PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
02-15-2007, 05:41 PM
#102
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
RSB, I understand that, what Im trying to figure out, is how with what had been some really mild winters, you were seeing more winter kill. Especially after 2003, one would think that after such a harse winter with what had to be an significant increase in winter kill you saw more winter killed deer afterthe mild winters. You would think that once the 2003 winter was done and some deer died and the does that didnt reabsorbed their fetus's that with a decrease in over wintering deer and a mild winter there would be less winter killed deer not more. After all with less deer, logically there should be less winter kill.
The data I posted was the results of the spring mortality surveys which are conducted after the winter.
The data I posted was the results of the spring mortality surveys which are conducted after the winter.
The 2004 mortality, which was the highest in a long time, was the result of the 2003/2004 winter. Even though there were fewer deer that winter there were still more deer forced into the wintering grounds then the food supply could sustain in a healthy condition. The wintering grounds habitat had not recovered from the devastating affects of the previous winter with the deer being locked onto those wintering grounds for so long. Then with two years in a row of those harsh, prolonged winter conditions it really hurt both the deer survival and the fawn recruitment rates for that spring and resulted in the high winter mortality.
In the spring of 2005 the deer populations and recruitment rates still weren’t up to par because there had been very little mast crop in the fall of 2004 and the wintering grounds were still in very poor condition from the previous two years of harsh winters. It usually takes several years for the wintering grounds habitat to recover from a harsh winter. Even though we have now had two fairly mild winters many of the wintering grounds areas in my district still show signs of major and serious damage yet from the winters of 2002-2004.
Those variables in the fall mast conditions and the lack of habitat recovery, from the previous year, combining with the winter snow conditions and length of winter all affected the winter survival rates for both the adult deer and the fawn recruitment rates for that year. That is why the winter mortality rates were higher during the season winter even with fewer deer then the year before and also why the mortality was still high in the spring of 2005 following a relatively mild winter.
My comment:[/b]
[/b]
Then in 2005 we still didn’t have a mast crop and though the winter wasn’t as long or harsh the habitat still hadn’t recovered from the years of being over browsed. The recruitment was somewhat improved the next spring but we were into the compounding factor by then of having fewer deer to reproduce due to the fact that the does that should have been producing fawns didn’t exist because they had died within a couple of days of being born back in the spring of 2003
Your response:
Wow that one really has me baffeled, from my log book, 2005 had one of the best mass crops Ive ever seen, I remember turkey hunting near Galeton and there were so many acorns one the ground that you could have shovled them up.
The data showed the dead deer foundin the spring of 2005following the 2004/2005 winter. There had been no mast crop the previous fall andthe habitat still had a lot of damage from the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 winters so the mortality was still higher then it had been during the previously mild winters.
The good acorn mast crop you are referring to didn’t occur until the fall of 2005. That excellent mast crop during the fall of 2005 combined with the mild winter in 2005/2006 resulted in a better fawn recruitment rates in 2006 and the reason most hunters reported seeing a few more deer last hunting season then they had seen the previous couple years.
I will say one thing, I think the winter of 2003 is by far the biggest reason for the herd reduction in 2G.
I dont think hunters have near the impact they think they do. Ive been hunting south of wheeling WV for the past 11 years, we have roughly 60 dpsm, but the hunters hunt the same way year after year, they climb into their treestand at dawn and climb out at dark, the deer know this, and after the first day tend to lay up in small, hard to reach gullys and hollows. With all the deer down there the most Ive ever seen in one day is 12.After all the local hunters leave, I usually still hunt, when done correctly this is by far the best way to shoot a good buck down there. Now in PA it seems the hunters for the most part hunt just like their WV counter part, still hunting has become a lost art, and if they cant shoot a deer from a stand they arnt going to shoot one.
R.S. Bodenhorn
02-15-2007, 08:02 PM
#104
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter
Sproulman, you know that's not what I said. For the record, I refuse to give my home address to someone who doesnt even have the balls to put his real name in his profile.
You never addresseed the fact that those photos you're talking about are simply AP file photos of healthy deer from somewhere else and not the starving deer from the fenced federal facility in the article. Did you smply assume them to be from that facility without checking into it or did you lie? Either way, your whole point in starting this thread is meaningless because the deer pictured are not the deer that the feds need to have shot.
ORIGINAL: sproulman
i am here reading how you as moderator are acting..you should ban yourself..
next, the article was on page 3 or 4 that someone put on ,i guess you did not read that..
next, my lawyer told me i cannot put pictures on here, you should know copyright..i offered to mail the picture to btbowhunter,he declined..
i can mail it to you but it seems, you only want prove that sproul does not have it..
whatever, keep bashing people here and use your buddies to help..
what a moderator!!
ORIGINAL: AJ52
Where is the article about these deer that need to be shot and are apparently starving.Where's the topic starter???
hope you got to red article and pictures of the deer that the pgc says .are starving and must go..
this is at the federal gov. campus in broughton,pa. near pittsburgh..
pgc says there are 200 deer on this private property and they must be SHOT!!
this is at the federal gov. campus in broughton,pa. near pittsburgh..
pgc says there are 200 deer on this private property and they must be SHOT!!
Where is the article about these deer that need to be shot and are apparently starving.Where's the topic starter???
next, the article was on page 3 or 4 that someone put on ,i guess you did not read that..
next, my lawyer told me i cannot put pictures on here, you should know copyright..i offered to mail the picture to btbowhunter,he declined..
i can mail it to you but it seems, you only want prove that sproul does not have it..
whatever, keep bashing people here and use your buddies to help..
what a moderator!!
You never addresseed the fact that those photos you're talking about are simply AP file photos of healthy deer from somewhere else and not the starving deer from the fenced federal facility in the article. Did you smply assume them to be from that facility without checking into it or did you lie? Either way, your whole point in starting this thread is meaningless because the deer pictured are not the deer that the feds need to have shot.
first, on pm,i feel that is a private talk..if you are offended because i said YOU DECLINED,without going into why you did not want to give out your address..
i feel that was personel between you and me on PM..
next, article and picture i have NEVER said it was a picture of deer from somewhere else, article said it wasfrom the area in artcle..
NOW you are saying the picture is fake,not taken there..
you mean to tell me that they put a picture and article in paper,showing healthy looking deer,then say they are starving?
how do you know this?why would the AP supply this info to newspapers all over country when you say its LIE..
learn one thing, SPROUL does not lie!!
02-16-2007, 11:35 AM
#106
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
i guess you cant believe very much that you read in paper..if that picture is not of starving deer and btbowhunter has info its not,why would AP do such a thing..
02-16-2007, 01:36 PM
#107
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
The article was about deer and the picture was that of a deer.When they run articles about huntingin Clinton county just prior to deer season,do you really think every picture was taken in Clinton county?
02-16-2007, 02:22 PM
#108
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: DougE
The article was about deer and the picture was that of a deer.When they run articles about huntingin Clinton county just prior to deer season,do you really think every picture was taken in Clinton county?
The article was about deer and the picture was that of a deer.When they run articles about huntingin Clinton county just prior to deer season,do you really think every picture was taken in Clinton county?
why would AP show picture of healthy doe when the PGC says they are starving?i think we need to get get PENN STATE GIRLS to trap a few and do a study?see how far back they are , WAYBACK!!
02-17-2007, 06:33 AM
#109
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 317
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
OK. Either the newspaper is lying by putting a picture of healthy deer in an article that is about deer that are supposed to be starving, or it is the blame commission that is lying about the deer starving. I think it is obvious which you want everyone to believe. Thanks for making that fairly clear. You can quit now.
02-17-2007, 09:24 AM
#110
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: PGC SAYS DEER ARE STARVING
ORIGINAL: germain
I'm thinking 93/94 was worse?
I'm thinking 93/94 was worse?
In 93/94 and then again in 95/96 we had some very deep snow conditions but in both cases the snows didn’t last long before they were melted off providing a mid winter break up. In 93/94 we then got another major snow fall with deep conditions late into the winter but the deer had a break in mid winter that saved a lot of their energy levels.
We also saw more winter mortality following those winters and reduced fawn survival rates or fawn recruitment rates during the spring and summer. Hunters also saw slightly fewer deer during the fall hunting seasons, because of reduced fawn recruitment, following the winter of 95/96 though that didn’t seem to be the case in this area following the winter of 93/94. Most likely the reason hunters didn’t see or harvest fewer deer the year after the 93/94 winter was likely due to the fact the deep snows that year hit right before the antlerless deer season, which greatly reduced that year’s harvest, and then the winter snows melts off and allowed the deer to make it through that part of the winter in pretty good condition until the late winter snow got pretty deep again for a while.
There is a major difference though between having one hard winter, that affects the fawn recruitment, then there is when you have two or more winters in a row that have snows so deep and prolonged it affects the fawn recruitment rates. With just one hard winter the deer will move into the wintering grounds, hammer the food supply there, some will possibly die and usually the fawn recruitment will be lower the following spring and summer. But if the next winter is more normal the deer herd has the opportunity to bounce right back again with normal or even improved fawn recruitment. When that happens the hunters usually don’t really even notice the affects of the one year of reduced fawn recruitment.
One of the other major factors that kick in, when you have more then one back to back hard winter with deep snows, is that the deer wintering grounds don’t get a chance to adequately recover from the previous year’s damage before the deer are forced to survive there for a second harsh winter. Many people don’t realize that here in the North Country the deer can’t even use some of the best habitat during winters with deep snow conditions. Once the snows get deep the deer are forced off of the ridges and plateaus and down into the thermal cover of the stream and river bottoms. Those areas are usually pine, hemlock and rhododendron bottoms where there is typically less snow and the deer can feed on the weighted down hemlock boughs and rhododendron, both of which are a winter grounds staple deer food in this area of the state.
What happened in the North Country during the winters of 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 is that the deer got forced into the wintering grounds early in 2002 and then locked there until late winter of 2003 so they pretty well cleaned up all of the browse they could get to or reach. Come spring the small hemlock trees had about five feet of limbs eaten off of them with the bottoms, that were under the snow, nice and full and the tops were nice and full where the deer couldn’t reach the limbs. The rhododendron branches were browsed back to limbs the size of a man’s finger and would have been eaten back even more if the deer had been able to chew the limbs back further.
Then when the winter of 2003/2004 came along early and once again dumped a pile of deep snow the deer got forced off the ridges and plateaus and into the same wintering grounds they had been forced to live on and deplete the year before. Those wintering grounds though had not had enough time to recover from the damage they had experienced during the 2003/2004 winter. The deer were locked onto those wintering rounds late into that year too but with even less food then they had the year before. That is why we saw even higher winter mortality and even lower fawn recruitment rates following the 2004 winter then we had seen the year before.
Those wintering grounds where so seriously damaged by the end of the 2003/2004 winter they still show major signs of the damage even though we have had two years for them recover. That isn’t a good thing because right now we have enough snow the deer are moving off of the ridges and plateaus and into those same wintering grounds they were on in those other hard winters. Hopefully these deep snow conditions don’t last long or we will see both reduced survival rates and fawn recruitment again this spring and summer.
The next big factor of having two or more back to back hard winters is you start getting a compounding affect reducing the deer populations. With the second year of hard winter you start to see where the does that should have been producing fawns didn’t exist because they had died within days of being born instead of surviving to replenish the deer populations the next year. That is why the hunters, like the wildlife survey teams, saw the major reduction in deer numbers following the 2003/2004 winter instead of following the 2002/2003 winter.
That compounding factor is also why it is taking a couple of years fro the deer herd to bounce back after those multiple years of reduced fawn recruitment. When you have a compounding factor in affect in the reduction it will also take a compounding factor (multiple years) for habitat and population recovery.
I will now post the number of deer the survey teams saw per square mile on their routes for the years surrounding these winters so all can see those affects. The same routes were traveled each fall using exactly the same methods and time periods here in Elk County.
Year……………Deer seen/square mile…………………….% change from previous year
2001……………………..32.34…………… ……………………..(+ 29 %)
2002……………………..36.18…………… ……………………..(+ 12 %)
2003……………………..32.12…………… ……………………..(- 11 %)
2004……………………..20.38…………… ……………………..(- 37 %)
2005……………………..17.36…………… ……………………..(- 15 %)
2006……………………..22.22…………… ……………………..(+ 28 %)
As you can see the winter of 2002/2003 resulted in a slight reduction in the number of deer being seen the next fall. But, the major reduction in the number of deer being seen didn’t occur until the fall after the 2003/2004 winter. The deer herd still declined, though by a reduced percentage, following the 2004/2005 from that compounding factor we talked about because the does that should have been having fawns that year didn’t exist because they died when they were born the previous couple of years.
By the fall of 2006 the compounding habitat and deer population recovery effect was starting to work and the survey teams here in Elk County were seeing an increase in deer numbers.
There is a lot more that affect the deer populations then just the number of does hunters are shooting each year and that is what hunters really need to both understand and accept if we are ever going to have the best possible deer numbers for the future. In many areas of the state we have reached the point where the habitat and annual environmental conditions are controlling the peeks and valleys of the deer population instead of the hunters controlling them. Once that happens history has shown that the deer populations will generally be lower then they could have been had we protected the habitat instead of over protecting the does.
It is all more complex then many people are willing to accept or in some cases to even think about. That is, and has been, the biggest affect at reducing both the deer food supplies and the deer populations over the past decades.
Isn’t it time to change that folly by using scientific management instead of just using public and political demands in the future?
R.S.Bodenhorn