|
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. It has been explained to you time and again. You just don’t like the answers so you continuously pretend the answers don’t exist or are incorrect. What is incorrect is you and your wanting to cling to those past management practices, including those estimated numbers, that have been proven to be a failure because they didn’t work to have sustainable deer habitat or higher deer populations. As for the deer numbers in the units around 2G that too has been explained. All of the units have different habitat that supports different numbers of deer. All of those units also have a management goal and objective that fits that unit, instead of just one management objective for all units. The deer and their food supply provide that management direction in each unit, just as it should be. 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. In some areas the habitat is supporting far more then 25 deer per square mile. In other areas it is very obvious the habitat doesn’t support any way near that number of deer, and the deer themselves prove that too. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: Coalcracker ORIGINAL: bluebird2 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. Not hardly. I obviously have a lot more to do with my time then you retired guys do though. I can’t keep up with all of the posts that are made in a day and just try to hit the ones that are the most outlandish, full of nonsense and outright fairy-tails. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
As for the deer numbers in the units around 2G that too has been explained. All of the units have different habitat that supports different numbers of deer. All of those units also have a management goal and objective that fits that unit, instead of just one management objective for all units. Therefore, unless you are claiming the acceptable goal for 2F and 2G is poor forest health and it doesn't matter how many deer each unit has, your explanation makes no sense. In some areas the habitat is supporting far more then 25 deer per square mile. In other areas it is very obvious the habitat doesn’t support any way near that number of deer, and the deer themselves prove that too. |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
If deer, other wildlife, and the forest itself co exist in harmony for over 80 years at densities of 25dpsm, and suddenly in the last ten years, that same forest can no longer support a fraction of that many deer AFTER 80 YEARS!!!!! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that another factor has come into play and altered that relationship, and it's not the deer. Two possible factors being forest management and pollution. WE are still learning much about how pollution is affecting our planet. Can bad air quality affect certain species of plant regeneration, as well as acid rain? There is a a broad area of the Rothrock SF where poor red oak regeneration has been specifically attributed to acid rain, and that assessment came straight from DCNR.
|
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
I find it amusing that the same minority that cites acid rain as the culprit for poor regeneration is also the camp that claims the PGC has been taken over by ecoextremists.
The negative effects of acid rain on regeneration arestill mostlyunproven theory and that type of theory attracts the same kind of ecoweenies that the global warming hoax does.So what it seems we have here is ecoweenies accusing the PGC of bowing to the ecoweenies[&:] |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
In the short time I've been on this site,I too witnessed ecoweenies accusing the PGC of bowing to ecoweenies. They want to toast the PGC weenies. Then you have the hunting weenies roasting the PGC weenies for their decisions. Then the PGC shows data to explain to the hunting weenies as to why the PGC are not weenies for their decisions. Maybe this whole matter would be better handled by Hillshire Farms?
 [/align] |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
The negative effects of acid rain on regeneration are still mostly unproven theory and that type of theory attracts the same kind of ecoweenies that the global warming hoax does |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
Steel,Red oak is tolerant of acidic soils.I can show you dozens of exclosures that were never treated and have have excellent oak regeneration.The only thing they're missing is large deer herds.I can also show you areas that were limed and you'll see no difference between the treated and un-treated areas with the exception of bracken ferns.Bracken ferns seem to take a liking to lime.
Acidic soils shave had a very pronouned effect on hard maple,not oak regeneration.The soils in oak forests are very acidic by nature,regardless of rainfall |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
This is what the Penn Sate School of Forestry has to say about regeneration in PA.
. Tree planting (artificial regeneration) generally is not necessary in Pennsylvania. Through the use of acceptable silvicultural practices, most of Pennsyl- vania’s forests will regenerate naturally from seeds or sprouts. Studies show that naturally regenerated trees usually grow faster and survive better than planted trees. However, trees may have to be planted to reforest former strip mine sites, old fields, conifer plantations, and areas where insects or diseases have killed all the seed-producing trees. |
RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 This is what the Penn Sate School of Forestry has to say about regeneration in PA. . Tree planting (artificial regeneration) generally is not necessary in Pennsylvania. Through the use of acceptable silvicultural practices, most of Pennsyl- vania’s forests will regenerate naturally from seeds or sprouts. Studies show that naturally regenerated trees usually grow faster and survive better than planted trees. However, trees may have to be planted to reforest former strip mine sites, old fields, conifer plantations, and areas where insects or diseases have killed all the seed-producing trees.  |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:05 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.