Originally Posted by
Screamin Steel
Whattya make of this piece, Doug?
I find that a little disturbing to manage the deer statewide based on regeneration evaluation of only 99 plots each year. Evidently WMI raised some eyebrows at this method as well. I still believe that smaller WMU's ae the answer, yes, data needs to be gathered from large areas, but to be applied in smaller areas. There are absolutely some areas with healthy habitat that could carry reasonably higher numbers of deer without excessive impact, but the continued high allocations within the large WMU's contribute to low DD there.
.
I always had an issue with that.The number plots simply isn't a strong indicator of changes in the habitat.DCNR has miles and miles of transect lines in each district and they try to monitor them annually.They have the manpower to do it though.The PGC does not.I've been aruing with BB over this issue for the past several years.He and others said the PGC data showed no improvements in habitat or herd health.Actually some had a decrease.That simply can't be.If you reduce the herd,there's an immediate increase in food for the ones that are there.Once again,I support the DMP because it's obvious to see improvements in the habitat if you know what to look for.That's why I support it.The PGC's data collection is not adequate and I'm glad it was pointed out to them and made public.It still doesn't change the fact that we needed less deer and it doesn't mean the plan is flawed.Also,some areas can most definately support more deer.I agree with that but it's hard to micromanage smaller areas with the current manpowere and funding.The basis of the plan is sound.Some area need fixed.Hopefully now that it's been pointed out and made public,those issues can start to be resolved.