WAs DougE Right??
01-11-2010 | 02:56 PM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
As yet you have provided absolutely nothing to support your claim that SFL is being managed at lower DDs than SGLs. But, what we did learn from PAHICK's posts is that competing vegetation is a bigger inhibiting factor than the deer at their current levels.
It still comes down to the simple fact that the least expensive way to promote regeneration is to get hunters to pay for the privilege to kill more doe,even if it doesn't work!!!!!!!
It still comes down to the simple fact that the least expensive way to promote regeneration is to get hunters to pay for the privilege to kill more doe,even if it doesn't work!!!!!!!
You've obviously never been on a browse impact survey,which by the way is done differently by the PGC vs DCNR.On a browse impact survey,you survey what's growing.If deer are impacting it,it's obvious and noted.You also look at indicator species such as beech.If it's growing and the deer are browsing it,that get's measured.If the deer are hammering the indicator species,your habitat is crap.plain and simple.No need to add more deer to that landscape because you'll never get any preferred regeneration.Maybe you don't care if the habitat turns into a beech and striped maple forest but anyone with any common sense should.
01-11-2010 | 03:11 PM
#22
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
On a browse impact survey,you survey what's growing.If deer are impacting it,it's obvious and noted.You also look at indicator species such as beech.If it's growing and the deer are browsing it,that get's measured.If the deer are hammering the indicator species,your habitat is crap.plain and simple.No need to add more deer to that landscape because you'll never get any preferred regeneration.Maybe you don't care if the habitat turns into a beech and striped maple forest but anyone with any common sense should
Wrong again. The PGC doesn't do browse impact studies. They base the antlerless allocations on surveys of regeneration conducted by the USFS.
DCNR bases their browse inventory on the presence or absence of woody growth, not just on the degree of browsing of preferred species. It doesn't matter if a plot doesn't regenerate due to invasive species, or high basal diameter stand they still record it as a lack of adequate regeneration and that is intentionally misleading.
01-14-2010 | 12:25 PM
#23
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
While no one knows for sure if DMAP tags on SFL were effective at reducing the herd to lower levels on SGLs and adjoining properties we do know that DMAP and HR has been a miserable failure at increasing regeneration as we were told it would. Now DCNR is telling us that even with low DD there will be no improvement in regeneration due to competing vegetation.
Here is a quote from the DCNR report on DMAP in Bald Eagle SF.
So, even though reducing the herd had no beneficial effect on regeneration,DCNR is still going to DMAP the area in an attempt to reduce the herd even more.
Here is a quote from the DCNR report on DMAP in Bald Eagle SF.
Competing vegetation is a major obstacle in this unit. It was found on 98 %
of the plots. Even if deer numbers are lowered, the response in regeneration
cannot be expected unless the competing vegetation is dealt with.
Taking all of these factors into consideration and the fact that this area will become a part
of 1125, we are applying for DMAP tags at a rate of 1 tag/50 acres.
of the plots. Even if deer numbers are lowered, the response in regeneration
cannot be expected unless the competing vegetation is dealt with.
Taking all of these factors into consideration and the fact that this area will become a part
of 1125, we are applying for DMAP tags at a rate of 1 tag/50 acres.
Last edited by bluebird2; 01-14-2010 at 12:30 PM.
01-16-2010 | 05:28 PM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
From: PA
The cover food and habitat must be better in the dmap?I hear the ANF has poor cover but most SGL's I've seen are alot better then state forest.If you were on timber land and they're cutting unlike alot of state forest I can believe you had good habitat.
01-17-2010 | 05:05 AM
#27
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Based on this quote it looks like DCNR is now the new PGC , since they state that their goal is to manage the herd based on the impossible goal of a 1:1 B/D ratio.
Portage DMAP Area Strategy
This area is a part of the Allegheny Plateau that is deeply cut by steep valleys. Northern
Hardwood and Oak forests dominate, with some hemlock stands scattered throughout. Due to the maturity
of the forest in combination with tree insects and diseases, timber-harvesting operations are very common
in this area. Parcels were the overstory trees have been removed are scattered throughout the area.
Management goals for the area are to promote a diverse, healthy natural habitat, increase wildlife species
diversity, reduce the need for fencing to establish desirable regeneration, manage for a balanced deer sex
ratio (1:1 buck:doe), maintain or improve hunter satisfaction, reduce deer browsing on Threatened or
Endangered native wild plant species such as Trillium, Indian Cucumber Root, Toothwarts, Wild Violets
and Hepatica (see also plant species from Species of Special Concern List) and to reduce the deer pressure
to the point where the forest will persist and function into the future.
This area is a part of the Allegheny Plateau that is deeply cut by steep valleys. Northern
Hardwood and Oak forests dominate, with some hemlock stands scattered throughout. Due to the maturity
of the forest in combination with tree insects and diseases, timber-harvesting operations are very common
in this area. Parcels were the overstory trees have been removed are scattered throughout the area.
Management goals for the area are to promote a diverse, healthy natural habitat, increase wildlife species
diversity, reduce the need for fencing to establish desirable regeneration, manage for a balanced deer sex
ratio (1:1 buck:doe), maintain or improve hunter satisfaction, reduce deer browsing on Threatened or
Endangered native wild plant species such as Trillium, Indian Cucumber Root, Toothwarts, Wild Violets
and Hepatica (see also plant species from Species of Special Concern List) and to reduce the deer pressure
to the point where the forest will persist and function into the future.
01-17-2010 | 10:09 AM
#29
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
That may be true but I can't say for sure. Maybe in areas where they do salvage cuts, they might exceed the 1%/yr. rate.
But the thing that I think is significant is that because of damage done by insects and disease the canopy is more open allowing more regeneration in areas that have not been cut. That would indicate if DCNR did more work to open the canopy in the forests surrounding a planned cut, they wouldn't have to do as much fencing.
The Bureau of Forestry currently maintains 150 acres of deer exclosures in High Tensile
Electric and Woven Wire fences. Over the past 10 years, 800 acres of forestland have been
harvested for timber, forest age class structure, and wildlife management goals. We have
plans to conduct 400 acres of additional timber harvest in this area over the next 5 years.
Currently, 35 % of timber harvests in this area must be fenced to ensure forest regeneration
and sustainability.
Electric and Woven Wire fences. Over the past 10 years, 800 acres of forestland have been
harvested for timber, forest age class structure, and wildlife management goals. We have
plans to conduct 400 acres of additional timber harvest in this area over the next 5 years.
Currently, 35 % of timber harvests in this area must be fenced to ensure forest regeneration
and sustainability.
01-18-2010 | 05:38 AM
#30
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
You need to attend some habitat tours.R.S.B..He has a 75 acre clearcut that turned into a meadoW in 1990.Nothing regenerated despite the fact that they left plenty of seed trees.Interestingly,6 years after they cut it,they put up several small exclosures.Miraculously,these exclosures are now to thick to even walk through.What do you think cayused the lack of regeneration?Was it insects,not enough light ,competing vegitation or perhaps the deer?There are examples like this all over the northern tier.You can't get it through your head that once the habitat gets degraded and there's less food for the deer,it takes less deer to continually impact it.