|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
My response was to BTB, not you. I agree with you that the HR which resulted from Alt's planned HR resulted in fewer antlerless tags in 2008 in 2F. The current plan is definitely driving nonresidents to hunt in other states. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Here is the list of tree species used to determine forest health. Table 5. Canopy replacement dominants and other high canopy indicator species (McWilliams et al. 2004a). Wildlife value for all wildlife species (Carey and Gill 1980 as in Payne and Bryant 1998) and levels of browse preference by white-tailed deer during fall and winter (Latham et al. 2005) are provided to illustrate general characteristics of species. Blanks indicate lack of data. Category Tree Species Wildlife Value Browse Preference Dominants Eastern Hemlock Fair High Red Maple1 Good High Sweet (Black) Birch1 Good High Beech Good High Ash1 Fair High Yellow Poplar1 Fair High Oaks1 Excellent High White pine1 Excellent Moderate Sugar Maple1 Good Moderate Hickories1 Fair Low Black cherry1 Excellent Low Other High Canopy Black gum1 Fair High Other Birches1 Good Moderate/High Other Maples (except Norway and Striped) Good Moderate/High Cucumber tree Moderate Willow Fair Moderate Other Conifers Fair to Excellent Low/Moderate Hackberry Fair Low Aspen Good Low Black locust Fair Low Sweet gum Fair Low Honeylocust Fair (is browsed) Black walnut Fair (is browsed) Sycamore Fair (is browsed) Basswood1 Fair (is browsed) Elm Fair (is browsed) Buckeye Unknown Butternut Cottonwood Balsam poplar Kentucky coffeetree Catalpa 1 – These species are of “medium” or “high” importance to Pennsylvania’s wood products industry (Latham et al. 2005). Yep those are the canopy tree species used as indicators. You indicated it was all based on a timber product so I have to ask when was the last time you saw anyone using black gum, willow, hackberry, aspen, black locust, cottonwood, Kentucy coffee tree or catalpa for a timber product? But, that doesn’t mean those are the only species that become part of the total habitat evaluation. Here are some of the things required in the Job Description for those hired to do the plot evaluations. * Record sample point information including, but not limited to, slope, aspect, terrain position, cover type, crown closure, and percent coverage of under story species, grass, forbs, ferns, and deciduous shrubs. * Measure and record species variables including, but not limited to, species, DBH, height to 4-inch and 8-inch top, merchantable stem, percent cull, crown class, crown condition, damage/cause of death, tree history, tree class, log grades, and total height. * Identify and estimate percent cover of herbaceous plants (ferns, shrubs, vines, and tree regeneration) on fivemil-acre plots. * Assist in the development and implementation of data management procedures, standards, formats, and summaries for forest/vegetative inventories as directed by the forester/crew leader. *Maintain and update index information describing plot status and history. *Edit and correct plot tree data. *Update plot and tree records. * Calculate standard summaries of plot and tree data. Why do you suppose they listedgrass, forbs, fern, deciduous shrubs, vines, etc. in the job description and requirements if they don’t evaluate anything but canopy and marketable trees like you say? Certainly the tree species are of the most concern, (partly because of the forest value but also because woody browse comes from trees and that is what deer eat through the winter) but that isn’t the only thing they index or consider in the plot evaluations. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
Now we have covered the species prevalent in densely forested regions, lets discuss edge habitat, and agricultural land, and the difference in CC between forested landscape, and mixed agricultural lands. PA, after all, isn't one contiguous forest. Much of it is fragmented and mixed ag. land and very capable of supporting much higher DD than the current plan allows. Elk county for starters, as you should know that area quite well. And let's set aside the issues of regeneration, and reasons for HRfor a while, and simply discuss what you believe the CC of the habitat to be in agricultural portions of Elk county. we'll get to the rest later.
|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 Though you say the units are all either good or fair you as mistaken. There are two units that have a POOR herd health rating in that report, you linked, plus another two classified as UNCERTAIN (do to low sample size) that have reproductive data in the poor category. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
All woody plant life is recorded and used in the evaluation as per the long list of indicator species. When I next get on line in my work computer I pull that list and send it over here to post. A job description just describes what duties an employee may be ask to perform. It does not mean that those employees used all those skills to evaluate every plot that is surveyed. What you should have posted is the protocol which describes the actual procedure used by those doing the survey, not their job description. Furthermore , I ask Dr. Rosenberrry if they evaluated the survey plots for the affects of competing vegetation that may prevent regeneration and he said that was not part of the criteria for the surveys. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
A job description just describes what duties an employee may be ask to perform. It does not mean that those employees used all those skills to evaluate every plot that is surveyed. What you should have posted is the protocol which describes the actual procedure used by those doing the survey, not their job description. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
No, my best response was actually posting the criteria used to determine successful regeneration and listing the species of trees included in the survey. ALL RSB could do is post a meaningless job description and claim I didn't know what I was talking about.
|
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ALL RSB could do is post a meaningless job description and claim I didn't know what I was talking about. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
The job description did an absolutely great job of describing what is being done. What part did you have difficulty understanding? The point is I provided the description of how the surveys are conducted ,where as RSB provided the qualifications of those doing the surveys. |
RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 The job description did an absolutely great job of describing what is being done.What part did you have difficulty understanding? The point is I provided the description of how the surveys are conducted ,where as RSB provided the qualifications of those doing the surveys. You are really getting desperate with your little smoke and mirror tactics |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:03 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.