The following table shows 11 WMUs that were all rated fair (F) for forest health and “at target” for herd health. I included 2G since although it was rated poor for forest health , it only had 1% less regeneration than 2F and 2% more regeneration than 2A,where forest heath was rated fair. Note the huge variation in harvest rates between 2G, 3D and 4D compared to 2A and 1A. Also , note the large variation in the percentage of plots with adequate regeneration which ranged from 36% in 2A to 64% in 4A.
Then while you are at it, might also wanna explain why the regeneration in 2A dropped from 61% (coming off of a herd double ow density) down to 38% regen even though the herd was significantly reduced and continues to be! lmao.
How else can they justify future reduction in the best area of the state habitatwise if the habitat were rated as it truly is....superb, and the herd health is and has been fine all along, and only DECREASED since the failed plan. Also in a wmu where human conflict was rated as LOW in same wmu even previously?
Why was 2G rated as poor regen, yet the herd health was "at target" and had one of the HIGHEST embryo counts in the state!!
These questions do not have answers.
Could it all be a SHAM? Gee I think that makes sense.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 09-20-2009 at 04:10 PM.
Or why decreased regeneration and claims of poor habitat = best herd health in the state in one case?
Then in another, the best type habitat in the state with what should be highest carry capacity has less than 25 owdpsm (lower than the best dd in most other states by far) then there were over twice as many previously, but only NOW the regeneratin has dropped. LOL.
Lots of nonsense, with no answers. None of those listed nor pgc can give legitimate answers to that bullsquat. Absolutely impossible to make sense of complete nonsense.
The plan was supposed to be based on herd health and habitat. Turns out, that ony the case when its convenient. Then when its not, the rules are changed.
If and when they ever release the 2008 AWR, it will interesting to see if they say anything about the decreases in regeneration in WMUs where the herd has been reduced for many years.
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
Could the answer be that they are still using the same deer densities goals they were using in 2002,while claiming they are basing the plan on herd health and habitat health? If the goal is to keep the herd stable at different deer densities in each WMU,where forest and herd health is the same, haven't they established deer density goals just like they had with the old plan?
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
Bb, could you please post the original deer density goals per wmu. The actual numerical goals before they changed to "habitat based" because of all the ridicule over the rock bottom numbers?
I had them quite a while back, dont know what i did with them.
So that chart shows that most WMU are 2 to 3 times over the goals set yet you can't figure out why breeding rates and regeneration has not improved significantly.
Put down the atom smasher and back away slowly, stick to your day job as a rocket scientist cause deer management is way over your head.
Were you asleep when the PGC stated they no longer have deer density goals? Did you miss the fact that the population in those WMUs were stable and that the goal was to keep them stable? The logical conclusion is that those WMUs are at there goal for herd health and forest health. So, why did breeding rates and productivity decrease as the herd was reduced by 40%? Was the PGC's real goal to reduce breeding rates and productivity?
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
Who Has the Answer?
