QDM- Effect of breeding related stress
12-29-2009 | 09:10 AM
#111
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Exactly my point. They needed to make 5c and 5b goals as low as they did (in some cases lower than other WMUs) to justify the low goals of the other WMUs they did plan on achieving.
Again, take it from someone that has spent countless hours in that park the open space is a food source. Not a very nutritious one due to the obvious malnutrition of the deer, but a food source nonetheless. If the PGC wants to say it isn't, they better not tell that to the 1,000s of deer that you see in the open space every night. Don't buy everything the PGC says.
12-29-2009 | 09:28 AM
#112
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,541
Likes: 0
From: Phoenixville, PA USA
So you are saying the PGC set goals for 5B and 5C so low that they looked like idiots so they could set low goals for 2F and 2G? I don't think that is the case since those goals were the same goals the PGC has been using since 1980, but they were adjusted to account for the change from DPFSM to DPSM.
Haven't you figured out by know ,I don't buy much of anything the PGC has to say about deer management. I am just telling you that they only assign habitat value to forested land and ignore all the rest.
Haven't you figured out by know ,I don't buy much of anything the PGC has to say about deer management. I am just telling you that they only assign habitat value to forested land and ignore all the rest.
Yes, I do have your impression of the PGC figured out. I know that they only assing value to forested land and that is how they justify their actions. The timber has value. Open space does not.
I think we are on the same page about quite a few things. I do think that the PGC has done a few good things in spite of themselves. They may not have happened by design, but if you trip and fall over a bag of money your account is still going to get bigger.
12-29-2009 | 10:28 AM
#113
Thread Starter
Typical Buck
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
From: SE PA
I just wanted to point something out that Bryan touched on. The bucks at valley forge are perrenial under-achievers when it comes to antler growth; and the deer are extremely overpopulated. The study I provided by Ozoga and Verme proved that antler growth will suffer when deer reach exceedingly high densities even when nutrition is not limiting. Put that in the context of VF when nutrition is limiting, and the effect of stress becomes even more pronounced.
12-29-2009 | 12:17 PM
#115
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Yes, I do have your impression of the PGC figured out. I know that they only assing value to forested land and that is how they justify their actions. The timber has value. Open space does not.
Although timber value definitely plays a role, incompetence plays an equal role. Denying the habitat value of reverting farmland ,right of ways and fringe habitat amounts to gross incompetence ,IMHO.
12-29-2009 | 03:03 PM
#116
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,541
Likes: 0
From: Phoenixville, PA USA
bureaucrats in charge of your natural resources instead of biologists and land managers.
12-29-2009 | 03:23 PM
#117
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Unfortunately it isn't quite that simple. The PGC biologists going back to the 1940's believed that deer should only be present in forested habitat and should be eliminated in areas of mixed farm land and wood lots. Even now. many land mangers and biologists agree with the current DMP and goals.
12-29-2009 | 05:11 PM
#118
Thread Starter
Typical Buck
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
From: SE PA
