Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New Trophy's
New trophy room comments
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Classifieds
Trophy Room
New items
New comments
Latest content
Latest updates
Latest reviews
Author list
Series list
Search showcase
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Tennessee Hunting Forums
Quality Deer Management
Managing Expectations
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BigGameGuy" data-source="post: 762153" data-attributes="member: 2232"><p>Camoman,</p><p></p><p>There is no article (yet). The new estimates were first mentioned at the April Commission meeting. They came about a few months ago when the agency was trying to get a good handle on the impact of the EHD outbreak. We had known for a long time that the population model we had been using had become unreliable since selective harvest threw a wrench into our harvest data. The "close to one million" estimate came from the last time that model was run (2000). Over the last seven years there was no reason to believe we had sustained substantial growth to the herd since we went wide open on our doe harvest, so we stayed with that herd estimate. </p><p></p><p>In March, we researched other models and found that the most consistent population model for tracking herd growth was the Downing Reconstruction model. When we reconstructed our herd, we were coming up with numbers much lower than previous estimates so we weren't too sure what to make of the new information. At that same time, personnel in the field were coming in with thermal imaging data. This was actually collected from "seeing and measuring the number of deer", not just working with deer on paper. We then ran the field data to see what we came up with and sure enough, it verified the lower estimates.</p><p></p><p>When we began thinking about this it made much more sense. Our harvest numbers fell in line with those necessary to maintain a stable herd. It also brought the statewide deer per square mile average down from 24 to about 15. Every way we looked at it, the new estimates made sense.</p><p></p><p>We are now in the process of collecting thermal imaging data on a much broader scale and we're anxious to see how things play out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BigGameGuy, post: 762153, member: 2232"] Camoman, There is no article (yet). The new estimates were first mentioned at the April Commission meeting. They came about a few months ago when the agency was trying to get a good handle on the impact of the EHD outbreak. We had known for a long time that the population model we had been using had become unreliable since selective harvest threw a wrench into our harvest data. The "close to one million" estimate came from the last time that model was run (2000). Over the last seven years there was no reason to believe we had sustained substantial growth to the herd since we went wide open on our doe harvest, so we stayed with that herd estimate. In March, we researched other models and found that the most consistent population model for tracking herd growth was the Downing Reconstruction model. When we reconstructed our herd, we were coming up with numbers much lower than previous estimates so we weren't too sure what to make of the new information. At that same time, personnel in the field were coming in with thermal imaging data. This was actually collected from "seeing and measuring the number of deer", not just working with deer on paper. We then ran the field data to see what we came up with and sure enough, it verified the lower estimates. When we began thinking about this it made much more sense. Our harvest numbers fell in line with those necessary to maintain a stable herd. It also brought the statewide deer per square mile average down from 24 to about 15. Every way we looked at it, the new estimates made sense. We are now in the process of collecting thermal imaging data on a much broader scale and we're anxious to see how things play out. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Tennessee Hunting Forums
Quality Deer Management
Managing Expectations
Top