GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
07-22-2008 | 05:50 AM
#21
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,221
Likes: 0
From: Howard PA USA
RE: GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
You are correct the PGC assigns no carrying capacity to farmlands just like they don't assign any additional carry capacity to food lots on SGLs, reclaimed strip mines, and right of ways. That is why 5C had a goal of 6 DPSM while 2F had a goal of 17 DPSM. The habitat in 5C was a lot better than in 2F but the PGC refused to acknowledge that fact and that explains why they are managing the herd at such low numbers.
You are correct the PGC assigns no carrying capacity to farmlands just like they don't assign any additional carry capacity to food lots on SGLs, reclaimed strip mines, and right of ways. That is why 5C had a goal of 6 DPSM while 2F had a goal of 17 DPSM. The habitat in 5C was a lot better than in 2F but the PGC refused to acknowledge that fact and that explains why they are managing the herd at such low numbers.
07-22-2008 | 06:45 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
RE: GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
Tell the whole story now.The entire state used to be managed at 21 deer per forested square mile.Somewhere around 2003,the started managing the deer perdeer per square mile.Since 5c has much less forested acreage than 2F,it stands to reason that the dd per square mile would have to be lower.Note:the deer density goals did not change,just the way they were calculated.Today,there are no dd goals.The deer atre being managed on the way they impact the forested habitat.They appantly impact the forests much mure in 5C because more deer are concentrated in smaller forested areas during winter.They're also being managed on the health of the deer and the deer/human conflicts.If the forested areas are still being overbrowsed.the goal is to kill more deer,regardless of how many deer are there.
07-22-2008 | 07:50 AM
#23
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
Tell the whole story now.The entire state used to be managed at 21 deer per forested square mile
The deer atre being managed on the way they impact the forested habitat.
The deer atre being managed on the way they impact the forested habitat.
They're also being managed on the health of the deer and the deer/human conflicts.If the forested areas are still being overbrowsed.the goal is to kill more deer,regardless of how many deer are there.
Deer health is no longer a significant factor since all but one WMU is at it's goal for herd health.And if the lack of regeneration is due to causes other than deer, the only solution is to kill more deer,except in 2F and 2G.
07-22-2008 | 07:53 AM
#24
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,221
Likes: 0
From: Howard PA USA
RE: GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
ORIGINAL: DougE
Tell the whole story now.The entire state used to be managed at 21 deer per forested square mile.Somewhere around 2003,the started managing the deer per deer per square mile.Since 5c has much less forested acreage than 2F,it stands to reason that the dd per square mile would have to be lower.Note:the deer density goals did not change,just the way they were calculated.Today,there are no dd goals.The deer atre being managed on the way they impact the forested habitat.They appantly impact the forests much mure in 5C because more deer are concentrated in smaller forested areas during winter.They're also being managed on the health of the deer and the deer/human conflicts.If the forested areas are still being overbrowsed.the goal is to kill more deer,regardless of how many deer are there.
Tell the whole story now.The entire state used to be managed at 21 deer per forested square mile.Somewhere around 2003,the started managing the deer per deer per square mile.Since 5c has much less forested acreage than 2F,it stands to reason that the dd per square mile would have to be lower.Note:the deer density goals did not change,just the way they were calculated.Today,there are no dd goals.The deer atre being managed on the way they impact the forested habitat.They appantly impact the forests much mure in 5C because more deer are concentrated in smaller forested areas during winter.They're also being managed on the health of the deer and the deer/human conflicts.If the forested areas are still being overbrowsed.the goal is to kill more deer,regardless of how many deer are there.
Once again it seems the Unified Sporstmen are passing out their coolaid again
07-22-2008 | 08:25 AM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
RE: GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
Pahardwoods,Bluebird is still hanging his hat and baseing his opinions on a chart from the annual whitetail report in 2003.It takes a little bit of searching but it can still be found on the PGC website.I don't know how to provide a link,but I can fax it to you.
07-22-2008 | 08:29 AM
#27
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,221
Likes: 0
From: Howard PA USA
RE: GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
ORIGINAL: DougE
Pahardwoods,Bluebird is still hanging his hat and baseing his opinions on a chart from the annual whitetail report in 2003.It takes a little bit of searching but it can still be found on the PGC website.I don't know how to provide a link,but I can fax it to you.
Pahardwoods,Bluebird is still hanging his hat and baseing his opinions on a chart from the annual whitetail report in 2003.It takes a little bit of searching but it can still be found on the PGC website.I don't know how to provide a link,but I can fax it to you.
07-22-2008 | 08:52 AM
#28
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: GREAT HABITAT /FEW DEER
Here is the link for the deer density goals that were established in 1980. Notice that they range from 14 DPFSM to 27 DPFSM,so Doug is wrong once again.
http://www.fortgrundsow.com/PGN1984NovDeerPop14-15.jpg
http://www.fortgrundsow.com/PGN1984NovDeerPop14-15.jpg