|
Post by tbass on Jul 30, 2009 7:54:30 GMT -4
I've said it before that if anyone believes that the powers that be will allow an increase they are only fooling themselves. I'm not totally sure they will have a choice in some cases. I noticed a few areas in western Centre County where the gypsy moths have wiped out 40-60% of the mature trees leaving skeletons standing. The regeneration is phenomenal. I think in the next 2 years it will be too thick to allow hunters to wipe the deer out or even have very good success. That in itself will allow the numbers to grow like it or not. Or at least that's my hopes. I know a few clear cuts that were too thick to allow a good success rate for hunter which helped slow the decimation of the herd. Unfortunately as soon as the brush got too high for deer to browse they got picked off coming and going from the cover to the food in more open forest.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 9:02:22 GMT -4
Please point to the one particular "ream" of proof that shows that we need to have exactly the number of deer we have currently or less in each wmu of our state. I can point to quite a few states that believe their forests are just fine with much higher deer densities as proof. I never said deer had no effect so your dramatic initial statement about all the scientists and all the reams of data etc. etc. doesnt really address ANYTHING. I didnt say deer arent or never were a factor that could and at times does effect regeneration etc. What I did say is that the doom and gloom is exaggerated highly and it is currently right here right now in Pennsylvania. Many areas of the state there is and never were problems with regeneration...Without 200 trillium per square yard, life most certainly would go on despite claims to the contrary by audubon and pgc., and in the worst areas of the state, there are other things greatly limiting regeneration. Just google deer+regeration.You can get all the scientific studies you want.Google deer+ hobblebush and see what you find. Tell me about some northern states that say their forests are just fine,despite having deer densities as high as we had and for as long. There was and is a huge problem with regeneration is most areas of the state that were faced with high deer densities for many years.that's a fact.It's not disputable.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 9:08:10 GMT -4
"I took tbass to a shelterwood exclosure in an area with some of the lowest deer densities in the state.The pictures he took are proof positive of how very few deer can completely alter the compostion of the forest.The more deer you have,the worse it gets.The worse you let the problem get and the longer you let it go on,the harder and longer it will take to fix.Sorry,but they're facts not my opinion." I dont believe Ive seen Tbass become a transformed man as far as his support for statewide hr or pgcs failed plan since your field trip. Seems he still has a pretty firm grasp of reality ifn ya ask me. When I met tbass,his kid was at a hunter safety course at the regional DCNR office.I simply took him to the exclosures that were within the shortest drive.I didn't cherry pick anything.Really there's nothing to cherry pick because I've yet to see an exclosure around here that doesn't have a huge difference inside than out.If I wanted to cherry pick,I would have taken his to see some clearcuts that were cut in the early 90's.They turned completely into meadows.6-8 years later,small areas were fenced in within these meadows and now those small exclosures are too thick to walk through.It was the deer chief and the facts are easy to see.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 9:34:52 GMT -4
Doug does have a point about the area he is in. The first exclosure we went to was a borderline failure. Most of the oaks were heavily browsed when we did find them. There was however quite a lot of maple growing in there. The area we parked in had a lot of deer tracks heading straight toward the fence. I can't prove it, but I suspect the deer were jumping in for dinner and then back out later. The fence was only about 8 feet high or so. The second fence looked very nice on the inside compared to the surrounding area. Doug mentioned he thought it was burned off inside after the cut. We noticed some scorch marks on a couple trees to support the belief. The habitat overall was crap with a few areas showing signs of recuperation. The ridge top looked like it would come up nice in a few years. That is one area I hope to revisit if I get another chance to go up that way. I don't agree with a large portion of what Doug says in his general statements. Based on his area, I understand his thought process. I don't know enough about the area to know what it was like the past couple decades to argue the point. My area is no where near what his area is and that is why I do not agree with HR. I know of areas with densities I believe are over 20 dpm that had plenty of growth. Its just not all red oak, white oak, black oak, this oak, that oak padded with a layer of trillium to walk on. Its mostly sasafras, hickory and maple. That exclosure was right smack dab in the middle of some of the lowest deer densities in the state.Hunters constantly complain that there are no deer in that area.two years ago,that shelterwood cut was loaded with oak.Now it's almost all gone and what remain is heavily browsed.I walked that exclosure with a forester two weeks ago and we couldn't find one single solitay oak sapling that wasn't heavily browsed.My point was never that that small amount of deer ruined that habitat.It was that they single handedly altered the compostion of the forest.That's indisputable.Could deer survive in that habitat THE WAY IT IS?Sure but oak is much more valuable in the long run for wildlife and yes,it has much more commercial value than red maple.Why is it oak to see the majority of our oak eaten before it gets a chance to mature?My point in taking you to see that exclosure had nothing to do with what we found that day.I simply wanted to show you what a shelterwood cut was and why they do it.It had been two years since I walked through that area.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 9:36:25 GMT -4
we needed hr around here. in years past you could see 50-75 deer/day which is way to much. but now there are days we don't see anything. one area near where we hunt the habitat lush and full but if you cross the road the trees shade everything out and the only thing growing there is lots of ferns. so good habitat or bad is only where you are standing at the time. the need for hr around here has passed. but the pgc keeps pushing for more kills because they put us in the wmu that includes Allegheny co. I can show you plenty of areas that have a nuice mid level understory beneath a mature vanopy.I even showed some to tbass.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 9:39:27 GMT -4
Old growth,closed canopy is beneficial to quite a few species,just not deer.I didn't make up the regs and neither did the foresters at DCNR.Contrary to what most on here expect,raising maximum numbers of deer is not what the vast majority of people in this state want.The state forests are supposed to benefit all Pennsylvanians,not just the 8% that hunt. So despite you and RSB ranting that when the habitat improves the PGC/ DCNR will allow herds to increase.....you admit willingly by that statement that on aproximately half of our state lands that will NEVER be the case due to the restriction of cutting and the lower DD capable of being supported in old growth forests! Thanks for solidifying the doom and gloom scenario for the future of our public land deer hunting. I've said it before that if anyone believes that the powers that be will allow an increase they are only fooling themselves. I never denied that these areas of poor habitat will have large deer densities.Why would you add more deer to habitat that's already crap and will continue to have a low carrying capacity?In areas where the habitat is recovering,the population is and will continue to increase.Tags have been lowered in some areas and other large areas have been taken out of dmap.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 10:08:48 GMT -4
Here is what I stated doug: Please point to the one particular "ream" of proof that shows that we need to have exactly the number of deer we have currently or less in each wmu of our state. ...and Im sorry but this stated by you didnt even come close to addressing it...been there done that:"Just google deer+regeration.You can get all the scientific studies you want.Google deer+ hobblebush and see what you find." I could just as accurately probably moreso just summarize by telling YOU to do a search for keywords AUDUBON SOCIETY and PA DEER MANAGEMENT. Much more to learn there about who is pulling the strings and why. "Tell me about some northern states that say their forests are just fine,despite having deer densities as high as we had and for as long." Most states in the nation with whitetail deer have density higher than 10 dpsm and many have higher than our highest somewhere in the state and many have done so plenty long term. Ohio, WV, Wisconsin, Maryland, etc. etc. etc. etc. Course you could point to some that are attempting some reduction,but there is no indication that they will be cutting their herds in half anytime soon. lol.. We could look to Southern tier of New York, Where deer densities are higher than any wmu in our state, and dare I mention Wisconsin where the density goals in some units are over double the best wmu densities in our state!! We could look almost anywhere in the country and the only very few areas limited are those that are limited by climate and they simply CANT have more deer, wether they want them or not, and not because of some half-cocked deer slaughter campaign....Michigan has wmus with goals of 30 and 35 dpsm...need I continue?? lol .I hardly think we need deer densities similar to many areas in Vermont or Maine, (and still decreasing in many areas)but thats exactly what we have.Also Doug, in response to your other post, I have no problem with you evaluating one or two of the enclosures you spoke of. The problem I have is when you try to spread that out over the entire wmu or far worse, the entire state. Whats worse, when you make statements like the STATES residents would revolt if they only knew the truth etc... Then we have a much less than believable scenario on our hands, and one I dont think should beget much consideration. Pennsylvanians for the most part couldnt care less about the deer plan one way or the other, and of the stakeholders that do, most would like more deer than currently. The nonhunters of our state do not automatically get a check mark on the "antideer" side just because they arent the ones that scared deer management personell into wearing bullet proof vests! lol or because they are nuetral and not clamoring for more deer doesnt automatically put them at odds with us.
Society does not oppose us. Society didnt demand fewer deer. Thats pgcs garbage. We all know who did the demanding. Special interest groups who are a smaller minority than the hunters of this state.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 10:48:15 GMT -4
Here is what I stated doug: Please point to the one particular "ream" of proof that shows that we need to have exactly the number of deer we have currently or less in each wmu of our state. ...and Im sorry but this stated by you didnt even come close to addressing it...been there done that:"Just google deer+regeration.You can get all the scientific studies you want.Google deer+ hobblebush and see what you find." I could just as accurately probably moreso just summarize by telling YOU to do a search for keywords AUDUBON SOCIETY and PA DEER MANAGEMENT. Much more to learn there about who is pulling the strings and why. "Tell me about some northern states that say their forests are just fine,despite having deer densities as high as we had and for as long." Most states in the nation with whitetail deer have density higher than 10 dpsm and many have higher than our highest somewhere in the state and many have done so plenty long term. Ohio, WV, Wisconsin, Maryland, etc. etc. etc. etc. Course you could point to some that are attempting some reduction,but there is no indication that they will be cutting their herds in half anytime soon. lol.. We could look to Southern tier of New York, Where deer densities are higher than any wmu in our state, and dare I mention Wisconsin where the density goals in some units are over double the best wmu densities in our state!! We could look almost anywhere in the country and the only very few areas limited are those that are limited by climate and they simply CANT have more deer, wether they want them or not, and not because of some half-cocked deer slaughter campaign .I hardly think we need deer densities similar to many areas in Vermont or Maine, (and still decreasing in many areas)but thats exactly what we have.Also Doug, in response to your other post, I have no problem with you evaluating one or two of the enclosures you spoke of. The problem I have is when you try to spread that out over the entire wmu or far worse, the entire state. Whats worse, when you make statements like the STATES residents would revolt if they only knew the truth etc... Then we have a much less than believable scenario on our hands, and one I dont think should beget much consideration. Pennsylvanians for the most part couldnt care less about the deer plan one way or the other, and of the stakeholders that do, most would like more deer than currently. The nonhunters of our state do not automatically get a check mark on the "antideer" side just because they arent the ones that scared deer management personell into wearing bullet proof vests! lol or because they are nuetral and not clamoring for more deer doesnt automatically put them at odds with us.
Society does not oppose us. Society didnt demand fewer deer. Thats pgcs garbage. We all know who did the demanding. Special interest groups who are a smaller minority than the hunters of this state. Ohio has tried to increase their doe harvestl.Wisconsin and Minnesota are both accused of wanting all the deer dead.Maryland has unlimited doe harvests in most areas.New Jersey is doing almost everything it can to reduce it's herd.Look at Iowa.they have very low dd goals.By the way,you mention 10 dpsm and Pa does not have anywhere near 10 dpsm except in the worst habitat and the dd goal is not 10 dpsm.Huge exaggeration on your part. those exclosure are very typical of what you find all over the northern tier.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 10:56:36 GMT -4
"Ohio has tried to increase their doe harvestl."
Only because the herd has steadily continued to grow until currently. Thats no doubt due to fewer hunter than we have, in a similar sized state, with no rifle season. they STILL arent planning on doing anything at all resembling our mess. Just because a herd experiences temporary growth and its wished to be knocked back to where it was, doesnt mean a super duper Dr. Alt deer slaughter is in the works! lol. ;D
"Wisconsin and Minnesota are both accused of wanting all the deer dead."
Wisconsin was due to cwd, and in limited areas of the state. Despite your intentional attempt to mislead, the GOALS as stated by Wisconsin dnr are what they are. Which is WAAAAY higher than ours. If hunters there think they are set too low, then they'd really LOOOOOOOVE our deer management lmao
you can also add Michigan with deer density goals in wmus of 30 to 35.,
"Maryland has unlimited doe harvests in most areas."
Because of SRA-like conditions.
"New Jersey is doing almost everything it can to reduce it's herd."
Ahh. New Jersey. Now THERE is a state comparable to Pa, policy-wise. And no, I dont think that a good thing. When you have total idiots running the show, you have bad things happen. NewJersey is the perfect example. Now you can add Pa to that short list.
" Look at Iowa.they have very low dd goals."
Because they dont have any woods! lmao. They harvest the crops and nothing is left for miles around but fencelines!l
"By the way,you mention 10 dpsm and Pa does not have anywhere near 10 dpsm except in the worst habitat and the dd goal is not 10 dpsm.Huge exaggeration on your part."
No huge exaggeration. Worst areas of the state are at that level. The best areas are below 25. Those are extremely low deer densities. 10 or less is just plain low period and 25 is as low or lower than the better densities of any other state Im aware of. And in many areas, these densities are STILL DECLINING.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 11:05:25 GMT -4
BTW, wisconsin has over 50 units with 19 to 32 dpsm. they also have 5 units with 33-68 dpsm. postseason densities.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 11:15:28 GMT -4
2006 Pa Game Commission Annual report.
PREHUNT density for 2G 2005= 12dpsm. That would leave us with lower than 10 owdd. (the one actually managed for and the one we discuss).
You can also find on the shaded deer distribution map for POST season shows 2G, 5A and 5D listed as 10 or less designation.
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jul 30, 2009 11:30:07 GMT -4
So despite you and RSB ranting that when the habitat improves the PGC/ DCNR will allow herds to increase.....you admit willingly by that statement that on aproximately half of our state lands that will NEVER be the case due to the restriction of cutting and the lower DD capable of being supported in old growth forests! Thanks for solidifying the doom and gloom scenario for the future of our public land deer hunting. I've said it before that if anyone believes that the powers that be will allow an increase they are only fooling themselves. I never denied that these areas of poor habitat will have large deer densities.Why would you add more deer to habitat that's already crap and will continue to have a low carrying capacity?In areas where the habitat is recovering,the population is and will continue to increase.Tags have been lowered in some areas and other large areas have been taken out of dmap. Are you sure? You have stated many times that the deer won't be in the poor habitat....the open mature hardwoods with little browse. So besides mast production, which is inconsistent from year to year...what else does an old growth forest with a dense canopy or even a younger pole timber forest offer deer of benefit? Yes....I agree that many other wildlife species can benefit from these older forests....But are we to understand now that approx half of our state land (designated wild areas) is being managed without even an afterthought for their benefit to deer as a species... in a manner that dictates that it will NEVER be able to sustain even moderate numbers of deer longterm? If that is the case then the PGC and the DCNR should stop the false advertising immediately. While we have millions of acres open to hunting, only about half are being managed with any interest in deer habitat. So in synopsis: -Only half of our land will EVER support moderate deer populations long term because it is designated wild area and off limits to ANY timber harvest. EVER. And old growth forests cannot sustain very high deer numbers long term. - The other half is not permitted to maintain higher deer populations due to their impact on regeneration, specifically commercially valuable timber. Oh, and the hobblebush! -The future of PA deer hunting (public land) lies halfly in old growth forests with few deer already due to the nature of the forest composition, and the other half in younger forests cut somewhat regularly for timber...and otherwise would be good habitat.....but also sporting low numbers of deer just because the timber and biodiversity is of greater importance than having good deer populations. - And the hunters LOSE anyway you slice it! Thanks for that lesson in deer and forest mangement, Proffesor Doug. I know I learned alot. -
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 11:53:14 GMT -4
Audubon also having lots of say in our game lands usage doesnt help matters either. Thanks to their "special bird areas" and how they encircle our gamelands (LOL), there will also be alot of other GAMELAND habitat that will never benefit deer directly. If the long billed purple sapsucking cuckoo bird (or some coveted salamander)loves mature forest and there arent 20 per forested acre, then you can chalk up that particular section of gameless lands as permanent mature forest....And doesnt really matter to them that we have thousands of miles of similar habitat just a hop skip and jump away on all the stateforests.
|
|
|
Post by kev on Jul 30, 2009 12:22:10 GMT -4
Deer love witch hazel. If that stuff is growing, I bet the deer numbers in that area are pretty low?
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jul 30, 2009 12:57:05 GMT -4
2006 Pa Game Commission Annual report. PREHUNT density for 2G 2005= 12dpsm. That would leave us with lower than 10 owdd. (the one actually managed for and the one we discuss). You can also find on the shaded deer distribution map for POST season shows 2G, 5A and 5D listed as 10 or less designation. yeah...but remember how quickly the PGC abandoned those goals when even the PGC flag wavers screamed foul! Also much easier to dance around and manipulate less tangible golas such as "acceptable level of regeneration." esp when their "acceptable"criteria changes every year....conveniently as soon as a WMU reaches their goal!
|
|