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 02-05-2010, 06:24 AM
  #221  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by Cornelius08
I think youre getting worked up over nothing doug. I see bb saying how many more deer he thinks could survive, nothing more in your quote. And you agree, to a point. But I dont see where bb is saying we should have that many as you infer???

As for impact, what is acceptable and what isnt is VERY debatable. Most dont see less than maximum stocking of trillium & hobblebush as "unacceptable" or "negative impact". And for most of the state, thats all the further the "damage" has gone, or will go. For most, its absolutely irrelavent....So in that light, there is no damage. There is fine habitat across most of the state by far. And plenty of deer food.
It's not debatable.When you lose an entire prefered browse species because of too many deer,you have a problem.When the deer prevent huge areas of the state from regenerating,you have a problem.You're correct that some browsing should be expected.Some is ok but when they deplete entire food sources,there's too many deer and when it happens for several decades,it will take years to fix.That's not my opinion and that's not debatable.It's been scientifically proven and agreed upon by the entire forestry community.The proof is so obvious to see,it's just that those in disagreement,refuse to even look.The deer have changed the composition of the forests in this area by eating all of the prefered species to the point that invasive species have taken over.That's not debatable at all.It's a fact and there's reams and reams of evidence to prove that's the case.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 08:18 AM
  #222  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Doug says: "Other species like grouse need an early succession forest and a mid level understory."
But that was clearly never meant to be in mature forest.

"
By the way,the exclosure that keep the deer from eating all of the new regeneration make nice grouse habitat."
So what of it? We can fence in or manipulate a piece of land to be anything we'd want it to be. IF we cut the trees inside that fence Plowed planted seeds and threw down lime, we could plant tomatoes in there... Does that mean that should be the conditions of our entire pa forest? It would be just as unnatural growing species that otherwise couldnt and wouldnt be growing there.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-05-2010 at 08:42 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 08:34 AM
  #223  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"It's not debatable.When you lose an entire prefered browse species because of too many deer,you have a problem."
In your opinion... If the species cannot grow under normal conditions, (and normal conditions = normal deer densities)then we shouldnt be pampering them along, they are clearly niche species, and simply arent meant to be widespread everywhere. Just an attempt by man at manipulating the habitat to what a few want. Nothing more. Why arent the enviros at dcnr pushing to go back to the way it was when we were largely a conifer forest?

"When the deer prevent huge areas of the state from regenerating,you have a problem."
Then we have no problem. The regeneration has been and is fine in most areas. The worst areas clearly have other factors in play.

"It's been scientifically proven and agreed upon by the entire forestry community."
Apparently you think the Pa "forestry community" are unbiased? lol.

Sorry but most arent buying what pgc/dcnr/audubon are sellin' these days. Pretty clear theres a pretty hefty agenda in play. Doubt it? See info on the Pgc biodiveristy partnership. Its also no big secret how important the timber dollar is. SOme would rather ring out every last penny before caring about "responsible" deer management.

The proof is so obvious to see,it's just that those in disagreement,refuse to even look.The deer have changed the composition of the forests in this area by eating all of the prefered species to the point that invasive species have taken over.
If you'd stick to a few constants in your current argument, It'd make it more efficient for me to dismantle. You speak of "huge areas of the state" then later in the argument you revert to "your area". Quit squirmin' and take your medicine!

That's not debatable at all.It's a fact and there's reams and reams of evidence to prove that's the case.
You've mentioned these "reams" on 3 different message boards fairly often for quite some time now. And while Im sure the people who are the problem in this "dcnr" Pgc audubon, may have manufactured a ream or two.... Noone else in the nation agrees with them....

Noone else is pushing for extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity, and none are using strictly habitat based deer management.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-05-2010 at 08:45 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 09:32 AM
  #224  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by Cornelius08
In your opinion... If the species cannot grow under normal conditions, (and normal conditions = normal deer densities)then we shouldnt be pampering them along, they are clearly niche species, and simply arent meant to be widespread everywhere. Just an attempt by man at manipulating the habitat to what a few want. Nothing more. Why arent the enviros at dcnr pushing to go back to the way it was when we were largely a conifer forest?



Then we have no problem. The regeneration has been and is fine in most areas. The worst areas clearly have other factors in play.



Apparently you think the Pa "forestry community" are unbiased? lol.

Sorry but most arent buying what pgc/dcnr/audubon are sellin' these days. Pretty clear theres a pretty hefty agenda in play. Doubt it? See info on the Pgc biodiveristy partnership. Its also no big secret how important the timber dollar is. SOme would rather ring out every last penny before caring about "responsible" deer management.



If you'd stick to a few constants in your current argument, It'd make it more efficient for me to dismantle. You speak of "huge areas of the state" then later in the argument you revert to "your area". Quit squirmin' and take your medicine!



You've mentioned these "reams" on 3 different message boards fairly often for quite some time now. And while Im sure the people who are the problem in this "dcnr" Pgc audubon, may have manufactured a ream or two.... Noone else in the nation agrees with them....

Noone else is pushing for extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity, and none are using strictly habitat based deer management.

What's a normal deer density?By the way,most of the hundreds of exclosures that I've walked through had deer present so very few have a zero deer density.

The PGC,US forest service,DCNR AND A HOST OF OTHERS HAVE ALL DONE DOZENS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF DEER RELATING TO THE HABITAT.The results all conclusively point to overbrowsing of deer as a huge problem.It's idisputable.

My areas is part of the huge part of northcentral Pa that's had the habitat devistated by the deer.once again,it's not my opinion.It's the opinion of the scientific community that studies these things.

You haven't dismantled anything I've ever posted.
DougE is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 10:02 AM
  #225  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

What's a normal deer density?
That near average which can be found within similar habitat & conditions and has been widely accepted as "the norm". Just to throw out a figure or two, Id imagine for the lesser areas of the state, on a wide scale somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20 dpsm average wouldnt be unreasonable to overwinter.
For best areas of the state perhaps 30, which if very conservative compared to most states "better areas". As for other areas of the state they would fall somewhere in between... Of course some "micro managing" could and should occur for very worst of the worst as well as urban areas.

"By the way,most of the hundreds of exclosures that I've walked through had deer present so very few have a zero deer density."
And if i remember correctly, on paoutdoors you said that one particular enclosure you spoke of had good regen and with the number of deer estimated inside and the size of the enclosure--added up to a higher deer density inside the fence, than outside it!!!! What are we to learn from that example? Sounds like no conclusion about "deer" could be made in that instance, and the study is completely compromised. The fences were put up for one reason. Keep deer out. Even when it works, that goal isnt "natural" or in my opinion isnt in any way desirable. So basically the regen studies are nothing more than a joke, and enviro pipedream based on experiments done by enviro-extremists gone by. All originated many years ago with "Latham" and his fenced in for 60 years enviro-garden. The man who was tossed from the commission because of his extreme deer management philosophies. And now all of a sudden is the current crew at Pgc's hero and implementing his extreme management strategy.

"The PGC,US forest service,DCNR AND A HOST OF OTHERS HAVE ALL DONE DOZENS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF DEER RELATING TO THE HABITAT."
And biologists and scientists also exist in every other state throughout the nation, yet the huge majority of states remain with "normal" deer densities and arent slaughtering their deer herds to less than 10 dpsm. In fact 90+ percent of them have areas within the state that have more deer than even our BEST wmus average densities!! In some cases over double.

You haven't dismantled anything I've ever posted.
Ok. If you say so. Though If it wasnt against the rules to post threads from other message boards, I think most would see things differently than you do. Course that dont matter, cause all they gotta do is stick around here for a post or three. lol.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 02-05-2010 at 10:35 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 12:17 PM
  #226  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

Bear and turkeys don't browse.Other species like grouse need an early succession forest and a mid level understory.You're comparison is not valid.By the way,the exclosure that keep the deer from eating all of the new regeneration make nice grouse habitat.
I didn't claim that bear and turkey browse,but both consume acorns and seed survival is an important factor limiting regeneration in many forests. How many oak sprouts do you think turkeys eat in early spring when there is little else to eat in the woods?

The deer along with other factors have trashed the habitat in the northern tier.It's scientifically proven and not debatable.Sure more deer can survive but at the expense of poor habitat.I'm willing to settle for less deer to see better habitat for the future of the deer,other wildlife and yes the commercial value of the timber that's so vital to the economy of this region
Yes it is debatable that the deer have trashed the habitat. Without a doubt deer can have a negative impact on oak regeneration but that doesn't mean the habitat has been trashed. Deer and other wildlife survive and prosper in large areas of the state with few or no oaks. The fact is that man is trying to force nature to replace the forests that were formed under entirely different conditions than exist today.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 12:31 PM
  #227  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Default

Doug I'll have to get you down to my cut by camp.Once the sun got in blueberry,oak,maple,and various wildflowers grew like crazy.A mere 25 yards away in the canopy...ferns.The area I cut was also ferns before I opened the canopy.Your're welcome to come over any time.I can also show you great oak regen in the open.If the soil is decent,there's oak in the area and the canopy is opened the oak will regen.I saw it in the 80's with very high deer pops in Perry county and I'm seeing it now.
germain is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 12:46 PM
  #228  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Default

I posted the same observation on numerous occasions but Doug nor anyone else could explain why the oaks didn't sprout in the uncut areas adjacent to a cut that regenerated. The answer is obvious and it is the reason they do shelterwood cuts in an attempt to get advanced regeneration.
bluebird2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 01:48 PM
  #229  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,149
Default

Awhile back I posted pics of my cut.It's impressive.My neighbor really opened the canopy in a woods which is 95% white/red oaks.I'm anxious to see how it turns out.The area isn't loaded with deer but there's more then the state forest has.
But then that's not saying much.
germain is offline  
Old 02-05-2010, 02:35 PM
  #230  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Default

Originally Posted by Cornelius08
That near average which can be found within similar habitat & conditions and has been widely accepted as "the norm". Just to throw out a figure or two, Id imagine for the lesser areas of the state, on a wide scale somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20 dpsm average wouldnt be unreasonable to overwinter.
For best areas of the state perhaps 30, which if very conservative compared to most states "better areas". As for other areas of the state they would fall somewhere in between... Of course some "micro managing" could and should occur for very worst of the worst as well as urban areas.



And if i remember correctly, on paoutdoors you said that one particular enclosure you spoke of had good regen and with the number of deer estimated inside and the size of the enclosure--added up to a higher deer density inside the fence, than outside it!!!! What are we to learn from that example? Sounds like no conclusion about "deer" could be made in that instance, and the study is completely compromised. The fences were put up for one reason. Keep deer out. Even when it works, that goal isnt "natural" or in my opinion isnt in any way desirable. So basically the regen studies are nothing more than a joke, and enviro pipedream based on experiments done by enviro-extremists gone by. All originated many years ago with "Latham" and his fenced in for 60 years enviro-garden. The man who was tossed from the commission because of his extreme deer management philosophies. And now all of a sudden is the current crew at Pgc's hero and implementing his extreme management strategy.



And biologists and scientists also exist in every other state throughout the nation, yet the huge majority of states remain with "normal" deer densities and arent slaughtering their deer herds to less than 10 dpsm. In fact 90+ percent of them have areas within the state that have more deer than even our BEST wmus average densities!! In some cases over double.



Ok. If you say so. Though If it wasnt against the rules to post threads from other message boards, I think most would see things differently than you do. Course that dont matter, cause all they gotta do is stick around here for a post or three. lol.

It's not too much too ask for deer densities in the range of 15-20 dpsm in decent habitat.The areas that have decent habitat most likely have more deer than that.The areas around here that have poor habitat are having a hard time regenerating at less than 15 dpsm.It's a shame because it should be that way.Unfortunately that's the price you pay for letting the habitat get to the point it was.

The example I used with that exclosure was to make one point.The point was how deer sigle out the more prered species and can wipe them out,even at low deer densities.

Last edited by DougE; 02-05-2010 at 02:38 PM.
DougE is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.