ORIGINAL: bluebird2
That's all because we insisted on more deer than tyhe habitat could support for way too long.
That is where you are flat out wrong and totally misguided. The deer proved that the habitat could support much higher DDs that we have now on a sustainable basis From 1980 until 2000 2G support twice to three times as many deer as we have now and in 1983 72% of the clearcuts regenerated successfully and just a few years after the herd was at 40 DPSM in the mid seventies.
The PGC is not managing our herd based on the carrying capacity of the habitat, they are basing it on the regeneration of the existing canopy and holding deer totally responsible for the lack of regeneration while ignoring all the other causes.
YOU'RE ALSO FULL A CRAP ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE HERD DECLINING.YOU KNOW THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND YOU'VE STATED BEFORE THAT THE REASON THE BREEDING RATES HAVE DECLINED IN BECAUSE MORE MATUERE DOE HAVE BEEN KILLED.KEEP USING THAT DATA TO SUIT YOUR MISGUIDED AGENDA.
The PGC established productivity as a measure of herd health, not me. So based on their criteria and their data ,herd health has decreased ,which makes you the one that is full of horse puckey. Furthermore, if you recall RSB and BTB said I was full of it when I stated the reduced productivity was due to a major decrease in the average age of our doe herd.
Sorry,but you're wrong and misguided.2G is loaded with proof that the high deer densities of the 70's,80's and 90's devistated the habitat.
At this point,where the habitat isextremely poor,the deer are the primary cause for the lack of regeneration and the hundreds of miles of exclosures prove that.
I don't care what R.S.B OR btb CLAIMED.That's irrelevant.What's relevent is the fact that you claimed the breeding rates declined not because of the health of the deer but the age structure.Now,when you wantto make it look like the plan has failed,you claim the herd health has declined.You're nuts.