A pic of woods
07-21-2009, 07:17 PM
#71
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Here is an exact quote of what the experts are saying.
Please note that it states that at 30+ DPSM deer maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate. That directly contradicts your claim that the habitat in 2G is controlling at 8 DPSM.
Furthermore, the data that you provided shows that the habitat in Elk Co. support 30 DPFSM in 1987 and 26 DPFSM in 2000. So the der where you live and the data you provided shows you are not telling the truth.
In typically-managed northern hardwood forests, with the amount of forage created by
timber management activities and natural disturbance regimes, densities below 10 - 15 deer per
square mile are associated with fully diverse plant communities: deer impact is sufficiently low
that no plant species are eliminated or greatly reduced by preferential browsing by deer. This
threshold is likened to “diversity carrying capacity”. When densities exceed 30 deer per square
mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain
body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying
capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical
habitat structure and species composition occur.
timber management activities and natural disturbance regimes, densities below 10 - 15 deer per
square mile are associated with fully diverse plant communities: deer impact is sufficiently low
that no plant species are eliminated or greatly reduced by preferential browsing by deer. This
threshold is likened to “diversity carrying capacity”. When densities exceed 30 deer per square
mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain
body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying
capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical
habitat structure and species composition occur.
Please note that it states that at 30+ DPSM deer maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate. That directly contradicts your claim that the habitat in 2G is controlling at 8 DPSM.
Furthermore, the data that you provided shows that the habitat in Elk Co. support 30 DPFSM in 1987 and 26 DPFSM in 2000. So the der where you live and the data you provided shows you are not telling the truth.
Last edited by bluebird2; 07-21-2009 at 07:37 PM.
07-22-2009, 01:58 AM
#72
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Treasure lake is 14 square miles in size.Hunting is only allowed on a little more than 3 square miles of it.When we do the pelet counts,we do it over the entire property.Furthermore,the 50 dpsm is an overwinter deer density,not a pre season density.If we have 50 dpsm,that would equate to over 700 over winter deer.Asume we have an adult b/d ratio of 1/2.That would mean we have around 450 adult doe .If each doe only recruited 1 fawn,we would have to hill over 450 deer to keep the population stable.Killing 142 doe isn't even scratching the surface of recruitment even though recruitment is pizz poor.
Regardless of the rest of the acreage, where controlling the deer will probably not hapen through hunting due to the restrictions and the residences....a third of your overall landmass DD was just reduced by 80%! Good luck trying to control the der in the rest of it,but it seems like hunting is plenty effective where it can be done safely.
07-22-2009, 04:54 AM
#73
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Regardless of the rest of the acreage, where controlling the deer will probably not hapen through hunting due to the restrictions and the residences....a third of your overall landmass DD was just reduced by 80%! Good luck trying to control the der in the rest of it,but it seems like hunting is plenty effective where it can be done safely.
07-22-2009, 04:57 AM
#74
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Here is an exact quote of what the experts are saying.
Please note that it states that at 30+ DPSM deer maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate. That directly contradicts your claim that the habitat in 2G is controlling at 8 DPSM.
Furthermore, the data that you provided shows that the habitat in Elk Co. support 30 DPFSM in 1987 and 26 DPFSM in 2000. So the der where you live and the data you provided shows you are not telling the truth.
Please note that it states that at 30+ DPSM deer maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate. That directly contradicts your claim that the habitat in 2G is controlling at 8 DPSM.
Furthermore, the data that you provided shows that the habitat in Elk Co. support 30 DPFSM in 1987 and 26 DPFSM in 2000. So the der where you live and the data you provided shows you are not telling the truth.
With lot's of timbering and lots of natural disturbances,I would agree that 30 dpsm is no problem at all.Unfortunately,we're faced with much different situations in 2G.
07-22-2009, 05:39 AM
#75
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
What you fail to mention is that the habitat is terrible in much of 2G.As the habitat gets more and more stressed,it takes far less deer to continually impact it.
It may take less deer to "impact" a stressed habitat, but that stressed habitat can still support 70 DPSM. But, at that DD non-hunting morality equals recruitment. That is why it is ridiculous for RSB to claim the habitat is controlling the herd in 2G at 8-9 DPSM while hunters are still harvesting 11,800 deer.
07-22-2009, 05:41 AM
#76
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Westmoreland County PA.
Posts: 735
BB,from your own qoute that you threw back at Doug.
When densities exceed 30 deer per square mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
Now BB,read the last line again from your qoute.
When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
After significant reductions in plant diversity. What happens next?
When densities exceed 30 deer per square mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
Now BB,read the last line again from your qoute.
When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
After significant reductions in plant diversity. What happens next?
07-22-2009, 06:01 AM
#77
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
If the habitat is so terrible in 2G , please explain why the adult doe have the third highest number of embryos/doe in the state.
It may take less deer to "impact" a stressed habitat, but that stressed habitat can still support 70 DPSM. But, at that DD non-hunting morality equals recruitment. That is why it is ridiculous for RSB to claim the habitat is controlling the herd in 2G at 8-9 DPSM while hunters are still harvesting 11,800 deer.
It may take less deer to "impact" a stressed habitat, but that stressed habitat can still support 70 DPSM. But, at that DD non-hunting morality equals recruitment. That is why it is ridiculous for RSB to claim the habitat is controlling the herd in 2G at 8-9 DPSM while hunters are still harvesting 11,800 deer.
The fact is,we have a very even aged stand of timber across 2G and we were faced with so many deer for so long that they destroyed the habitat.In areas that are being timbered,the herd is growing and the deer are healthy.Unfortunately,because we have such an even aged stand of timber,the amount of logging taking place is slow.In the areas where the habitat is very poor,it doesn't take many deer at all to have an impact on it.The areas that have large acres of early succession forest do have more than 30 dpsm.
07-22-2009, 06:02 AM
#78
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
BB,from your own qoute that you threw back at Doug.
When densities exceed 30 deer per square mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
Now BB,read the last line again from your qoute.
When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
After significant reductions in plant diversity. What happens next?
When densities exceed 30 deer per square mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
Now BB,read the last line again from your qoute.
When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical habitat structure and species composition occur.
After significant reductions in plant diversity. What happens next?
07-22-2009, 06:40 AM
#79
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
We've been through this too many times.Only 40 does were checked accross the entire wmu.That's hardly statistically significant.What areas did they come from?Unless you know,that stat is meaningless.Less deer also equals more food for the deer that are remaining.I guess that means the plan is a success.How many fawns were pregnant?
The fact is,we have a very even aged stand of timber across 2G and we were faced with so many deer for so long that they destroyed the habitat.In areas that are being timbered,the herd is growing and the deer are healthy.Unfortunately,because we have such an even aged stand of timber,the amount of logging taking place is slow.In the areas where the habitat is very poor,it doesn't take many deer at all to have an impact on it.The areas that have large acres of ea
No the deer did not destroy the habitat, they just altered it. The habitat is still capable of supporting 70 DPSM and the only thing that is preventing that from happening is the antlerless harvests.
Bb and those clamoring for more could care less
BTW, should all of our WMUs be managed at the biodiversity CC like 2G?