Pa sportsmen groups speaks out about audit
03-10-2010, 01:40 PM
#42
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Since you seem to have all the answers , please tell us how low the DD in 2G must be in order to get the desired 70% regeneration. Is it 6 PS DPSM, 4 PS DPSM or 2 PS DPSM? Now remember ,you said just 3 deer eliminated the preferred oak regeneration in an exclosure. Does that mean we have to reduce the herd to 1 DPSM?
03-10-2010, 01:43 PM
#43
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
I think i more than covered everything in my last post. How can deer effects be magnified if there are no deer as in behind fences?
Behind a fence is 100% unnatural condition.
Also, no need to limit discussion to acid alone. There is plenty in play and that fact makes it worse yet and even more absurd to concentrate only on the deer....
" when it doesn't seem to effect regeneration behind fences. "
Its been proven that growth rates of some species have declined and im guessing thats the same inside those fences as well. Though in those fences it doesnt matter if more is growing to have enough to both feed deer and replace canopy....or replace that regen lost to feeding deer, and it doesnt matter when or if it grows out of the reach of the nonexistent deer.
Behind a fence is 100% unnatural condition.
Also, no need to limit discussion to acid alone. There is plenty in play and that fact makes it worse yet and even more absurd to concentrate only on the deer....
" when it doesn't seem to effect regeneration behind fences. "
Its been proven that growth rates of some species have declined and im guessing thats the same inside those fences as well. Though in those fences it doesnt matter if more is growing to have enough to both feed deer and replace canopy....or replace that regen lost to feeding deer, and it doesnt matter when or if it grows out of the reach of the nonexistent deer.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 03-10-2010 at 01:48 PM.
03-10-2010, 01:48 PM
#44
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
No it doesn't because the amount of oak regeneration isn't the only species being monitored.
There is no set dd for every situation.Some areas with the poorest habitat and the longest history of overbrowsing may never recover until they're timbered.Other areas with less severe conditions will react much quicker.Evaluating habitat is easy if you know what deer eat and what they avoid.If there's no prefered regeneration and signs that the deer are browsing non-prefered species,you have too many deer,plain and simple.That's the situation I see accross much of the northern tier but things are getting better in alot of places.
No,deer aren't the only factor but they are the biggest limiting factor.We need regeneration.If the deer continue to wipe it out,regardless of the reason,there's too many deer for that area and that's easy to measure.
There is no set dd for every situation.Some areas with the poorest habitat and the longest history of overbrowsing may never recover until they're timbered.Other areas with less severe conditions will react much quicker.Evaluating habitat is easy if you know what deer eat and what they avoid.If there's no prefered regeneration and signs that the deer are browsing non-prefered species,you have too many deer,plain and simple.That's the situation I see accross much of the northern tier but things are getting better in alot of places.
No,deer aren't the only factor but they are the biggest limiting factor.We need regeneration.If the deer continue to wipe it out,regardless of the reason,there's too many deer for that area and that's easy to measure.
03-10-2010, 01:51 PM
#45
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
I think i more than covered everything in my last post. How can deer effects be magnified if there are no deer as in behind fences?
Behind a fence is 100% unnatural condition.
Also, no need to limit discussion to acid alone. There is plenty in play and that fact makes it worse yet and even more absurd to concentrate only on the deer....
" when it doesn't seem to effect regeneration behind fences. "
Its been proven that growth rates of some species have declined and im guessing thats the same inside those fences as well. Though in those fences it doesnt matter if more is growing to have enough to both feed deer and replace canopy....or replace that regen lost to feeding deer, and it doesnt matter when or if it grows out of the reach of the nonexistent deer.
Behind a fence is 100% unnatural condition.
Also, no need to limit discussion to acid alone. There is plenty in play and that fact makes it worse yet and even more absurd to concentrate only on the deer....
" when it doesn't seem to effect regeneration behind fences. "
Its been proven that growth rates of some species have declined and im guessing thats the same inside those fences as well. Though in those fences it doesnt matter if more is growing to have enough to both feed deer and replace canopy....or replace that regen lost to feeding deer, and it doesnt matter when or if it grows out of the reach of the nonexistent deer.
Once again,I've walked through very few exclosures with a zero deer density at all times.Deer get in most of them from time to time.
03-10-2010, 02:00 PM
#47
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
On the issue of slowed growth etc..Agree with everything, other than the fact forestry should be more accountable. Then perhaps the same amount of deer that is being called "too many" currently, might be seen as "just right".
"Once again,I've walked through very few exclosures with a zero deer density at all times.Deer get in most of them from time to time. "
The fences were put up for one purpose. To exclude deer. Dont care if a deer has snuck into a few or whatever...The purpose is to keep them out. Since the length of presence and the density are completely inconsistent and probably unknown to a large extent, they can hardly be taken into account in any meaningful manner. But it does show how "unscientific" alot of this actually is with such flaws existing which certainly havent been limited to a few deer sneaking into exclosures. You previously spoke of an exclosure that according to your numbers had a larger deer density INSIDE than it did outside! What are we to ascertain from such flawed data??
"Once again,I've walked through very few exclosures with a zero deer density at all times.Deer get in most of them from time to time. "
The fences were put up for one purpose. To exclude deer. Dont care if a deer has snuck into a few or whatever...The purpose is to keep them out. Since the length of presence and the density are completely inconsistent and probably unknown to a large extent, they can hardly be taken into account in any meaningful manner. But it does show how "unscientific" alot of this actually is with such flaws existing which certainly havent been limited to a few deer sneaking into exclosures. You previously spoke of an exclosure that according to your numbers had a larger deer density INSIDE than it did outside! What are we to ascertain from such flawed data??
03-10-2010, 02:01 PM
#48
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
There is no set dd for every situation.Some areas with the poorest habitat and the longest history of overbrowsing may never recover until they're timbered.Other areas with less severe conditions will react much quicker.Evaluating habitat is easy if you know what deer eat and what they avoid.If there's no prefered regeneration and signs that the deer are browsing non-prefered species,you have too many deer,plain and simple.That's the situation I see accross much of the northern tier but things are getting better in alot of places.
03-10-2010, 02:06 PM
#49
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
I back habitat assessments 100%.the actual number of deer is actually irrelevent if you know how the deer are effecting the habitat.Every year,I survey 9500 acres with several foresters and students from PSU.We have 8 miles of transect lines crisscrossing every type of habitat inclusding recenetly timbered areas.Every 100 feet we do a pellet count in an 8 foot plot.Every other plot(200 feet) we do both a pellet count and a browse impact survey.We monitor what's growing(prefered and non prefered) and we also note what's being browsed.If the prefered browse is present and increasing without significant browsing,deer aren't an issue.However,if the prefered browse is getting hit and to what degree,you can tell if you have a problem,regadless of deer density.If the non prefered browse is being impacted you have a much bigger issue.Looking at this stuff isn't complicated and DCNR does a good job,although they have different parameters.It's not that important to know how mnay deer are there.It's important to know population trends and impact on the habitat.We have hundreds of plots on a 9500 acre piece of property.Those results are scientifically valid.One plot per 6000 acres is a friggin joke.
03-10-2010, 02:06 PM
#50
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Quit bobbing and weaving and answer my question!! How low do we have to reduce the herd in 2G in order to get adequate regeneration of the preferred species? Reducing the herd to 8 OWD PSM didn't do it and DMapping areas to less then that didn't do it, so how low do we have to go to keep you happy?