Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
stop complainin...start hunting >

stop complainin...start hunting

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

stop complainin...start hunting

Old 02-04-2010, 12:41 PM
  #201  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Originally Posted by livbucks View Post
No you are wrong. There were too many deer that could be wintered. You are confused.

Once again you are wrong and simply don't know what you are talking about and as you can see the PGC agrees with me.

"
Near goal – “Successive heavy reductions in the herd brought the
numbers of the deer to a point more nearly commensurate with their
food requirements, and crowded the remaining animals back into the
forests where they belonged, thus relieving widespread farm damage
complaints. These reductions, together with the very noticeable benefits
from numerous small lumbering operations, and extensive improvement
cutting under the direction of the Commission finally produced the
results the Commission sought to attain back in 1931. ... The
Commission believes that the deer herd is currently at about the level
where it should be maintained, at least until such time as lumbering
operations again become widespread." - Game Commission Executive
Director Seth Gordon, 1941-42 Biennial Report "

The heavy successive reductions in the herd were due to reported antlerless harvests of 172K in 1938, 15K in 1939 and 146K in 1940.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 12:55 PM
  #202  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

bb says: Wrong again. They didn't die because their food was depleted ,they died because they couldn't access the available food. The same thing happened in the northern tier in 2004 ,after the herd had been reduced.


Agreed. That was discussed more than once on other boards in the past. Pretty much just shows what most already know. Food or no food. 10 deer or 100. When the conditions get as bad as they can get, some deer are gonna die. Just ask Maine. The total food supply doesnt exist 10 feet from a deers nose at all times. They have to travel to, and access it. If they cant or expend too much energy doing so.... Toast.

Deer "food" isnt a problem in Pa now that we have 1/2 the deer and twice the food, and in most places never was a "problem" to begin with.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-04-2010 at 01:05 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:13 PM
  #203  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2 View Post
Once again you are wrong and simply don't know what you are talking about and as you can see the PGC agrees with me.

"
Near goal – “Successive heavy reductions in the herd brought the
numbers of the deer to a point more nearly commensurate with their
food requirements, and crowded the remaining animals back into the
forests where they belonged, thus relieving widespread farm damage
complaints. These reductions, together with the very noticeable benefits
from numerous small lumbering operations, and extensive improvement
cutting under the direction of the Commission finally produced the
results the Commission sought to attain back in 1931. ... The
Commission believes that the deer herd is currently at about the level
where it should be maintained, at least until such time as lumbering
operations again become widespread." - Game Commission Executive
Director Seth Gordon, 1941-42 Biennial Report "

The heavy successive reductions in the herd were due to reported antlerless harvests of 172K in 1938, 15K in 1939 and 146K in 1940.
That was BB's rsponse.Here's the response from a professional forester that studied the effects of deer browsing for decades.

Bt 1923,farmers were lobbying for doe seasons.By the late 20's,foresters were also making similar demands.Despite the establishment of doe seasons,the effects of deer browsing began to be seen in northwestern Pa.The virtual disappearance of shrubs such as hobblebush was noticed first,but impact of species composition of tre seedlings on the forest floor was also apparent.Hunting mortality did not keep pace with population growth.BY THE EARLY 1940'S,TWO SEVERE WINTERS IN A ROW COMBINED WITH POOR HABITAT IN THE TURN OF THE CENTURY HARVEST AREAS WHERE SAPLINGS HAD GROWN OUT OF THE REACH OF THE DEER,RESULTED IN HIGH WINTER MORTALITY AND A POPULATION CRASH.

There you have it,the deer did in fact die from lead poisoning as declared by bluebird.Oh wait,the scientists don't agree.Big friggin surprise.It simply kills me when you claim the deer didn't impact the habitat.Yeah,we can have 2 million deer in Pa without impacting the habitat.You're off your rocker.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:19 PM
  #204  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2 View Post
Wrong again. It is highly disputable that 1.6M deer took a toll on the habitat and other wildlife. As the deer herd increased so did the turkey and bear populations. There is no evidence that deer had a more negative effect on other wildlife then the fact that the majority of our forests were in the pole or saw timber stage.

Before you try and say that you never claimed the deer didn't impact the habitat,here it is.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:34 PM
  #205  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Just what are you trying to say? I have no problem admitting that deer can and do affect the habitat, just like squirrels,chipmunks .mice and turkeys also impact the habitat. Or are you claiming I said that deer never impacted the habitat. If so you are dead wrong just like LIVbuck.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:39 PM
  #206  
Fork Horn
 
Maverick 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
Default

Gee, maybe we should thin some people out too. I bet they affect the habitat. Can't have that now can we.
Maverick 1 is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:43 PM
  #207  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Who on earth would say deer dont impact the habitat at all?? Just about everything impacts everything else in the forests directly or indirectly. Its natures way...

A forest with no deer and no deer "impact" would be 100% unnatural.

Just like within the audubon dream plots that pgc has fenced in for their regen. studies.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-04-2010 at 01:48 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:46 PM
  #208  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

It simply kills me when you claim the deer didn't impact the habitat.Yeah,we can have 2 million deer in Pa without impacting the habitat.You're off your rocker.
I never said that the deer didn't impact the habitat. I simply pointed out that there were also many other factors that impacted the habitat as much if not more than the deer. Furthermore i didn't say we could have 2M deer without impacting the habitat. As you pointed out 3 deer in an exclosure can impact the habitat. But, the fact is that if 200 DPSM can survive in Valley Forge at or below the MSY carrying capacity and 60 DPSM can survive in TL below the MSY CC than the average MSY CC for the entire state has to be over 50 DPSM so 45,000 SM X 50 DPSM =2.25 M deer.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 01:58 PM
  #209  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2 View Post
Just what are you trying to say? I have no problem admitting that deer can and do affect the habitat, just like squirrels,chipmunks .mice and turkeys also impact the habitat. Or are you claiming I said that deer never impacted the habitat. If so you are dead wrong just like LIVbuck.

You said it's highly disputable that 1.6 million deer had a negative impact on the habitat.It's not disputable.It's proven that less deer in better habitat had a huge effect.You're absolutely off your rocker.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-04-2010, 02:03 PM
  #210  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by bluebird2 View Post
I never said that the deer didn't impact the habitat. I simply pointed out that there were also many other factors that impacted the habitat as much if not more than the deer. Furthermore i didn't say we could have 2M deer without impacting the habitat. As you pointed out 3 deer in an exclosure can impact the habitat. But, the fact is that if 200 DPSM can survive in Valley Forge at or below the MSY carrying capacity and 60 DPSM can survive in TL below the MSY CC than the average MSY CC for the entire state has to be over 50 DPSM so 45,000 SM X 50 DPSM =2.25 M deer.
I've never disputed the fact that pizz poor habitat can support higher deer numbers.However,it can't support higher deer numbers without negatively impacting the habitat which has a huge effect on other wildlife and many othet important factors.You want as many deer as possible without giving a royal flying crap about anything else.Ethiopians can also continue to reproduce but their living conditions are far from ideal.It makes no sense to add more deer to lousy habitat and there isn't a scientist in the world that would disagree with that.
DougE is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.