blkpowder

Now the historic Valley Forge deer population estimates: Valley Forge is 5.3 square miles in size.

Year………………..estimated deer population
1985.………………….165-185
1997.……………………772
2003.…………………..1398
2007.…………………..1023

Hopefully everyone can see a couple of things from these estimates. First we should be able to see how fast a deer population can increase when they have suitable habitat. Next everyone needs to recognize that these estimates indicate the deer herd is now in a state of decline, even without the influence of hunter harvests, due to over population. That really is a perfectly natural occurrence when populations reach the point of exceeding their habitat and food supply.

R.S. Bodenhorn
[/quote]

That's one of our biggest problems ,R.S.! Yourself,Doug,BTB and many others, keep putting out the numbers in plain black and white and some still refuse to see what's in front of them.What is so hard to understand? If your deer herd is above maximum carrying capacity,the number of deer will start to decline even without hunting. [/align]

cardeeer

Does anyone know how much it will cost per deer to kill them ?? It seems to me I remember a figure like 325.00 a deer when they did it at Gettysburg. But really aint sure. Hey maybe the stimulus package will pay for it ???

R.S.B.

That's one of our biggest problems ,R.S.! Yourself,Doug,BTB and many others, keep putting out the numbers in plain black and white and some still refuse to see what's in front of them.What is so hard to understand? If your deer herd is above maximum carrying capacity,the number of deer will start to decline even without hunting.
[/align]
[/quote]


You are entirely correct, that is and has been probably the biggest problem deer management in this state has ever faced. It isn’t a new problem though, it has been that way since long before I started my career in this field over thirty years ago.

All we can do is continue to educate those willing to accept the data and facts. Some will never accept any of it though simply because it isn’t what they want to believe. Those ones we can’t change, so we just have to use them as the platform we use to further develop and improve the delivery of our message.

I believe more and more hunters are getting the correct message more often now then ever before in the past. I believe we are making slow but steady progress in the efforts to educate the public about sound scientific wildlife management principles. That will make a better future for both the resources and the hunter.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

I have not seen a dollar figure but I can assure you it isn’t cheap.

It would be a lot more cost affective to get the population in balance and then use hunters to control the population in the future but there would be other conflicts the Fed’s don’t want to deal with by using hunters as the management tool.

Plus, it would take an act of Congress and we all know that we frequently don’t get good things from that route.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Screamin Steel

Of course there is recruitment each year, but since I didn't have a figure to work with I didn'tmake a big deal about it.And since I'm sure they will begin their HR by targeting mature does, and shooting year roundit wll be less of a factor. Regardless ...here is another thing to consider. They want to reduce the current herd of 1560 by 1300 leaving a target goal of 260 animals per 5.6 sq miles. That is their goal. (80% reduction) That is still a DD of 46 dpsm. RSB, you have stated that the herd is being controlled by nature as it has already begun declining on its own...exceeding the CC of the habitat. So why would their experts reccomend such a high density goal in depleted habitat, when PGC experts reccomended single digit OWDD in regions that never even came close to 278 dpsm, even at peak population?

R.S.B.

I have no idea why they selected that population objective but perhaps the fact that the majority of deer there can leave to find food or even become a legal harvest where populations are controlled at an equal or lower number through legal hunting might have some influence in the number. Those factors might mean that many deer can use the park without significant oradverse long term affects. I don't know though and can really only guess at their management objectives.

That 46 deer per square mile might not be such an outrageous population size for the area either based on the fact that the surrounding wildlife management unit already has a five average harvest of 6.93 deer per square mile being harvested by legal hunters.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

No, that is not the reason . VF is surrounded by residential and industrial developments and there is no better food sources available than in the park and there isn't enough land open to hunting or hunting to control the herd.

What I find really interesting is that even at 1200 or 226 DPSM deer the herd was still increasing. That means the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat was over 226 DPSM while the PGC claimed the carrying capacity of 5C was 6 DPSM and 5B was 5 DPSM. But RSB still claims the habitat is controlling the herd at 10 DPSM in 2G, even though 2G is 90% forested. and only .6% is developed. On the other hand 5D is 43 % developed and only 34% forested ,so somebody is blowing smoke once again.

Screamin Steel

CCPaHunter

Like cardeeer said, they'reto tame. I wouldn't even consider hunting them. Not my idea of hunting. Maybe if you were justtrying to fill your freezer though.

bawanajim

I know this wouldn't help with the over population any , but maybe they could let [&:]bird and the BB slayers in there.
With over 200 dpsm evena [&:]birdmight be able to score on one that meets those tough Ole AR's.