Question about doe tags and forest re-growth
01-13-2010, 05:57 AM
#41
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
That's true in our state forests.They are managing the deer on our state forest at a level low enough so they don't have to fence.The sad thing is,that level wouldn't have to be as low as it is if the herd wasn't allowed to devistate the habitat for as long as they did.
01-13-2010, 05:57 AM
#42
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
The answer is very simple.Once the habitat gets degraded to the point is in many places,it takes very few deer to keep it that way or make it even worse.Most of these areas will never have high deer densities again,even with no doe hunting unless we have several mild winters and good mast crops.Still,unless the heard is kept very low,the habitat will never start to recover.That sucks but that's what happens when you have too many deer for too long.
01-13-2010, 06:28 AM
#43
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
No it isn't false and misleading.Deer browse.That's what they do.If there isn't alot of browse,it takes less deer to impact the browse that is present.It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.Yes,without a doubt there are other factors effecting regeneration.No one has never claimed there wasn't.It doesn't matter though.Poor habitat will support less deer.Less deer will have more of an impact on poor habitat.That's a fact,not a misleading claim.
01-13-2010, 07:11 AM
#44
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 42
You have no idea what you're talking about.LETTING THE DEER HERD GROW WILL NOT INCREASE OAK PRODUCTION.Thinning the herd,along with sound silvaculture technigues such as shelter wood cuts,burns and herbicides is what get's oak regeneration.If you want oak regeneration,the deer will eat the oaks before they touch the maples.
You guys simply don't get it.It takes very few deer to impact regeneration in areas with poor habitat.
You guys simply don't get it.It takes very few deer to impact regeneration in areas with poor habitat.
If you got less deer and they are only targeting the hardwood sprouts what is the forest going to be mainly consisted of?
Junk trees and shrubs.
You let these grow and they will block the sun that is needed for plant life.
Now you got more fast growing maples than you ever had before.
Now tell me this?
How do you plan on getting rid of the over abundance and dominant species of maples if the deer herd is reduced so much that they can now be picky about what they eat because there is no competiton over the best browse?
The maples will continue to grow without any predation on that plant from the deer and the target species now is the hardwoods and the junk trees get to grow and choke out the rest of the forest floor.
Where is this controlled burn going on and the harvest of junk trees going on in our SF that you mentioned above?
Not in 2G or 2e in the CLF county area.
Where is this happening that you are talking about?
01-13-2010, 07:20 AM
#45
Typical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 659
You shouldn't be able to get a clear shot at a deer in a northern hardwoods stand beyond 100 yards.Northern harwoods(not oak/hickory)have a lot of shade tolerant species that will grow(be it slower)under a mature manopy.Oak is different,Oak does not grow well under a mature canopy so you shouldn't expect good oak regeneration under a mature canopy.You have to remember though,only about 40% of our forests are oak/hickory.
01-13-2010, 07:24 AM
#46
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 2,621
The answer is very simple.Once the habitat gets degraded to the point is in many places,it takes very few deer to keep it that way or make it even worse.Most of these areas will never have high deer densities again,even with no doe hunting unless we have several mild winters and good mast crops.Still,unless the heard is kept very low,the habitat will never start to recover.That sucks but that's what happens when you have too many deer for too long.
This is what I mean about talking out both sides of your mouth. You said,
"Most of these areas will never have high deer densities again,even with no doe hunting unless we have several mild winters and good mast crops."
So why issue all the doe tags? If the land can't support a large deer herd, then there shouldn't be any growth in the deer population to worry about.
In other words, if there wasn't enough food, the deer would starve out. If the CC of the land were exceeded, deer would start starving or move to other areas.
My arguement is, there is enough food or the population wouldn't be able to grow at all.
01-13-2010, 07:26 AM
#47
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
If you got less deer and they are only targeting the hardwood sprouts what is the forest going to be mainly consisted of?
Junk trees and shrubs.
You let these grow and they will block the sun that is needed for plant life.
Now you got more fast growing maples than you ever had before.
Now tell me this?
How do you plan on getting rid of the over abundance and dominant species of maples if the deer herd is reduced so much that they can now be picky about what they eat because there is no competiton over the best browse?
The maples will continue to grow without any predation on that plant from the deer and the target species now is the hardwoods and the junk trees get to grow and choke out the rest of the forest floor.
Where is this controlled burn going on and the harvest of junk trees going on in our SF that you mentioned above?
Not in 2G or 2e in the CLF county area.
Where is this happening that you are talking about?
Junk trees and shrubs.
You let these grow and they will block the sun that is needed for plant life.
Now you got more fast growing maples than you ever had before.
Now tell me this?
How do you plan on getting rid of the over abundance and dominant species of maples if the deer herd is reduced so much that they can now be picky about what they eat because there is no competiton over the best browse?
The maples will continue to grow without any predation on that plant from the deer and the target species now is the hardwoods and the junk trees get to grow and choke out the rest of the forest floor.
Where is this controlled burn going on and the harvest of junk trees going on in our SF that you mentioned above?
Not in 2G or 2e in the CLF county area.
Where is this happening that you are talking about?
Yep,even a small amount of deer can alter the forest in poor habitat.Isn't that what I've been saying all along?
There have been several controlled burns behind SB elliot state park.I'd be more than glad to show you.They also have several areas where studies were done with lime and hebicides.They even have controlled areas right next to each other where they're comparing the different treatments as a study for the US forest service.I can show you that as well.
There's also a large area that got burned in Treasure lake by accident just off I80.in fact,I WANT TO CHECK THAT OUT AS SOON AS THE SNOW MELTS.You're more than welcome to tag along.
01-13-2010, 07:31 AM
#48
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
In an exclosure you mentioned in the past that had a few deer trapped inside...approx 4, which translated to a comparable effect of a DD of 19dpsm, you claimed they had browsed all the preffered species down to nothing. If a reasonable DD of 19 dpsm can completely ravage an understory in a recent timber cut...what hope does the future hold for pole timber forests with a sparse understory? Will we be forced to endure single digit DD indefinitely, in the name of biodiversty and valuable lumber commodities? Many of the DMP supporters now, only support the plan because they were led to believe that HR is a temporary measure that will fade away when the habitat recovers sufficiently, yet examples like your exclosure aren't painting a portrait of a bright future, I'm afraid.
and hardly even touched.The habitat itself is fine in that exclosure to support quite a few deer for several years.That example just illustrated how deer singled out the most prefered species first and also illustarted how it doesn't take a huge deer density for that to happen.
01-13-2010, 07:37 AM
#49
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
This is what I mean about talking out both sides of your mouth. You said,
"Most of these areas will never have high deer densities again,even with no doe hunting unless we have several mild winters and good mast crops."
So why issue all the doe tags? If the land can't support a large deer herd, then there shouldn't be any growth in the deer population to worry about.
In other words, if there wasn't enough food, the deer would starve out. If the CC of the land were exceeded, deer would start starving or move to other areas.
My arguement is, there is enough food or the population wouldn't be able to grow at all.
"Most of these areas will never have high deer densities again,even with no doe hunting unless we have several mild winters and good mast crops."
So why issue all the doe tags? If the land can't support a large deer herd, then there shouldn't be any growth in the deer population to worry about.
In other words, if there wasn't enough food, the deer would starve out. If the CC of the land were exceeded, deer would start starving or move to other areas.
My arguement is, there is enough food or the population wouldn't be able to grow at all.
THERE ISN'T ENOUGH FOOD FOR MORE DEER IF THE HABITAT ISN'T RECOVERING.
01-13-2010, 07:44 AM
#50
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
In an exclosure you mentioned in the past that had a few deer trapped inside...approx 4, which translated to a comparable effect of a DD of 19dpsm, you claimed they had browsed all the preffered species down to nothing. If a reasonable DD of 19 dpsm can completely ravage an understory in a recent timber cut...what hope does the future hold for pole timber forests with a sparse understory? Will we be forced to endure single digit DD indefinitely, in the name of biodiversty and valuable lumber commodities? Many of the DMP supporters now, only support the plan because they were led to believe that HR is a temporary measure that will fade away when the habitat recovers sufficiently, yet examples like your exclosure aren't painting a portrait of a bright future, I'm afraid.