HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Forest Health Versus Habitat Health

04-10-2009 | 06:16 PM

#24

Cornelius08

Banned

Joined: Sep 2008

Posts: 2,978

Likes: 0

From:

RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health

"Even though they do have some areas with high deer densities they also have areas with much lower densities, just like we have here in this state. "

OF course they do!! BUt not the entire state or even close like Pa!

But, as for the geography, I am pretty sure they are still on the same planet; at least the last time I visited their state I only needed a car to get there. Hopefully I don’t have to buy a space ship to get there the next time.

After some of your posts Im beginning to wonder what exactly is parked in that garage! just funnin'...LOL I betspace ship might help in catching those atv'ers!

"Even in the best of soils and habitat if the deer numbers aren’t controlled they can and will damage their habitat to the point their numbers decline. "

Agreed rsb. Butwhat entails"controlled" is a very debatable topic. Its very debatable even amongst the "experts". All do not seek the same regeneration or herd goals and their states somehow continue to have trees and biodiversity that isnt limited to deer!, and I tend to agree with every other state in the nation over Pa's system!

"But, the bottom line is if you want the highest long term sustainable deer numbers it is important to keep the deer herd within the limits that prevent any serious or long term habitat damage. If you want the best possible long term future you might have to accept slightly fewer deer in the future. If you keep high deer numbers now you will surely have fewer deer in the future."

And we agree on those basics, and for that matter, always have. I have yet to see anything to support the contention that our numbers are now too high. But there is quite a bit of evidence that suggests we are in "overkill" mode.

Reply

0