BTBowhunter

Studies from where? The USP?

I smell a deaddeer!

bluebird2

Here is the link to the study on by de Calesta and Susan Stout on, "The Relative Deer Density and Sustainability".

http://www.fortgrundsow.com/RDD%20253.jpg

The graph shows that our forests can support over 40 DPSM on a sustainable basis. The report was also referenced in the Audubon Deer conference report.

Here is a better link to the to the same graph.

http://www.fortgrundsow.com/RDD%20Curve.jpg

BTBowhunter

The first link is completely unreadable and the second merely shows a graph with no index defining what the numbers and letters are.

BTBowhunter

Found the study on my own and that chart you put uplists deer density as a variable. What that chart says is that recruitment is at its highest when deer density is at 40%- 50% of the lands carrying capacity.

You have taken part of the study results out of context much like a former (banned) member used to do here regularly.


I still smell that deaddeer!

bluebird2

You are correct that the study shows max. recruitment occurs at 50% of the max. carrying capacity. But the graph also shows that max. recruitment occurs at around 43 DPSM. Nothing was taken out of context and it is a well established and accepted principle that the MSY carrying capacity is 50-60% of the max. carrying capacity.

If you have the link to the report on the Audubon Conference , the graph is explained there in simpiler terms.

BTBowhunter

Again, you left out something very important! First, thegraphs I could finddid not include a firm dpsm number but feel free to post one. Also, the areaused for that particular graph was NOT 100% forested but contained a substantial amount offields. Thats a vast difference to much of the overbrowsed heavily forested areas in 2G and 2F as well as many other areas with similar poor habitat.

Again, apples and oranges and statements of incomplete fact. Maybe you should run for office. If you arent deaddeer, beenthere, ddearetc under a new alias, you sure are beginning to sound like his clone.

bluebird2

The densities I provided were from the study by de Calesta and that study was conducted in contiguos hardwoods of NW PA, Here is a quote which describes the study.

"Based on a 10-year, deer-enclosure study (de-
Calesta 1994) we estimated K and RDD levels associ-
ated with deer impact on many forest resources. The
study incorporated 4 65-ha study sites in northwest-
ern Pennsylvania divided into 4 deer enclosures. We
designed the study intending to maintain white-tailed
deer densities of 4, 8, 16, and 32/km2 within the en-
closures for 10 years. As all sites were within large
blocks of contiguous second-growth forest, we
opened each enclosure by 10% clearcutting and 30%
thinning for forage creation. We used only adult fe-
male deer, and we replaced losses due to escapes,
predation, starvation, or poaching every spring to
maintain desired densities. the basic relationships of K to RDD values extracted
from the study will apply to other landscapes, pro-
viding a useful starting point for integrating manage-
ment of deer and other forest resources based on
deer density and forage availability. Absolute deer
densities at each of the RDD values may differ among
landscapes with different quality and quantity of deer
forage, but we hypothesize that the ratios of RDD to
K will be consistent.
We summarized the interactions of deer with plant
communities as a function of RDD and integrated re-
sults of deer impact studies with McCullough

White-tail-deer

I'd like to see the complete study, not parts and pieces.Some quotes from the one page link:

"K carrying capacity = the population density at which mortality is balanced by recruitment so that net recruitment is zero."

"If deer densities associated with sustainable deer harvest and impacts on various forest resources can be expressed relative to K, and if the relationship is consistent accross differing landscapes, then managers will have a useful diagnostic tool...

"Use of this tool will require techniques for estimating K at appropriate scales."

Lots of "IF" statements in that clip. You quote this report like it is science but it clearly leaves plenty of room for "estimating", "If/Then Statements", etc...

I agree Deadear is back....and his numbers are like the energizer bunny they just keep going and going and.....

bluebird2

Here is the link to the study.

http://www.deerandforests.org/resour...ainability.pdf

None of the numbers I posted are my numbers. They are all numbers and goals published by professional deer managers.

White-tail-deer

And this report you post, now thatIwas able to read the whole document,does not support your cry for 40 dpsm. It clearly states that at higher deer densities the ecosystem is impacted negatively. This report actually appears to support the way the Game Commission is going about reducing the deer herd to allow the ecosytem to recover from the many years of higher deer densities. Interesting read.