HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - stop complainin...start hunting
View Single Post
Old 02-04-2010, 01:13 PM
  #203  
DougE
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
Once again you are wrong and simply don't know what you are talking about and as you can see the PGC agrees with me.

"
Near goal – “Successive heavy reductions in the herd brought the
numbers of the deer to a point more nearly commensurate with their
food requirements, and crowded the remaining animals back into the
forests where they belonged, thus relieving widespread farm damage
complaints. These reductions, together with the very noticeable benefits
from numerous small lumbering operations, and extensive improvement
cutting under the direction of the Commission finally produced the
results the Commission sought to attain back in 1931. ... The
Commission believes that the deer herd is currently at about the level
where it should be maintained, at least until such time as lumbering
operations again become widespread." - Game Commission Executive
Director Seth Gordon, 1941-42 Biennial Report "

The heavy successive reductions in the herd were due to reported antlerless harvests of 172K in 1938, 15K in 1939 and 146K in 1940.
That was BB's rsponse.Here's the response from a professional forester that studied the effects of deer browsing for decades.

Bt 1923,farmers were lobbying for doe seasons.By the late 20's,foresters were also making similar demands.Despite the establishment of doe seasons,the effects of deer browsing began to be seen in northwestern Pa.The virtual disappearance of shrubs such as hobblebush was noticed first,but impact of species composition of tre seedlings on the forest floor was also apparent.Hunting mortality did not keep pace with population growth.BY THE EARLY 1940'S,TWO SEVERE WINTERS IN A ROW COMBINED WITH POOR HABITAT IN THE TURN OF THE CENTURY HARVEST AREAS WHERE SAPLINGS HAD GROWN OUT OF THE REACH OF THE DEER,RESULTED IN HIGH WINTER MORTALITY AND A POPULATION CRASH.

There you have it,the deer did in fact die from lead poisoning as declared by bluebird.Oh wait,the scientists don't agree.Big friggin surprise.It simply kills me when you claim the deer didn't impact the habitat.Yeah,we can have 2 million deer in Pa without impacting the habitat.You're off your rocker.
DougE is offline