glew22

Good post, very informative. Deer can have beneficial impacts on forest regeneration. EX: black cherry...if you have 20 dpsm you wont regenerate black cherry b/c they'll eat it. However, if you have less than 3-4 dpsm it won't regenerate either b/c of limited browse pressure on competing species. Within 3-20 dpsm there is a threshold for regeneration. More than 20 or less than 3 you wont have black cherry regeneration.

bluebird2

My post does not indicate deer have the biggest impact on regeneration as you claim. If that were true as the herd in 2G was reduced by over 50% regeneration would not have decreased from 45% in 2005 to 38% in 2008. If deer were limiting regeneration in 2G at 10.9 DPSM why did regeneration in 2F increase by 3% to 39% with 15.8 DPSM. If deer are the primary cause for the lack of regeneration there should be direct correlation between deer densities and % regeneration, the the audit proves that data doesn't exist.

Deer are definitely being used as scapegoats for poor forestry practices that began with the massive clearcuts at the turn of the century and the massive forests fires that followed. That was then followed by years of high grading and cuts on steep slopes with no concerns for erosion. All of this practices permanently changed the conditions that existed when much of our current hardwood stand got their beginning.

Cornelius08

Were most definately a known factor.

And id agree, as long as we also include the very last decade in that tally.

bluebird2

The previous DMP was based on 20 years of scientific research using enclosures and that research was supported by additional research on the effects of browsing by deer. The results of that plan was that the herd in 2G was at it's DD goal, when the new plan was implemented in 2000. At the same time the plan produced record harvests of both buck and doe.

In 1998 and 1999 the PGC issued 890,700 antlerless tags . In 2000 Alt reduced that allocation to 830,650 tags and in 2001 he reduced it to 780,250 tags. And after that allocation reduced the herd by 8% he increased the allocation to over 1M and after a 40% reduction in the herd the PGC is still issuing more tags (plus DMAP Tags) that were issued in 2001. Please point out the science that supports that insanity.

WillPA

bluebird2

The only science is sheer stupidity. Matters not about what is good for the PA hunter and the future of our sport. Admitting you are wrong is always difficult and the PGC is trapped in a "WRONG" deer management policy for the past 10 years. If they admit they were wrong, watch out, they will be pounced upon by every organization that has been fighting the horror (Game Management) that has been going on here in PA.

Makes me sick!!!!

The PGC sounds like the same people that want to ruin every view in PA and put up a windmill because of the bad bad humans ruining the environment and heating their homes with electricity generated from Nuclear and Gas plants.