RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

RDDt is the RDD for the sustained yield of timber. Our herd is being managed at RDDt for the benefit of AR and the timber industry.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

deleted

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

There is a problem with the server ,since it won't let me copy and paste from the report.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

What a way to start the day off![&:]

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Translated: "How many (few) deer can we have and still sustain the highest timber production on the SF's?" And so we ask what percent of browsed hardwood sapling would annually be acceptable, as every little sapling that is nibbled by a deer is money lost. I'm afraid the answer is the very least thatwould be evenmarginally accepted by the hunters of PA and their elected legislators.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Here is the definition of various RDDs.

The relative deer density associated with a sus-
tained yield of deer for harvest (RDD I/, where the
subscript refers to the maximumsustained yield of deer for
harvest) is consistently higher than that associated
with a sustained yield of timber (RDDT, where the
subscript refers to sustained yield of timber).. The
relative deer density associated with sustaining bio-
logical diversity (RDDs, where the subscript refers to
sustaining all resources) is yet lower.-

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

In 1960 the reported buck harvest was 38,270 and the antlerless harvest was only 28,887 for an antlered to antlerless harvest ratio of 1.3 to 1.0 Compare that to the 2007 antlered to antlerless ratio of 1 to 1.95. The management objectives were the same in 1960 as in 2007 , but the harvest results are entirely different.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

The words used to describe the management objectives were the same.

The interperetation of those words and the quality and type of information used for forming the objectives has changed substantially, however.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

I have no idea what message you intended to convey in your last post. Please be a little more specific in the future, if you expect a reply.

Are you saying the personal opinions of those making the decisions have changed or that the scientific data has changed?

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

I'm simply stating that thosewords dont cite any specifics. Only a general objective.Without specifics, we have no idea what was meant in the 60's vs now when that statement was made. For instance, maximum breeding stock is not defined. I'd guess it was with a MSY goal back then but who really knows without more information?

Part 2 is that it only makes sense that the underlying scientific data of today is more refined and reliable than it was 60+ years ago

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

The same could be said about the current deer management objectives. In 2008 all but one WMU reached it objective for herd health even though breeding rates and productivity didn't change. Regeneration in 2f is less than than in 2g yet 2F is being managed at a much higher DD than 2G. can you explain why?

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

The answer is Twilite zone

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

The answer my freinds, is blowin in the wind.......

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

that is about what i would expect from some one that knows so little about deer management in PA.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

well at the very least I didnt dissapoint you:D

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

I have explained that before yet you don’t want to accept the facts that result in the correct answer. Probably becasue the answer doesn't supportthe total nonsense you want people to believe in and support.

First one has to understand the differences in the geographic structure between the two units. Unit 2F is made up almost entirely of the Allegheny Plateau while unit 2G contains more of the mountains of the Allegheny Front. Therefore unit 2F is not as steep nor does it have the rocky outcroppings on the mountain faces as what occurs in unit 2G.

In unit 2F there are few steep hillsides that are totally covered with rocks, where nothing will grow, while in unit 2G there are many steep hillsides where nothing can grow, short of a few trees that grow up between the rocks. Nothing more can grow on those hillsides because nothing can grow on the huge piles of rocks short of a little moss.
Since unit 2F has more area where plants can grow, instead or just huge piles of rocks, the deer can find more food and exist in higher numbers then can occur in unit 2G. Unit 2G could support more deer if the deer could learn to survive by eating rocks instead of needing plant life for food, but I simple don’t see them making that adaptation anytime in the near future.
Since deer can’t survive by eating rocks, unit 2G will never be able to sustain as many deer as the units that don’t have those steep mountainsides covered with little more then rocks and where nothing can grow because of all the rocks.
If you really knew anything about the topography and geological structure of the two units you wouldn’t even be asking such a question. The answer is pretty obvious to those that truly are familiar with both units.
R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

"In unit 2F there are few steep hillsides that are totally covered with rocks, where nothing will grow, while in unit 2G there are many steep hillsides where nothing can grow, short of a few trees that grow up between the rocks. Nothing more can grow on those hillsides because nothing can grow on the huge piles of rocks short of a little moss."

What areas of 2G are you talking about RSB? I know of a few on the north side of the West Branch between Lock Haven and Renovo, But the majority of the mountainsides that I know of have tree growth.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Despite all your excuses, the regeneration in 2F is less than in 2g , yet 2F is being managed at a much higher DD than 2g. That means the herd is not being managed based on forest health or herd health,which means our current deer management plan is a sham.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

Much of southeastern Elk County, central Cameron County, north and central Clinton County, southern Potter and western Lycoming all have large areas of steep rocky mountainous terrain with more rocks then soil. That type of habitat makes up a large chunk of unit 2G. There are some areas of 2g with good soils and good habitat but not as high percentage wise as what occurs in unit 2F.

That is why there is also a difference in the number of deer that each area will support, just as there is a difference in the number of deer that every other unit can support. It is all soil and habitat based and not all areas have the same habitat capabilities. That is why we have the different units and different management objectives for the different units.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

I'm not disputing the soil conditions but I am disputing the statement that trees can't/don't grow on the steep mountainsides. I hunt/fish/explore the mountains of northcentralPA from the Pine Creek Valley west to the Sinnemahoning, south toward Snow Shoe and north into Potter county.I've been up and down those mountains since the 60's.My cabin is near Kettle Creek State Park. Some of my favorite memories (recent and long ago)were hunts in the Hammersley Wild Area.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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?

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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 ?

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

""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.

RE: Does This Sound Familiar
 

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.

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: