I did not say much of the state is in pole timber, I said 50-60% WILL be in pole timber . Here is what I said and it is not what you claimed I said.
So what you posted then was really just more of your misleading mumbo jumbo double talk that had no purpose other then to mislead people with waht you were saying?
There is absolutely no reason to suspect the state will have a higher percent of pole timber in the future then there has been in the past. In fact the state has been moving more toward more mature forest then any other stage of forest composition.
By cutting 1%/year the percentage of saw timber will decrease and the percentage of pole timber will increase ,since the pole timber stage is the longest stage in the production of saw timber. So despite the attempts to improve the habitat, in the long term the carrying capacity will decrease instead of improving as predicted.
At 1% cutting on the public land it is unlikely the percentage of pole timber across the state will never be much greater then it is right now. It will be monitored though and should that ever be a concern it will be adjusted so less or more can be cut.
Nor is it likely the carrying capacity will ever be lower then it is right now. The attempt to improve the habitat and thus the carrying capacity was what lead to the current deer management objectives. And, it is working too. It would work a lot better and faster if it wasn’t for the people that think they no more then the professionals always getting in the way of continuously doing the right thing for the best possible future. You are a large part of that contingent that prevents the best possible future.
Now will you please explain why breeding rates dropped by 6% in such a short period of time when you predicted they would increase significantly?
That has been explained for you and others many times in the past. You just don’t like to accept the facts because they don’t fit what you want to believe.
The fact is that the breeding rates have only declined in a statewide level and then only because the areas of the highest samples shifted from before to since the inception of antler restrictions.
But, since deer are managed on a WMU level instead of on a statewide level that statewide decline has no relevance toward the breeding rates within each of those WMU. In fact once the data is all in I feel pretty confident the breeding rates will not show any significant decline in any individual management unit. With the shift in the sample sizes per management unit you can actually have improvement in every individual WMU while still having a decline in the statewide data.
Unlike you, and the other scientific management detractors, some of us are willing to accept improvements even when they aren’t the astronomical improvements some people keep demanding.
R.S. Bodenhorn