is drastically different. There is much more sophisticated means to do such surveys now. So, a fair comparison can't be made. 

How do you explain the weather man than.  Can't get yesterday right has the m9st up to dare technology but when they actually had to do some thinking they were more acurate.

[archer36]

5 minutes ago, Pathman said:

I understand what you’re saying in that regard, but what’s the difference at this point, all we can do is use the data we have at our disposal now, what we had 100 years ago is irrelevant other then for a general comparison, the numbers from back then have no bearing on current deer management decisions. 

I am only addressing the post about deer numbers today vs the past. I feel we have the technology and effort to get good stats if we need them. 

[vdep217]

39 minutes ago, archer36 said:

I am only addressing the post about deer numbers today vs the past. I feel we have the technology and effort to get good stats if we need them. 

Again I'm trying to find but at 1 point there was like 10 deer in all of new jersey to the point they were reporting track sightings

[archer36]

9 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

Again I'm trying to find but at 1 point there was like 10 deer in all of new jersey to the point they were reporting track sightings

When? Where? Who did the survey and how? This is my point. 

It can be true, but I question the data collection capabilities at the time. 

[Pathman]

1 minute ago, archer36 said:

When? Where? Who did the survey and how? This is my point. 

It can be true, but I question the data collection capabilities at the time. 

Yes of course the data collection 100 year ago was minimal at best, but again, what's the relevance to now? We have the technology now to collect the best data possible, so today's numbers are pretty accurate. Maybe going back 100 years is the flaw here, how about go back 50 years and compare those numbers which should be a much better comparison.

I'm still trying to understand what your goal is, just trying to help.

[Lunatic]

5 minutes ago, Pathman said:

Yes of course the data collection 100 year ago was minimal at best, but again, what's the relevance to now? We have the technology now to collect the best data possible, so today's numbers are pretty accurate. Maybe going back 100 years is the flaw here, how about go back 50 years and compare those numbers which should be a much better comparison.

I'm still trying to understand what your goal is, just trying to help.

I think what he is trying to say is how can you say we have more or less deer today than in the past if the tools at our disposition for collecting data back then were  inadequate

Edited January 6 by Lunatic

[archer36]

1 minute ago, Pathman said:

Yes of course the data collection 100 year ago was minimal at best, but again, what's the relevance to now? We have the technology now to collect the best data possible, so today's numbers are pretty accurate. Maybe going back 100 years is the flaw here, how about go back 50 years and compare those numbers which should be a much better comparison.

I'm still trying to understand what your goal is, just trying to help.

I have said over and over, I am not questioning the data collected now. I have never said that deer management is currently flawed because modern studies are wrong. Just comparing nonscientific data from the past to scientific data now. 

[Pathman]

Just now, archer36 said:

I have said over and over, I am not questioning the data collected now. I have never said that deer management is currently flawed because modern studies are wrong. Just comparing nonscientific data from the past to scientific data now. 

Gotcha, the earlier posts made it sound like you were questioning the current data.

Anyway, yes, you could likely make that same comment about almost any data collected 100 years ago, the weather, wildlife populations, etc.

[vdep217]

24 minutes ago, archer36 said:

I have said over and over, I am not questioning the data collected now. I have never said that deer management is currently flawed because modern studies are wrong. Just comparing nonscientific data from the past to scientific data now. 

Just because it's antiquated doesn't make in non scientific.  From what I remember they used clubs doing drives and hunters reporting tracks so just minus the helicopter that is used now but they dud use airplanes..  I will post when I find.

And numbers crunched by people not computer. 

Does it not make it scientific the data they used for the atomic bomb.  People and science were capable of great things well before computers.  Even before that the great pyramids with even less technology. 

Edited January 6 by vdep217

[archer36]

17 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

Just because it's antiquated doesn't make in non scientific.  From what I remember they used clubs doing drives and hunters reporting tracks so just minus the helicopter that is used now but they dud use airplanes..  I will post when I find.

And numbers crunched by people not computer. 

Does it not make it scientific the data they used for the atomic bomb.  People and science were capable of great things well before computers

You crack me up. So wanting to prove people wrong. This post is a stretch. A simple trail camera today is so much more technology that was available 30 years ago. Why do you keep insisting it's all the same. 

If you had to make a decision on what you observe during the day and compare it to what a camera captures at night, it's a great deal of difference. So, in the past, they had no means but observation and observation can be misleading. 

Edited January 6 by archer36

[3Blade]

16 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

Just because it's antiquated doesn't make in non scientific.  From what I remember they used clubs doing drives and hunters reporting tracks so just minus the helicopter that is used now but they dud use airplanes..  I will post when I find

But I thought that when guys complain about not seeing many deer anymore in many areas that it’s just anecdotal  and they need to go in deeper or a different area? And we can’t trust todays hunters sightings or non sightings who hunt 5 months of the year and with thousands of trail cams but we are to trust what guys who hunted only a couple of weeks of the year  doing drives and looking for tracks🤔