Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
02-02-2009, 03:22 PM
#41
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
For one thing 2F has fewer steep rocky outcroppings where something can grow. Units like 2G could support more deer if things they could eat would grow on totally rock covered soil or if we could teach deer to survive by eating rocks.
Though both areas have about the maximum number of deer their individual habitats can support unit 2F inherently has better habitat types that will always support more deer then can be supported in the habitat types found in unit 2G.
There is nothing complicated about that difference, at least for those that are professionally training to manage the resources across the state.
Though both areas have about the maximum number of deer their individual habitats can support unit 2F inherently has better habitat types that will always support more deer then can be supported in the habitat types found in unit 2G.
There is nothing complicated about that difference, at least for those that are professionally training to manage the resources across the state.
02-02-2009, 03:35 PM
#43
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
RE: Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
Both productivity and forest regeneration is lower in 2F than in 2G yet the PGC is managing 2F at a density that is almost twice that in 2G. That is totally irrational and makes absolutely no sense.
02-02-2009, 03:37 PM
#44
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
Smaller WMUs are not the answer. The answer is managing the herd based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat rather than the regeneration of commercially valuable trees. The MSY carrying capacity of northern hardwoods is over 40 DPSM. Even if the herd was managed at half that level ,hunting in 2F and 2G would be much better than it is now.
02-02-2009, 04:02 PM
#47
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
ORIGINAL: livbucks
This is a prime example of why we need smaller wmu's.
2F habitat varies greater than you would think.
It goes the gamut. I hunt the poorer soiled areas btw.
This is a prime example of why we need smaller wmu's.
2F habitat varies greater than you would think.
It goes the gamut. I hunt the poorer soiled areas btw.
so, they came out with these big WMU so elk county boys would come to clinton and clean out doe sproul left go.
thats what was behind it.
02-02-2009, 04:07 PM
#48
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: PA.
Posts: 5,195
RE: Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Smaller WMUs are not the answer. The answer is managing the herd based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat rather than the regeneration of commercially valuable trees. The MSY carrying capacity of northern hardwoods is over 40 DPSM. Even if the herd was managed at half that level ,hunting in 2F and 2G would be much better than it is now.
Smaller WMUs are not the answer. The answer is managing the herd based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat rather than the regeneration of commercially valuable trees. The MSY carrying capacity of northern hardwoods is over 40 DPSM. Even if the herd was managed at half that level ,hunting in 2F and 2G would be much better than it is now.
how do we know how many deer can a dpsm hold in clinton county.
we had no acorns this year.
i was out in woods filling feeders sat, you can see long ways in woods , there is no browse.
i cant believe i am saying that but you know i tell truth of what i see.
i then see fields that could have deer feed planted for deer too.
but even with lack of browse, how do we know how many deer should be in that dpsm.
02-02-2009, 04:33 PM
#49
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Smaller WMUs are not the answer. The answer is managing the herd based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat rather than the regeneration of commercially valuable trees. The MSY carrying capacity of northern hardwoods is over 40 DPSM. Even if the herd was managed at half that level ,hunting in 2F and 2G would be much better than it is now.
Smaller WMUs are not the answer. The answer is managing the herd based on the true carrying capacity of the habitat rather than the regeneration of commercially valuable trees. The MSY carrying capacity of northern hardwoods is over 40 DPSM. Even if the herd was managed at half that level ,hunting in 2F and 2G would be much better than it is now.
As I have said before I always credited you with being more intelligent then what you are displaying. I seriously don’t know if I have given you more credit then you deserve or if you are just trying to mislead people once again.
When you measure the health of the deer (the productive rates of adult does and the breeding rates for the juvenile does) you are measuring all of the habitat those deer live on, farm land, forest land or any where they feed. Therefore your claim that all habitat isn’t measured is incorrect and misleading at the least.
As for the habitat health where do you think it should be measured besides the forest? Should they measure how much corn the farmers planted? Perhaps the height of the hay fields? How about the number of shrubs planted in the housing developments of neighborhood gardens? Of course the place to measure habitat health is in the forest and I can imagine anyone with half a of a logical thought thinking otherwise. Those farm fields and neighborhood gardens are not managed to feed deer. In fact in many cases they can’t feed deer when they have two or three feet of snow covering them. In some years the only habitat that will consistently deer feed is the woody browse so that is what gets measured to determine how the deer food is fairing in the picture of habitat health.
R.S. Bodenhorn
02-02-2009, 04:54 PM
#50
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Once again the USP screws everyone including themselves
When you measure the health of the deer (the productive rates of adult does and the breeding rates for the juvenile does) you are measuring all of the habitat those deer live on, farm land, forest land or any where they feed. Therefore your claim that all habitat isn’t measured is incorrect and misleading at the least.