Thats a good example gino. Youd set the budged based on the smallest pay to err on the safe side.
You arent doing that by eliminating habitat that provides more food per acre than the habitat type you are actually counting!
You are counting pole timber (and rightfully so of course) in the equation yet it has less food avialability by far, CONSISTENTLY than the habitat type you are speaking of REGARDLESS of winter severity. Remember Im not simply referring to deer digging through 2 feet of snow to get to grasses forbes etc. Have a gander around that fence row around that field lemme know what you also find there.
The species present there and in other scenarios even more significant of ag & reverting lands are varied and widespread. When you toss in the 60+% forested land with many owners and varied timbering schedules etc. You get the best habitat overall combined as it can get pretty much.
Simply no way you can exclude it. It makes up many of the best deer habitats in the state as well as the country. And there is a good reason why it is, and also why it has a higher cc. The fact that that type of habitat makes up 35+ percent of the land mass is a GOOD thing, not bad. Also not including that large of a portion based on it not being deer habitat isnt being reasonable, especially when the "developed" lands have already been excluded separately.
Remember Im not speaking of miles and miles of nothing but cornfield that is picked clean and barren of anything later in winter either. Thats not the situation of even close when speaking of our habitat such as is the case in some areas of the country, and no doubt where the perception of "ag" land not being ideal winter habitat came from.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 09-11-2009 at 06:09 PM.