Valley Forge hunt cancelled
 

The Park service was sued in November by animal rights groups for attempting to reduce the deer herd. An article in the Chester county "Daily Local News" talked about it. Some things that I found interesting. Since 1983 the population has grown from 31-35 dpsm to an estimated 241 dpsm. The estimate the current population to be 1,277. Their management plan included killing 1,000 of those deer over the next four years, to attain a target herd of 165-185 deer (I know the math dosen't add up, but I'm gettin the figures directly from the article). Their plan is to then "maintain the deer population through some form of birth control when the technology becomes available." I say good luck with that, PSU has been unsuccessul at developing contraceptives for the last 15 years.

"Park officals say over browsing by deer has led to the decline of the forest...and has resulted in unaceptable changes in the species composition, structure, abundance, and distribution of native plant communities and associated wildlife" The animal rights groups countered saying "the deer management plan is logically and legally misguided...the deer should be protected because the white-tailed deer are a cultural and historic resource to Valley Forge that were present at the time of the Continental Army's encampment in 1777...protecting some of Valley Forge's resources at the expense of another is contrary to Congress' charge to preserve all the park's resources." UMM YEAH...AREN'T THEY SUGGESTING PROTECTING DEER AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYTHING ELSE!?!?!? Seems to me that you could use their argument to argue against their point. This kind of bs is the reason hunters need to stay united.

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

One thing I forgot....Yes deer were present during the encampment in 1777...NOT AT 241 DPSM THOUGH!

Of course the anti-hunters have no clue or concern about the damage that amount of deer can cause each other through starvation and too much inbreeding. Is there an unusually high rate of piebalds and albinos in that area yet?

I seriously doubt there were as many deer around the VF encampment in the spring of 1778 as there were in the fall of 1777. I bet those boys shot and killed anything that could possibly be eaten. A VF hunt would be right in line with historical accuracy.

Hmm, not sure. I'll look into it though.

There was no reference to an increased percentage of piebalds or albinos in the reports I have read on VF. But, the studies from VF and Gettysburg Battle Field prove that the MSY CC of the habitat in 5C and 5B is at least 200 DPSM and the PGC claimed 5C can only support 6 DPSM and 5B can support 5 DPSM.

:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove: :lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove: :lolabove::lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:

So now it's 200 DPSM

You guys that get frustrated when your concerns about too few deer fall on deaf ears need to look and think very hard when you allow stuff like this to go unchallenged.

I just read in another thread where someone praised beenthere for "wearing his opponents down" (with a deluge of manufatctured facts out of context)and "beenthere" is the man!

Of course he's had to change his name a handful of times just to stay on here but with stuff like that pearl of wisdom above, it's small wonder why you guys with legitimate beefs that suport BB , beenthere deaddeer, ddear etc etc etc don't get taken all that seriously much of the time.

I really do try and take you serious but you make it sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo hard.

You know his response will be to post evidence that proves he is wrong, the bird speaks and facts are made.:s5:

Three acres per deer should of made that little winter foray a pleasure by most standards of the day.

What the PGC is thinking, who knows.:biggrin:

Whether you realize it or not , you also let my claim go unchallenged since you have provided nothing to refute my claim that the MSY CC in VF is at least 200 DPSM.

Exactly. It's ashame. There's legititmate concerns out there, but they get brushed away because some of the people bringing up the concerns have such extremist views.

HAHAHA LMAO...how'd you know, it only took 2 minutes.

There has been a pile of bid dung deposited on this site.:s13:

Dementia explains it best but ego pilots the short bus.:sad:

Just like a response to a guy who claims the sky is green, you got an appropriate response for your claim.

Yup, brilliant.

if you think you are so much smarter than me, why don't you define the principle of MSY and then explain why the data from VF doesn't support my position that the MSY CC of the habitat in VF , 5C and 5B is around 200 DPSM.

Sorry, but making preposterous claims does not give you the privilege of conducting a pop quiz. That privelege is reserved for someone with a realistic working knowledge of the issue at hand.

Larry, Your problem begins with maximum sustained yield, and thats a measure that works better with green beans and corn than it does deer.

You are now providing us with the proof of your incompetency, bluffing works, some times in poker, but never when facts are involved.Your baffle them with B.S. is not gonna get it here.

[quote=BTBowhunter;3540308]Sorry, but making preposterous claims does not give you the privilege of conducting a pop quiz. [quote]

hahahahh, ya gotta appreciate the little things in life....and that was funny.

Here is a simple question for those that question my position on VF. If he herd in VF exceeded the MSY CC before it reached 200 DPSM , how did the herd increase to 240 DPFSM s Glue posted?

perhaps you missed this.....

Before it was known the that sponge Bob came from Bikini bottoms most people thought he was Gay.:wave:

No, I did not miss you ridiculous comment. But, if you are so smart please feel free to tell us what the MSY CC of VF might be based on your vast knowledge of deer management.

Well, it's also not well know that SB originally lived near VF until he heard that BB had declared the MSY of VF to be 200+ prompting him to cross over to the dark side breifly in search of DD for some intense study on OWDD, RR's GIGO fromulas and general DILLIGAF nonexpertise.

So what is the MSY CC of the habitat in VF? Do any of you clowns known the definition of MSYCC?

I wonder why the deer at VF survived all these years.Especially considering there's some brute bucks in there.You would think the habitat was depleted resulting in malnutrition which would not create bruiser bucks.
Beats me

Fair question Rich,

All deer biologists cite age as the most important of the 3 components required for a "bruiser buck". The other two are, of course, nutrition and genetics.

A fair guess might be that some of those bruisers are old enough to have grown up when the density wasn't so high.


I know that we had a similar scenario when I became part of a suburban bowhunt several years ago. We started with a DD of 100 DPSM (counted via FLIR) but that included roads, buildings, playgrounds and parking lots. The true DPSM was more like 160 when we started. There had not been any legal hunting there for decades. Yes there were some old grizzled monsters but they were few and far between. The rule, however was far more smallish junky scrub bucks. There were also a few ridiculously large does and lots and lots of tiny deer.

As for how they survive, I don't know that park so I'll talk about the situation I was (still am) involved in. The deer ate everything green and most things brown that they could reach. They had lost all fear of humans and would eat flowers right under peoples windows in broad daylight. Planting anything was pretty much a lost cause.

BTW, we probably each averaged 2-3 "easy" ones way back when we started before those deer caught on and became smarter and warier than any deer I ever hunted in the big woods.

You can look it up in the GIGO section of the DILLIGAF dictionary:lmao:

Here we go again - name calling such as clowns or idiots will not be tolerated.

Last chance

JW

The other thing to wonder is why "these ridiculous deer density numbers" didn't bring in some Yotes to control the population? I guess that must only apply to where Hunters want the high numbers, hey? :woot:

RSB seems to be on a major loosing streak here lately. :happy0001:

The same reason they don't control the population in other suburban areas, they don't like people.

People are there 24x7x365, right? Whoops, maybe you better lay your eyes on this: :woot::lmao:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqVE9qfg7yI

Yano,I'm opretty sure they have yotes in the area.That comes back to what I've been saying,take the herd down far enough in numbers and the predators will start having a negative eaffect.There's enough deer at VF the coyotes don't put a dent in the population.Having said that there's no bear or bobcat.You bring up a good point.


BT,I agree with the age factor but you would still think malnutrition would be more of a factor.It seems with your experience at the park age over rides that.

Now here's another question I raise.The habitat in the VF park according to what they say has been depleted for years.Yet evidently with populations so high those deer are still giving birth and having decent survival rates.
I think it proves hunting and predators are the first two factors in her reductions.Of course habitat is important but I think the other two come in first.I know this is the case in our area in Clearfield.

I'll say again that I don't know the park in question but if we assume that a park and a developed suburban area are fairly similar in having a makeup of woods, edge and grasses, maybe I can offer a possible answer. First, grasses and other plants that grow in open areas do provide far more forage per acre than timber or brushy areas and parks and suburban areas have plenty of that. The deer could be surviving on that stuff but still wiping out anything that sprouts in the woods. I havent personally seen what 200+ DPSM does but at 160+ Stevie Wonder could see the overbrowsing everywhere in our situation and the majority of the deer deer were definitely undersize for their age.
Just my $.02 based on experience with a somewhat similar situation.

At 200 dpsm even the bird might be able to stumble into one, given the length of our season.

Thats what we like about you Jim!

Always the optimist!!:biggrin:

I see myself as a "glass half full" sorta guy.:s3:

One stumbled into me this year with a density of less than 20 DPSM.

And , the PGC hasn't assigned any habitat value or carrying capacity to that type of habitat since 1980. If they had they never would have assigned a density goal of 6 DPSM in 5C and 5 DPSM in 5B.

Thats great, congrats, can you imagine 10 X as many deer, that would almost be like hunting at my deer farm.:biggrin: