RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

[&:]

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

RDDs are not dependent on clear cutting. RDDs are based on the composition of all classes of timber.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Of course they are.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Please explain how RDDs are dependent on clear cutting. If there is no clearcutting in a WMU like 5C , does that mean the RDD would be less than a WMU 2G where there was more clear cutting.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Their total existencedepends on clearcutting being unfashionable. There is no good reason besides aestetics to not clearcut.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No, that is not true. The RDD for MSY density for deer would be much higher in 5C with no clear cutting ,than in 2g with clearcutting.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Actually that isn’t true!

I used to assist on doing tours at the deer enclosures on SGL # 30 where there were pens with different numbers of deer per square mile to study what affect they had on their habitat and their own survival. Each pen had about half of it clear-cut with regeneration started before deer were even put inside.

At 60 deer per square mile the deer would eat everything down to very low little of anything left they before winter was over they all die before winter ended during years when there was any significant amount of snow cover.

At 40 deer per square mile the deer ate all the preferred browse through the summer then during their first winter they cleaned off nearly all of the non preferred browse then managed to prevent any regeneration that should have occurred during their second summer. Those deer continued to slowly lose weight from their first winter on and then couldn’t survive in that pen through their second winter because they had depleted their food supply.

At twenty deer per square mile the deer and habitat were pretty closely matched and the deer never had trouble surviving though the habitat in the mature forest part of the pen never got to recover.

At ten deer per square mile you couldn’t even find the deer because it was so think with under story you couldn’t see through it. If hadn’t been for one old doe named Millie, who would walk out to great you, and the occasional pile of pellets you would see we would have had a hard time convincing people there were even any deer in that pen.

And this was not even an area with poor soils or steep rocky outcroppings like occur in much of unit 2G. Therefore, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the deer proved they couldn’t be sustained or even alive at 40 deer per square mile in even the better areas of unit 2G.

Back in the late 80s we even rented a bus and did a tour there for the USP. I wish those pens and that deer study were still there, it was a great eye opener for most people.

After the deer pens wewouldthen gojust a few hundred yards away, to Latham’s acre, and showed everyone that you can in deed get lots of great things growing, even under the canopy of a mature forest, if you fence out the deer.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You just accused Dr, DeCalesta of lying and totally misrepresented the research that he conducted. Is it any wonder that you have no credibility?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The farmland deer have started moving the last two weeks. With all the edges to feed on they don't looked stress out. Go to www.rwbrooks3.com these pictures are from cameras on three corners of the field behind my house.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Based on that, the habitat in 2G should be in excellent condition with over 70% regeneration ,since 2G had at or below 15 DPSM since 2000. It also shows that 2F is not being managed based on forest health as the PGC claimed because if it was ,they would have reduced the herd to the same density as in 2G.

Here is a quote from the SCS Certification Report, regarding the results of the study RSB referenced.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

This is not what RSB keeps telling us. His programmed response is that in poor overbrowsed habitat, it takes much fewer deer to keep impacting the habitat. The study claimed that DD at or below 15dpsm were sufficient for a diverse and healthy forest, given today's timbering practices.if he is going to keep claiming such bull, he should cite studies that support his position, not the other side. And if these densities are sufficient on expansive tracts of forest land managed for timber and "all" wildlife, then obviously mixed farmland and properties managed for wildlife and not timber should be able to support much higher DD than that without excessive deer impact. (See ridiculous DD goals for 5A and 5B.)[:@]

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Maybe I'm missing it but in my mind these studies show how deer affect areas in different ways,but the effects all lead to the same conclusion.

If you fence in a desert it will not support 15 dpsm and you see no regeneration even at 5 dpsm.Yet if you fence in an area with adequate soil and rain that area will support 15 dpsm,maybe moreand regenerate.

PA is a big diverse state with many kinds of habitat.

Simply put for simple minds.;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But the PGC used these studies that were conducted in the poorest habitat in the state, to establish deer densities goals in all WMUs based, solely on the carrying capacity of the forested habitat in those WMUs.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Steel,R.s.b is 100% correct in that once the habitat is stressed,it takes very few deer to have an impact on it.If you put 15 dpsm in habitat that isn't poor,they won't likely impact it.Who said that those studies started out with habitat that was poor.

Come on up some spring and you can walk some transect lineswith me onour browse impact surveys.You'll be amazed at how much the deer impact recently timbered areas that are in the middle of very poor habitat.I'll give you a dollar for every stump sprout that you can find that survives until winter.This is in an area with a pretty high deer density but there's been massive logging taken place over the past three years.

R.S.B has a 75 acre clearcut on SGL 93that was cut in 1993,I believe.That clearcut never regenerated and turned into a meadow,even though several seed trees were left.Six years after they cut it,they erected a bunch of small fences.Today those fences are too thick to walk through and the unfenced areas are still not coming back much,even though the deer herd is greatly reduced in that area.It's amazing.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The original studies used to establish the OWDD goals began in 1960 after 30 years of over browsing. I'll have to check to make sure , but as I recall the latest research was de Calesta was done during the 90s after 60 years of over browsing. Since only 42% of the plots surveyed in 2G have adequate regeneration, should the herd in 2G be reduced to 5 DPSM. How far should the PGC reduced the herd in 2F ,where only 34 % of the plots regenerated? Why is the PGC still creating herbaceous openings for elk, if there are so many failed clearcuts creating open meadows?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The herd in 2G needed to be greatly reduced and it needs to stay low for a long time.Positive results were starting to show up.hopefully,the herd doesn't rebound too fast and we end up losing everything that we gained.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But only for the benefit of the DCNR and the timber industry. The deer and hunters will see no benefit from keeping the herd at these ridiculously low DD for a long time. If forest health hasn't improved in areas that receive adequate sunlight, why would it improve in areas under a closed canopy. That makes absolutely no sense.

BTW , I checked a 3 year old cut on a southern slope near my home and there has great regeneration ,but not one deer track, even though there was 8" of new snow. All of the tracks were on the opposite side of the round where there is very little new growth.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I still can't figure out what you have against having adequate and prefered regeneration.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I have nothing against adequate regeneration of preferred browse species and you know that. But, when 2G only has 42% regeneration with less than 10 DPSM it is fairly obvious that there are other factors limiting regeneration in 2G.

Now that I answered your question, why don't you answer my questions. The answer is you won't because there is no logical answer to those questions. Study after study has shown that the understory and browse decrease dramatically as a clearcut progress to pole timber even with no deer.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You need a study to know that?
I can cut all the standing firewood I want in 2f.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No,Doug needs a study to show that. How many cords did you cut in 2F this year?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

We only cut enough for summer campfires. The forest is thinning dramatically with virtually no understory in many places.
The deer do impact regeneration, don't get me wrong, but there is no regeneration in a maturing forest. We need more logging.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Not at all.

You obviously either don’t read entire reports or fail to understand what you have read. I have worked with Dr. DeCalesta on a number of projects over the years. We have worked back and forth on various educational and research projects since the eighties and I assure you we are not at odds with what the research has proven at all.

I have files and boxesfilled with the studies conducted by Dr. DeCalesta and Dr. Stout. I have been to the lab to visit and converse with them and have also gone there to present programs, on deer, for them and other Research Biologists.

Even the short clip you took fromDr. DeCalesta'sreport says pretty much the same thing about the studies that I pointed out in my post from last night.

It seems to me that you just don’t like the facts so you either ignore many of the study results or misrepresent what they say in an attempt to garner support for your misguided agenda.

The fact is the deer and their food supply have proven time after time that you are wrong. Your preferred method of deer management does not work for the long term, and that failure for the long term is exactly what got us to where we are with low deer populations in so much of the northern tier today.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

That, and large scale clearcutting falling out of favor.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Apparently you have a short memory and a very selective way of viewing the evidence. you predicted breeding rates would increase as the herd was reduced but, instead they decreased. That alone proves the herd was below the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat in 2000. If the harvests hadn't exceeded recruitment over the last 8 years elk Co. would still have over 25 DPFSM instead of 8 or 10. To show you I am right the over browsed habitat in 2F was still supporting 22 PS DPSM in 2005, 3A had 32 PS DPSM,2E has 32 PS DPSM2C had 20 DPSM and 4D had 21 DPSM. Isn't it amazing that all the WMUs surrounding 2G can support almost twice or more the number of deer as 2G.

Explain that one if you can.

Here is another quote from the SCS Report.
So for over 80 years the habitat supported 25 DPSM and now you are claiming the habitat suddenly decided to control the herd ? Try again.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

That is a subjective choice made by DCNR and those that control timbering. It is not a reason to decimate the herd.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

It is every reason to reduce the herd, and no, that is a choice forced upon us by the eco-nuts. You are mad at the wrong crowd. They view vast clearcuts as an unsightlywasteland, not as the unleashing of life as it really is. They take aerial photos of flattened forest and launch public campaigns against the practice. As a result, colleges have educated the new age foresters to use every method but clearcutting and justify the results. Because of this situation, the forest cannot regenerate with higher DD, the GCMUST reduce the herd because they DO negatively impact regeneration in this scenario, and your type of hunter becomes outraged and inconsolable. So you see, youmight sometimesbecorrect in your views, but completely wrong in the grand scheme.
There is nothing you can do aside from beating your dead horse, because the situation is never going to change and make your type of hunter relevant as before.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The flaw in your argument is that the RDD goals were not based on the presence of a significant percentage of clear cuts. The study was done long after large clear cuts ceased to be the dominant type of timber harvest. They were based on the average forest habitat of northern hardwoods with the current timber harvesting practices.

If the PGC was right in reducing the herd in 2 G to 8 DPSM are they wrong for managing the herd in 2F at almost twice that number? Should all the NC WMUs be managed at 8 DPSM? If the percent regeneration is an accurate representation of forest health , maybe you would like to explain why 5C only has 23% regeneration, which is the poorest in the state, and it has some of the best soils in the state and unlimited food for the deer.

BTB says you are wrong and I agree. If the number of hunters hunting those NC counties continues to decline there will soon be a time when there aren't enough hunters to control the herd.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Cliff Casena does EXCELLENT work thats who does all of my mounts ;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Two parcels of the woods I own were timbered before I bought them. both were select cut for saw quality logs,the results are the poorest of seed trees being left standing. Its plan to see after select cutting over the years the quality of trees remaining deteriorates.By cutting the biggest and best every time the poorer genetics and faster growing soft species take over.
For me this is not a big factors as we burn a lot of fire wood as do several friends,although not preferred, soft maple burns well and there seems to be a never ending supply of it,so just like growing a garden you must keep up with the "weeding" if you want a good crop.
Much of PA's woods could use a good weeding.;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Buddying up to Bob now huh? Ha ha ha!
I'm gonna frame that statement and hang it on the wall.

The GC continues to control or even reduce the herd with allocations very successfully. The absence of hunters is a doomsday scenario that could happen, but not in thepredictable future. License sales have increased in Pa, bucking the national trend.
There are plenty of interested folks out there as of presstime.
Bob was stating the possibility exists, butI doubt he is making that prediction at this point. Big difference.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Take that statement back! You know BB is gonna tie it in with deer highgrading theories.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

As I was typing it I could hear the, declining breeding rates and Mississippi studies in the back ground screaming , pick me pick me .;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Not to worry Greg. Just another Bb delusion. I think he got into some fermented birdseed;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You do a fine job of changing the subject when you can't provide answers to a few simple questions. What RDD should the the PGC use to manage the herd. Do you prefer the RDD for biodiversity or the RDD for max. sustainable timber yield?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

"License sales have increased in Pa, bucking the national trend. "

WRONG! The sales decreased at over DOUBLE the national average from 2001 to 2006 because of the deer plan, and this past year, ourlicense salesdeclined yet again.

The only national trend we are bucking is with the implementation of an extreme treehugger initiated deer plan that has helped our numbers decrease.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Now you went a chased RSB away again, shame on you for asking him questions that he can't answer. We all know he prefers to do a monologue, rather than debate.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

This program has been underway for nearly a decade and the only documented data pgc has in regard to the plans working is declining breeding rates. Thats pretty pathetic.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Did you mean stand-up comedy?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You are very much correct on that.

The court injunctions that stopped the cutting on the ANF for all those years has had a very harmful affect on the habitat and its ability to support the number of deer it once did. As those old clear-cut areas grew into pole timber with no new clear-cuts to replace them the areas that had been supporting 60 or more deer per square mile reverted to habitat that could only support about five deer per square mile. That was and still is a large part of the reason we have so many fewer deer in many areas.

That elimination of the clear-cuts, and great reduction in all cutting, has also resulted in less snowshoe hare and grouse habitat as well.

Even though the court injunctions were only against the Allegheny National Forest it also affected a lot of the things, such as clear-cuts and even aggressive timber management cutting that had been occurring on state properties as well. Everyone became more cautious of their cutting practices from that day forward in order have their practices defensively sustainable in a court. That alone limit’s the amount of cutting that can be done unless you have more foresters and others to do the environmental impact statements now required.

R.S. Bodenhorn