The prefix of 2F and 2G is the same because the PGC placed both units in the same geophisograhic unit, the simple fact that regeneration is poorer in 2f than in 2g means you simply don't have a clue just like Dr. Rosenbeerry didn't have a clue when I ask him the same question.

You obviously don’t know how the sampled plots are laid out.
They don’t have any sample plots on the rock piles in 2G because it is perfectly obvious nothing is going to grow on them. Therefore, there are far more areas of unit 2G that are simply not suited for plants, deer or sample plots then what occur in unit 2F. Some of the areas that are suitable for sample plots are not as heavily browsed in 2G though because there are fewer deer in most areas of 2G because it will not support more deer long term.

Neither unit is ready for many more deer yet though, based on the very evidence that both the deer and their food supply are providing. If some of the habitat in 2G is slightly better then some areas of unit 2F then 2G will see a little faster deer population expansion then some areas of 2F though, again based on the evidence from those same habitat sample plots.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Then you have seen many of those areas where the hillsides are covered with rocks instead of the plant life that feeds deer.
R.S. Bodenhorn

Thank you for admitting that forest regeneration is not an accurate indicator of the carrying capacity of the habitat.

That wasn’t what I said at all. That is just more of misleading and twisted nonsense intended to undermine both scientific and professional wildlife management principles and objectives.

It isn’t perfect, little is, but it is the best way known to man at this time. Combine that with listening to the deer, as the professionals presently do, and you have a pretty valid and reliable method of managing the deer to fit their habitat and food supply.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Thank you for inadvertently pointing out how your warped view of things causes your distorted posts.

You are forever taking things out of context. Your above statment is not correct, however one simple word would make it so. If you had said....

Forest regeneration ALONEis not an accurate indicator of the carrying capacity of the habitat.

You would have been correct. But then, the differences between deer density management in 2G and 2F and RSB's explanations of same would make sense and that wouldn't fit your agenda now would it?

The carrying capacity of the habitat is based on the number of deer the habitat can support and that number is determined by the deer ,not by man.However, forest health based on regeneration is a totally subjective criteria established for the benefit of one group of stake holders and does not accurately measure the carrying capacity. That is why the habitat in Elk Co was able to support over 25 OWD PSM from 1982 to 2002 and now the parts of Elk Co. in 2G are being managed at around 8 OWD PSM, because the PGC is basing the deer management goals on regeneration rather than on the true carrying capacity of the habitat.
Actually it makes no sense whatsoever ,because no matter what the reasons might be for the poorer regeneration in 2F the only factor the PGC controls is the number of deer and they are allowing 2F to carry more deer even though it has poorer regeneration.

Just curious RSB,what language do the deer speak when they talk to you ? And just what proffession does some one have to be in to hear them ?

""If some of the habitat in 2G is slightly better then some areas of unit 2F then 2G will see a little faster deer population expansion then some areas of 2F though, again based on the evidence from those same habitat sample plots.""

Lets be realistic here. AINT HAPPENIN'! First, the tags are never gonna be at a level to permit herd growth in that timber driven area, also the timbering practices are not going to be changed, so if abiding by the current habitat assessment methods there is no reason to believe much will change in the future.

Next, remember the sham referred to as "C.A.C.S". There are usually 2 "conservationists" that make sure they are on almost every cac and they vote antideer. There are also timber interests etc. etc. And it doesnt matter how many people are on the cac, it only takes 2 dissenting votes to prevent herd growth...Unless the deer herd is borderingon extinction, how many wmus do you think are EVER gonna have EVERYONE on the cac agreeing to MORE deer? (LOL)[:'(] Pgc knew this, that why it is what it is.... Common sense says it SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAJORITY RULE!

So the only "sniff" of a higher deer herd in 2g (and for that matter most wmus) is the one you get when hunters are discussing their false hopes of it occurring in the future, and guys like RSB saying "maybe in another few years" for the next two decades, or until responsible hunter oriented representation becomes the majority on the B.O.C.

Yes but only when the other parameters are equal will the same outcome mean the same thing. An area of poor soilmay show poorregeneration with only 10 dpsm while an area of better soil may have good regeneration with 20 deer psm. Slope, available sunlight and a plethora of other things can come into play. The fact that 2G and 2F have different goals is a perfect example of the fact that every WMU needs different management goals anddefinite differences between 2F and 2G do exist whether you chose to ignore them or not.