Finally
03-17-2010 | 04:34 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Finally
At long last we finally have an outdoor writer that understands the problem with the current DMP. Here is a quote from an article by Walt Young.
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/co...id/527856.html
The data provided in the audit showed that reducing the herd in 2G by over 50% resulted in a decrease in regeneration rather than the expected increase. How can the PGC possibly manage the herd based on such questionable criteria?
This is only the tip of the iceberg with respect to the terribly complex issue that is deer management in Pennsylvania. The main thing the Game Commission needs to do is get away from the forest regeneration model for managing deer numbers and start quantifying things for us hunters. And more hunters need a better grasp of the facts and reasonable science rather than dealing in emotion and opinions.
The data provided in the audit showed that reducing the herd in 2G by over 50% resulted in a decrease in regeneration rather than the expected increase. How can the PGC possibly manage the herd based on such questionable criteria?
03-17-2010 | 07:05 AM
#2
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
From: Morgantown WV USA
Question for you bluebird
how much worse would the regen have been in 2G if the GC had not reduced the herd 50%?
Put that in your crop and chew on it a while before you spit out your answer.
Wv Gino
how much worse would the regen have been in 2G if the GC had not reduced the herd 50%?
Put that in your crop and chew on it a while before you spit out your answer.
Wv Gino
03-17-2010 | 08:21 AM
#4
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Likes: 0
Neither you ,the PGC or DCNR has the answer to that question since the audit shows there is no correlation between deer density and forest regeneration. Put that in you pipe and smoke it!
Maybe you'd like to explain why regeneration decreased from 45% to 38% in 2G after the herd had been reduced. Remember, the DD is now 50% below what the same experts said was the carrying capacity of the habitat in 2G in 2003. Why did they change their mind and why didn't it work?
Last edited by bluebird2; 03-17-2010 at 08:36 AM.
