Guess who loves Pa deer management

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

03-01-2010 | 08:54 AM

#151

Screamin Steel

Typical Buck

Joined: Sep 2008

Posts: 659

Likes: 0

From:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougE

And I walked through his study area with two foresters,two different times.Everyone agreed that there was no difference between the limed areas and the ones that had no treatment.DCNR and the US forest service have all done studies on liming and it's never been proven effective.I didn't simply discredit the man.I went out and personally looked at the areas he limed.None of the foresters that I know ever studies under Dr Sharpe.If it really worked,why wouldn't they be implementing it?

Besides,you need to research Dr Sharpe more.Please show me where he's stated that deer aren't a major factor effecting regeneration.

You're missing the point, here, Doug. regeneration ONLY takes off when you eliminate the deer ENTIRELY from the equation. Not in real world scenarios (outside the exclosures.). Are you reccomending they kill every deer in the state to achieve their forest goals? That's the only way your magical regeneration formula works. You keep raving about this magical regeneration in the absence of deer, yet the PGC data shows very miniscule improvements within WMU's, and in some cases regression. Obviously they aren't seeing all the wonderful improvements in 4D and 2G that you are claiming where the herd was reduced.

03-01-2010 | 01:26 PM

#152

DougE

Nontypical Buck

Joined: Feb 2004

Posts: 2,262

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screamin Steel

I'm not missing any point.The exclosures prove that it's not the soil,insects,competing vegitation or acid rain that's limiting the regeneration.It's the freakin deer.Thyat's what happens when you only remove one variable.Now as far as DCNR's exclosures go,almost every that I've ever walked had deer in them so your zero deer scenarion is moot.

03-01-2010 | 01:28 PM

#153

DougE

Nontypical Buck

Joined: Feb 2004

Posts: 2,262

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluebird2

Since reducing the herd by 50% in 2G. resulted in a decrease in forest health from 45% in 2005 to 38% in 2007, do you support reducing the herd in 2G to 2 or 3 DPSM, as the exclosures indicate is necessary to get adequate regeneration?

many of DCNR'S TIMBER SALES ARE NOW NOT BEING FENCED.

03-01-2010 | 01:31 PM

#154

Cornelius08

Banned

Joined: Sep 2008

Posts: 2,978

Likes: 0

From:

Quote:

I'm not missing any point.The exclosures prove that it's not the soil,insects,competing vegitation or acid rain that's limiting the regeneration.

They prove none of the such. What they do prove is that vegetation cannot grow under natural conditions with deer because of the soil, insects, competing vegetations & acid etc. wont allow it...

03-01-2010 | 01:32 PM

#155

Cornelius08

Banned

Joined: Sep 2008

Posts: 2,978

Likes: 0

From:

Quote:

many of DCNR'S TIMBER SALES ARE NOW NOT BEING FENCED.

Regeneration according the audit has actually DECREASED. Hardly anything that would support staying the course after a decade of futility.

03-01-2010 | 01:38 PM

#156

bluebird2

Nontypical Buck

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 3,879

Likes: 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougE

many of DCNR'S TIMBER SALES ARE NOW NOT BEING FENCED.

And the DMAP enrollment reports stated that most of those sales were stands of black cherry,not oak!!!

03-01-2010 | 02:23 PM

#157

DougE

Nontypical Buck

Joined: Feb 2004

Posts: 2,262

Likes: 0

Not in District 9.

03-01-2010 | 02:52 PM

#158

bluebird2

Nontypical Buck

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 3,879

Likes: 0

Prove it,post how many acres were fenced and how many acres weren't fenced in District 9. Does the PGC manage the herd based on the number of unfenced cuts in District 9? Did the DCNR stop DMAPPING the areas in district 9.