Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

A pic of woods

Old 07-19-2009, 03:02 PM
  #21  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

I have seen the dead deer that tried living at far fewer then 40 over winter deer per square mile even when they had better browse then beech, birch and striped maple, so in know first hand that any report you read that nonsense in is full of bologna unless they were only evaluating the ability of those deer to survive during one winter of limited snow conditions before they were removed to better habitat or fewer deer.
Without a doubt you can find winter killed deer at DDs under 40 DPSM when weather conditions such as exceptionally deep snow or or a heavy ice crust on the snow prevents deer from accessing the available browse for extended periods. But the history of the herd in the NC counties shows the herd increased to over 40 DPSM after severe over browsing from 1929 to 1939.

Here is the link.

http://www.deerandforests.org/resour...ainability.pdf

Last edited by bluebird2; 07-19-2009 at 03:05 PM.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 07-19-2009, 04:44 PM
  #22  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Default

Here are just a few of the things I found in the link to the report you posted that clearly donít support what you have been try to convince people of concerning the ability of the habitat to support more deer. And remember this is the report you selected to support your nonsense.

The relative deer density associated with a sustained yield of deer for harvest (RDD I/, where the subscript refers to McCullough's [1984] "I" carrying capacity, or maximum sustained 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. We offer these observations and this framework as management tools for integrating the important interactions among deer, plant communities, and other components of the ecosystem.

Researchers were unable to maintain target deer densities of 32 deer/km2 during the study (de-Calesta 1994); starvation mortality resulted in actual densities of 25 deer/km2, which we estimated as K for this artificial system.

In the 10-year study in northwestern Pennsylvania, Tilghman (1989) and deCalesta (1992) determined that species richness and abundance of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation declined between 4 and 8 deer/km2, (16<RDD<32, given K =25 deer/km2). This suggested an RDD 16 may be required to sustain this kind of vegetation.

This next part clearly indicates that the research based on this report indicated a need to use deer forage, or habitat, as one of the parameters that should be used in determining proper deer/habitat management objectives, just as the Game Commission is doing and you are opposed to.

However, there is more to this emerging paradigm for deer management that simply including multiple resources. The impact Of a given deer density on resources depends on the surrounding landscape.

These studies suggest the need to express impacts of deer on ecosystem components relative to forage availability and scaled to the landscape where they occur.

This next part indicates that deer densities of anything close to your quote of sustaining 40 deer per square mile in forested habitats are not only outlandish but totally unnatural and certainly the Authors of your posted report do not support your opinions on how many deer there should or could be living on our forested landscape.

Our analysis suggests that RDD, falls far below traditional management goals for deer density. Pre-European settlement deer densities may have approximated RDD, rather than RDD, or K. Deer density in northern hardwood forests prior to European settlement was estimated at 4 deer/km' for the eastern United States (Dahlberg and Guettinger 1956, McCabe and McCabe 1984, Alverson et al. 1988). This density was lower than I or K levels identified by McCullough (1979). It is not surprising that management for white-tailed deer based on I (for sustained harvest) or K (for parks and refuges without hunting; MacNab 1985) brought about negative effects on under story plants and associated wildlife communities that coevolved with deer at densities below I and K. This historical evidence, combined with the limited data available from Tilghman (1989), deCalesta(1994), Healy (1997), and others suggests that when the management objective is sustaining biodiversity, the target should be <16 RDD, or 1/3 of I.

The next part explains that this report is just a starting point for learning even more and that enough is not yet known about the real deer density/habitat relationships to draw any final conclusions. Those studies are presently underway within the present deer management plan that you are opposed to.

It also supports the concept of total resource management as being a benefit to the future of all of the resources, contrary to objectives of single species management that is not sustainable for a long term future.


So once again I guess your chosen report supports the Game Commissionís deer management objectives instead of your opinions.

Adoption of this conceptual framework will require research that provides managers with better tools than are currently available to assess the carrying capacity of specific landscapes. Better understanding of the effective scale at which deer interact with habitats is needed, such as research underway at Huntington Forest (Matthews 1996). We also need straight forward ways to estimate the K carrying capacity of these habitats. Similarly, more effective tools for the estimation of deer density itself are also required(Healy et al. 1997). In particular, research should be designed to test systems in which K changes (or is changed by human uses, such as agricultural) on short time scales (B. P. Shissler, Nat. Resour. Consultants,Inc., Fort Hill, Pa., pers. commun.).


Controversy surrounding the management of white-tailed deer populations in the United States has grown nearly as rapidly as deer populations them-selves. Management paradigms based on the jumble of ecological and political definitions of carrying capacity have failed to resolve these conflicts, while obscuring important relationships among ecosystem elements. Sustaining the forests on which deer depend requires a new conceptual framework for management. We propose managing deer for sustainability of ecosystems, using RDD, or relative deer density(deer density as a percent of K), as the framework.

This framework replaces the variety of old carrying capacity concepts: sustained yield of maximum numbers of deer for harvest and sustained yield of timber. All of these can be expressed in the common currency of RDD, which would help clarify apparent differences when data are collected on landscapes with differing carrying capacities. Instead of a management target based on an often value and conflict ridden assessment of deer impacts and deer population dynamics, the RDD framework focuses attention on the interactions of deer and other ecosystem elements. Stakeholders can focus on what information is needed to define relationships locally and plan management to sustain critical elements for wildlife habitat conservation, plant community conservation, or the conservation of deer habitat over the long term. However, these concepts offer no panacea for conflict-weary managers because they demonstrate clearly that RDDs is <1/3the RDD associated with maximum sustained yield of deer for hunter harvest.



Thanks for providing the link to this report that proves just how far out of touch you are with not only the realities of nature but also that prove you either donít understand what is indicated in the reports you read or that you only cling to a few small snippets of out of context information obtained from them.

This report very clearly does not support your opinions and arguments.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B. is offline  
Old 07-19-2009, 05:15 PM
  #23  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

[QUOTE] Thanks for providing the link to this report that proves just how far out of touch you are with not only the realities of nature but also that prove you either donít understand what is indicated in the reports you read or that you only cling to a few small snippets of out of context information obtained from them.

This report very clearly does not support your opinions and arguments[/QUOTE

To date , the deer have proven that 14 out of 14 of your predictions and theories were wrong and now it is 15 for 15. The report clearly states that the MSY Carrying capacity of northern hardwoods is over 40 DPSM ,but since you can't convert deer/KM sq. to deer PSM that concept escapes you.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 07-19-2009, 06:22 PM
  #24  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
Default

[quote=bluebird2;3387706]
Thanks for providing the link to this report that proves just how far out of touch you are with not only the realities of nature but also that prove you either donít understand what is indicated in the reports you read or that you only cling to a few small snippets of out of context information obtained from them.

This report very clearly does not support your opinions and arguments[/QUOTE

To date , the deer have proven that 14 out of 14 of your predictions and theories were wrong and now it is 15 for 15. The report clearly states that the MSY Carrying capacity of northern hardwoods is over 40 DPSM ,but since you can't convert deer/KM sq. to deer PSM that concept escapes you.
You need to go back and reread the report ole boy because it very clearly isnít supporting having deer populations as high as you claim in forested habitats.

Not only doesn't the report support your nonsense but the habitat and deer themselves have very well proven it as nonsense over the past half dozen years.

R.S. Bodenhorn
R.S.B. is offline  
Old 07-20-2009, 02:48 AM
  #25  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

ou need to go back and reread the report ole boy because it very clearly isnít supporting having deer populations as high as you claim in forested habitats.
I didn't say the report supported having 49 DPSM. What I said was the report stated that the MSY CC of the typical northern hard wood forest is 40 DPSM and that is exactly what the report says.

What the herd has proven over the last dozen years is that when harvests exceed recruitment, it takes even lower harvests to continue to reduce the herd since there are a lot fewer doe producing fawns so recruitment decreases and the sustainable harvest decreases ,which is exactly what happened in 2G.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 07-20-2009, 05:30 AM
  #26  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Striped maple is not a very preferred browse species in most areas,although they do browse it heavily when there's little lese to eat.The good thing about it is,it's very resitant to overbrowsing.The bad thing is,it grows out of the deer's reach very fast.

Beech is not a preferred browse species at all and it does not make good habitat.It takes many years for it to provide mast and the mast crops can ve very spotty and they don't last long.Beech is considered an indicator species.That means,based on the severity of browsing on beech,it can indicate how poor the habitat is.Deer generally will not touch beech unless they have no other choice.If the beech and striped maple are getting browsed heavily,your habitat stinks.
DougE is offline  
Old 07-20-2009, 06:11 AM
  #27  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

While much of what you say is true, it doesn't refute the fact that a forest of beech, birch and striped maple can support 40 DPSM at the MSY CC, even though you claim the habitat stinks ,from your perspective.

From your perspective the habitat in TL also stinks but it still supports over 60 DPSM and it is still below the MSY CC of the habitat.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 07-20-2009, 06:53 AM
  #28  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2
While much of what you say is true, it doesn't refute the fact that a forest of beech, birch and striped maple can support 40 DPSM at the MSY CC, even though you claim the habitat stinks ,from your perspective.

From your perspective the habitat in TL also stinks but it still supports over 60 DPSM and it is still below the MSY CC of the habitat.

TL lake does not support over 60 dpsm.Our pellet counts have gone from over 70 dpsm to under 50 dpsm with relatively low deer harvests.Tl is unique in that the deer have 1700-1800 homes with lanscaping that gets replaced every year.On top of that,hundreds of acres have been timbered which provided more food than usual over the past several winters.When you walk through an area that was recently timbered and find zero preferred saplings,zero stump sprouts surviving and over 60% of the beech being moderately to severly browsed,you have a severe habitat problem.That's what we're faced with and the beech and striped maple are not helping the deer herd or any other wildlife for that matter.

I used to belong to a large lease that didn't allow doe hunting.As the lease was logged,it regenerated mainly in beech and striped maple.Despite the fact that no doe are allowed to be harvested on the 3100 acres,there's not alot of deer.
DougE is offline  
Old 07-20-2009, 08:44 AM
  #29  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

.Tl is unique in that the deer have 1700-1800 homes with lanscaping that gets replaced every year
It is laughable to think that the landscaping comes anywhere close to making up for the amount of habitat lost due to homes, driveways and roads. In order to make a fair comparison between DD in TL compared to 2G , one would have to compare a SM of suitable habitat in TL,minus roads and houses, to a SM of forested habitat in 2g.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 07-20-2009, 09:50 AM
  #30  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

There is absolutely no doubt that the cc of mature forest is WAY higher than 10-15 owdpsm, and absolutely no reason why the best habitat types in the state have to have less than 25 owdpsm and continuing to decline. The huge majority of the states with whitetail understand and embrace those facts. They have higher deer density goals than pa's current densities, and to anyone other than a complete ecoextremist, that would be by far proof enough.

Its ALL about excessive extreme biodiversity and timber. Nothing else.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 07-20-2009 at 09:54 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.