|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 14:35:25 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.Wisconsin does not have a dd goal anywhere near 30-35 dpsm.They have a dd goal of 30-35 deer per square mile of deer range.That means they don't count streets,urban areas houses,lakes or fields.In fact,the consider deer range only 100 yards into a field.It was very similar to our old way of using dpsfm.They also report substantial regeneration problems at 20 to 25 deer per square mile of deer range. here's what Ohio Biologist Mike Tonkavich had to say in 2005. there's reason to be cautious.Biologists have detected some decline in beam diameter on yearling bucks.The difference could be linked to nutrition as Ohio had far fewer deer during the 1970's than now.We're also seeing a decline in the number of fawns that are breeding.That number dropped from 50% to 35% What percentage of fawns do we have breeding?It's pretty scary when you look at those numbers and Ohio is getting concerned at 35%.2a had 8%,2g had 3%,2A had 8%,4C HAD 10% 3A,3C HAD 0%Just think,they didn't have the deer numbers we have for nearly the length of time we did. SORRY BUT MANY STATES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEER AND THE HABITAT.tHEY JUST AREN'T LETTING THE PROBLEM GET AS BAD AS WE DID.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 14:44:49 GMT -4
Deer love witch hazel. If that stuff is growing, I bet the deer numbers in that area are pretty low? That's debatable Kev.Some experts say it's preferred and some say it isn't.From my observations,they only eat it when have little choice.About the only thing that makes it past the deer in Treasure lake is striped maple,beech and witch hazel.They seem to browse the striped maple much heavier than the witch hazel.It could just be a rgional thing.Some areas they hammer striped maple and other areas they don't seem to touch it.
|
|
|
Post by kev on Jul 30, 2009 15:03:41 GMT -4
Deer love witch hazel. If that stuff is growing, I bet the deer numbers in that area are pretty low? That's debatable Kev.Some experts say it's preferred and some say it isn't.From my observations,they only eat it when have little choice.About the only thing that makes it past the deer in Treasure lake is striped maple,beech and witch hazel.They seem to browse the striped maple much heavier than the witch hazel.It could just be a rgional thing.Some areas they hammer striped maple and other areas they don't seem to touch it. That's odd. I know in the areas that I hunt, witch hazel seems to get hammered pretty hard even through the low density years. There's one bush that has provided me with 2 bucks and 2 does over the years prior to HR.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 15:37:55 GMT -4
I KNOW EVERYONE USED TO CLAIM STRIPED MAPLE WAS UNPREFERRED.Around here they hammer it but in other areas,I hardly see them touching it.I think alot Alot of it has to do what's available.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 16:59:24 GMT -4
Doug, slow down because now your speaking nonsense and not paying attention to the facts...."Wisconsin does not have a dd goal anywhere near 30-35 dpsm." Thats right....they are MUCH higher. You meant to say MICHIGAN, since thats the state I said was 30-35. And you are mistaken anyway."They have a dd goal of 30-35 deer per square mile of deer range.That means they don't count streets,urban areas houses,lakes or fields.In fact,the consider deer range only 100 yards into a field.It was very similar to our old way of using dpsfm." The densities are spoken of as DEER PER SQUARE MILE and they go even higher than those I listed. They have goals for different areas of the state here is one of 30 to 37.: www.michigandnr.com/Publications/PDFS/wildlife/Draft_Deer_Goals06_PDFs/DMU006.pdf"They also report substantial regeneration problems at 20 to 25 deer per square mile of deer range." According to you, yet the goals have not dropped because of it. Real big problem i guess. lol."here's what Ohio Biologist Mike Tonkavich had to say in 2005. there's reason to be cautious.Biologists have detected some decline in beam diameter on yearling bucks.The difference could be linked to nutrition as Ohio had far fewer deer during the 1970's than now.We're also seeing a decline in the number of fawns that are breeding.That number dropped from 50% to 35%" Ive read that a hundred times. Yet Tonkovich did not see the need to cut the herd in half or other extreme rediculous measures as a remedy. lol. Nor did I see mention of slaughtering deer for the purpose of promoting extreme biodiversity as is the case here. You also didnt get the part about being in SOUTHEASTERN OHIO, which at the time had probably double the deer density as we have now, and likely several times as many as our lowest wmus."What percentage of fawns do we have breeding?It's pretty scary when you look at those numbers and Ohio is getting concerned at 35%.2a had 8%,2g had 3%,2A had 8%,4C HAD 10% 3A,3C HAD 0%Just think,they didn't have the deer numbers we have for nearly the length of time we did." Dont see as it matters a whole lot when we dont use that as the health measurement. Apparently pgc, even as antideer as they are, couldnt massage the herd health indicators to rate "poor". Dont know why you would want it to be so, when they themselves say it isnt. I also see no beam diameter measurements taken here in Pa. "SORRY BUT MANY STATES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEER AND THE HABITAT." Of course they are. And its never been my position that they werent. For them not to be concerned would be completely irresponsible. Just as irresponsible as ignoring the well being of the sport/tool of hunting and going to complete extremes, acting like nuts, slaughtering half the herd in the name of extreme biodiversity and in the process driving themselved into a hole financially, causing double the national rate of hunter decline, getting themselves sued, ignoring hunters and basically just pizzing everyone off for no good reason. Pa is the only state that seems to believe those means are justifiable and the extreme goal rightgeous.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 17:14:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 30, 2009 17:17:53 GMT -4
Doug, slow down because now your speaking nonsense and not paying attention to the facts...."Wisconsin does not have a dd goal anywhere near 30-35 dpsm." Thats right....they are MUCH higher. You meant to say MICHIGAN, since thats the state I said was 30-35. And you are mistaken anyway."They have a dd goal of 30-35 deer per square mile of deer range.That means they don't count streets,urban areas houses,lakes or fields.In fact,the consider deer range only 100 yards into a field.It was very similar to our old way of using dpsfm." The densities are spoken of as DEER PER SQUARE MILE and they go even higher than those I listed. They have goals for different areas of the state here is one of 30 to 37.: www.michigandnr.com/Publications/PDFS/wildlife/Draft_Deer_Goals06_PDFs/DMU006.pdf"They also report substantial regeneration problems at 20 to 25 deer per square mile of deer range." According to you, yet the goals have not dropped because of it. Real big problem i guess. lol."here's what Ohio Biologist Mike Tonkavich had to say in 2005. there's reason to be cautious.Biologists have detected some decline in beam diameter on yearling bucks.The difference could be linked to nutrition as Ohio had far fewer deer during the 1970's than now.We're also seeing a decline in the number of fawns that are breeding.That number dropped from 50% to 35%" Ive read that a hundred times. Yet Tonkovich did not see the need to cut the herd in half or other extreme rediculous measures as a remedy. lol. Nor did I see mention of slaughtering deer for the purpose of promoting extreme biodiversity as is the case here. You also didnt get the part about being in SOUTHEASTERN OHIO, which at the time had probably double the deer density as we have now, and likely several times as many as our lowest wmus."What percentage of fawns do we have breeding?It's pretty scary when you look at those numbers and Ohio is getting concerned at 35%.2a had 8%,2g had 3%,2A had 8%,4C HAD 10% 3A,3C HAD 0%Just think,they didn't have the deer numbers we have for nearly the length of time we did." Dont see as it matters a whole lot when we dont use that as the health measurement. Apparently pgc, even as antideer as they are, couldnt massage the herd health indicators to rate "poor". Dont know why you would want it to be so, when they themselves say it isnt. I also see no beam diameter measurements taken here in Pa. "SORRY BUT MANY STATES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEER AND THE HABITAT." Of course they are. And its never been my position that they werent. For them not to be concerned would be completely irresponsible. Just as irresponsible as ignoring the well being of the sport/tool of hunting and going to complete extremes, acting like nuts, slaughtering half the herd in the name of extreme biodiversity and in the process driving themselved into a hole financially, causing double the national rate of hunter decline, getting themselves sued, ignoring hunters and basically just pizzing everyone off for no good reason. Pa is the only state that seems to believe those means are justifiable and the extreme goal rightgeous. It all came from wisconsin's dnr deer management plan.they do not manage deer by deer per square mile.they use only suitable habitat which is similar to the way we used to do it with dpsfm.Go read the plan.None of it is according to me.It all came from their deer management plan.It's about 27 pages and it specifivally mentions that they have substantial regeneration problems at dd's over 20-25 deer per square mile of suitable habitat.Read it and weep. It's funny how you tout ohio's deer management plan so highly but refuse to accept the important of their using fawn breeding rates as important.Apparently they think it's important.I guess when you see the pathetic,rock bottom breeding rates in Pa,especially your area,it's easy to try and ignore.LOL
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 17:19:42 GMT -4
Apparently you missed my last post while you were posting. As you can see, there is data available for BOTH deer per square mile AND square mile of habitat. NEITHER suits your arguement as BOTH are far higher than our own. Please see my links above, then get back to me on it.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 30, 2009 17:23:08 GMT -4
"It's funny how you tout ohio's deer management plan so highly but refuse to accept the important of their using fawn breeding rates as important."
I dont refuse to accept anything. Its YOU who refuses to accept the fact pgc has deemed our heard health as not poor, despite the fawn data. We also dont take antler diameter comparisons from year to year. Perhaps we should. I tout Ohio because as far as I can tell they arent concerned with catering to ecoflakes first and foremost, they have great quality and decent quantity for the most part, and hunter satisfaction there shows those guys know what the hell they are doing.
"Apparently they think it's important.I guess when you see the pathetic,rock bottom breeding rates in Pa,especially your area,it's easy to try and ignore.LOL "
Yes, VERY easy to ignore. Especially when pgc themselves dont take it much into account and even moreso when its derived from a small handful of samples. lmao. So tiny in fact, even the TOTAL of fawns + adult does...that they are getting sued because of it. Yet you want to break down that small data source into even a MUCH smaller one by singling out the fawns only. lmao Not hard to tell when you're losing a debate.... The desparation shows, and the manure gets deeper by the moment. lol
|
|
|
Post by tbass on Jul 31, 2009 17:06:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jul 31, 2009 19:53:43 GMT -4
i can show you the same thing but no fences so how can one area be so lush and not 100 yards away be so bare. all this shows is that the deer aren't the only problem like you would have so many believe. how can so many people say its white and you say it's black?
|
|
|
Post by lonnielou688 on Mar 24, 2012 14:28:48 GMT -4
THEY HAVE TO HIRE THESE PEOPLE, PART OF THE STIPULATIONS SET FORTH BY THE AUDITING FIRM IN CALIFORNIA THAT RATES OUR FORRESTS AS GRADE-A SO THE TIMBER CAN BE EXPORTED. AND AS FAR AS INVASIVE SPECIES GROWING, THATS DUE TO CUTTING THE OVERSTORY AND LETTING IN ALL THE SUNLIGHT. CUT,BURN, KILL ALL YOUR GRASS IN YOUR YARD AND SEE WHAT GROWS BACK??? WEEDS AND INVASIVE SPECIES. ITS ALL IN THE GROUND, JUST TAKES DIFFERENT CONDITIONS TO GROW, THATS ALL. THINKING THAT EVERYONE LEARNED THIS IN LIKE 7TH GRADE SCIENCE CLASS!!!! TAKE A SMALL AREA OF YOUR YARD AND TRY IT, YOU'LL BE A BELIEVER WHEN YOU DO!!! THEY KNEW IT WOULD AND THATS WHT IT"S IN THE AUDITORS REPORT TO HIRE THESE COMPANIES IN THE FIRST PLACE(MAJOR KICKBBACKS HERE ALSO)
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Mar 26, 2012 9:09:35 GMT -4
Kickbacks from who?Why is there prefered regeneration when they control one variable and fence the deer out?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Mar 26, 2012 9:11:54 GMT -4
The forest certification is no secret.I have the original copy somewhere in my desk.In any event,it only applied to a few timber company properties and the state forests which comprise a very small percentage of Pa.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Mar 26, 2012 19:00:49 GMT -4
Kickbacks from who?Why is there prefered regeneration when they control one variable and fence the deer out?
Because deer simply magnify the cumulative effect of all those other things. Think Ive answered that for you once, twice....or three hundred times. lol. A deerless exclosure is a 100% UNNATURAL condition. Unless the goal is to have zero deer statewide and nothing but enviromental self severing by pointing to (as Latham started), I think we can flush the exclosure experimentation down the toilet once and for all.
|
|