Bull - The state forest has not been trashed because of too many deer. It is because of too much mature timber and poor forest management. I'm not talking private land but public land. Its true you can drive for miles on end and not see a single track in the snow. But come across posted land and there are tracks everywhere.
So where do the people hunt? Public land (state forest, state game lands).
All I can say Doug is that if you believe the BS the PGC is putting out about the numbers of deer on public land then you just go on shooting all those deer. But if you want to hunt sucessfully in the future, after you shoot your couple of deer, take a camera instead of a rifle.
All I can say it that it's extremely obvious that you have no idea what good habitat is like and what deer need.Please explain in detail about these poor forestry practices.Also,let's just assume there shouldn't be a mid level understory in a muture forest,although there should be and I can show you many examples of habitat just like that that is recovering.In any event,let's just assume that's the way it should be.What should the deer be eating in those areas when we have a winter like this?Deer need browse during the winter.If there's no prefered browse,there shouldn't be many deer.You see,when the habitat gets as poor as it is accross the northern tier,even a small number of deer can have a negative impact on it.I don't need to believe anyone.I have no problems finding and killing deer on a consistant basis on public land in 2G.I don't need them to tell me if the habitat is good or bad.If you understand what deer need and what to look for,it's very easy to determine to what extent the deer are impacting the habitat.I don't care if there's 1 dpsm or 20 dpsm.If they're preventing new prefered regeneration from making it past their mouths,you have too many deer,end of story.For two days starting April 9th,I'll be walking 8 miles of transect lines with foresters from DCNR,PSU and the US forest service taking an inventrory of what's growing,what's not growing and what species the deer are impacting.It's a fool proof method of determining how deer are impacting the habitat.You should come on up.You'd learn something.
By the way,the state forests and state game lands are generally managed for timber much much better than private land.Another fact that isn't debatable
The PGC professionals in 2003 stated the habitat in 2G could support 15 DPSM while allowing for adequate regeneration, but they reduced the herd to 8 DPSM. The WMI report said the habitat is not recovering in 2G or 2F and the PGC agrees. They also both agree that reducing the herd even more is not the answer to improved regeneration. So, once again the facts as provided by WMI.DCNR and the PGC shows you don't know what you are talking about.
I love it how you pick and choose what data to use and when to use it.You say the PGC's data is flawed yet you try and spin it when it's convenient.Last week,the data was flawed because the PGC wasn't using enough plots.Today you try to use that same"flawed data"as you call it to make you point.Now,you're using your old spun number of 8 dpsm when WMI came up with a dd in 2G ranging from 10.9 dpsm at the low end to 16.5 at the high end.
I walked through the woods with multiple foresters from PSU,DCNR and the US forest service.Every single one has been able to see signs of improvements in the habitat.In some areas the differance is drastic in other areas it's not.Regardless,every single expert that I've been out in the woods with have all agreed that less deer is making the habitat improve.
I don't think the herd needs to be reduced in most places either.However,I definately don't think it should be increased in areas with already poor habitat or areas that are just now showing signs of recovery.That would make no sense.
I love it how you pick and choose what data to use and when to use it.You say the PGC's data is flawed yet you try and spin it when it's convenient.Last week,the data was flawed because the PGC wasn't using enough plots.Today you try to use that same"flawed data"as you call it to make you point.Now,you're using your old spun number of 8 dpsm when WMI came up with a dd in 2G ranging from 10.9 dpsm at the low end to 16.5 at the high end.
The audit said the PGC data on forest regeneration was inadequate. PGC data showed 2G only had 12 PS DPSM in 2006 and that equates to 8 or 9 OWD PSM. The WMI data was PS DD not OWDD so you are comparing apples to oranges and the apples are rotten.
You simply don't understand the data and therefore don't know what you are talking about.
__________________ In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state
Doug are you that ignorant about forest mangement? Take a drive up in 2G along the Hyner valley. All you will find is huge maples, oaks and beech trees rotting away. And you have the nerve to say that is proper forest management? Probably unlike you, I have a degree in forestry. But my life's career took me along a different path.
I've come to the conclusion that whatever the DCNR or the PGC tells you, you will believe. You are following so close in their tracks that if they stopped abruptly, you would have to be surgically remove from them...
I guess you cant wait for national health care either or more share the wealth crap....................
I'm out of here.... I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person
__________________ PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO THE RISING COST IN AMMO PRICES I WILL NO LONGER BE FIRING A WARNING SHOT.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
I'm not as good as I'm gonna get - but I'm better than I used to be. "Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point."
Last edited by bronko22000; 02-27-2010 at 12:23 PM.
8-9 ow dpsm...and still no improvement in regeneration... To go any lower you may as well put up a fence around the entire unit and kill every deer in it.
Time to dump the failed plan, quit bending to the whims of dcnr and manage like pgc has some sense.
Wrong, totally wrong. WMU 2G does not have a high deer density. You would know that if you spent any time up there. I stand by what I said. It is unethical - yes it is legal. I can't say the same for your area BT so I won't comment.
What I will say is that one buck and one doe is plenty for any single family.
i also agree with you.bob may hunt in areas with lots of deer but WMU2G where our douge hunts, no way those doe needed harvested.
terrible is all i can say and shows failure of pgc.
