Some nice bucks (pic)
03-04-2009 | 04:46 AM
#431
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
BTB says you are wrong and I agree
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.
03-04-2009 | 04:50 AM
#432
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
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.
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.
03-04-2009 | 05:15 AM
#433
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,167
Likes: 0
From: PA
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: livbucks
Take that statement back! You know BB is gonna tie it in with deer highgrading theories.
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
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.
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.
03-04-2009 | 05:47 AM
#434
Thread Starter
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: livbucks
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.
BTB says you are wrong and I agree
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.
03-04-2009 | 06:34 AM
#435
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
f 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.
03-04-2009 | 01:14 PM
#436
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
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.
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.
03-04-2009 | 01:18 PM
#437
Fork Horn
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
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.
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.
Explain that one if you can.
Here is another quote from the SCS Report.
With few exceptions, the state-wide deer density in Pennsylvania has exceeded 25 deer per square
mile since the late 1920’s.
mile since the late 1920’s.
03-04-2009 | 05:11 PM
#439
Fork Horn
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: Coalcracker
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.
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
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.
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.
Explain that one if you can.
Here is another quote from the SCS Report.
With few exceptions, the state-wide deer density in Pennsylvania has exceeded 25 deer per square
mile since the late 1920’s.
mile since the late 1920’s.
03-04-2009 | 06:29 PM
#440
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: livbucks
That, and large scale clearcutting falling out of favor.
That, and large scale clearcutting falling out of favor.
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
