Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
04-10-2009 | 04:56 PM
#11
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
Found this interesting indeed! #1 state in the country for record book bucks.... HAVE A LOOK AT THOSE DEER DENSITIES!!! http://ua.dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/winter_pop_per_DR.pdf
Compare to ours with the very highest overwinter deer densities at less than 25 dpsm for every wmu in PA....and going lower!!!
Half the states wmus in Wisconsin has 30-44 dpsm....OVERWINTER DENSITY. 20 some WMUS have 44-63 dpsm!! OVERWINTER DENSITY... And5 wmus have 64-120 dpsm OW DENSITY!!
Found this interesting indeed! #1 state in the country for record book bucks.... HAVE A LOOK AT THOSE DEER DENSITIES!!! http://ua.dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/hunt/deer/winter_pop_per_DR.pdf
Compare to ours with the very highest overwinter deer densities at less than 25 dpsm for every wmu in PA....and going lower!!!
Half the states wmus in Wisconsin has 30-44 dpsm....OVERWINTER DENSITY. 20 some WMUS have 44-63 dpsm!! OVERWINTER DENSITY... And5 wmus have 64-120 dpsm OW DENSITY!!
About half of the state also has between 1 and 29 over winter deer and what they don’t show is how much of that area might have fewer deer per square mile then what we have here in the poorer areas of Pennsylvania, maybe even far fewer since that Wisconsin scale goes all the way down to only one deer per square mile.
But, you simply can’t even compare deer populations between any two areas without also comparing their soil types, forest types, percentage of farmlands, winter conditions, historic deer harvests and both past and present deer management practices. To illustrate that point why don’t you go ahead and compare the deer densities of Pennsylvania against Maine and see how we compare there. Does that mean we have a better management program then Maine of just that we have different conditions and factors that affect deer numbers then what occur in Maine?
There are too many variables between areas to compare them again one another. That includes right here in Pennsylvania. The only truly fair, or sometimes even logical, comparisons are comparing an area against itself over a long term period.
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-10-2009 | 05:05 PM
#12
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
"That really isn’t entirely correct. Many farmers don't want burdened with killing deer several nights a week or even per month. "
1.They recieved SOME relief by lowering the herd ANY amount. And 2nd Isee it as far greater of aburden to 900,000 + hunters who pay for wildlife management to be forced to accept dirt poor deer numbers across an entire 60 mile by 60 mile wmu just because3 farmers in the wmu dont wanna be bothered shooting deer or with letting people shoot deerout of seasonfor red tag! And as I said, we have cac to address human conflict.
"The CAC can only be used to reduce deer numbers to a level that is below the natural carrying capacity, they can‘t force a deer population to be higher then the natural carrying capacity. Only the affects of nature, combined with a healthy habitat, will allow a deer population to be sustainable at an increased population level. "
I understand that and I never said otherwise.
"Man simply can’t demand the forces and effects of nature be changed, no matter what he wishes."
But he CAN demand the forces currently directing our deer management plan be modified as they should have been without need to "demand".
"In many areas human conflict issues are more of an issue then most hunters know or want to believe. That includes your area."
WTF do you want rsb? Do youthink you dictate what is acceptable? This isnt MY opinion, its the results of following the guidelines pgc set forth!! The damn cac was put into place for a reason. Red tag is for a reason. Dmap is for a reason. The human conflict here was rated as LOW on the pgc annual report prior to ourcac's and that was when we were at NEAR MAXIMUM HERD SIZE for our wmu!! Now the cac even voted for stabilization.... SO frankly, I dont care who likesit or not, I shouldnt need toapologize for a thingfor wanting REASONABLE numbers of deera hunter of this state. The people have spoken and they sure as hell didnt ask for more deer to be slaughtered. Yet that is exactly what we are getting.
"No, it is all done scentifically with the same methods and criteria for all areas of the state."
YEah, and look how well its working! LOL.The studywas done the same for all areas of the state previously BEFORE the rediculous change as well, butthen, it didnt equateto ridiculous deer levels here and even more extreme blanket reduction!
"If some areas are coming up poor it is because they are poor and most likely have more deer then the habitat is going to be able to sustain for the long term. "
Not when the exact opposite was show so recently and now with a smaller herd. Its a sham period. No logical acceptable explanation for it.
1.They recieved SOME relief by lowering the herd ANY amount. And 2nd Isee it as far greater of aburden to 900,000 + hunters who pay for wildlife management to be forced to accept dirt poor deer numbers across an entire 60 mile by 60 mile wmu just because3 farmers in the wmu dont wanna be bothered shooting deer or with letting people shoot deerout of seasonfor red tag! And as I said, we have cac to address human conflict.
"The CAC can only be used to reduce deer numbers to a level that is below the natural carrying capacity, they can‘t force a deer population to be higher then the natural carrying capacity. Only the affects of nature, combined with a healthy habitat, will allow a deer population to be sustainable at an increased population level. "
I understand that and I never said otherwise.
"Man simply can’t demand the forces and effects of nature be changed, no matter what he wishes."
But he CAN demand the forces currently directing our deer management plan be modified as they should have been without need to "demand".
"In many areas human conflict issues are more of an issue then most hunters know or want to believe. That includes your area."
WTF do you want rsb? Do youthink you dictate what is acceptable? This isnt MY opinion, its the results of following the guidelines pgc set forth!! The damn cac was put into place for a reason. Red tag is for a reason. Dmap is for a reason. The human conflict here was rated as LOW on the pgc annual report prior to ourcac's and that was when we were at NEAR MAXIMUM HERD SIZE for our wmu!! Now the cac even voted for stabilization.... SO frankly, I dont care who likesit or not, I shouldnt need toapologize for a thingfor wanting REASONABLE numbers of deera hunter of this state. The people have spoken and they sure as hell didnt ask for more deer to be slaughtered. Yet that is exactly what we are getting.
"No, it is all done scentifically with the same methods and criteria for all areas of the state."
YEah, and look how well its working! LOL.The studywas done the same for all areas of the state previously BEFORE the rediculous change as well, butthen, it didnt equateto ridiculous deer levels here and even more extreme blanket reduction!
"If some areas are coming up poor it is because they are poor and most likely have more deer then the habitat is going to be able to sustain for the long term. "
Not when the exact opposite was show so recently and now with a smaller herd. Its a sham period. No logical acceptable explanation for it.
04-10-2009 | 05:08 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
There are too many variables between areas to compare them again one another. That includes right here in Pennsylvania. The only truly fair, or sometimes even logical, comparisons are comparing an area against itself over a long term period.
04-10-2009 | 05:15 PM
#15
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
"But, you simply can’t even compare deer populations between any two areas without also comparing their soil types, forest types, percentage of farmlands, winter conditions, historic deer harvests and both past and present deer management practices."
I understand the differences rsb....But look at those DEER DENSITIES and the ridiculous differences. Not even numbers from the same planet! LOL
"To illustrate that point why don’t you go ahead and compare the deer densities of Pennsylvania against Maine and see how we compare there. Does that mean we have a better management program then Maine of just that we have different conditions and factors that affect deer numbers then what occur in Maine? "
Im quite familiar with Maines "low" deer densities and its because of their latitude. Harsh winters kill a VERY LARGE percentage of their deer in most years. They also do not blame it on the habitat, and do everything they can to help along their population by cutting harvests to allow herd to rebound. Counter to your views of any time there is winter kill the herd should go lower. Their deer numbers have NOTHING to do with too many tags, and NOTHING to do with poor habitat.
There is zero reason tobelieve our state should have every wmu below 25 owdpsm and in mostcases far less. Consider anything you like..Soil composition, its fine at least in some areas of the state like western pa and out east... compared to other areas of the state. Climate...sw pa is as mild as se ohio, which is also milder than many other states with higher deer densities...and there are plenty of areas in other states with similiar forest composition.
I understand the differences rsb....But look at those DEER DENSITIES and the ridiculous differences. Not even numbers from the same planet! LOL
"To illustrate that point why don’t you go ahead and compare the deer densities of Pennsylvania against Maine and see how we compare there. Does that mean we have a better management program then Maine of just that we have different conditions and factors that affect deer numbers then what occur in Maine? "
Im quite familiar with Maines "low" deer densities and its because of their latitude. Harsh winters kill a VERY LARGE percentage of their deer in most years. They also do not blame it on the habitat, and do everything they can to help along their population by cutting harvests to allow herd to rebound. Counter to your views of any time there is winter kill the herd should go lower. Their deer numbers have NOTHING to do with too many tags, and NOTHING to do with poor habitat.
There is zero reason tobelieve our state should have every wmu below 25 owdpsm and in mostcases far less. Consider anything you like..Soil composition, its fine at least in some areas of the state like western pa and out east... compared to other areas of the state. Climate...sw pa is as mild as se ohio, which is also milder than many other states with higher deer densities...and there are plenty of areas in other states with similiar forest composition.
04-10-2009 | 05:23 PM
#16
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
That simply is not true and you can't provide one bit of factual evidence that 2B , 5C and 5 b couldn't support their current high deer densities for ever. until you can provide evidence to support your claim ,everything else is just plain horsepuckey.
I have to assume that when you included 5b in that group you meant to type 5D with the other two special regulations units.
You are correct that those three units might be able to sustain those high deer densities forever. They have been doing pretty well at it for the past fifteen to twenty years and even seen to still have increasing deer numbers.
Thank you for pointing them out.
You in those units they have had unlimited antler less license and antler less harvests for almost twenty years now and as a result still have some of the best herd health indices in the state. Besides having good herd health they also have some of the some of highest deer harvests per square mile in the state even including all the city streets in those per square miles, with 2B and 5C actually being the highest in the state and 5D (Philadelphia) not far behind. Therefore, it is only logical to reason that it has been those high harvests that has protected the habitat is those areas so the habitat can forever continue to sustain those high deer numbers.
Now ,just in case you are suffering from a lapse of memory , re,e,ber the extended carrying capacity of valley forge and Gettysburg, which proves beyond a point you have no idea what you are talking about.
I’m not suffering from memory lapse at all.
I just know that the deer in both of those areas aren’t really sustained in those areas. They can leave there to find food and disperse out as needed. The populations once outside the parks are also hunted and reduced. Then once the deer from the surrounding areas are pressured they are smart enough to head to where they aren’t being hunted.
Plus the facts also show that the deer populations in both areas aren’t being sustained and are actually declining of natural affects even though there is no hunting influence within the parks.
Sharpshooters are about to greatly reduce their numbers though from what I understand.
The facts and history of the deer in both forestland and highly mixed farmland or residential areas all clearly do show that high deer populations can’t be sustained long term without a healthy forest. Yes the farmland, neighborhood habitats can sustain deer in a healthy conditions but history has proven that unless there is also a good mix of healthy forest in that habitat equation the high deer numbers will be sustained long term.
I have to assume that when you included 5b in that group you meant to type 5D with the other two special regulations units.
You are correct that those three units might be able to sustain those high deer densities forever. They have been doing pretty well at it for the past fifteen to twenty years and even seen to still have increasing deer numbers.
Thank you for pointing them out.
You in those units they have had unlimited antler less license and antler less harvests for almost twenty years now and as a result still have some of the best herd health indices in the state. Besides having good herd health they also have some of the some of highest deer harvests per square mile in the state even including all the city streets in those per square miles, with 2B and 5C actually being the highest in the state and 5D (Philadelphia) not far behind. Therefore, it is only logical to reason that it has been those high harvests that has protected the habitat is those areas so the habitat can forever continue to sustain those high deer numbers.
Now ,just in case you are suffering from a lapse of memory , re,e,ber the extended carrying capacity of valley forge and Gettysburg, which proves beyond a point you have no idea what you are talking about.
I’m not suffering from memory lapse at all.
I just know that the deer in both of those areas aren’t really sustained in those areas. They can leave there to find food and disperse out as needed. The populations once outside the parks are also hunted and reduced. Then once the deer from the surrounding areas are pressured they are smart enough to head to where they aren’t being hunted.
Plus the facts also show that the deer populations in both areas aren’t being sustained and are actually declining of natural affects even though there is no hunting influence within the parks.
Sharpshooters are about to greatly reduce their numbers though from what I understand.
04-10-2009 | 05:29 PM
#17
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: bowtruck
rsb thankyou for time in trying to get your point across on this forum about some of our issues in pa
rsb thankyou for time in trying to get your point across on this forum about some of our issues in pa
It is my pleasure and thank you for both noticing and appreciating it.
I just want to do what I can to help people have a better understanding of the issues. I believe it is important that hunters have enough information to think things through to a logical conclusion. It is important for both the future of our resources and also the future of hunting that hunters have enough information to have well informed opinions instead of some of the incorrect opinions some people promote.
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-10-2009 | 05:40 PM
#19
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,167
Likes: 0
From: PA
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: R.S.B.
It is my pleasure and thank you for both noticing and appreciating it.
I just want to do what I can to help people have a better understanding of the issues. I believe it is important that hunters have enough information to think things through to a logical conclusion. It is important for both the future of our resources and also the future of hunting that hunters have enough information to have well informed opinions instead of some of the incorrect opinions some people promote.
R.S. Bodenhorn
ORIGINAL: bowtruck
rsb thankyou for time in trying to get your point across on this forum about some of our issues in pa
rsb thankyou for time in trying to get your point across on this forum about some of our issues in pa
It is my pleasure and thank you for both noticing and appreciating it.
I just want to do what I can to help people have a better understanding of the issues. I believe it is important that hunters have enough information to think things through to a logical conclusion. It is important for both the future of our resources and also the future of hunting that hunters have enough information to have well informed opinions instead of some of the incorrect opinions some people promote.
R.S. Bodenhorn
I don't see the support for further reducing deer numbers for the sake of the forest.
If this is the plan then count on more of the big three. Posted ,Pissed off, People.
As a land owner I try to see the effects that you state ,yet here in 1B it just ain't happening.
04-10-2009 | 05:49 PM
#20
Typical Buck
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"But, you simply can’t even compare deer populations between any two areas without also comparing their soil types, forest types, percentage of farmlands, winter conditions, historic deer harvests and both past and present deer management practices."
I understand the differences rsb....But look at those DEER DENSITIES and the ridiculous differences. Not even numbers from the same planet! LOL
Even though they do have some areas with high deer densities they also have areas with much lower densities, just like we have here in this state.
But, as for the geography, I am pretty sure they are still on the same planet; at least the last time I visited their state I only needed a car to get there. Hopefully I don’t have to buy a space ship to get there the next time.
"To illustrate that point why don’t you go ahead and compare the deer densities of Pennsylvania against Maine and see how we compare there. Does that mean we have a better management program then Maine of just that we have different conditions and factors that affect deer numbers then what occur in Maine? "
Im quite familiar with Maines "low" deer densities and its because of their latitude. Harsh winters kill a VERY LARGE percentage of their deer in most years. They also do not blame it on the habitat, and do everything they can to help along their population by cutting harvests to allow herd to rebound. Counter to your views of any time there is winter kill the herd should go lower. Their deer numbers have NOTHING to do with too many tags, and NOTHING to do with poor habitat.
There is zero reason tobelieve our state should have every wmu below 25 owdpsm and in mostcases far less. Consider anything you like..Soil composition, its fine at least in some areas of the state like western pa and out east... compared to other areas of the state. Climate...sw pa is as mild as se ohio, which is also milder than many other states with higher deer densities...and there are plenty of areas in other states with similiar forest composition.
Even in the best of soils and habitat if the deer numbers aren’t controlled they can and will damage their habitat to the point their numbers decline.
Of course there are many habitat variables that will determine the amount of decline. But, the bottom line is if you want the highest long term sustainable deer numbers it is important to keep the deer herd within the limits that prevent any serious or long term habitat damage. If you want the best possible long term future you might have to accept slightly fewer deer in the future. If you keep high deer numbers now you will surely have fewer deer in the future.
R.S. Bodenhorn
"But, you simply can’t even compare deer populations between any two areas without also comparing their soil types, forest types, percentage of farmlands, winter conditions, historic deer harvests and both past and present deer management practices."
I understand the differences rsb....But look at those DEER DENSITIES and the ridiculous differences. Not even numbers from the same planet! LOL
Even though they do have some areas with high deer densities they also have areas with much lower densities, just like we have here in this state.
But, as for the geography, I am pretty sure they are still on the same planet; at least the last time I visited their state I only needed a car to get there. Hopefully I don’t have to buy a space ship to get there the next time.
"To illustrate that point why don’t you go ahead and compare the deer densities of Pennsylvania against Maine and see how we compare there. Does that mean we have a better management program then Maine of just that we have different conditions and factors that affect deer numbers then what occur in Maine? "
Im quite familiar with Maines "low" deer densities and its because of their latitude. Harsh winters kill a VERY LARGE percentage of their deer in most years. They also do not blame it on the habitat, and do everything they can to help along their population by cutting harvests to allow herd to rebound. Counter to your views of any time there is winter kill the herd should go lower. Their deer numbers have NOTHING to do with too many tags, and NOTHING to do with poor habitat.
There is zero reason tobelieve our state should have every wmu below 25 owdpsm and in mostcases far less. Consider anything you like..Soil composition, its fine at least in some areas of the state like western pa and out east... compared to other areas of the state. Climate...sw pa is as mild as se ohio, which is also milder than many other states with higher deer densities...and there are plenty of areas in other states with similiar forest composition.
Even in the best of soils and habitat if the deer numbers aren’t controlled they can and will damage their habitat to the point their numbers decline.
Of course there are many habitat variables that will determine the amount of decline. But, the bottom line is if you want the highest long term sustainable deer numbers it is important to keep the deer herd within the limits that prevent any serious or long term habitat damage. If you want the best possible long term future you might have to accept slightly fewer deer in the future. If you keep high deer numbers now you will surely have fewer deer in the future.
R.S. Bodenhorn