|
Post by dougell on Jul 18, 2008 14:08:34 GMT -4
How wrong you are.Good regeneration is extremely hard to get in areas with poor habitat unles you fence the cuts.Now that the herd has been reduced in many of these areas,they don't have to fence.If they let the herd increase,they will have tostart fencing them again and that benefits no one.So the answer is,they did have to fence almost every cut in both 2G and 2F when the dd were higher.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 18, 2008 14:43:35 GMT -4
Virginia cooperative extension has done some research on fertilizer.Here's some exerpts of what they have to say.
Many of the fertilizers that can be applied to forests are not renewable at the rate they are currently being used.thereforemcontinuous fertilization of our forests over a long period of time is not a sustainable forestry technique.There are special sites however,that have been abused in the past.Fertilizing these sites once or twice may help them regain lost productivity.It goes on to say that these sites were once farmed.they aren't areas that have been timber for centuries.
Forest fertilization is uncommon because it is very expensive.Increases in productivity do not usually offset fertilzation costs.
Sorry fellas but your far reaching attemts to say that we didn't need to lower the deer herd are still pipe dreams without any credibility of facts to back them up.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 18, 2008 14:48:06 GMT -4
If I am wrong then the PGC experts are wrong ,because they are the ones that tell us that forest health is still poor in 2F and 2 G and DCNR wants more DMAP tags for 2G.
I said nothing about allowing the herd to increase and in fact I suggested the exact opposite. According to PGC criteria the herd in both 2F and 2G has to be reduced even more ,so that 75% of the survey plots regenerate. It is you that refuse to agree with the need to reduce the herd even more ,despite the fact that the evidence is clear that further HR is the only viable solution.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 18, 2008 15:00:14 GMT -4
When did I say the forest health wasn't poor in 2F and 2G.Some areas are showing imrovements but the habitat is pizz poor for the most part.
When have I ever disagreed that the herd needs to be reduced.I'm criticized almost daily because I admit to killing multiple does in these areas.I'm all for continued herd reduction in areas with poor habitat,regardless of the number of deer present now.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 18, 2008 15:44:21 GMT -4
I never said that you claimed the forest health wasn't poor in 2G. What I said is you won't agree to the obvious solution which is reducing the herd in both those WMU's to next to nothing.
You implied that you agreed with the PGC decision to keep the herd stable at 22 PS DPSM and 12 PS DPSM ,even though forest health is poor. Based on the percent regeneration the herd in both WMUs should be reduced to less than 8 PS DPSM and I am sure you will disagree,which means you are satisfied with the poor forest health but won't support liming and fertilizing cuts to improve regeneration.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 18, 2008 17:24:55 GMT -4
Moshannon satte forest has some of the worst and most overbrowsed habitat in the state.In the worst areas,they're starting to see new regeneratio, and the need to not fence at around 10 dpsm.Most areas aren't that bad but 10 owdpsm isn't next to nothin either.
I didn't imply that I agreed with anything concerning 2G and 2F.I simply offered an explanation on why they may be doing that.I really have no opinion because I don't know the facts.
I support reducing the herd to next to nothing in certain areas until the habitat is well on it's way to recovery.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 18, 2008 17:39:25 GMT -4
"Most areas aren't that bad but 10 owdpsm isn't next to nothin either. "
Ha ha ha! Guess it depends on who you ask. I would imagine that would be an acceptable deer density in some wmus.... Ifn their habitat were nothing but bare rock. ;D
"I support reducing the herd to next to nothing in certain areas until the habitat is well on it's way to recovery."
Well I hope you are ready for a long wait. To me that sounds like a line pgc and dcnr can string along indefinately.
|
|
|
Post by beenthere on Jul 18, 2008 17:41:30 GMT -4
That is exactly what it will take to improve the forest health in 2F and 2G from poor to good and while you are accomplishing that you will drive the vast majority of the hunters away from those WMUs. Furthermore, with a harvest rate of 1% /yr. the carrying capacity will decrease instead of increasing so the herd will have to be kept at next to nothing forever.
|
|