ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
Rsb also said the herd health was poor across much of the state. Look at the latest available annual report that I posted previously. PGC biologists disagree.
No spin possible. The words in the far right wmu health column are either POOR, FAIR or GOOD.
Lemme know how many "poor" you see! (LOL)...hint. ZERO.
Nope that isn’t correct at all. I’m not sure if you are just confused or if you have taken on one or Beenthere/Bluebird’s flim-flam tactics.
I did not say the herd health was poor across much of the state I said the FOREST REGENERATION HEALTH (read that as deer food) is POOR across the units that make up 23.9% of the state. I also said that the FOREST health was only fair (that is marginal) across another 67.0% of the state.
As for herd health the most recent data indicated the herd health was within the targeted range in 19 of the 22 units last year. That certainly doesn’t mean all is well though. It simply means that the adult does had a reproductive rate that was with in the target range following a couple years with no winter snows. Those units being above target very might not hold at that range following a harsh winter. It is also very likely that the target range is presently set too low since it was based on the conditions from the years when we were carrying way to many deer over much of the state. It would not surprise me to see those target ranges increase in the future.
As for your comment about how the WMU are rated that in its self proves you are either confused or intentionally trying to mislead people since the good, fair and poor designations are only used in the forest health evaluation and not in the herd health evaluations.
Here it is for anyone who want to check it out.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/deer/pdf/antlerless_allocation_handouts.pdf
R.S. Bodenhorn