|
Post by tbass on Jul 29, 2009 10:20:33 GMT -4
I don't think I know more than they do. I also know it is a many faceted process. You can not deny my logic though. Plants of all types require 3 things, sunlight, water, minerals(nutrients). Some require more or less of one, two or all of these items. Plants of all types grow faster and healthier when they have a good supply of these items. The more plants you have, the more nutrients are needed to allow them to grow at a good rate to the best of their potential.
You point out about this and that requirement, quota, regulation. I'm not saying they don't have them, I'm saying the regulations should consider the carrying capacity of the soil, just as they seem to try with deer. If the forest can only feed so many deer with plants, isn't it obvious the soil can only feed so many trees? Take orchards for example, they know to get the best output you cant have the trees too close together. Think maybe oak and other mast trees could produce more fruit thus increasing over all regen by spacing them out to get more light, and other needed nutrients?
Do they(forestry) gain by this observation I have made; when trees are lumped tight together they grow up and not out trying to get sunlight thus having fewer branches to trim when logging. That in turn will cut the harvesting cost in labor because the cutters aren't spending so much time cutting off limbs. Maybe not true, but it is logical as well. Even if that tree grows 100 feet in 5 years, its still too thin to cut.
When I get some other stuff off my plate, I'll more than likely take you up on that offer. Things are a bit rough with all the projects I have going. I haven't even got the car fixed or much shooting with my bow yet. Archery is so close I can count the weeks on my fingers now. I put off trying to reach the elk guy and they already collared them in my area. Procrastinating sucks lol
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jul 29, 2009 11:22:52 GMT -4
This is on state forest ground though Doug. They can pay these guys to spray stuff and run over maples but they can't thin out an old clear cut to expedite the growth and percentage of desired trees. You can't get the weeds take over your garden and logging is nothing more than gardening. You don't plant more than the soil can handle and you don't over crowd the garden. If the garden gets crowded, you thin it out and your crops grow faster. They do however have a professional logging outfit thinning out sections of the forest a few miles away. Will those 50% never achieve desired regeneration if we are never allowed to cut there? How beneficial is a closed canopy old growth forest to wildlife....to deer in particular?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 29, 2009 12:06:07 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.
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jul 29, 2009 14:30:30 GMT -4
What about GAME Lands???
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 29, 2009 14:38:19 GMT -4
What about game lands?This post was about a company spraying herbicides and mechanically trampling invasive species with a log skidder on state forest lands.This gets done on the game lands where needed but not on as large of a scale because of budget constraints.Hey,just keep writing you legislators from keeping the PGC from getting a lisence increase so even less gets done on the game lands that you constantly b*tch and moan about.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 29, 2009 15:55:53 GMT -4
"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."
Contrary to what YOU believe the majority of Pennsylvanians couldnt care less about the deer. One way or another. But the largest number of people who DO care, would like to see more deer. Also forgot to mention that VERY FEW care about the asnine extreme biodiversity agenda.
So dont play that ridiculous hunters against the world card that audubon and pgc likes to throw out there every now and again, because its not accurate at all.
"keep writing you legislators from keeping the PGC from getting a lisence increase "
Now THAT is sound advice.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 29, 2009 16:05:53 GMT -4
"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." Contrary to what YOU believe the majority of Pennsylvanians couldnt care less about the deer. One way or another. But the largest number of people who DO care, would like to see more deer. Also forgot to mention that VERY FEW care about the asnine extreme biodiversity agenda.So dont play that ridiculous hunters against the world card that audubon and pgc likes to throw out there every now and again, because its not accurate at all. "keep writing you legislators from keeping the PGC from getting a lisence increase " Now THAT is sound advice.If the vast majority of people knew how much impact the deer had on the enviroment,they would certainly demand less deer.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 29, 2009 17:22:28 GMT -4
Thats your opinion and nothing more, and it isnt based on anything that I can see anyway.
I happen to strongly disagree. The impact of the deer is greatly exaggerated by audubon other econuts and currently pgc.
Thats something they SHOULDNT be the least bit concerned with. And if they should be, they still wouldnt be. People these days especially those around the highest population centers are very far removed from the outdoors or caring about it enough to hold an opinion on the deer herd of all things.
They are a "stakeholder" without a "stake" in all this. Though pgc gives them one and pretends to know what they want and what is best for them. Funny how pgc pits them against US...on paper anyway since its convenient i guess... and much of society doesnt even know anything at all is going on and have taken no side! LOL.
Then you have pgc and all they really care about are their friends in the econut coservation orgs. which they grow tighter with by the year.
Thats also a pretty vague statement Doug. Demand less deer? Less than when?? Previously when we were at an all time high?...Understandable to a point... Less deer than currently with a modern day low? Less enough to provide EXTREME biodiversity such as is the goal??
doubtful. I dont think there will ever be strong widespread support for the current nonsense. Though Im certain pgc will be more than happy to blow as much of our money as possible tryin to "enlighten" the public and give them a pgc manufactured opinion on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 29, 2009 17:42:47 GMT -4
Thats your opinion and nothing more, and it isnt based on anything that I can see anyway. I happen to strongly disagree. The impact of the deer is greatly exaggerated by audubon other econuts and currently pgc. Thats something they SHOULDNT be the least bit concerned with. And if it were, they still wouldnt be. People these days especially those around the highest population centers are very far removed from the outdoors or caring about it enough to hold an opinion on the deer herd of all things. They are a "stakeholder" without a "stake" in all this. Though pgc gives them one and pretends to know what they want and what is best for them. Funny how pgc pits them against US...on paper anyway since its convenient i guess... and much of society doesnt even know anything at all is going on and have taken no side! LOL. Then you have pgc and all they really care about are their friends in the econut coservation orgs. which they grow tighter with by the year. Thats also a pretty vague statement Doug. Demand less deer? Less than when?? Previously when we were at an all time high?...Understandable to a point... Less deer than currently with a modern day low? Less enough to provide EXTREME biodiversity such as is the goal?? doubtful. I dont think there will ever be strong widespread support for the current nonsense. Though Im certain pgc will be more than happy to blow as much of our money as possible tryin to "enlighten" the public and give them a pgc manufactured opinion on the subject. The impact of deer is not greatly exaggerated.It's a scientific fact thats universally agreed upon by pretty much every expert in the field.The reams and reams of evidence are proof positive.Just because you don't like the facts,doesn't make them not true. 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 want more deer but I fully understand why we got to where we are and I'm willing to see less deer in order to fix the problem.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 29, 2009 17:47:21 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.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 29, 2009 17:49:30 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.
|
|
|
Post by tbass on Jul 29, 2009 18:41:29 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.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 29, 2009 19:29:13 GMT -4
I know what ya mean Tbass, there are a helluva lot of areas NOT like that, and many never were. I also have no doubt that Doug would know exactly where to take you to best illustrate his points, having walked hundreds and hundreds of those enclosures and all. Dont imagine he'd take you to one where you might trip over oak saplings on your way in and skin your knee or something. lol. ;D Doug keeps a very basic blanket view of our deer management...He thinks if its proven deer eat twigs and saplings and in some cases CAN damage the habitat...then to him its proven they single handedly are responsible for statewide forest decimation which justifies our extreme deer plan that pgc has implemented. I dont see things that way at all. As for hr SOME was needed in SOME areas. Some areas needed what they got. Others needed less than they got. Others needed none at all. but ALL got blasted. Nothing doug has shown or can show anyone refutes that, data-wise or in a very tiny localized area with an enclosure...nor can he have seen anything proving otherwise himself, because that "proof" doesnt exist.. I choose to not believe that which is countered by evidence here currently here in our past and just about everywhere else around the country where deer densities are higher and being managed at those levels by "science" implemented by biologists. Doug on the other hand chooses to believe because pgc says so and he think they have our best interests in mind and chooses to turn a blind eye to all the unsavory elements who he himself had called crazies...and they are so cozy with pgc these days and who have gone as far as being on the deer management team at pgc!....But no, those people that even he had called nutcases wouldnt lead us astray!
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jul 29, 2009 20:00:28 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.
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jul 30, 2009 6:01:04 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.
|
|