Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
04-10-2009, 01:46 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
RSB has been telling us that forest health determines herd health and that you can't have a healthy herd over the long term with having a healthy forest with good regeneration. But here is what Bret Wallingford had to say about forest health.
So even if a herd is healthy, if forest health is not at the goal, then forest health is all that is considered in making management decisions to reduce the herd even more. Of course in areas with high human populations deer human conflicts are also considered , but that is a totally subjective way to manage the herd.
"First, all habitat quantity and quality, not just "forest habitat health" will affect deer health. Deer health depends on habitat because deer get their nutrition from the habitat in which they live. However, we only consider "forest habitat health" in making management recommendations.
Other habitat types can provide nutrition to deer, but are not a part of our "forest habitat health measure".
For example, in agricultural landscapes, deer can impact forest health, but forests are not the only type of
In agricultural areas, deer can impact forests significantly, yet still be healthy because of the high nutrition plane in the ag land.
Other habitat types can provide nutrition to deer, but are not a part of our "forest habitat health measure".
For example, in agricultural landscapes, deer can impact forest health, but forests are not the only type of
In agricultural areas, deer can impact forests significantly, yet still be healthy because of the high nutrition plane in the ag land.
So even if a herd is healthy, if forest health is not at the goal, then forest health is all that is considered in making management decisions to reduce the herd even more. Of course in areas with high human populations deer human conflicts are also considered , but that is a totally subjective way to manage the herd.
04-10-2009, 01:56 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 3c pa
Posts: 1,212
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
I guess you could agrue that ag land changes and doesnt give nutrition at certain times of the year
Forest health shouldnt be the only determining factor in deer managment
Forest health shouldnt be the only determining factor in deer managment
04-10-2009, 02:11 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
That really isn't a valid argument because most of the habitat value that farmland contributes is not from the actual crops produced during the growing season. During the growing season deer in farmland have unlimited food supplies non-crop sources. but during the winter months waste corn, hay fields and pastures provide a lot of food that is not available in contiguous forested areas like 2F and 2G.
04-10-2009, 02:29 PM
#4
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
RSB has been telling us that forest health determines herd health and that you can't have a healthy herd over the long term with having a healthy forest with good regeneration. But here is what Bret Wallingford had to say about forest health.
So even if a herd is healthy, if forest health is not at the goal, then forest health is all that is considered in making management decisions to reduce the herd even more. Of course in areas with high human populations deer human conflicts are also considered , but that is a totally subjective way to manage the herd.
RSB has been telling us that forest health determines herd health and that you can't have a healthy herd over the long term with having a healthy forest with good regeneration. But here is what Bret Wallingford had to say about forest health.
"First, all habitat quantity and quality, not just "forest habitat health" will affect deer health. Deer health depends on habitat because deer get their nutrition from the habitat in which they live. However, we only consider "forest habitat health" in making management recommendations.
Other habitat types can provide nutrition to deer, but are not a part of our "forest habitat health measure".
For example, in agricultural landscapes, deer can impact forest health, but forests are not the only type of
In agricultural areas, deer can impact forests significantly, yet still be healthy because of the high nutrition plane in the ag land.
Other habitat types can provide nutrition to deer, but are not a part of our "forest habitat health measure".
For example, in agricultural landscapes, deer can impact forest health, but forests are not the only type of
In agricultural areas, deer can impact forests significantly, yet still be healthy because of the high nutrition plane in the ag land.
So even if a herd is healthy, if forest health is not at the goal, then forest health is all that is considered in making management decisions to reduce the herd even more. Of course in areas with high human populations deer human conflicts are also considered , but that is a totally subjective way to manage the herd.
I never said that you couldn’t have a healthy herd if you didn’t have a healthy forest. That comment of your is just more of your attempt to discredit by misrepresentation of what others have said and a direct testament to lack of lack of ready comprehension.
In fact just within the past couple of days I pointed out, in response to one of your posts, that the deer in unit 5C had relatively high productive rates (that equates to good heard health) even while they had poor forest health because of all the farmland, neighborhood shrubs and other personally landscaping plants or gardens to keep their health good.
Therefore, I would have to conclude that you comments were totally out of left field and nothing more then a misrepresentation of another’s views and simply intended to discredit me because you had no actual facts to support your position.
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-10-2009, 02:51 PM
#5
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
never said that you couldn’t have a healthy herd if you didn’t have a healthy forest. That comment of your is just more of your attempt to discredit by misrepresentation of what others have said and a direct testament to lack of lack of ready comprehension.
In fact just within the past couple of days I pointed out, in response to one of your posts, that the deer in unit 5C had relatively high productive rates (that equates to good heard health) even while they had poor forest health because of all the farmland, neighborhood shrubs and other personally landscaping plants or gardens to keep their health good.
04-10-2009, 03:43 PM
#6
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: bluebird2
You have consistently said that the areas that are currently supporting high DDs can't support that density over the long term because the deer are over browsing the forest habitat,when in fact the deer in farmlands are not dependent on forested habitat for their long term survival.
But you also stated that the current high DD were not sustainable because of the poor forest health , when in fact the herd health had nothing to do with the forest health.
never said that you couldn’t have a healthy herd if you didn’t have a healthy forest. That comment of your is just more of your attempt to discredit by misrepresentation of what others have said and a direct testament to lack of lack of ready comprehension.
In fact just within the past couple of days I pointed out, in response to one of your posts, that the deer in unit 5C had relatively high productive rates (that equates to good heard health) even while they had poor forest health because of all the farmland, neighborhood shrubs and other personally landscaping plants or gardens to keep their health good.
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.
There are several reasons the high deer numbers wouldn’t be sustained without a good mix of healthy forest though. Here are some of those reasons.
During the summer months whether forest habitat is high or low quality many deer can be sustained by eating grass from lawns and hay from farm fields with little complaint from the farmer or lawn owner. But, high deer numbers will also eat a lot of farm crops and neighborhood gardens during the summer and that starts the deer/human conflict problems that lead to the over whelming none hunter/public demands for fewer deer. Thus both more crop damage kills, red tags and increased antler less allocations and hunter harvests in the future.
During the summer, if there are healthy forest habitats, more deer feed in the forested habitats and thus less in the areas where they wear out their welcome to the neighborhood gardens and farm crops.
During the winter months if there is enough healthy forest, with a balanced deer herd for the area, most of those deer would be able to find sufficient food in the forested habitats to be healthy and produce fawns with a high recruitment rate. If that forest habitat isn’t healthy enough to sustain all of the deer for the area then several things are likely to happen including the excess deer casing damage to the forest food supply. As that forest food supply starts to decline more deer move out into the neighborhood shrubs and ornamental landscaping causing damage them.
That decline in habitat then does two things that result in fewer deer for the future. First of all as the over winter habitat becomes degraded the fawn survival rates decline as the deer actually attempt to reduce their own numbers. The second thing the reduced forest health does is result in an even higher public demand for fewer deer impacting their properties, which once again leads to those human/deer conflicts that set up the chain of events which ultimately result in increased deer harvests for the future.
The plan and simple fact of the matter is that a healthy forest habitat can and will mean higher long term sustainable deer numbers then what can be sustained without good forest health. Once the forest habitat declines even the deer are smart enough to reduce their own numbers so there isn’t much man can do to reverse that other then help those deer keep their own numbers in balance with that habitat.
Even with that having been explained I will also tell everyone right now that those areas with a good mix of farmland, forestland (good quality or not) and small landowner plantings that come with high quality soils areas will probably always result in higher deer numbers then the poor soil big woods areas. But, even though rich soil, mixed habitat areas will have higher long term sustainable deer numbers with a healthy forest habitat then that they will have with poor forest health.
R.S. Bodenhorn
04-10-2009, 04:01 PM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
"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."
And despite pgcs new ridiculous claims,reasonable numbers of deer shouldnt be making forests "unhealthy" in those habitat types in the first place. Many states have those type wmus density goals setin the 30' and often upwards of 40 dpsm. Except for us in Pa withour "science". [:'(]LOL.
"During the summer months whether forest habitat is high or low quality many deer can be sustained by eating grass from lawns and hay from farm fields with little complaint from the farmer or lawn owner. But, high deer numbers will also eat a lot of farm crops and neighborhood gardens during the summer and that starts the deer/human conflict problems that lead to the over whelming none hunter/public demands for fewer deer. Thus both more crop damage kills, red tags and increased antler less allocations and hunter harvests in the future."
Has nothing to do with anything if the cac has voted and the human conflict ispercieved aslow. If a few farmers still need more deer killed and lower deer density than "reasonable" deer numbers in a wmu, then they have the tools you mentioned and are more than welcome to use them so the rest of the wmu doesnt have to be held needlessly low.
"As that forest food supply starts to decline more deer move out into the neighborhood shrubs and ornamental landscaping causing damage them. "
Again, I dont think what is being argued here is "human conflict". That is an issue all its own, and if the cac addressed it, I dont see it as an issue.
Afterall, that is what its for isnt it?
"Even with that having been explained I will also tell everyone right now that those areas with a good mix of farmland, forestland (good quality or not) and small landowner plantings that come with high quality soils areas will probably always result in higher deer numbers then the poor soil big woods areas. But, even though rich soil, mixed habitat areas will have higher long term sustainable deer numbers with a healthy forest habitat then that they will have with poor forest health. "
Not when it is factored in to regeneration assessment that if deer are actually browsing anything, (acceptable regeneration or not), as ANY reasonable number of deer WILL DO, the herd will be knocked down. If existing factors do not equate to fewer deer, another is added.
And despite pgcs new ridiculous claims,reasonable numbers of deer shouldnt be making forests "unhealthy" in those habitat types in the first place. Many states have those type wmus density goals setin the 30' and often upwards of 40 dpsm. Except for us in Pa withour "science". [:'(]LOL.
"During the summer months whether forest habitat is high or low quality many deer can be sustained by eating grass from lawns and hay from farm fields with little complaint from the farmer or lawn owner. But, high deer numbers will also eat a lot of farm crops and neighborhood gardens during the summer and that starts the deer/human conflict problems that lead to the over whelming none hunter/public demands for fewer deer. Thus both more crop damage kills, red tags and increased antler less allocations and hunter harvests in the future."
Has nothing to do with anything if the cac has voted and the human conflict ispercieved aslow. If a few farmers still need more deer killed and lower deer density than "reasonable" deer numbers in a wmu, then they have the tools you mentioned and are more than welcome to use them so the rest of the wmu doesnt have to be held needlessly low.
"As that forest food supply starts to decline more deer move out into the neighborhood shrubs and ornamental landscaping causing damage them. "
Again, I dont think what is being argued here is "human conflict". That is an issue all its own, and if the cac addressed it, I dont see it as an issue.
Afterall, that is what its for isnt it?"Even with that having been explained I will also tell everyone right now that those areas with a good mix of farmland, forestland (good quality or not) and small landowner plantings that come with high quality soils areas will probably always result in higher deer numbers then the poor soil big woods areas. But, even though rich soil, mixed habitat areas will have higher long term sustainable deer numbers with a healthy forest habitat then that they will have with poor forest health. "
Not when it is factored in to regeneration assessment that if deer are actually browsing anything, (acceptable regeneration or not), as ANY reasonable number of deer WILL DO, the herd will be knocked down. If existing factors do not equate to fewer deer, another is added.
04-10-2009, 04:14 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
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!!
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!!
04-10-2009, 04:40 PM
#9
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08
"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."
And despite pgcs new ridiculous claims,reasonable numbers of deer shouldnt be making forests "unhealthy" in those habitat types in the first place. Many states have those type wmus density goals setin the 30' and often upwards of 40 dpsm. Except for us in Pa withour "science". [:'(]LOL.
You are correct that reasonable numbers of deer don’t make a forest unhealthy. But, unreasonable numbers of deer do lead to an unhealthy forest. That is why the forests are categorized and the attempt made to keep deer populations in check once the scientific measuresthe forest provide asthey are becoming unhealthy.
Several areas of the state are presently indicating that they do have an unreasonable number of deer or their forest habitat would not be in such poor condition.
"During the summer months whether forest habitat is high or low quality many deer can be sustained by eating grass from lawns and hay from farm fields with little complaint from the farmer or lawn owner. But, high deer numbers will also eat a lot of farm crops and neighborhood gardens during the summer and that starts the deer/human conflict problems that lead to the over whelming none hunter/public demands for fewer deer. Thus both more crop damage kills, red tags and increased antler less allocations and hunter harvests in the future."
Has nothing to do with anything if the cac has voted and the human conflict ispercieved aslow. If a few farmers still need more deer killed and lower deer density than "reasonable" deer numbers in a wmu, then they have the tools you mentioned and are more than welcome to use them so the rest of the wmu doesnt have to be held needlessly low.
That really isn’t entirely correct. Many farmers don't want burdened with killing deer several nights a week or even per month.
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.
Man simply can’t demand the forces and effects of nature be changed, no matter what he wishes.
"As that forest food supply starts to decline more deer move out into the neighborhood shrubs and ornamental landscaping causing damage them. "
Again, I dont think what is being argued here is "human conflict". That is an issue all its own, and if the cac addressed it, I dont see it as an issue. Afterall, that is what its for isnt it?
In many areas human conflict issues are more of an issue then most hunters know or want to believe. That includes your area.
"Even with that having been explained I will also tell everyone right now that those areas with a good mix of farmland, forestland (good quality or not) and small landowner plantings that come with high quality soils areas will probably always result in higher deer numbers then the poor soil big woods areas. But, even though rich soil, mixed habitat areas will have higher long term sustainable deer numbers with a healthy forest habitat then that they will have with poor forest health. "
Not when it is factored in to regeneration assessment that if deer are actually browsing anything, (acceptable regeneration or not), as ANY reasonable number of deer WILL DO, the herd will be knocked down. If existing factors do not equate to fewer deer, another is added.
No, it is all done scentifically with the same methods and criteria for all areas of the state.
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.
"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."
And despite pgcs new ridiculous claims,reasonable numbers of deer shouldnt be making forests "unhealthy" in those habitat types in the first place. Many states have those type wmus density goals setin the 30' and often upwards of 40 dpsm. Except for us in Pa withour "science". [:'(]LOL.
You are correct that reasonable numbers of deer don’t make a forest unhealthy. But, unreasonable numbers of deer do lead to an unhealthy forest. That is why the forests are categorized and the attempt made to keep deer populations in check once the scientific measuresthe forest provide asthey are becoming unhealthy.
Several areas of the state are presently indicating that they do have an unreasonable number of deer or their forest habitat would not be in such poor condition.
"During the summer months whether forest habitat is high or low quality many deer can be sustained by eating grass from lawns and hay from farm fields with little complaint from the farmer or lawn owner. But, high deer numbers will also eat a lot of farm crops and neighborhood gardens during the summer and that starts the deer/human conflict problems that lead to the over whelming none hunter/public demands for fewer deer. Thus both more crop damage kills, red tags and increased antler less allocations and hunter harvests in the future."
Has nothing to do with anything if the cac has voted and the human conflict ispercieved aslow. If a few farmers still need more deer killed and lower deer density than "reasonable" deer numbers in a wmu, then they have the tools you mentioned and are more than welcome to use them so the rest of the wmu doesnt have to be held needlessly low.
That really isn’t entirely correct. Many farmers don't want burdened with killing deer several nights a week or even per month.
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.
Man simply can’t demand the forces and effects of nature be changed, no matter what he wishes.
"As that forest food supply starts to decline more deer move out into the neighborhood shrubs and ornamental landscaping causing damage them. "
Again, I dont think what is being argued here is "human conflict". That is an issue all its own, and if the cac addressed it, I dont see it as an issue.
Afterall, that is what its for isnt it?In many areas human conflict issues are more of an issue then most hunters know or want to believe. That includes your area.
"Even with that having been explained I will also tell everyone right now that those areas with a good mix of farmland, forestland (good quality or not) and small landowner plantings that come with high quality soils areas will probably always result in higher deer numbers then the poor soil big woods areas. But, even though rich soil, mixed habitat areas will have higher long term sustainable deer numbers with a healthy forest habitat then that they will have with poor forest health. "
Not when it is factored in to regeneration assessment that if deer are actually browsing anything, (acceptable regeneration or not), as ANY reasonable number of deer WILL DO, the herd will be knocked down. If existing factors do not equate to fewer deer, another is added.
No, it is all done scentifically with the same methods and criteria for all areas of the state.
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.
04-10-2009, 04:41 PM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
RE: Forest Health Versus Habitat Health
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.
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.