A pic of woods
07-22-2009, 06:41 PM
#82
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
"Oh, ok then since we only have a handful of hunters on our game lands and other public land up here anymore, even the first day, and there are thousands of acres without a man track on them we should count those out of the areas being hunted?"
Unlike the 11 square miles mentioned, Its huntable land. The land being discussed was a particular parcel and not general statewide "underhunted" pockets. But the effects of the harvest on that particular land was the point as you know.
" I guess using that goofy method you and bluebird want to use we are probably harvesting in the neighborhood of 50-60 per HUNTED square mile up here in the northern tier."
We werent discussing the northern tier. We were discussing 3 square miles under strict and specific management conditions. Conditions which arent expressed statewide...across the northern tier...in Timbuktu.... or the other 11 square miles in question.
"It is you and bluebird that are twisting the facts to suit your goofy and misguided agendas."
Insult all you like. Its pretty much cut and dried common sense to anyone not trying to sell a failed deer management plan anyway. I cannot speak for bluebird, but my only "agenda" is to see reasonable and responsible deer management taking place and implemented by a non-extremist management agency. And I shouldnt need to fight for that, it should be a "given" with any reasonable management plan.
Unlike the 11 square miles mentioned, Its huntable land. The land being discussed was a particular parcel and not general statewide "underhunted" pockets. But the effects of the harvest on that particular land was the point as you know.
" I guess using that goofy method you and bluebird want to use we are probably harvesting in the neighborhood of 50-60 per HUNTED square mile up here in the northern tier."
We werent discussing the northern tier. We were discussing 3 square miles under strict and specific management conditions. Conditions which arent expressed statewide...across the northern tier...in Timbuktu.... or the other 11 square miles in question.
"It is you and bluebird that are twisting the facts to suit your goofy and misguided agendas."
Insult all you like. Its pretty much cut and dried common sense to anyone not trying to sell a failed deer management plan anyway. I cannot speak for bluebird, but my only "agenda" is to see reasonable and responsible deer management taking place and implemented by a non-extremist management agency. And I shouldnt need to fight for that, it should be a "given" with any reasonable management plan.
I can assure you that there is no one in this whole state that wants the best possible deer management any more then I do. I am a very avid deer hunter, I think deer hunting probably about as much as anyone alive. There isn’t a simple day that I am not planning and thinking about deer hunts, and I never have nor ever intent to hunt any place other then this state. Though, I might include some hunting in New York, only because it is close, after I retire. I have nothing to gain from timber, or birds or anything else you think are being promoted over deer and hunter interests. I wouldn’t care if all the trees died and fell over tomorrow if it weren’t for the fact they are so badly needed for wildlife populations, with deer right on the tip top of that list of wildlife desperately needing trees, and lots of them.
I am not a bird watcher, though I have learned to see birds and know just how important they really are to having a healthy environment. In fact, I know darn well if we had managed for the maximum number of shrub layer bird species and populations over the past half century we would have many times more deer today then we presently have, and probably more then anytime in the past couple decades.
I don’t pay much attention to wildflowers either, though I have learned to identify most of them. I also know that when you have both a diversity and abundance of wildflowers you also have high quality food that supports way more deer then habitat where the wildflowers are absent or even just lacking.
The real problem is that you, and many people like you, simply know nothing about how all aspects of nature are import to the entire natural community of wildlife, including the deer and especially the deer. You people just have this totally goofy concept that the deer are being killed off, or reduced, so that someone can have more trees, birds or flowers but you are wrong, completely wrong and stupidly wrong.
Many of those eco nuts, you talk about are doing nothing more then trying to get the habitat balanced so that we can have more deer then we presently have, in fact more then we have had for a long time in some parts of the state. They are just people smart enough to know that you will never have more deer, for more then short time periods, unless you first have better habitat that includes the correct species and regeneration of both trees and wildlife flowers and also has the habitat to support good bird populations. Those ARE NOT separate issues, as the uneducated think, but all totally and completely connected one to the other. To view them as separate issues is nothing more then proving ignorance of natural knowledge and education.
It is the people like you, with your lack of knowledge about nature, that have been and will continue to keep the deer populations at levels that are lower then they could be and should be. The deer populations will continue to remain lower then they could and should be until people like you learn that they simply don’t know what they are talking about and allow the professionals the opportunity to improve the future for the deer, the habitat and the hunter.
But, I know some of you are just not smart enough to ever allow that to happen.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-22-2009, 06:54 PM
#83
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
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.
Yesterday you were claiming the habitat depleted areas of the north central could and should have 100 deer per square mile, now you produce a SNIPPET from somewhere that clearly says that at even 30 deer per square mile the deer have reached the NUTRIITIONAL carrying capacity.
Either you don’t understand/comprehend what you are reading and posting, since they contradict what your other posts, have gone senile or otherwise just plain have no idea what you are talking about. Or, select box number two for all of the above.
Oh, and if you believe there are only 8 deer per square mile in unit 2G you are just proving that you don't have a clue what is really occurring in unit 2G.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-22-2009, 07:07 PM
#84
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
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.
Therefore, the herd health index can’t really be compared to any other WMUs or the state. Each WMU can only be compared to its self to determine trends of improvement or decline.
If you think the hunters killing a total of 3.84 deer per square mile are the controlling factor on deer populations in unit 2G then explain why hunters killing 14.17 deer per square mile in unit 2B, city streets and all, aren’t even reducing their deer populations?
Your thinking doesn’t even rise to the level of logical thought process when you refuse to acknowledge that the habitat is the real limiting factor in deer numbers.
R.S. Bodenhorn
07-22-2009, 07:18 PM
#85
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 584
The experts who are managing our herd disagree with you, but of course you and RSB know more than the experts.
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.
Wrong again sport. The discussion is about whether the habitat is limiting the herd , not whether we should have 8 DPSM at the biodiversity CC or 40 deer at the MSY carrying capacity.
BTW, should all of our WMUs be managed at the biodiversity CC like 2G?
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.
Wrong again sport. The discussion is about whether the habitat is limiting the herd , not whether we should have 8 DPSM at the biodiversity CC or 40 deer at the MSY carrying capacity.
BTW, should all of our WMUs be managed at the biodiversity CC like 2G?
I also see that according to you the number of deer we should have is now at 70 per square mile. What happened to the figure of 100 per square mile you where demanding yesterday? Or, what about the quote you used from the report snippet that said that 30 deer was the limit of the natural carrying capacity? Are you having trouble figure out what numbers you want believe in just the two past days, or have you lost your mind?
R.S. Bodenhorn
You might laugh, but the symptoms exhibited are textbook.
07-23-2009, 04:00 AM
#87
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
I don’t profess to know more then experts, but I also know that the experts don’t disagree with me. I talk with those experts about these subjects pretty frequently so I know what they have to say and they know what I have to say. We agree about nearly all aspects of the deer/habitat inter-relationships and also about the habitat being the real limiting and often controlling factor on deer numbers.
You are obviously suffering from a severe case of denial. You said there weren't enough bucks to breed the doe and Dr. R and the deer said you were wrong. The experts claim breeding rates decreased by 5% and you claim they didn't. You claim rack sizes of 2.5+ buck increased and Dr. R. says there is no data to support your claim. You said increased productivity would make up for the effects of HR and the experts said HR would reduce the herd by 50%. You claim the PGC data on forest health and herd health is flawed and the experts claim it is sufficient to manage the herd. You claim the habitat is controlling the herd and not one expert at the PGC supports that claim.
I also see that according to you the number of deer we should have is now at 70 per square mile. What happened to the figure of 100 per square mile you where demanding yesterday? Or, what about the quote you used from the report snippet that said that 30 deer was the limit of the natural carrying capacity?
That is a flat out lie. I never claimed we should have either 70 or 100 DPSM. What I said was the work of DeCalesta showed that the max. CC of typical northern hardwoods was 70 DPSM , but I was wrong. The Max. cc was 80 DPSM!!!
The reason 2G has such a high herd health index is because the sample nearly all comes from the soil and crop rich farm land of southern Clinton County where there are plenty of highways that results in highway killed deer. Up in the mountainous areas of unit 2G there aren’t many roads and darn few highway killed deer to sample
f you think the hunters killing a total of 3.84 deer per square mile are the controlling factor on deer populations in unit 2G then explain why hunters killing 14.17 deer per square mile in unit 2B, city streets and all, aren’t even reducing their deer populations?
Your thinking doesn’t even rise to the level of logical thought process when you refuse to acknowledge that the habitat is the real limiting factor in deer numbers.
Your thinking doesn’t even rise to the level of logical thought process when you refuse to acknowledge that the habitat is the real limiting factor in deer numbers.
07-23-2009, 04:07 AM
#88
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Quote:
The reason 2G has such a high herd health index is because the sample nearly all comes from the soil and crop rich farm land of southern Clinton County where there are plenty of highways that results in highway killed deer. Up in the mountainous areas of unit 2G there aren’t many roads and darn few highway killed deer to sample
The reason 2G has such a high herd health index is because the sample nearly all comes from the soil and crop rich farm land of southern Clinton County where there are plenty of highways that results in highway killed deer. Up in the mountainous areas of unit 2G there aren’t many roads and darn few highway killed deer to sample
07-23-2009, 05:44 AM
#89
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
That's a riot! southern Clinton has the best soil in the state!...Forget about the lower Susquehanna valley southern York and Lancaster counties...or the western tier that actually was put under a four point restriction specifically due to better soils/ habitat producing larger bucks on average. Nope, boys.....according to RSB, southern Clinton co is the heartland, the breadbasket of PA....Obviously as they have the higher productivity, and it offsets the entire rest of the WMU and surpasses all the other regions I mentioned. Maybe we should allow a significant herd increase in southern 2G?
07-23-2009, 06:58 AM
#90
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
Actually he just claimed that the reason 2G had the highest herd health based on productivity was due to the soil. Obviously he inadvertently claimed that since soil was credited (by him) as the contributing factor, that southern Clinton has the best soil in the state.