RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No, the MSY goal is not subjective. It is established by the habitat and the deer. Whether to manage at that goal may be consider as a subjective decision, but the MSY density is based on science rather than just the personal preference of a individual group of stake holders.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

To continue to follow a MSY strategy is to fail to consider the long term consequences on the habiatat, other species and ultimately the long term effects on the deer herd. It's a management style that made sense decades ago when we were trying to rebuild a herd that had been decimated but it is obsolete now that the herd has long sinc been restored.

Suggesting a deer density of 40+ over winter is simply irresponsible for the long term.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

There is no long term negative effect on the deer herd at the MSY CC and that is why it is referred to as the max. sustainable yield, because it is sustainable for the long term. Furthermore , our herd has not been managed at the MSY density since 1980.

If you don't want the herd to be managed at the MSY carrying capacity, do you want it to be managed at the diversity carrying capacity. If so ,do you have any idea what that would do to the buck harvest?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

some serious talk going on here today

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Wrong!

MSY fails to consider the long term impact on habitat. By letting the deer herd max out, over time the habitat is degraded by deer overbrowsing the best forage leaving less desirable forage to regenerate.

Maybe if you try and think of it as "high grading" the habitat you could begin to understand it.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But, the less desirable forage is still more than adequate, to maintain max. breeding rates and recruitment. That is why it is called the MSY CC.

Why did you avoid answering my question regarding what RDD you would like the PGC to use to managing the herd.

BTW, the vast majority of timber harvests in PA result in high grading. The best trees are removed and the less desirable species like beech bass and gum are left standing.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

MSY is most certainly subjective. It is up to speculation as what is considered long term. When the habitat begins to decline the MSY is actually being exceeded, even though density continues to increase. That can set up for a crash.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

It wouldn't be called the max. sustainable yield if it resulted in a decline in the habitat which resulted in lower breeding rates and recruitment., The MSY CC of 40 DPSM is based on an over browsed habitat of beech, birch and striped maple.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Thanks for proving my point that you are concerned about nothing but producing deer no matter what the impact on thehabitat or other wildlife.


I asked you "











window.google_render_ad();

So, just what OWDD do you prescribe?" so why did you avoid my question?


That may well be happening on some properties. Some landowners and timber interests are short sighted just like the USP and co is short sighted about deer management.That is the decision of the property owners and not yours or mine. Second, what does that have to do with how the PGC manages deer numbers?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Are those not non-preferred?