By BTBowhunter:
Oaks are still the vastly dominant species in virtually all of 2F that I know and I've pretty much hunted most parts of 2F at some time over the years. You know 2G better than me but from what I've seen, oaks are not nearly as dominant in the parts of 2G that I know. Is my assessment accurate for all of 2G Greg? Sproul? Doug? RSB?
Units 2F and 2G both have pockets of oaks and areas with no oaks. Both areas also have some stands that are entirely northern hardwoods. Unit 2F has more northern hardwoods (with very few oaks) then unit 2G. But, unit 2G has more area of steep, rocky outcroppings that has very few trees, or anything else, growing on the forest floor then what are found in unit 2F. All in all, and in general, unit 2G has less deer habitat then what is found in unit 2F though there are some pockets of good habitat in both units.
Bluebird said:
And forest health in 2F is still worse than in 2G and according to RSB and the PGC it is due to overbrowsing by deer. The answer to the overbrowsing is to kill more deer,so why won't the PGC let hunters kill more deer in 2F by issuing more tags? I'm sure you would support this because I know you want a healthy forest.
The reason unit 2F is, and always has been, managed at higher deer populations then unit 2G is because that different in the habitat and the ability of each to support deer within the limits of those habitats.
That fact should be evident by simply looking a the historic deer harvests for the two areas.
Here is the historic harvest data for the counties that make up those two units up until the inception of the units and then the data for the units since 2003 when the units were first established. All data is in harvests per square mile.
Area……………83-87.…………88-92.……….93-97.………..98-02.……….03-07
2F………………9.62.…………..11.35.…†¦â€¦.11.93.…………12.45.……….7.14
2G………………7.85.……………9.55.…†¦â€¦..8.00.…………..8.53.………..4.00
This should help any objective person see that unit 2F has always had more deer and also that neither unit has had excessive antler less deer harvests during any recent years compared to the harvests of the historic past. That also lends more significance to the likelihood that it has been trying to carry too many deer in recent times that caused the habitat decline that then resulted in the population decline.
As for argument of needing more antler less license an higher harvests in unit 2F I fully agree. That is probably why unit 2F has averaged 13.97 antler less license per square mile compared to only 8.26 as the six year average for unit 2G. I also believe that the failure of the ANF to issue DMAP permit’s the past two years has played into the reason the study plots in unit 2F are presently rated worse then the sample plots in unit 2G. That still doesn’t negate the total lack of habitat on the steep, rocky outcropping of unit 2G though.
Bluebird said:
The answer is your question is irrelevant because the PGC doesn't manage the herd based on the quality of the habitat or the amount of mast that it produces. That is the way the herd was managed when we had deer densities goals. Now the carrying capacity of the habitat doesn't matter and the only things that matter are herd health ,the percent regeneration and deer human conflicts.
That is not correct at all.
The quality of the habitat, including the availability of mast, is a great deal of what influences the herd health. The quality of the habitat, (that is regeneration since you don’t seem to know that), is entirely what influences the measure of the habitat health. Both of which are used for determining the direction for managing the herd within the quality of the habitat available to the deer within that unit.
Deer/human conflicts primarily only come into play where the human populations are high and the CAC find that the public want fewer deer then the habitat health indicates is suitable for the present or higher deer numbers. In cases where the habitat would sustain more deer and the CAC recommend fewer deer, due to human conflict, the deer numbers might be reduced to less then the habitat can support. At least if it is possible to reduce the numbers in those areas. Presently there are indications that it might not be possible to reduce deer numbers where the habitat is suitable to support more deer.
R.S. Bodenhorn