KQDC/Forest Regenration
08-28-2009 | 01:48 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
KQDC/Forest Regenration
After reducing the herd in KQDC by 60%, here are the effects on forest regeneration.
So, can anyone tell me how much the herd has to be reduced to produce good forest health which require 70% regeneration.
33
Overall Deer Impact. - Based on the diagram (Fig. 4, Appendix 1) and associated
interpretation of impact levels, deer impact for 2008 is characterized as “moderate” for the ANF
ownership/management unit, and “moderate to heavy” for other ownerships/management units,
reflecting a return to heavier impact for all ownerships/management units, with impact classified
lower on the ANF ownership/management unit.
There were still more than 50% plots with no advance regeneration of any species in 2008,
as in 2005-2007. Additionally, percent plots no impact, and severity levels of impact on all
indicator species climbed rapidly in 2008. This situation is likely due to the residual impact of
recent (prior to 2005) levels of deer impact, to reduced levels of tree harvest existing outside of
fenced areas, and to interference from ferns and grasses. Without harvests to open the forest
overstory, there is less stimulation for development of abundant and diverse advance
regeneration of seedlings outside of fenced areas. High deer impact in the past favored
predominance of ferns and grasses in the understory (ferns and grasses are little eaten by deer:
removal of competing tree seedlings by deer allowed ferns and grasses to spread and interfere
with development of tree seedlings). The window of lower deer density and impact that
occurred 2005-2006 appears to be closing, rendering it less likely that cooperating landowners
within the Project Area will be able to take down existing fences and to build fewer fences
around some but not all new timber harvest sites.
Overall Deer Impact. - Based on the diagram (Fig. 4, Appendix 1) and associated
interpretation of impact levels, deer impact for 2008 is characterized as “moderate” for the ANF
ownership/management unit, and “moderate to heavy” for other ownerships/management units,
reflecting a return to heavier impact for all ownerships/management units, with impact classified
lower on the ANF ownership/management unit.
There were still more than 50% plots with no advance regeneration of any species in 2008,
as in 2005-2007. Additionally, percent plots no impact, and severity levels of impact on all
indicator species climbed rapidly in 2008. This situation is likely due to the residual impact of
recent (prior to 2005) levels of deer impact, to reduced levels of tree harvest existing outside of
fenced areas, and to interference from ferns and grasses. Without harvests to open the forest
overstory, there is less stimulation for development of abundant and diverse advance
regeneration of seedlings outside of fenced areas. High deer impact in the past favored
predominance of ferns and grasses in the understory (ferns and grasses are little eaten by deer:
removal of competing tree seedlings by deer allowed ferns and grasses to spread and interfere
with development of tree seedlings). The window of lower deer density and impact that
occurred 2005-2006 appears to be closing, rendering it less likely that cooperating landowners
within the Project Area will be able to take down existing fences and to build fewer fences
around some but not all new timber harvest sites.
08-28-2009 | 02:02 PM
#2
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
These people are a joke. They expect us to believe all the reduction that has gone on to be for nothing unless there is continued slaughter. They expect everyone to swallow the bullsquat that it takes 50 years for a noticable improvement. They just want PERMANENT low deer numbers and the conditions that brings.
"The window of lower deer density and impact that
occurred 2005-2006 appears to be closing, "
Thats exactly what the rest of the damn state needs. For the "window of lower deer density" to CLOSE. Permanently.
"The window of lower deer density and impact that
occurred 2005-2006 appears to be closing, "
Thats exactly what the rest of the damn state needs. For the "window of lower deer density" to CLOSE. Permanently.
09-01-2009 | 01:38 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
So what price did the hunters in KQDC pay for a small increase in regeneration? The answer is that the deer taken to check stations dropped from 192 in 2003 to only 29 in 2007. due to the extremely low harvest in 2007 the 2008 harvested rebounded to 62 deer checked.
Here is what the report said about the prospects for trophy buck in the future.
Here is what the report said about the prospects for trophy buck in the future.
47
Representativeness of Harvest. – Proportions of antlered and antlerless deer recorded
from roadside counts and brought to check stations indicate that hunters were overharvesting
bucks and under harvesting does (Fig. 26). Proportion of antlered deer counted in roadside
counts exceeded 25% only once, in 2007. Proportion of antlered deer brought to check stations
always exceeded 50%, except in 2003 when more antlerless than antlered deer were brought to
check stations. Initial hunter response to increased antlerless licenses in 2003 – harvesting
more antlered than antlerless deer – reversed in 2004. With the exception of 2007, when few
deer were harvested, the trend has been for hunters to bring proportionately more antlered deer
and fewer antlerless deer to check stations. By 2008, hunters returned to 2001 level of
overharvest of antlered deer and under harvest of antlerless deer. There will be fewer and
fewer antlered deer in the future, and hunters may not restrict their harvests of antlered deer to
older bucks with more impressive racks. Thus, few potentially older deer will survive hunting
beyond 2 1⁄2 years of age and there will be few trophy racks harvested.
Representativeness of Harvest. – Proportions of antlered and antlerless deer recorded
from roadside counts and brought to check stations indicate that hunters were overharvesting
bucks and under harvesting does (Fig. 26). Proportion of antlered deer counted in roadside
counts exceeded 25% only once, in 2007. Proportion of antlered deer brought to check stations
always exceeded 50%, except in 2003 when more antlerless than antlered deer were brought to
check stations. Initial hunter response to increased antlerless licenses in 2003 – harvesting
more antlered than antlerless deer – reversed in 2004. With the exception of 2007, when few
deer were harvested, the trend has been for hunters to bring proportionately more antlered deer
and fewer antlerless deer to check stations. By 2008, hunters returned to 2001 level of
overharvest of antlered deer and under harvest of antlerless deer. There will be fewer and
fewer antlered deer in the future, and hunters may not restrict their harvests of antlered deer to
older bucks with more impressive racks. Thus, few potentially older deer will survive hunting
beyond 2 1⁄2 years of age and there will be few trophy racks harvested.
09-01-2009 | 04:24 PM
#5
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
For those who may want the WHOLE story.....
http://www.kqdc.com/Annual%20Report%...mendations.pdf
http://www.kqdc.com/huntersatisfaction.html
http://www.kqdc.com/qualitydeer.html
http://www.kqdc.com/science.html
http://www.kqdc.com/Annual%20Report%...mendations.pdf
http://www.kqdc.com/huntersatisfaction.html
http://www.kqdc.com/qualitydeer.html
http://www.kqdc.com/science.html
Last edited by BTBowhunter; 09-01-2009 at 04:31 PM.
09-01-2009 | 04:46 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
The whole story shows just what i posted, The plan reduced the herd by 60% and increased breeding rates and productivity didn't come close to offsetting the effects of HR as RSB claimed.
No QDMA lease manager would manage the herd to produce such lousy results.
No QDMA lease manager would manage the herd to produce such lousy results.
09-01-2009 | 06:35 PM
#7
Banned
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 0
From:
Yep, the links pretty much show just what you said bb. On one link i see Decalesta whining about having an increase and ballooning to a whopping 14 dpsm and they are increasing the impact on the habitat. 
And on the same link The HUGE declines in harvest are depicted just as you stated.
In the survey link in 2007 is said that 77.8% of those surveyed said they thought there were too few deer.
In 2008 even though they only surveyed the SUCCESSFUL hunters, over half STILL said there were too few deer.
In 2008 55.6% surveyed said the habitat looked the same or worse...not Better, despite all the extreme reduction.
And on the same link The HUGE declines in harvest are depicted just as you stated.
In the survey link in 2007 is said that 77.8% of those surveyed said they thought there were too few deer.
In 2008 even though they only surveyed the SUCCESSFUL hunters, over half STILL said there were too few deer.
In 2008 55.6% surveyed said the habitat looked the same or worse...not Better, despite all the extreme reduction.
