ORIGINAL: bluebird2

To make it easier to see the wide variation between reproductive rates, regeneration and deer density, I added the the PS deer density for 2005 to the data RSB provided. I used the 2005 data sincethat was the last year the PGC provided the PS deer density estimates.



Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.

Rank………Unit……Reproductive rate……Habitat value –PS DD 2005
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 % -- 21
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66-------21
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59-------36
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57-------32
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63-------19
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58 ------18
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54-------32
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61-------28
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58-------29
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53-------21
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53-------24
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53-------25
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42-------12
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35-------27
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60-------29
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59-------20
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56-------20
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23-------32
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54-------19
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46-------40
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34------22

Note that some WMUs with low DD have poorer regeneration that other units with much higher DD. Also some units with high DD have good productivity and in other units it is much lower.