|
Post by dougell on Jun 23, 2009 8:45:39 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! You obviously don't know R.S.B. at all. Why is that when someone wants the habitat to recover for the benefit of the deer and all wildlife,they're labeled at deer haters?
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jun 23, 2009 11:20:14 GMT -4
Stop the denial, Doug. They are NOT going to allow the deer to come back. Only a serious regime change, or drastic decline in hunter participation will accomplish that. You have been constantly citing your 70 acre exclosure as evidence of what 3 deer can do to preffered species, specifically red oak...which just so happens to be a valuable hardwood. 3 deer in 70 acres equates to a DD of 27 dpsm. (640 acres/ 70 is 9.14 x 3 deer =27.4 dpsm) 27 dpsm would not be considered unreasonable DD by most deer managers, even in large contiguous forested/ mountainous areas. The fact that you claim such devastation by a reasonable level of deer density should show you how hopeless the future is for deer hunting. frankly, if 27 dpsm allows no red oak regeneration, than we will all be looking at deer densities MUCH lower than that indefinitely! Yes....the PGC and DCNR value TIMBER and extreme biodiversity over deer hunting's economic contribution and positive social/ cultural value. Not that we haven't seen that coming on the horizon for many years, but it is still a tough pill to swallow, and one that I won't eat without a fight. RSB has made his position clear with his many statements about hunters taking a flying leap, and his unwavering devotion to his employer, so much in fact that he has completely closed his mind to any possibilty of error on their part. Yeah....he's a deer hater. If they ordered a standing kill order to all WCO's to promptly dispatch every deer they spotted, I believe he'd jump out with his guns blazing to serve some twisted ideology of a greater good.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 23, 2009 15:12:00 GMT -4
Hunters will b*tch and complain that 27 dpsm is no where near enough deer always have,always will.
Good habiat can support those kinds of densities without further damge,poor habitat cannot.The worse youlet the habitat get,the longer it will take take for the hbaitat to recover and the less deer it will take to accomplish that.
Once again,your speculation is just as clouded about R.S.B. as it is about deer management and the habitat.You don't a royal flying crap about the habitat do you?You just want more deer at any cost.Didn't someone on here once make a statement that they didn't care one bit about the habitat as long as they saw enough deer prancing through the open timber to keep them excited.That about sums up the attitude of most on here.
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jun 24, 2009 5:57:14 GMT -4
Hunters will b*tch and complain that 27 dpsm is no where near enough deer always have,always will. Good habiat can support those kinds of densities without further damge,poor habitat cannot.The worse youlet the habitat get,the longer it will take take for the hbaitat to recover and the less deer it will take to accomplish that. Once again,your speculation is just as clouded about R.S.B. as it is about deer management and the habitat.You don't a royal flying crap about the habitat do you?You just want more deer at any cost.Didn't someone on here once make a statement that they didn't care one bit about the habitat as long as they saw enough deer prancing through the open timber to keep them excited.That about sums up the attitude of most on here. And what kind of habitat is the exclosure, Doug? A recent cutover? Should be rated as much better than a mature pole timber stand, right? If the PGC and DCNR continue to evaluate the browsing effects and regeneration based on what they are seeing with the exclosures FORGET about allowing herd recovery. If you let the deer population remain stable at 3 deer in the exclosure for a period of twenty years (our 27 dpsm density), what would happen, Doug? Would the red oak suddenly and miraculously regenerate ? Or would it mature into an open forest with a pronounced browseline, dominated by non preffered species? 27 dpsm is NOT unreasonable herd densities. If 27 dpsm or less is "wrecking " the habitat, than we have soil and other issues besides the deer...OR our regeneration goals are what is unreasonable. They are NOT going to allow herd recovery, Doug. Yes, YOU have been hosed just like the rest of us. Only difference is we don't believe their lies.
|
|
|
Post by algerine on Jun 24, 2009 7:01:12 GMT -4
What is unreasonable is to allow the forest to regenerate with tree species and shrubs that do no good for most wildlife. The future of hunting depends on having variety in the forests and not to have monocultures of ferns and striped maple. No one wins in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jun 24, 2009 7:18:02 GMT -4
"Doug" said.... "Good habitat can support those kinds of densities without further damage,poor habitat cannot.The worse you let the habitat get,the longer it will take take for the habitat to recover and the less deer it will take to accomplish that."Gezzze "Doug", now I get it. That explains why the PGC cut about half their stated goal of 1% of their timber for more than a decade on Game lands (when timber was going at a good price as opposed to the current price). They wanted more time for the forest to regenerate and the poor habitat resulting from this tactic would help reduce the deer population. By gosh that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by jakebird on Jun 24, 2009 8:10:02 GMT -4
What is unreasonable is to allow the forest to regenerate with tree species and shrubs that do no good for most wildlife. The future of hunting depends on having variety in the forests and not to have monocultures of ferns and striped maple. No one wins in that scenario. You always paint the worst doomsday scenario of the habitat. The truth is that large regions of the state supported much higher DD for many years without reverting to the ferns and striped maples that ocured in some areas of the NC.. SOME reduction was needed in SOME areas. The PGC blanketed the state with HR, not based upon the particulars of the regions. I can show you PGC statements from the late nineties that praised the quality of habitat in the Michaux state forest (South mountain) which encompasses a great portion of that unit, yet they set DD goals for that WMU (5A) of 6 dpsm based on regeneration within the state forest and "human conflict" in such a rural area? Oh yeah...then they abandoned those goals the following year following the public outrage, and based it on herd health/ habitat health while substantially raising the acceptable mimimum for fair and good regeneration? Show us ANY method to the madness, other than the common denominator of reduction. This deer management resembles a feather blowing on the breeze as much as it resembles anything. Constantly changing goals and criteria, constant contradictions, glaring discrepancies....and only one constant. Reduce the herd! (Econuts and timber companies win and hunters lose in this scenario!) They will require the herd be kept at very low DD indefinitely to preserve their radical levels of biodiversity and keep PA atop the timber industry.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 24, 2009 8:50:59 GMT -4
Hunters will b*tch and complain that 27 dpsm is no where near enough deer always have,always will. Good habiat can support those kinds of densities without further damge,poor habitat cannot.The worse youlet the habitat get,the longer it will take take for the hbaitat to recover and the less deer it will take to accomplish that. Once again,your speculation is just as clouded about R.S.B. as it is about deer management and the habitat.You don't a royal flying crap about the habitat do you?You just want more deer at any cost.Didn't someone on here once make a statement that they didn't care one bit about the habitat as long as they saw enough deer prancing through the open timber to keep them excited.That about sums up the attitude of most on here. And what kind of habitat is the exclosure, Doug? A recent cutover? Should be rated as much better than a mature pole timber stand, right? If the PGC and DCNR continue to evaluate the browsing effects and regeneration based on what they are seeing with the exclosures FORGET about allowing herd recovery. If you let the deer population remain stable at 3 deer in the exclosure for a period of twenty years (our 27 dpsm density), what would happen, Doug? Would the red oak suddenly and miraculously regenerate ? Or would it mature into an open forest with a pronounced browseline, dominated by non preffered species? 27 dpsm is NOT unreasonable herd densities. If 27 dpsm or less is "wrecking " the habitat, than we have soil and other issues besides the deer...OR our regeneration goals are what is unreasonable. They are NOT going to allow herd recovery, Doug. Yes, YOU have been hosed just like the rest of us. Only difference is we don't believe their lies. Wow,if you had read the original; posts I wouldn't have to repeat myself.This exclosure is a shelterwood cut,designed to get oak regeneration.It was working as planned a few years ago.The area was covered with oak regeneration.Unfortunately couple couple(no more than 3)of deer got in and they hammered the oak.What you people fail to realize is that deer are picky eaters.they eat the preferred stuff first.By doing so,they can single handedly change the compostion of the forest.I don't see how you can think that's ok.That's why deer are called a keystone species. I didn't get hosed.I can see first hand the negative effects of having too many deer.I recognize the problem and understand the need to have less deer.I also have no problems finding and killing multiple deer each and every year on public land.If you no what deer need at different times of the year,it's not hard to find them.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 24, 2009 8:53:54 GMT -4
What is unreasonable is to allow the forest to regenerate with tree species and shrubs that do no good for most wildlife. The future of hunting depends on having variety in the forests and not to have monocultures of ferns and striped maple. No one wins in that scenario. You always paint the worst doomsday scenario of the habitat. The truth is that large regions of the state supported much higher DD for many years without reverting to the ferns and striped maples that ocured in some areas of the NC.. SOME reduction was needed in SOME areas. The PGC blanketed the state with HR, not based upon the particulars of the regions. I can show you PGC statements from the late nineties that praised the quality of habitat in the Michaux state forest (South mountain) which encompasses a great portion of that unit, yet they set DD goals for that WMU (5A) of 6 dpsm based on regeneration within the state forest and "human conflict" in such a rural area? Oh yeah...then they abandoned those goals the following year following the public outrage, and based it on herd health/ habitat health while substantially raising the acceptable mimimum for fair and good regeneration? Show us ANY method to the madness, other than the common denominator of reduction. This deer management resembles a feather blowing on the breeze as much as it resembles anything. Constantly changing goals and criteria, constant contradictions, glaring discrepancies....and only one constant. Reduce the herd! (Econuts and timber companies win and hunters lose in this scenario!) They will require the herd be kept at very low DD indefinitely to preserve their radical levels of biodiversity and keep PA atop the timber industry. No state forest ever had a goal of 6 dpsm.Show me a link praising the habityat of Michaeux state forest
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jun 24, 2009 10:57:03 GMT -4
Please consult with Jim Grace of DCNR and I believe he can enlighten you with regard to how many deer they would like per square mile. I recall him stating at a HF&G Committee hearing in Harrisburg which I attended that 5 deer per square mile was his desire and that that level would be needed to be retained for some 25 years.
And that is fact.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 24, 2009 11:28:21 GMT -4
That is not a fact.The man never said that.He stated that in some areas of the state where the habitat was extremely overbrowsed,it could years at very low deer densities,which is true.Then when pressed,someone asked if it could take at long as a couple decades and he said yes,possibly.He never once claimed that DCNR's dd goal for the state forests was 5 dpsm for the next 25 years.You guys twist everything intentionally.the point is,the worse you let the habitat get with overbrowsing,the longer it will take to recover with even lower deer densities.
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jun 24, 2009 12:08:09 GMT -4
Well "Doug' I would argue that point, as I was there and it was Ed Staback who pressed Jim Grace. But, just for argument's sake which areas of the state do you believe Grace was talking about? Obviously it must have been a significant amount of area r he wouldn't have said that. Also no one from the PGC who was present that day said they didn't agree with Mr. Grace.
Jim Grace is not a stupid man. He knew exactly what he was talking about and he spelled it out under pressure provided by knowledgeable legislators. Clearly the legislators were aware of DCNR's deer density goals for the state and the PGC were willing to go along for the ride.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jun 24, 2009 16:13:01 GMT -4
I don't disagree with Jim Grace either.The truth is,he doesn't know how long some of the worst areas will take to recover,no one does.that's why he didn'twant to give a concrete answer.No one knows howlong it will take because up until recently,no areas have been this overbrowsed.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jun 24, 2009 17:17:26 GMT -4
"You obviously don't know R.S.B. at all."
Doug, Ive been overly familiar with rsbs posts for nearly a decade, and deer hater is a very accurate description.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jun 24, 2009 17:25:34 GMT -4
"Good habiat can support those kinds of densities without further damge,poor habitat cannot.The worse youlet the habitat get,the longer it will take take for the hbaitat to recover and the less deer it will take to accomplish that." Perhaps you'd like to explain why there is not one wmu being managed for that deer density. The highest ow dd being managed for in the state currently is below 25 owdd. and the worst areas in single digits... Are we to believe Pa is so much worse than every other state in the nation, and every wmu has been damaged and need such subpar dd to allow simply "appropriate regeneration"? No my friend. Its all about excessive levels of asnine biodiversity period."Once again,your speculation is just as clouded about R.S.B. as it is about deer management and the habitat." In other words he hit the nail on the head."You don't a royal flying crap about the habitat do you?You just want more deer at any cost.Didn't someone on here once make a statement that they didn't care one bit about the habitat as long as they saw enough deer prancing through the open timber to keep them excited.That about sums up the attitude of most on here. " I care about habitat as it actually related to wildlife and not how it caters to the whims of extreme obtuse thinking new-age idiots.
And if i were a betting man, Id say that comment was most likely not made "literally" but made by someone who was just fed up and frustrated with all the lies and nonsense of the last decade and pretty much just sick of pgc, deer management and the whole sha-bang....Or maybe, like most, they just dont give a rats caboose about econuts assessment of that habitat.
|
|