|
Post by dougell on Jun 18, 2009 9:19:57 GMT -4
i can see the difference in the pics . they are the same thing i saw twenty years ago when penn state and the u.s. forest service did it . down here we don't have that problem any more yet the p.g.c still continues to slaughter the deer? Can't you look at that first page of pictures and see how in poor habitat,even a very low density can systematically browse the preferred species right to the ground?This area had way way too many deer for way too long and that destroyed the habitat.Now,we're stuck with extremely low deer numbers for many years trying to fix what was created.That's what they're trying to prevent down your way. Sorry to keep bringing it up man but I don't see how anyone can complain about low deer numbers when you pass 15 different bucks in three days of hunting.Come up here and I'll show you what low deer numbers are like. By the way,these areas get absolutely hameered in rifle season,despite the fact that the habitat is crap and there's very few deer.Guys like to hunt where they can see the furthest.They don't take into account that there's no reason for deer to be in many of these places but they hunt there anyway and then complain that there's no deer.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jun 18, 2009 12:17:14 GMT -4
"Can't you look at that first page of pictures and see how in poor habitat,even a very low density can systematically browse the preferred species right to the ground?This area had way way too many deer for way too long and that destroyed the habitat.Now,we're stuck with extremely low deer numbers for many years trying to fix what was created.That's what they're trying to prevent down your way. " No thank you. ;D When we reduced the ow herd by over half here, it was plenty of "help" and then some. We also do not need creative cutting techniques as we have PLENTY Of mixed habitat , edge habitat etc. The timber rotation is also a MUCH healthier balance due to the fact there are so many parcels and landowners. We do not have large tracts of mature and pole timber. And we are far from an ecological desert. Not speaking of Mr. Longbeards area or mine either in Particular, that description describes pretty much the entire southwestern Pa region west of the mountains. Its a hard thing to prove exactly how few deer are necessary to encourage healthy habitat. But not all that hard to realize when its gone too far. Thats according to history, according to other states, and considering pgcs data with it all. Just a matter of what you think entails "healthy habitat". Here, the only issue imho that can even be argued is the extreme biodiversity angle. I'll get out one day soon, take some pics and show you what the garden of eden looks like. ;D
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jun 18, 2009 12:26:15 GMT -4
"There's two points about it being an exclosure.One,most exclosures do have deer in them so the argument about them being 100% unnatutal is not true."
It IS true that they are not representative of any forest ecosystem, since we dont even know what we are dealing with, because you have no clue how many deer, nor how long they may have been in there....they arent supposed to be there, and you also said MOST, not all may have deer... To derive anything in regards from a deer management perspective from such unknown conditions would not be a very "sound" deduction to say the least.
I know it wasnt the purpose of those particular exclosures, but as for the pgc regeneration study exclosures... What I had described in earlier post wouldve been the only logical way to measure deer impact at know densities. With square mile enclosures with known numbers of deer in them!
"Second,even though there are a few deer in there,it's safe to say the exclosure has a very low deer density.Despite that,it perfectly illustrates how deer single out the most preferred browse species and alter the forest composition."
And if its a very small area and the deer are confined, its not hard to believe. Also, noone is disputing deer have "favored" browse species. Thats not a problem as we've had both oak and deer for many many moons. LOL
"I'll have to to call and find out how big that exclosure is.I'll try to get an answer by the end of the day but it depends on if the district forester is away.It's a pretty big exclosure but it's no bigger than 70 acres."
Thats ok, was just curious. Was just going to point out a small exclosure would be effected quite a bit by a few deer if they were confined to such a small area is all. Doesnt really matter though, for purposes of discussion if we do not know both the size and amount of deer that might be in there.
Thanks for the clarification on the pics.
|
|
|
Post by tbass on Jun 18, 2009 12:34:56 GMT -4
Yeah, I grabbed my case and camera without realizing I left my regular lens on the work bench. All I had was my telephoto lens. I'm not sure which ones you are referring to as straight at the ground, so I can't clarify. It may be the different from one side of the road to the other. As you can see at the top of the thread there is a ton of regen but also a ton of acorns on the ground. The other side of the road had some regen but not as much and NO acorns. I was trying to show that regen comes from mature mast bearing trees more than by lack of deer. When I say "the other side fo the road" I mean 100-150 feet apart. Tony,of course oak regeneration comes from mast bearing trees.That's no secret.The reason that area is regenerationg is because it's on a high ridgetop that has no deer during the winter.We'll have to go back up there again because I didn't see any areas that had good regeneration on one side of the road and none on the other.By the way,where we parked above Parker dam and walked through that gate,all that new oak regeneration was do to fewer deer.That area wasn't cut until we walked to the top of that road.ten years ago,you could see for hundreds of yards through those woods and now there's a good mid-level understory taking over. That ridge top is where I am talking about. The first pic shows lots of oaks growing. The picture on the other side of the road has some but not as many. The side with lots of oaks has lots of acorns. I saw no acorns on the side with less growth. My point is, they are 100 or so feet apart. You can't blame the lack of growth on deer all the time is my point. More seeds = more growth. What did they do differently on one side of the road from the other that affected the mast? If both sides had little regeneration, wouldn't the deer have been blamed for it?
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 18, 2009 13:49:40 GMT -4
Absolutely not because we aren't only talking about oak regeneration.Obviously there has tobe mast for oaks to grow.
You have to look at the overstory and the physical evidence toprove anything.Do youthink the deer were not responsible for the lack of oak regeneration in that first exclosure?Seriously,the evidence was there and from the way the seedlings were hedged,it was obvious that they'd been overbrowsed for at least a few years.That area was loaded with oak 2-3 years ago.
The area on top of that ridge was a barren wastlenad 10 years ago.You could literally sit on those sidehills and see all the way to the bottom.Now the areas that weren't cut are starting to come back.
There's nothing anyone can do get affect mast production.Some years it's good and some years it's poor.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 18, 2009 15:22:26 GMT -4
Guru,I just got off the phone with the district forester.According to him.That exclosure is right at 70 acres,which is the largest cut they're allowed to do.Based on what they know,he felt there were 1-3 deer stuck in there.That's way less than 20 dpsm.
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jun 18, 2009 21:10:29 GMT -4
you keep forgetting that only one of those bucks was legal. and none of them were big enough to shoot in archery. the one and only nice one came in the last week of the season. this is far worse than what we had before all these programs. and yes we had to many deer before but now it looks like to few. if you happen to think seeing a bunch of spikes and four and six's good management then i don;t know what to say
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 19, 2009 8:37:00 GMT -4
you keep forgetting that only one of those bucks was legal. and none of them were big enough to shoot in archery. the one and only nice one came in the last week of the season. this is far worse than what we had before all these programs. and yes we had to many deer before but now it looks like to few. if you happen to think seeing a bunch of spikes and four and six's good management then i don;t know what to say But you still saw 15 bucks in 3 days.I've never,ever in my life seen 15 bucks in 3 days of hunting.If you saw 15 sub ar-legal bucks,there's also at least that many doe and even more fawns as well as some older age class bucks.I'm not picken at ya longbeard.Just stating that's a pretty high deer density.One so high that I can't imagine anyone would complain.
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jun 20, 2009 20:04:00 GMT -4
one other thing is that all these deer were in different wmu's. i can go to three of them within twenty minutes of my home. before all the ar-hr these deer would have been 6 points or better now we have the same deer they have in the northern counties. so what good was all this if it ruined the quality of the deer.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 22, 2009 10:22:12 GMT -4
one other thing is that all these deer were in different wmu's. i can go to three of them within twenty minutes of my home. before all the ar-hr these deer would have been 6 points or better now we have the same deer they have in the northern counties. so what good was all this if it ruined the quality of the deer. How do you figure?
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jun 22, 2009 12:02:03 GMT -4
If I were you, I'd contact RSB and give him the location of that exclosure with the 3 deer in it. He'll be able to kill those deer and save the environment. They are permitted to kill deer within an exclosure. It would also benefit the HR program.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jun 22, 2009 17:33:22 GMT -4
LOL.
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jun 22, 2009 17:39:52 GMT -4
when you go from six points or better to scrub bucks that in my book is a step backwards. LET ME SAY WE HAD TO MANY DEER BEFORE. but now things seem to be going backwards. is this what they had in mind when alt said do you want to shoot this or one like this
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jun 23, 2009 8:03:30 GMT -4
If I were you, I'd contact RSB and give him the location of that exclosure with the 3 deer in it. He'll be able to kill those deer and save the environment. They are permitted to kill deer within an exclosure. It would also benefit the HR program. And serve as an outlet for his blind deer hatred. Maybe we could plant a hobblebush and trillium garden and turn it into a bird sanctuary!
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 23, 2009 8:26:20 GMT -4
There was actually a nice buck in that exclosure last year and it took almost two weeks of hunting before he was killed and that was with several people putting drives on in a 70 acre exclosure.when you get down around 20 dpsm,hunters start saying there's no deer.
|
|