The previous goal for 5c was 6 DPSM and for 5B it was 5 DPSM and I agree it made no sense since those WMUs have some of the best habitat in the state.

bb i dont how many dpsm is right because i am not a wildlife bio unfortionaly i have to trust the pros
to some level

Here is what the experts told us the goals were in 2003.
Now the PGC has abandoned those goals and our managing the herd based on the regeneration of commercially valuable trees.

By BTBowhunter:


Units 2F and 2G both have pockets of oaks and areas with no oaks. Both areas also have some stands that are entirely northern hardwoods. Unit 2F has more northern hardwoods (with very few oaks) then unit 2G. But, unit 2G has more area of steep, rocky outcroppings that has very few trees, or anything else, growing on the forest floor then what are found in unit 2F. All in all, and in general, unit 2G has less deer habitat then what is found in unit 2F though there are some pockets of good habitat in both units.


Bluebird said:


The reason unit 2F is, and always has been, managed at higher deer populations then unit 2G is because that different in the habitat and the ability of each to support deer within the limits of those habitats.

That fact should be evident by simply looking a the historic deer harvests for the two areas.

Here is the historic harvest data for the counties that make up those two units up until the inception of the units and then the data for the units since 2003 when the units were first established. All data is in harvests per square mile.

Area……………83-87.…………88-92.……….93-97.………..98-02.……….03-07
2F………………9.62.…………..11.35.…†¦â€¦.11.93.…………12.45.……….7.14
2G………………7.85.……………9.55.…†¦â€¦..8.00.…………..8.53.………..4.00

This should help any objective person see that unit 2F has always had more deer and also that neither unit has had excessive antler less deer harvests during any recent years compared to the harvests of the historic past. That also lends more significance to the likelihood that it has been trying to carry too many deer in recent times that caused the habitat decline that then resulted in the population decline.

As for argument of needing more antler less license an higher harvests in unit 2F I fully agree. That is probably why unit 2F has averaged 13.97 antler less license per square mile compared to only 8.26 as the six year average for unit 2G. I also believe that the failure of the ANF to issue DMAP permit’s the past two years has played into the reason the study plots in unit 2F are presently rated worse then the sample plots in unit 2G. That still doesn’t negate the total lack of habitat on the steep, rocky outcropping of unit 2G though.


Bluebird said:



That is not correct at all.

The quality of the habitat, including the availability of mast, is a great deal of what influences the herd health. The quality of the habitat, (that is regeneration since you don’t seem to know that), is entirely what influences the measure of the habitat health. Both of which are used for determining the direction for managing the herd within the quality of the habitat available to the deer within that unit.

Deer/human conflicts primarily only come into play where the human populations are high and the CAC find that the public want fewer deer then the habitat health indicates is suitable for the present or higher deer numbers. In cases where the habitat would sustain more deer and the CAC recommend fewer deer, due to human conflict, the deer numbers might be reduced to less then the habitat can support. At least if it is possible to reduce the numbers in those areas. Presently there are indications that it might not be possible to reduce deer numbers where the habitat is suitable to support more deer.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Thats absolutely nonsense. As long as there are high enough hunter numbers coupled with allocations and access, there is nowhere that cannot be reduced regardless of habitat. Only thing that could prevent it is too few hunters and/or lots of interpersed totally off limits lands.

Not the case within the majority of the state.

So you are saying that the PGC has managed 2F at higher DD than should have been allowed and are still managing 2F at higher DDs than 2G resulting in lower regeneration rates and lower productivity. Whether you know it or not you once again,just supported what I have been saying.
The quote I posted from Brett Wallingford said specifically that herd health is independent from forest health. All but 1 WMU is at it's goal for herd health,so 2f and 2G are being managed based solely on forest health and forest health is lower in 2F than in 2G ,yet 2F is being managed at a higher deer density and you can't explain why that is and neither can Dr, rosenberry.

I believe he told you that much of 2g is sheer slope terrain that is not suitable deer habitat. Deer simply cannot utilize a high percentage of each SM. I have been there..have you?
The actual SM of deer habitat is considerably less than what a flat map shows. It is straight up or straight down and is very hard hunting. The deer totally avoid much of it, more notably in winter when it really counts.

That is simply pure nonsense being spread by RSB. The habitat in 2G once supported over 40 DPSM. In 2003 the habitat in 2G supported a harvest of 10K buck PSM and 20K doe PSM. But in 2007 the same habitat only produced a buck harvest of 5K buck and 6.6K doe,due entirely to over harvesting the doe in 2G.
By claiming that deer avoid steep slopes shows how little you know about deer. I have hunted several mountains that were so steep the only way i could follow the deer trails was by hanging on to trees or crawling up the slope. deer are as close to mountain goats as you can get and steep slopes don't phase them.

Classic Bluetwist!

RSB and Greg didnt say that deer avoid steep slopes. They said that not much grows to provide feed on those steep rocky areas. Once again, you twist the meaning of facts when you know full well what was said and what it means.

Where do mountain deer overwinter?
What terrain?
This is a factor to CC in 2g.