|
Post by dougell on Jul 15, 2008 9:55:08 GMT -4
Sorry BT but pole timber is not the reason hobblebush disappeared.It grows well in the shade.The deer ate it and you know that.
No one,including me has never said that the condition of the soil isn't a factor.However,when you eliminate the deer by fencing them out and get excellent regeneration,you can't blame that on the soil or lack of lime.It's the deer in these cases bt.The evidence is overwhelming and undisputed. Would it be a bad idea to lime and fertilize.No,but that isn't going to raise the carrying capacity and magically remove the need to balance the herd with the habitat.Forsets don't live forever,They've been replacing themselves for millions of years now.Who fertilized them 10000 years ago.Since timber isn't harvested annually like most agriculture crops,the need to replenish fertilizer isn't the same.
The deer densities were not as high in the 1980's in this part of the state as they were throuout the 90's.Now that the deer herd is lower,there is positive signs of habitat improvement.Many areas have been overbrowsed for so long that it will take much longer to repair and lime isn't the saving grace.
We have more forested acres today because of the farmland and strip jobs that are reverting back to forests.That doesn't mean what they're reverting back to is preferred habitat however.it still amazes me that with all the evidence available,you still continue to deny how the deer have impacted the habitat.Just for once,explain to me how a clearcut can fail for several years until it's finaly fenced.Is that do to the lack of lime?
|
|
|
Post by relic on Jul 15, 2008 11:59:39 GMT -4
[ Once again a blind PGC supporter tries to lead folks on with "facts" that aren't true. During the 80s, herd after herd of deer could be seen on Penfield mountain during the winter months. I seen them with my own eyes. So let's just stop wqith the BS and fallicies and stick to the facts.....one of which is that you were a lad growing up in the Endless Mountains during the 80s and have no idea as to what was going on in the Penfield area during the 80s.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 15, 2008 12:42:19 GMT -4
It may grow well in shade, but how good does it grow during a forest fire? How fast does it grow under a closed canopy and if it is the only thing growing why wouldn't you expect the deer to eat it when 50-60% of the forests were in pole timber?
There is no doubt that too many deer can result in over browsing and failed clear cuts but you still can't answer why reducing the herd in 2G to 12 PS PSM didn't result in improved regeneration and you can't explain why they get better regeneration in 2E with a much higher DD.
There was no need to lime or fertilize 10,000 years ago because we didn't have acid rain and the trees weren't being removed. They died, rotted and return the nutrients to the soil. If you couldn't figure that out on your own ,you have a real problem.
I find it simply amazing that you would claim that at the same time deer have been over browsing and preventing regeneration for over 80 years, he same deer allowed thousands more acres of farmland and reclaimed areas revert from bare ground to forest land. Your position is illogical and makes no sense.
Fencing can without a doubt show that deer are preventing regeneration. But it doesn't tell you how many deer will cause a clearcut to fail and it tells you nothing about the condition of the surrounding forest or the forestry practices that were used when the clearcut failed. Reducing the herd to 12 DPSM didn't solve the regeneration in 2G and reducing the herd to 22 PS DPSM didn't solve the problem in 2F, so do you support reducing the herd to 5 PS DPSM in both WMUs in order to get good regeneration?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 15, 2008 13:42:29 GMT -4
relic,I moved just a few miles south of Penfield 1n 1991.that gives me a pretty good idea of what was here a few years earlier.You're correct about one thing though.There was far too many deer in the Penfield area for way too long and the habitat certainly reflects that.Fortunatly,it is starting to come back.I take it you've never seen the exclosures off of mountain run road that were erected during the 80's.Pretty spectacular proof of what happens when you fence the deer out and don't use lime.Since Penfield is in Clearfield county I'd thought you'd like to see some numbers that will prove you wrong.In 1980 the reported buck harvest for Clearfield county was 2228 bucks.That would make the calculated harvest right around 4456.Now if we look at 1990,the calculated harvest was a whopping 6125 and fast forwarding to 1995,it increased to 6938.Sorry,but once again,I'm right and you're wrong.
Spin it any away you want BT but the deer ate all the hobblebush out of existance.
I have no problem and didn't mention the need to lime 10000 years ago.We still have trees dying as well as tops and logs left to rot aftera timber sale.
You don't really need to know how many deer it will take to impact the habitat in a given areas because there's no way to tell.Every area is different and every situation is different.What you need to do is monitor the habitat and keep shooting the deer until that impact starts to level out and decrease.reducing the herd to less than 12 dpsm in Moshannon state forest has definately made a differance and it's easily proven.Now that the ow herd is around 10 dpsm,they're finallystarting to see some regneration under the closed canopy and they're starting to not have to fence.
The district forster from DCNR just called me and wanted to take me out this week to look at all of these limed areas in the article.We had to re-schedule until the last week of July do to commitments I have this week.If anyone wants to come along and prove him wrong,you're more than welcome.How bout it relic?This is right around Penfield.
|
|
|
Post by relic on Jul 15, 2008 13:58:02 GMT -4
Not me. I've been on 2 habitat tours since 2002 and have heard the bias for myself. I've snipped about as much browse as I ever need to again. No need to see more. I'm sure Dr Sharpe covered the bases very well. Thanks for the offer though. There's those calculated harvest figures again. You have no idea what the reporting rate was for any of those years, so those numbers are invalid. To use the PGC's current inflated 60% non-reporting figure is disengenious to say the least. Perhaps you could call your source in H'burg and find out the reporting rates for those years, then come back with valid figures. Better yet, stick with the reported kill and take it from there. As for me, I'll go with the 1980 numbers and the reported kill, because I refuse to buy into the PGC's mythical magical mystery tour.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 15, 2008 15:04:54 GMT -4
Explain the bias.
The reporting rate for back then was about 50%.Any way you slice it,you're wrong.
What's you asseessment on the habitat around penfield and Boone mountain now? Any deer left up there?
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 15, 2008 15:23:17 GMT -4
So what? We still have more forested acres than we had in the 50's and the habitat will still support 320-30 DPSM.
Then I guess you agree that the PGC should continue to reduce the herd in 2F and 2G , because forest health is still rated as poor and there is no indication it is improving based on the criteria the PGC uses to determine forest health.Or, are you just going to dodge the issue once more.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 15, 2008 15:37:27 GMT -4
I haven't seen any of the regeneration plots that they use.THere is without any shadow of a doubt very encouraging sign of the habitat recovering in many areas of 2G.I don'thave to look at the sampling of regeneration plots to see that.No need to dodge any issue.I see excellent regeneration in many areas that had none 10 years ago.i've spent enough time in the woods with forester to see exactly how things are improving.Like I said,DCNR isn't even fencing many of their timber sales now.In some areas they still have to and that;s where they utilize dmap.
320 dpsm?You're either dreaming or eatingthe wrong kind of mushrooms.
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jul 15, 2008 15:41:57 GMT -4
wasn't this suppose to be about the benefits of liming the woods
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 15, 2008 16:27:02 GMT -4
When are you going to accept the fact that you and the DCNR foresters don't get to made the decision on whether the regeneration is improving or not? The PGC has established a protocol for determining forest health and that is all that matters when it comes to managing the herd.
BTW, the PGC isn't determining the health of the habitat, they are determining the health of the forest based solely on regeneration in areas with enough light.
Once again you dodged the question regarding further herd reduction in 2G and 2F. What's wrong,can't handle the truth?
|
|
|
Post by Twowithone on Jul 15, 2008 18:40:50 GMT -4
The district Forster from DCNR just called me and wanted to take me out this week to look at all of these limed areas in the article.
dougell wouldn't it be nice if the district forester for DCNR invited Dr. Sharpe and they could talk this through. It was Dr. Sharps editorial that made the press not the DCNRs and I doubt it very much if the DCNR will have a rebuttal and thats par for a state agency like DCNR.
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jul 15, 2008 20:18:22 GMT -4
If that is the case, why do Prof. Sharpe's findings differ from what you just said, and what your forester buddies tell you? Is he not as educated as them? There is a good chance that many of your forester buddies were actually taught what they know from Prof. Sharpe if they attended PSU. I bet before they landed on the DCNR payroll they may have seen things differently. What does the man stand to gain by his research? Certainly far less than the DCNR and timber companies. If their stories are so very different then obviously someone is wrong here. Indoctrination default says that in such cases the DCNR/ PGC will always be right. Regardless of the evidence, they brush it aside and then seek to discredit the man responsible. It's easier than owning p and facing the truth. They certainly could spend those millions they spend on fencing to lime and fertilize, and create more forest openings with sufficient sunlight....but it's so much easier to keep slaying the deer, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jul 15, 2008 20:31:48 GMT -4
wish you guys would figure out who's right and who's wrong it would seem anything you could do to help plant life grow faster would make the deer matter mute. when all is said and done it all comes back to timber
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 15, 2008 21:44:02 GMT -4
White oak and chestnut oak,both predominant species in the northern tier do just fine in acidic soil.Do you want to know what's much less acid tolerant than oak?Beech,and guess what?It's growing all over the place.Why?The deer don't eat it unless they're fored to. here is some interesting info on hobblebush. Now , can you explain what killed all of the hobblebush that was above the browse line of deer?
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jul 15, 2008 22:26:20 GMT -4
Dogell...pleaae explain this sampling from the Bald eagle ste forest: The shrub layer is not particularly well developed but does contain considerable [glow=red,2,300]hobblebush[/glow] (Viburnum alnifolium) and some rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). The herbaceous layer contains abundant woodferns (Dryopteris spp.), painted trillium (Trilliumundulatum), wild lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum canadense), sweet white violet (Viola blanda),and others. Here is the link to the entire article: www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/courses/core/biol208/labs/Tall%20Timbers%Here is another from the sierra club that mentions hobblebush as being common .....http://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/moshannon/OTT%2003-06%20Snyder-Middleswarth.pdf.s This was from about 2 minutes spent googling it. Obviously it's far from extinct from our landscape. Did your forester friends tell you that, because someone who spends much time in the woods and knows what to look for can easily spot the large heart shaped leaves from the sounds of it. I was not readily familiar with the plant, but I will be keeping my eyes open for it this fall, it seems to associate closely with rhododendron thickets. BTW, these references were from the BE state forest which also boasted very high DD for many years, and occurred specifically in a designated old growth forest where no logging has occurred for many many years, to offer any new, alternate browse source, and yet the hobblebush somehow survived? I would have expected the deer to have eliminated it esp from an old growth forest (and I'm fairly certain no hunting is allowed in the natural area, only in surrounding forests lending to an even higher probability that it should have been wiped out, no?)given the statements you made concerning it. Of course after reading many articles I found written by the PGC, Audubon, and DCNR ( is anyone surprised?) they would lead you to believe there are approximately two remaining bushes in the entire state, of course all due to overbrowsing. Not the picture I'm getting by reading journals of naturalists and hikers in some of these same areas. No doubt losses have occured in some regions, but evidently Bald Eagle state forest isn't one of them. This fall I will personally look for hobblebush on Rothrock and Michaux state forests. Funny how the picture changes outside of the indoctrinated circle!
|
|