|
Post by dougell on Nov 8, 2011 17:10:47 GMT -4
There absolutely are other factors but deer are the primary factor and it's been proven.Regardless,poor habitat will sustain fewer deer.That's a fact.It's also a fact that once the habitat gets degraded,it takes less deer to continually impact it.
Once again,the vast majority of exclosures are not for demonstation purposes.They're simply the only way to get acceptable advanced regeneration.Deer do get in them from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Nov 8, 2011 22:37:02 GMT -4
"There absolutely are other factors but deer are the primary factor and it's been proven." Not unless there is some proof of this that exists which I am not aware of and that you havent shown us yet. Of course thats not the case. Your opinion based assertion is not fact. Nor is mine that the inverse is true. Pgc in their absolute wisdom have absolutely NO MEANS of proving that theory. "Once again,the vast majority of exclosures are not for demonstation purposes." And once again, Im aware of this, but they ARE used in analysis, in fact you are doing it right now. You point to it constantly, then when I refute the findings, each and every time you point to the fact analysis of deer impact isnt the purpose.. Then how about pgc and dcnr stick to the intended purpose and quit trying to look at the situation and put 2 and 2 together to make 5? Btw, how many times per year are those exclosures pointed to during habitat tours as "proof" the deer are evil? Thankfully those sham events get about as much interest from the public as a good case of the hemmorhoids. lol. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Nov 10, 2011 11:47:04 GMT -4
Of course they're used in analysis because they show that if you remove the deer,you get regeneration.Nobody from the PGC ever said the deer were evil.
You have never been able to refute anything concerning how too many deer overbrowse the forest and inhibit prefered regeneration.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Nov 10, 2011 13:06:27 GMT -4
"Nobody from the PGC ever said the deer were evil. " Oh thats right I forgot, pgc just loves deer. lol. In actions they most certainly have said deer are evil. Over and over and... Roe Dubrock and Rosenberry. Those responsible. And those most in need of banishment from the agency so things can more forward as they should and put this bizarre episode in pgc history behind us once and for all, as should be the case. 'You have never been able to refute anything concerning how too many deer overbrowse the forest and inhibit prefered regeneration. " As I see it, you simply refuse to accept the facts for what they are. I have also never said too many deer cant or wont overbrowse a forest. To what degree that is occurring IS highly debatable, and you, nor your coveted pgc has ever proven any of the extreme measures they have taken are necessary to the extent they have been done, and thats a fact. They have absolutely nothing to back their positions other than hoping more studies for another decade will somehow give them some shred of credibility. The lies and treachery of the agenda pushing by the enviroflakes is all well documented. The environmentalist extremists are nothing if not determined to hold our deer herd and subsequently our sport in the death grip they now have on it. All for some otherworldly bizarre idea of paradise where every tree in the forest is an oak, and trillium abounds as far as the eye can see. Unnatural Forests that look like no other in the eastern united state, that may vaguely resempble jungles of Vietnam, With a wren in every bush, and Roe smiling like a oppossum.... No thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Nov 10, 2011 18:03:13 GMT -4
Sure they've proven it.They clearcut an area in 1990 that turned into a meadow.Nine years later they erected over a dozen small exclosures in that cleacut.Today the exclosures are too thick to walk through but the outside areas are still just grass and ferns.There's several areas like that that prove 100% how deer can impact the habitat.They also put up an exclosre under a mature canopy in that area.The growth inside that fence is a stark contrast to what's growing outside.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Nov 10, 2011 21:15:52 GMT -4
Doug no one has said deer CANT effect habitat in localized areas or even larger areas in legitimately "too high" densities. Im not familiar with the area or conditions that existed with that cut so for conversation sake will go along with assessment of deer being a major factor there. But your 1990 clearcut example is far from indicative of any unit in its totality, and certainly not statewide.
Forests are regenerating for the most part in most areas. The fact most cuts didnt revert to meadow during the periods of our highest deer densities attests to the fact you are speaking of extremes. There is generally always timber age classes present that would have been in seedling stage during some of our highest deer density years, and Im not just talking about nonprefered browse. ... proving deer didnt eat everything down to the dirt during that time despite the dcnr horror stories.
The debate is usually, I believe, geared more towards what species should be there and how prevalent, understory, etc... That is where the problems begin imo. Thats also where I believe pgc and their enviro-pals go overboard. They expect that which shouldnt be expected. And Im not talking about a few of the very local areas in the state where there might actually be legitimate problems. Im talking widescale.
When they start pointing to units like 2A and declaring poor habitat even now that we have half the deer and the best habitat type with highest cc in the state.... And the improvements in regeneration are actually visible.. Im calling bigtime b.s. The goals are extreme as proven by what is occurring here. And from all that Ive followed on this subject, we are far from alone here in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Nov 11, 2011 10:48:13 GMT -4
What the northcentral part of the state and the northeatern part of the state,which I'm very familiar with is a large wide scale problem.Many areas did regenerate but they regenerate with species that provide no longterm benefit to wildlife or for commercial value.That's the problem,Deer are picky eaters and they wipe out the prefered regeneration first,allowing the non-prefered species to take over.That has been proven time after time.
I can't speak about 2A but I can speak about 3b and 3C which may be similar.That area has alot of agriculture and it's not contiguous forests like the northcentral.I haven't hunted up there in about 4 years but the last several times I hunted up there,the changes to the habitat were obvious.Areas that used to too thick to walk through were open enough to shoot through.Some of that is because the forest is just maturing but if you look at what's growing,it's not what's in the over story.As a result,the days of seeing 30-50 deer a day are reduced to just seeing a few.This is private property with very limited access and limited harvests so the deer haven't been all shot.I have a buddy that owns hundreds of acres in Susquehanna county.When we were kids,they'd see hundreds of deer a season.It was nothing to go spotting and see over a hundred in just a couple fields.I got a 3c doe tag and went up there about 5 years ago.We went spotting and I couldn't believe how few deer were up there conpared to 25 years ago.The fields that were once farmed were mainly overgrown with maybe a small food plot here and there.They let nobody hunt their property and kill very few if any doe,which is the case with most of their neighbors.I scouted his woods that sunday and couldn't believe how bad the habitat had become.There were really no areas thick enough to be considered bedding areas and some of his property had been logged.The stump sprouts were completed browsed off and nothing but beech was growing back.The hedgerowes along the fields weren't even thick any more.That was deer that did that and it was easy to prove because the browsing pressure was evident on anything that was trying to grow.Funny thing is,he thought he had great habitat because he planted a few food plots and had some standing corn.When you live in an area every day,it's hard to see the changes.When you leave and comeback years later,the difference can be shocking.My brother lives about 20 miles south of that area,right on the Wyoming/Susquehanna county line.His property is at the end of a 500 acre chunk of woods that runs right into about 1/4 mile long stretch of cornfields.Every piece of property is posted around him and some of it isn't hunted at all.I'm willing to be that 3 deer/yr aren't killed on that 500 acres behind his house.10-15 YEARS AGO it was polluted with deer and a big torndao wiped out alot of that area,making it a huge clearcut until people went in and salvaged most of the blowdowns.About 4 years ago,he started complaining about a lack of deer and saying how great the habitat was.I hated to break it to him,but the habitat on his property was terrible.There was nothing prefered growing back and it was easy to see the deer were wiping it put.He had a real thick area after that tornado that was about 5 acres.He never went in it,leaving it as a sanctuary.Now it's practically open and the deer aren't spending any time there.He did shoot a slammer of a buck last friday morning but he only catches them right at daylight or just before dark.It's the first deer he's shot in there in about 3 or 4 years.Ten years ago,he'd see deer all day long because there was a reason for the deer to be there.He tried blaming the lack of deer on doe tags but hardly any deer even get killed around his house.It's all about habitat.I've never been to 2A but I hunt all over 2G and I've yet to find a place with either decent habitat or food and cover at that time that had a shortage of deer.I can show you several areas with very few deer but that's exactly what they should have.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Nov 11, 2011 12:51:44 GMT -4
".Areas that used to too thick to walk through were open enough to shoot through.Some of that is because the forest is just maturing but if you look at what's growing,it's not what's in the over story.As a result,the days of seeing 30-50 deer a day are reduced to just seeing a few." Nice theory, but doesnt fit in 2a. Many areas are regenerating just fine. Perhaps not extreme amounts which I believe are the unnatural ridiculous end goal. But the fact is, with so many different landowners and fragmented ownership, as one parcel matures, another is cut. Not bound to any ridiculous large scale minimal timbering scheme such as that which afflicts the "big woods" areas of stateforests etc. Therefore somewhere nearby timbering is occurring and/or other disturbances which change the landscape. Also regardless of age of forests there will ALWAYS be the immense amount of edge habitat existing compared to large blocks of unbroken forest. While there are definately far worse off areas of the state deerwise, considering the cc's etc. the continued reductions here are just as senseless and imho ridiculous as the situations there. "There were really no areas thick enough to be considered bedding areas and some of his property had been logged."
My legs which look like I have some type of red marked skin disease attest to the type of "bedding cover" we have here. "When you live in an area every day,it's hard to see the changes." Not when you are observant and on properties you are intimately familiar with. Ive seen changes and have said so. not that I deem they were necessary, but i have seen a bit of an uptick in certain species regeneration. Unfortunatley according to the ridiculous fraud assessments, our unit is rated the worst it has ever been even after a decade of reductions and clearly seeing "improvement". OF course most rational folks would probably point to the fact we only have 21 assessment plots that are supposed to represent nearly 2000 square miles. lmao. If pgc doesnt see a problem with that, then I really dont know what more needs to be said? Second, their analysis procedure is 100% experimention. And 100% unproven. Heck even those extreme clowns at audubon on their now infamous "deer study" rated this area as some of the best regeneration & understory shrub gowth in the state just before the reductions!!! There are fewer deer across the board than there could be and should be here. Anyone is welcome to have a differing opinion, but for me, its not really anything I havent already given plenty of due consideration to make up my position as I have. Far more disturbing to me is the "direction" we are clearly headed and it is one I strongly oppose. I have seen more guys than ever from the unit saying they too have some concern over the direction of too many tags and continued reduction, including some pgc supporters which havent been known to do so in the past. Only to be understood considering our new record low buck harvest this past year, and the fact Rosenberry finally admitted the reductions had continued since 2004 when the goal was supposed to have become STABILIZATION. Considering all this, all of evelands findings, blatant proven lies told year after year and more..., and the fact not one other state has "followed the leader" and went to a habitat based vegetation management plan even though the environmentalists at pgc have had over a decade to 'prove' to the deer management experts from states all across the country its worth and that this is the way to go. Yet they for the mostpart want no parts of it. The only question that should be asked at this point is; How much more fraud do we need to be subjected to before someone does something about this craziness?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Nov 11, 2011 15:01:04 GMT -4
I do agree that the number of assessments plots is ridiculous.In 2G it averages out to one plot per every 10 mile.That's beyond a joke and there's no way any rational measurment can be made from that.Regardless,there were still way too many deer for the habitat.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Nov 11, 2011 16:16:12 GMT -4
This unit has around one per over EIGHTY SIX square miles! lol.
And regardless any further reductions are completely unwarranted. There is absolutely no data that logically supports the current direction. Nothing more than values based decision making via some very extreme minded individuals.
"I do agree that the number of assessments plots is ridiculous.In 2G it averages out to one plot per every 10 mile.That's beyond a joke and there's no way any rational measurment can be made from that.Regardless,there were still way too many deer for the habitat."
Since there is no legit way to assess the unit with so few plots, and the assessment procedure is 100% unproven experiment which they change to suit their needs..., I dont know how you could come to that determination. Especially when the assessment procedure itself is a joke and nothing but a mad scientist experiment, and things can change habitatwise from one ridge to the next, let alone 10 miles away from the plot area! lol.
|
|