Guess who loves Pa deer management
02-26-2010 | 03:43 PM
#141
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
You certainly did point out that the audit criticized those very sampling methods and those estimates are not done in the exclosures. Nice try but the flim-flam wont work
02-26-2010 | 04:05 PM
#142
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
You certainly did point out that the audit criticized those very sampling methods and those estimates are not done in the exclosures. Nice try but the flim-flam wont work
The audit criticized the small sample size provided by the USFS and suggested that be expanded to include all of the USFS sample plots. I agree that the sample size should be increased ,so once gain you are just blowing smoke.
02-26-2010 | 05:04 PM
#143
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,220
Likes: 0
From: SW PA USA
Nothing like real world evidence rather than a piece of paper or a computer screen thats been called into question.
02-26-2010 | 07:00 PM
#144
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Wrong again. I have no problem accepting the fact that exclosures produce better regeneration than clearcuts that aren't fenced. viewing that difference in person would do nothing to change the fact that exclosures simply represent what can happen with zero deer density.They do not represent the real world where there will always be some deer.
03-01-2010 | 07:21 AM
#146
Typical Buck
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
From:
What are you on?WMI specifivcally stated that there was plenty of evidence that supported deer as being the primary contributing factor for the lack of regeneration.That's not even in question.
Tell me Jake,Why is the regeneration behind fenced in excloures fantastic?Is it because those fences shield out the acid rain.I'VE WALKED THROUGH NUMEROUS LIMED AREAS AND THERE IS NO DIFFERANCE IN THE REGENERATION,NONE,NADA ZILCH.You guys are so desperate for more deer that you ignore facts and spin any bit of nonsense that you can.It is univerally excepted by every expert in forestry and the habitat that deer are the primary cause for the lack of regeneration.Sure,other factors also contribute but deer do the most damage.A partial quote from some report doesn't prove otherwise.
Tell me Jake,Why is the regeneration behind fenced in excloures fantastic?Is it because those fences shield out the acid rain.I'VE WALKED THROUGH NUMEROUS LIMED AREAS AND THERE IS NO DIFFERANCE IN THE REGENERATION,NONE,NADA ZILCH.You guys are so desperate for more deer that you ignore facts and spin any bit of nonsense that you can.It is univerally excepted by every expert in forestry and the habitat that deer are the primary cause for the lack of regeneration.Sure,other factors also contribute but deer do the most damage.A partial quote from some report doesn't prove otherwise.
Speaking of experts, if you recall, we found you an expert source (PSU Professor emeritus Dr. Sharpe) who absolutely felt that soil conditions and forestry practices needed greater consideration, and less singular blame on the deer. And if I recall, all you did was try to discredit the expert. Of course, we didn't expect anything else from you. Of course, the only epxperts that matter in your mind are the ones who work for the DCNR and the PGC. Interesting to note, I wonder how many of these current PGC and DCNR experts received their educations directly from DR. Sharpe while at PSU? Guess he doesn't meet your criteria for an expert, LMAO!
03-01-2010 | 07:26 AM
#147
Typical Buck
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
From:
Wrong again. I have no problem accepting the fact that exclosures produce better regeneration than clearcuts that aren't fenced. viewing that difference in person would do nothing to change the fact that exclosures simply represent what can happen with zero deer density.They do not represent the real world where there will always be some deer.
03-01-2010 | 07:44 AM
#148
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Speaking of experts, if you recall, we found you an expert source (PSU Professor emeritus Dr. Sharpe) who absolutely felt that soil conditions and forestry practices needed greater consideration, and less singular blame on the deer. And if I recall, all you did was try to discredit the expert. Of course, we didn't expect anything else from you. Of course, the only epxperts that matter in your mind are the ones who work for the DCNR and the PGC. Interesting to note, I wonder how many of these current PGC and DCNR experts received their educations directly from DR. Sharpe while at PSU? Guess he doesn't meet your criteria for an expert, LMAO!
Besides,you need to research Dr Sharpe more.Please show me where he's stated that deer aren't a major factor effecting regeneration.
03-01-2010 | 07:46 AM
#149
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Likes: 0
Agreed. And given that the audit delared that the Allegheny plateau has the worst acid deposition in the entire region, that needs to be given special consideration. Other states may find that reducing their deer herd alone can produce acceptable regeneration, yet in nearly a decade of intensive HR, we've seen such meager results that only an idiot would deny that we need to attack this problem from other angles. Of course, that seems to be exactly what is happening! LOL
03-01-2010 | 08:30 AM
#150
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
The exclosures show that when you remove just one variable,the regeneration takes off.Spin it any way you want but it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt how much the deer impact the habitat.