RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Wmu 2F and 2G do not have different goals. The goal for both is a healthy forest with 70% regeneration, good herd health and low deer/human conflict. 2F has worse regeneration than 2G because it has more deer , so in order to get the desired regeneration , it is only logical that the PGC should be trying to reduce the herd in 2F to the same density as in 2G. The goal of 70% regeneration is a long ways off from the current 34% regeneration in 2F.
I am not sure what that means ,so would you please clarify that statement.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Why deer speak reproduction, fawn recruitment rates, winter mortality or winter survival, some of that is being told right now as remove embryos from highway killed does. They speak weight gain or weight loss, they tell their age when you remove a tooth and by telling their age they speak about the health of the herd. Deer tell researchers all kinds of things about their health and also the health of their habitat and food supply.

All one needs to move deer management in the correct direction is to be wise enough to listen to those deer by using stable management when things are improving but also by changing course and harvesting more of them when the deer health or food supply is declining.

The deer tell the professionals those things through scientific deer and resource management that is far more advanced then just the personal perception, observation and opinion used by many hunters.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

But just like you the PGC has kept their ear plugs in and refused to listen to the deer and now the deer are making them look like fools. The deer in the NC counties have proved the habitat can support over 25 OWD PSM on a sustainable basis, with good breeding rates and a healthy herd.The fact that breeding rates decreased by 5% as the herd was reduced from 1.6 M PSD to less than 1M PSD , proves the herd was not above the MSY carrying capacity when we had 1.6M PSD.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

That other factors remaining equal comes into play from time to time though and his year might be one of those times. Even with the improved summer habitat we might see some deer population decline again this spring as a result of the does having been stressed more then normal with the deep snows of this winter. We will very likely see a decline in fawn survival rates again this spring from fawns being born under weight because mom didn’t get enough food this winter.

But, it would surely have been worse had it not been for the improved habitat allowing those does to go into the winter in better condition then they would have five or six years ago or perhaps even one year ago.

Any improvement in habitat also results in improved deer numbers in the long term and big picture. Once the habitat will support more deer long term it will be impossible for hunters to reduce them below the long term carrying capacity in more small isolated instances or for more then short term periods of a year or two.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Units 2F and 2G certainly do have different management goals and objectives. That is evidenced by the fact that unit 2F allocated 11.61antlerless license per square mile last fall compared to only 6.32 per square mile being allocated in unit 2G.

Anyone that fails to recognize that as a major difference in management goals is simply delusional.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

If that were true the deer herds in the north central would have exploded over the past few years with the low antler less harvests . But the deer populations haven’t exploded because it was the lack of deer habitat and food that caused their population to crash in the first place.

As the habitat improves enough to support more the deer population will also continue to slowly improve, proved we are wise enough to control any population growth enough to prevent it from destroying those gains in the habitat. If we don’t control the growth or the deer population to prevent the habitat damage the deer numbers will never improve more then slightly and then only during periods of good environmental conditions.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

how can you possibly claim that 2f and 2g have different management goals when the goals for every DMU should be good forest health,good deer health and low deer/human conflicts? Since 2F has almost twice as many DPSM as 2G it is logical that 2F would have twice as many tags PSM. the question is why doesn't 2f have 3 or 4 times as many tags PSM as 2g ,so the forest health could improve from 34 % regeneration to the goal of 70% regeneration?

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Using that analogy both units should then have three or four times as many license allocated and deer harvested as what is presently occurring.

Hey, I’m all for it. Send your recommendation for the need of more antler less license in units 2F and 2Gto the Board of Commissioners.

Of course you will probably want to send a copy of your suggestion to the rest of your USP buddies too and see if they agree with your line of thinking.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

The Commissioners do not respond to suggestions by hunters. They rely on the recommendations of the professional deer managers. So maybe you would like to explain why those experts aren't following the criteria they said they were using to manage the herd?

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Chalk another one up for the little [&:]bird, no thread is safe. :eek: