---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Should hunters believe Dr. Alt, Dr. Rosenberry, Dr, Alsheimer or Dr. Demarasis? Dr. Alt and Dr. Rosenberry agreed we had too many deer and had to reduce the herd by around 50% which would result in an average DD of 12 DPSM. But here is what Dr. Alshieimer has to say about the carrying capacity of most of our state.


"The proper number of deer per square mile of deer habitat will vary by region. In our farm rich area of New York State , biologists would like to see no more than 35-40 deer per square mile. Unfortunately these numbers haven’t been seen for more than two decades."

He goes onto say this about the doe harvests that are recommeded.
"In our QDM program we typically harvest between 8 and 12 does per season on our 200 acres. This is a bit more than the normal recommended harvest of 45 does per 1,000 acres, but we harvest a few more than some might think we need to because some of our surrounding neighbors do not believe in killing does."


A harvest rate of 10 doe /200 acres equals a harvest of 32 doe/SM. A harvest rate of 45 does/1000 acres equals 29 doe PSM. So Dr. Al recommends a doe harvest which is over twice what Dr. Alt and Dr. Rosenberry recommends as the over wintering carrying capacity of the habitat. So who should the average hunter believe?

---

---

Second,those numbers you quoted regarding Dr Alt and Dr Rosenberry are your interperetations and not the goals as stated by them. You can provide no link where either Alt or Rosenberry stated that a 50% reduction was the goal

---

---

Third, you obviously failed to mention Dr Kroll AKA Dr Deer. Funny how you left out the man who is probably the most respected wildlife biologist out there today. Of course we all know that you've accused him of being biased because his findings refute all your theories.

---

---

Hunters would be better served by believing the professionals rather than a self appointed and vocal internet hack who takes bits of data collected by those professionals out of context and twists it to his own conclusions.

---

---

I am surprised you would choose to question that fact considering the 2007 buck harvest was down 47% from 2001. Have you forgotten Alt said they wanted to reduce the herd by 5%/year for 10 years.

---

---

Actually Dr. Kroll's research supports my position,it is just that he rearches the wrong conclusions. He doesn't even recognize the obvious effects of high grading that occurred due to ARs in Miss.

---

---

Apparently numerous experts claim the majority of habitat in PA can support 35-40 DPSM, while the PGC claimed 5C could only support 6 DPSM. So "WITCH" experts should we believe?

---

---

Another classic Deaddeer, deerfly,beenther,bluebird2, ddear, Larry darryl and darryl distortion. I challenge you to produce a link quoting a few of your "numerous experts" claiming exactly what the habitat in PA vcan support. Oh and comparing 5C to the rest of the state is bogus too. When the 6 DPSM goal was released (no longer being used BTW) it very clearly stated that this was a goal based on human/deer conflict in an SRA urban WMU

_____________________________

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

If the habitat in mixed farmland and woods in NY can support 35-40 DPSM, why wouldn't similar habitat in PA support at least as many deer? Furthermore you are flat out wrong about the 6 DPSM goal for 5 C. The for 5 C was that low because 5C is only 33.7% forested and the PGC only considers forested habitat when establishing DD goals. The goal in 5B was 5 DPSM because 5B is only 27% forested. When the PGC switched from DPFSM to DPSM they did not establish the new goals based on deer human conflict.

---

---

As for the no longer used and now obsolete DD goals that were once stated for SRA's

---

---

Nothing telling us who these unnamed "numerous experts" that have claimed that PA's habitat can support 35-40 DPSM or any documentation that these "numerous experts" made these claims

---

---

Alsheimer was one of those experts that said mixed farmland and woodlots can support 35-40 DPSM and based on the harvest data he cited ,he was managing his property at 32 doe PSM and recommended that other QDM properties should be managed at 29 doe PSM.

---

---

I also find it funny Btbowhunter, that you "knock" Alsheimer by insinuating he doesnt belong on bluebirds "expert" list,even though heis a noted well known lifelong reasearcher of the whitetailed deer, yet you are quick to support every word from a "Pa game warden" as the gospel and final word on deer management and biology.

---

---

Wrong again. That statement was referring to New York. You thenj took it upon yourself to apply it to all of Pennsylvania. While some parts of New York and Pennsylvania may be similar, thats a far cry from the statement you claimed.

---

---

The objective of regulatory changes for the 2000-01 season was to stop the
deer population growth that had occurred in each of the 2 previous years. This
was accomplished with the increased harvest in 2000 and the population was
stabilized at a statewide post-season density of 39 deer/mi2 of forested land (23
deer/mi2 of total land). This is still 86% above the statewide goal of 21
deer/mi2 of forested land (12 deer/mi2 of total land).

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

That is not true. I simply pointed out that Alsheimer and other experts in NY said the carrying capacity of farmland and woodlots is 35-40 DPSM and then I pointed out the ridiculous low DD goals in 5C and 5B. However, 16 of our 22 WMUs have at least 20% farmland and none of those wmus had DD goals of more than 15 DPSM.

Note, the herd in 2G is now 40% below the goal of 15 DPSM.

---

---

Using 2001 data is meaningless now.

---

---

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter




So when did Charlie Alsheimer get his PHD? Or are you bestowing those now too?

Couldn't find that link, eh?

Why not write up your own conclusions correcting Dr Kroll and submit them to all the hunting publications and we'll see who believes you over Dr deer

Another classic Deaddeer, deerfly,beenther,bluebird2, ddear, Larry darryl and darryl distortion. I challenge you to produce a link quoting a few of your "numerous experts" claiming exactly what the habitat in PA vcan support. Oh and comparing 5C to the rest of the state is bogus too. When the 6 DPSM goal was released (no longer being used BTW) it very clearly stated that this was agoal based on human/deer conflict in an SRA urban WMU

---

---

Zero,unless you want to compare the growth of bracken ferns in the treated areas.Liming studies have been done many times over the years by a variety of different agencies and the conclusions were always the same.Liming does very little for the regeneration of most species.It does nothing for oak.It's expensive and vetry impracticle to implement in most cases.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

No, Alsheimer is not a PhD. he is however a well known and respected expert in the deer hunting industry as well as a strong proponent of QDM , and very involved in several ongoing deer research projects, spanning several decades. Would you feel bette if he got an online degree? I have to admit that I'm surprised that someone who obviously likes to flaunt their own involvement with QDM and all the fancy clubs you are a member of, not to mention that you are a "guide'' on a DM operation yourself, that you would even question Charlie Alsheimer's positions on deer management. Hat's off to the "alpha hunter" over there. I'm sure that you are one of those guys who likes to think that anyone who has a beef with the PGC is a disgruntled stump sitter from gun season. Travel to the midwest, probably hunt some quality private land here in PA, and shoot a nice one in a food plot every year. Want a cookie? Truth is, many of us just don't fit your stereotype, scooter. In fact, many of us complaining are still killing deer. The difference between you and us is that we realize that responsible deer management on the state level is not about you orI getting our deer, and that's not a responsible gauge of its success or failure. The PGC's own data is the gauge, measured against its own goals, objectives, and projections. It is a miserable failure, and bend it any way you want. 5 or6 dpsm is NOT a responsible mgt goal, regardles of any amount of failed regeneration. If forest regeneration is truly as bad as they claim, reducing the herd to those extreme levels won't fix it. They need to be addressing the root problems, instead of using the deer as a scapegoat. This entire issue has money at it's veryroot, and the sportsmen of PA, and the deer are getting the shaft.( and not the one you shot your last "Poper" with in a food plot in Ill.) BTW, ever heard of Prof Sharpe, of PSU? He has quite a different take on the regeneration issue than the PGC and DCNR. I can give you a link if you'd like.

---

---

DCNR keeps good records and has a good handle on the situation in their districts.Last year,for the first time in years,they haven't had to fence all of their timber sales.That's because of less deer,plain and simple.This area was devistaed by having to many deer for way too long and it takes very few deer to continually impact the habitat under these conditions.It is getting better and DCNR has the data and facts to prove it.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

In 2006 DCNR said only 24% of the plots surveyed had adequate regeneration. The fact they still have to fence some areas means their still not getting good regeneration even with 10 DPSM., so isn't the logical answer to reduce the herd even more so DCNR doesn't have to spend any money for fencing. Could the fact that only half of DCNR land is managed for timber be a contributing to the need for very low DDs. Old growth forests are very poor deer habitat with little or no browse.

Dr. Al recommends a sustainable doe harvest of 29 adult doe/year. In 2007 we harvested 11 doe PSM,5B was 4 PSM ,5C was 8.7 and 2A was 7.9. So once again thsi shows that the PGC is managing out herd at densities that are considerably below the MSY carrying capacity.

---

---

BT,I'm not talking about old growth forests.I'm talking about Moshannon state forest.Ever been there?

---

---

ORIGINAL: White-tail-deer

Anyone else get the feeling BB may have a few more aliases?

---

---

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"There's nothing anonymous about me Cornelius.I don't hide behind a phony name."

....Aside from being a guy that blindly supports our failed deer program on a few different messageboards, and a guy who got booted from one of them, I still dont have a clue as to who you are, nor do I care, but I think you knew what the point was. Most arent gonna take the word of an unknowngarbage man, plumber or insurance salesman over the word of a noted professor.

As for not calling anyone a liar, You said Sharpes article wasnt true....Id say that qualifies.

"You don't have to believe me.Many others with actual forestry credentials felt the same way. "

An extremelyvague statement and heresay doesnt overrule the good professor. Sorry. Even if you could cite "others with forestry credentials" if they fall under the umbrella of pgc or dcnr of our state, you may as well not bother to mention. They are a huge part of the reason we are where we are in the first place. They are vehemiently anti-deer. Unlike them, Sharpe on the other hand is completely unbiased and has no agenda..

"Please tell me,how does it make sense that acid rain is the limiting factor when all you have to do is fence out the deer."

Because acidgreatly limits growth. Magnifying the deer damage 10 fold. Inside the fence is a completely unnatural condition with ZERO deer impact, and the only way everywhere outside of the fence is gonna look just like the inside is with nearly zero deer outside as well. If the soils were not so depleted and acidic inside and out,the outsidewould look to some degree more like the inside, but never exactly as the areas with ZERO deer.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2


According to the PGC the herd in 2G has been reduced to 8-9 OW DPSM and still only 42% of the plots surveyed had adequate regeneration according to the PGC. Therefore, since according to you the exclosures prove the deer are the problem, then the PGC should keep reducing the herd in 2G until they get at least 70% regeneration, if in fact they are managing the herd based on forest health. Do you agree and if so how much more should the herd be reduced?

Also, do you agree with Alsheimer that areas like Wyo. county should be managed at 35-40 DPSM?

---

---

ORIGINAL: Snivel and squeal

This is a very good point of dicussion. With the herd reduced in 2G to 8-9 OWD, and only 42% regeneration, should the HR continue in 2G? How about complete annihilation for the sake of commercial timber? Obviously if 8-9 owdpsm are only allowing 42% regeneration which is still nowhere near the PGC objective of 70%, than given yourstatement of the deer being the single contributing factor here, based on fencing studies, further reduction is needed. And so much for thereduction being temporary. If we allow the herd to increase, there goes your regeneration again. So here it is in a nutshell. If the PGC plan is allowed to stay the current course, using forest health as its objective, not only will the herds in 2G have to be reduced even further, (maybe as low as 2-3 dpsm), but they must remain at those levels indefinitely, for the sake of the trees. Please. Does anyone else out there realize how ridiculous this plan is? Is Pennsylvania the only state with a regeneration problem, or are we the only ones using stupidity to try to address it?

---

---

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

You really need to consider anger management.......

---

---

ORIGINAL: Pawildman

......Wow... I think he's calling us out..... The common folk in various walks of life just can't possibly be as knowledgeable as him.... yet we don't know what he does for a living. "And the beat goes on....."

---

---

Snivel and squeal
Here we go, the name calling starts when they don't know what to say, must be a liberal. :D:D

---

---

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

This is a very good point of dicussion. With the herd reduced in 2G to 8-9 OWD, and only 42% regeneration, should the HR continue in 2G? How about complete annihilation for the sake of commercial timber? Obviously if 8-9 owdpsm are only allowing 42% regeneration which is still nowhere near the PGC objective of 70%, than given yourstatement of the deer being the single contributing factor here, based on fencing studies, further reduction is needed. And so much for thereduction being temporary. If we allow the herd to increase, there goes your regeneration again. So here it is in a nutshell. If the PGC plan is allowed to stay the current course, using forest health as its objective, not only will the herds in 2G have to be reduced even further, (maybe as low as 2-3 dpsm), but they must remain at those levels indefinitely, for the sake of the trees. Please. Does anyone else out there realize how ridiculous this plan is? Is Pennsylvania the only state with a regeneration problem, or are we the only ones using stupidity to try to address it?

---

---

ORIGINAL: RSB

There is no reason to suspect that the habitat in 2G will not continue to improve at the current deer population levels without additional major reduction. If we just keep the herd at the current levels without major increase over the next few year the habitat will continue to improve. As the habitat improves the deer number will increase right along with the improved habitat.

Then after a few year of the continuously improving habitat things will get to where we do have to have to harvest more deer just to keep the deer from excessively damaging that improving habitat. But, all the while we will be able to harvest more and more deer while still maintaining the improving habitat. That is how good deer management works and why it is so much better then that nonsense and stupidly misguided way you guys think it should work.

We did it you way for decades and it was a dismal failure. It is now time to do it the right way by listening to the deer instead of people that have nothing but opinions as a guide.

Unit 2G, like pretty much like all other units, is improving in both habitat and deer numbers. But, only because no one except the USP and a few of the most unknowledgeable hunters are fighting the sound scientific approach to deer management. Combine that with presently having a Commission with the guts to do the right thing more often then not and deer management is finally on the right track for a promising future.

Dick Bodenhorn

---

---

There is no reason to suspect that the habitat in 2G will not continue to improve at the current deer population levels without additional major reduction. If we just keep the herd at the current levels without major increase over the next few year the habitat will continue to improve. As the habitat improves the deer number will increase right along with the improved habitat.

---

---

Maybe we need to be more sensitive to their situation. Here they are clinging desperately to antiquated ideas while the rest of the world moves on

---