Forest health is not a scientific measure of the year round food supply as you claim and it in no way an accurate measure of the carrying capacity of the habitat. The surveys do not measure the amount of regeneration of various tree species that can be eaten by deer within habitat plots, it measures the regeneration of trees that are capable of replacing the existing canopy species. Therefore, forest health ,as determined by the PGC is not a measure of the health of the habitat or the habitats ability support a given deer density over the long term.
Forest health, as done in recent years, most certainly is a scientific measure.
The ability of the forest to regenerate is a very good measure of the ability of the habitat to support more or fewer deer since deer eat those new trees. Plus now they also measure the amount of deer browsing affects on the regeneration and that too becomes part of the forest health indicator.
But, forest health is only one part of the total deer management indicators that shape the direction of the deer management objectives for each individual unit.
An example of this would be 5C with only 23% regeneration but a reproductive rate of 1.6 embryos/doe compared to 4C with 60% regeneration but only 1.36 embryos/doe. Since 5C is comprised of mixed farm land and wood lots it can support a much higher deer density than 2G and 2G which are 90% forested. But that high deer density will often result in over browsing of the small survey plots used to determine forest health.
Units like 5C do have a lot of deer food that isn’t forest habitat that actually does get measured in the reproductive data. That reproductive rate most likely stays relatively high because the deer are eating farms crops, neighborhood shrubs and many other things that keep those deer healthy enough to have that high reproduction. But, does that mean the Game Commission should manage to have more deer eating the Farmer’s livelihood or the Homeowner’s landscaping investment? That is where the deer/human conflict dimension and the CAC enter into the deer management equation.
As for the forest regeneration though that tells the professional manager that all is not well and that the deer herd is a critical juncture that needs to be controlled and closely monitored before the deer do both the habitat and themselves in to a poor future. Hunters don’t benefit from that poor habitat deer future either.
There is no doubt that unit 5C can support more deer then units like 2G that is evident in the fact that unit 5C harvests about three times as many deer per square mile, city streets and all, as what are harvested in unit 2G. That still doesn’t make it right, for either unit, to have a deer population that adversely affects it habitat and its own future.
R.S. Bodenhorn