bluebird2

I don't expect to see any fundamental difference it what is being done. The PGC established the criteria based on replacement of the commercially valuable trees that were harvested so they are measuring forest health not habitat health. That is why there is no correlation between forest health and deer health.

Cornelius08

RSB, pgcs herd increase prevention plan is extreme and effective. That herd will not be permitted to increase and I dont care what the habitats like.

Too many built in escape buttons for them to push to keep FEWER deer not more. TO start with on ground zero,using the "forested square mile" deer densities which take ZERO into account some of the VERY BEST deer habitat that exists period. Reverting abandonedfarm and pastureland, end habitat, brambles, other browse covered areas other than woody, and yes at least a portion of farm pasture and cropfield as well. Then they setvague unchallengable conditions that must be met. Usually if one is met another is not. If all are, then they simply structured the cac in a way to make any real widespread increase nearly impossible. Then, if the eco-weiners dont hold up their end, pgc simply raises the initial criteria. Ex. Higher herd health ratings necessary to increase herd. You said you look for that to happen in the future. And while it is FAR from needed as I stated, I wouldnt doubt for that to happen. We were promised herd growth when the habitat can support it (which is a sham in the first place) but what better way to break that promise than to raise herd health goals to prevent that from happening?

Also you mistakenly or deceptively lumped "fair health ratings and "poor" rating together. Pgc doesnt do that, neither should we. According to pgc, FAIR is ACCEPTABLE. And of course GOOD is acceptable....POOR is NOT ACCEPTABLE rating... THerefore the HUGE MAJORITY of our states herd health is fair and good AND acceptable. Just trying to clear up the spreading of inaccuracies and/or mistruths.

Cornelius08

The cacs are a joke put into place by an anti-deer pro-ecoextremist pgc.

It was simply one more nearlyinsurmountablehurdle for hunters to bang their heads off of. Put into place to effectively prevent any real increases to our deer herd.

Considering how it was structured, it pretty much highlights the current pgc/hunter relations....Nonexistant.

First they keep hunters voice on the committee to a minimum.

Then, and more importantly, They were set up so its near impossble for increase and EXTREMELY EASY to prevent it. No matter how many people are actually on the cac or how many people they represent all it takes is TWO to say no increase and there automatically will be NONE...No ands ifs or buts.

To illustrate clearly, if there were only 12 ecoweiners in the entire wmu and 2 of them bothered to show up every five yearsfor the cac to say "kill the deer", they could very easily prevent ANY herd growth for the next 30 years, regardless of any habitat conditions or anything else.

On the other hand, if 8 out of 10 wanted herd increase, thanks to pgcs antideer forethought in structuring, its just too darn bad for the 8! [8D]

No democracy. No majority rule. No reasonable percentage rule. Just kill those deer, and when youre done, kill some more. When the anti-deer structured cac is added to all the other "stops" pgc has implemented, its easy to see, we aint gonna willingly EVER be given a reasonable herd increase period.

Thats why we need change and a completely overhauled management agency. Solution: Write ourlegislators and tell them to NOT SUPPORT the license fee increase, and tell them you DO NOT SUPPORT our current deer plan sham. Many others have already and so far its working. Just a matter of time, the legislators "staying the course" and hope that the Marcellus cash pgc gets from"our" gamelesslands is at rock bottomminimum.

bluebird2

That is the problem, the PGC doesn't evaluate the total habitat. They only evaluate forest habitat based on the regeneration of the dominant , high canopy tree species.

Cornelius08

You mean $$$$ trees.

bluebird2

Actually the PGC choose to choose the tree grouping that was not limited to commercially valuable trees.


However, it should be noted that since in the vast majority of cases ,only commercially valuable trees are harvested, those are the species that DCNR and the PGC would like to see regenerating.

RSB

Edges are highly preferred habitat for not only the white-tail deer but many other species of wildlife as well. Where their existence is of quality browse species the edges benefit deer by providing good foods that both sustain a higher deer population and a higher fawn recruitment rate. Those factors can be influential in the improvement of the current deer herd health rates where they exist in sufficient quantity and quality.

I not only believe but know that active farmland, provided it is maintained as such, is of great value to the deer during the spring and summer months. I also know that those same lands have little to no value to the deer when they are covered with two of snow for extended periods of time. That is why we have to healthy forest habitats mixed with that farmland to support high deer populations on a year round bases year after year.

It doesn’t matter how mush farmland food is available during the nine or ten months of the spring through fall. If deer don’t have food that other two or three months they die before they can produce the next year’s fawns. Even if they do marginally survive with little food they don’t produce surviving fawns that year.

So the bottom line is that without healthy forests you will not have many deer, for the long term though you might during short term periods of ideal conditions, no matter how much farmland is available.

R.S Bodenhorn

PS: I’ll address some of the other comments in this thread tomorrow or when ever I get time over the next few days, if time happens to be something that is available.

Screamin Steel

And ouragricultural areasare covered with two feetof snow for extended periods of time, how often? More often than western New York? More often than Ohio? More often than Nebraska, or Illinois, or lower Michigan? None of these states are setting management goals of 5 or 6 dpsm, as was the case inparts ofPA. Why? Are their deer suffering extensive winter kills? Were ours?

Cornelius08

"Edges are highly preferred habitat for not only the white-tail deer but many other species of wildlife as well. Where their existence is of quality browse species the edges benefit deer by providing good foods that both sustain a higher deer population and a higher fawn recruitment rate. Those factors can be influential in the improvement of the current deer herd health rates where they exist in sufficient quantity and quality. "

And they are not counted asdeer habitat by pgc when speaking of deer per forested square mile. And thats rediculous.


"I not only believe but know that active farmland, provided it is maintained as such, is of great value to the deer during the spring and summer months. I also know that those same lands have little to no value to the deer when they are covered with two of snow for extended periods of time. That is why we have to healthy forest habitats mixed with that farmland to support high deer populations on a year round bases year after year. "

Agreed, but you are simply circumventing the issue. That being that most farmland is not at all considered by pgc.

"It doesn’t matter how mush farmland food is available during the nine or ten months of the spring through fall."

Sure it does.A deer can put on far more body mass and fat in farmland, leading into the winter. Not to mention corn or grain that is "missed"or dropped which deer utilize heavily even later into the year.

Also,this "habitat type" also takes some of the pressure off of the browse throughout at least part of the year, leaving more for winter. Also, the man-made openings, even after being harvested or covered in snow provide much browse in the "edge" habitat that has been created, which doesnt exist in near the amounts in solid blocks of mature or poletimber. Blackberry, greenbriar,and much other quality browse exists because of broken habitat...along the edge, as well as reverting farmland not in use etc. Most Farmland would be better quality deer habitat YEAR ROUND, than solid timber,even if man never planted a single seedonthat farmlandforyears. Also throw in the fact farmland is usually broken into far more "ownerships" than "bigwoods", and that leads to more deer friendly timbering practices.

"If deer don’t have food that other two or three months they die before they can produce the next year’s fawns. Even if they do marginally survive with little food they don’t produce surviving fawns that year. "

And according to pgcs reproduction data, it hasnt been a problem. Andnow that the herd has beenpummeled, it should be about the farthest worry from your mind.

White-tail-deer

Are you a farmer Cornelius?