RSB

Yep there are many factors besides deer that affect regeneration. But guess what it still doesn’t matter because without the regeneration NATURE will simply not allow more deer to live there. Nature will always limit the number of deer that can live without the regeneration, unless you, and the other people that think they have it all figured out, are also smart enough to teach the deer how to survive by eating rocks.

The problem is that too many people haven’t figured out yet that in many areas, especially across the northern tier, it is NATURE limiting the deer numbers, not the Game Commission. You have to go back to the basics of understanding the first and most basic law of nature. The first and most basic law of nature guarantees that no living organism can exist in population greater then their food supply for more then short term periods of ideal conditions. That isn’t the Game Commission’s rule or doing that is simply Nature’s LAW.

Dick Bodenhorn

RSB

Sure that isn’t too hard for someone who has been paying attention to the realities if the deer, the habitat and other environmental factors in unit 2G to figure out.

In 2003 unit 2G was still coming off of a series of about six years of good to excellent mast crop years followed by winters with very little snow. Those very ideal environmental conditions that allowed the deer populations to increase to levels that were much higher then normal because the deer were going through the winter in good enough condition to have higher then normal fawn recruitment year after year. Combine that with the fact that the antler less allocations had been extremely low through those years and it isn’t too hard to figure out that the deer population was much higher then it should have been or what nature would normally allow. The 2003 was an attempt to get those higher then normal deer populations back in line before nature caused a deer population crash. But, the increased harvests of 2002 and 2003 was still too little to late to prevent the deer population crash.

The affects of the three years of failed mast crops combined with two back to back harsh winters with deep snows came along following and by 2004 the deer herd had crashed in unit 2G because of almost no fawns surviving beyond their first week of life for a couple of years in a row. That is exactly what happens and how nature guarantees that populations can only be higher then the winter carrying capacity for short term periods of ideal conditions. Ideal conditions just don’t last forever without getting a bad winter thrown into the mix from time to time.

Quote:

In 2000 the PGC said 2G had 14 DPSM and by 2005 it was reduced to 8 or 9 DPSM. If the horrible habitat in 2000 supported 14 DPSM, why can't the improved habitat we have now support more than 8 or 9 DPSM?

I have told you hundreds of times while you were ever name under the sun, from Beenthere to deerfly to what ever others dozens of names you have used that those DPSM numbers had little to no correlation to reality. That is why they are no longer used.

I would highly suspect that unit 2G had far more then 14 deer per square mile in 2000 and far more then 9 in 2005 as well. After all 2005 they harvested over 3 deer per square mile in unit 2G. Surely you don’t think they harvested anywhere near even 25% of the deer in 2G when the hunters harvested fewer then 12% of the collared does being tracked in the unit. Someone with you love of numbers should be smart enough to figure out that the deer numbers had to be MUCH higher then the number you like to use in your flim flam and misrepresentation of facts games.

The habitat today is supporting more deer then it did just a few years ago. But, now we manage deer based on the facts the deer and their food supply instead of a bunch of estimated deer numbers that might or might not be correct.

Quote:

Also, could you please tell us what the antlered/antlerless harvest ratio is needed in order to keep the herd stable?

The harvest ratio that is needed to keep a population stable would be the exact same number that were recruited into the deer herd that spring and summer. That is why it is desirable to have the correct buck/doe ratio needed to maximize the breeding rates and times. That is what maximizes fawn recruitment and allows hunters to harvest more deer each year. That is why the areas of the state that have had unlimited antler less deer harvests for the past twenty years can harvest three or four times as many deer per square mile, city streets and all, as they do in the big woods areas without reducing their deer populations. The difference is that they protect the deer food instead of the deer and in so doing they have high fawn recruitment because nature allows more deer to live in areas where they have food for more deer. Meanwhile the areas were we have over protected the deer the habitat was damaged to the point fewer deer were all that could live there.

There really isn’t anything difficult about understanding how that all works for anyone that really understands how the first and most basic law of nature works.


R.S.Bodenhorn

sammy_tat

You wanna see deer in 2G. Go to 4 mile run road near elliot park. There are tons of deer there. I bet I seenover 60 there the other night.That is state forestland.

Cornelius08

"Yep there are many factors besides deer that affect regeneration. But guess what it still doesn’t matter because without the regeneration NATURE will simply not allow more deer to live there."

There are so few areas of this state that currently fit into that description, I dont know why you bothered to mention it. The herd would need be over carrying capacity and in the huge majority of the state it isnt. And in many areas, it never was. But as for currently,even pgc doesnt believe that the case, since their herd health assessments for most of the state are not"poor". Also interesting that some of the areas of WORST habitat, have some of the highest herd health ratings according to pgc annual reports. Which tells me, things do not add up. Not surprising, since over most of the state, herd health was never an issue. This can also be seen by the DECLINE in overall statewidebreeding rates andembryo counts since the plan has been ongoing.

"Nature will always limit the number of deer that can live without the regeneration"

Of course it will in cases of extremes. There are no indicators that has been the case over most of the state, yet much to the contrary.

"unless you, and the other people that think they have it all figured out, are also smart enough to teach the deer how to survive by eating rocks."

Im not the one who "thinks" they have it all figured out. I just knowa tall talewhen Im told it. To insinuate we needed statewide carpet bombing which is exactly what we got, and immense reduction even in the best areas of the state at times as much as 50-60%, in areas of low human conflict and habitat that never rated poor,in the worst areas of the state taken to rock bottom and all areas in between felt thewrath of the pgc slaughter andsome can make excuses till blue in the face, but many areas were overdone severely, and others, no reduction was warranted in the first place. I know youve been around these debates on a few different message boards for some time now, and I know you are aware of the influence audubon, timber industry and others have had on the deer program. While you'll never admitits the "driving force" behind the program, because those are good enoughreasons for most to agree with "staying the course".

I agree with "sound scientific management" in principal. Currently the "practice" has quite a few divets, and the reason has nothing to do with science, but everything to do withwho is on the boc and others making the decisions.

Rebuild pgc using "hunter friendly" biologists who actually care about the sport and Im sure "scientific management" would STILL BE scientific management, but Id lay a wager it would NOT mirror this current plan. Many other states do have such a "hunter friendly" system in place and NONE are following pgcs "lead". Thats because while Pgc thinks they are in the lead, they are actually so far behind, theyve been lapped.

Mr. Slim

bluebird, if you know so much about AR and deer population, you need to go to work for the PGC. i think you have worn out the subject with all your numbers and quotes. please give it a rest.

bluebird2

The PGC already knows everything I know about ARs and deer populations. But, politics demands that they manage the herd for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry so if I was employed by the PGC it wouldn't make any difference in the way the herd was managed.

BTW, please feel free to ignore my posts if they annoy you. I'll do the same if your posts annoy me.

BTBowhunter

You know full well that you make it impossible to ignore you by hijacking nearly every thread where Pennsylvania people are involved.
Of course, the few times you've tried to start your own thread directly, they've gone mostly ignored because we're all tired of your lies, spin and venom.

bluebird2

That is a nice theory ,but that's all it is. The truth is the 2003 antlerless harvest of 20,370, removed approx. 11,000 adult doe from the herd which means there would be around 17,000 fewer fawns in 2004. That is why you were seeing a lot fewer fawns. Since Breeding rates did not increase as the herd was reduced that means the 2003 herd was not above the MSY carrying capacity ,so the herd crashed from over harvesting doe, not because of lack of food or low fawn production.
Actually,the PGC is still calculating the DPSM estimates based harvest estimates and that is what they use to establish antlerless allocations. They only use forest health to establish the effects of reducing the herd. If that wasn't true they would still be trying to reduce the herd even more in 2F and 2G where the forest health is rated poor.
The PGC specifically stated that the doe study harvest results did not represent the harvest rate of the rest of the WMU. They are also claiming the low harvest rates are keeping the herd stable in 2G so it is quite likely there are only 12 PSDPSM in 2G.
You did not answer my question regarding what the antlered /antlerless harvest ratio is needed to keep the herd stable. It is obvious that the harvest has to equal recruitment , but that doesn't tell you what the antlered to antlerless ratio should be.

RSB

My comment:
Your response:

Your response does nothing more then prove just how clueless you really are on the subject.
You claim that very little of the state has or ever did have habitat incapable of supporting more deer through the times of adverse conditions and that is purely incorrect. The most recent habitat evaluations, obtained after several years of reduced deer populations actually prove that the deer food across this state is still very fragile toward supporting the current deer numbers let alone even more deer.

Here are the habitat facts for people so see.

There are still four WMU that have a POOR habitat health rating. Those four units make up 23.9% of the land mass across this state. That is almost ¼ of the state where the habitat is still so poor it can hardly support the current deer numbers even through the periods of mild winters we have had the past few years.

Fifteen of the remaining eighteen units, or 67.0% of the state, have habitat that is only FAIR. Fair means that the habitat is only marginally able to support the current deer numbers. During the periods of adverse winter conditions that fair habitat might very well not support the current deer numbers or allow for adequate fawn recruitment the following spring since much of the better habitat wouldn’t be accessible to the deer if they get forced into wintering grounds habitats for extended time periods.

Only 7.3% of the state come out with a GOOD habitat evaluation.

That should be a very strong message to anyone that has even a small particle of functional brain power or common sense. Those with a lick of sense certainly should realize that the habitat in the VAST MAGORITY of Pennsylvania simply will not support more deer through adverse winter years and can only marginally support the current deer numbers through even the mild winter years we have experienced the past couple of years.
Herd health and the habitat are two totally separate evaluations because you can have good herd health on even marginal habitat during ideal winter condition periods like we have experienced the past two years. That certainly doesn’t mean everything is ok or that the habitat will support more deer through those harsh winter years though. When the habitat really will support more winter deer the deer numbers will increase to match that improved habitat and it will be impossible for hunters to prevent them from increasing.

My comment:

Quote:

"Nature will always limit the number of deer that can live without the regeneration"

Your response:

Quote:

Of course it will in cases of extremes. There are no indicators that has been the case over most of the state, yet much to the contrary.

Ok, at least you are acknowledging that nature controls populations in the extreme cases. Harsh winters have proven time and again to be just the extreme that does cause deer to reduce their own numbers. Besides winter mortality of existing deer harsh winters have also been documented to cause as much as 92.9% of the next year’s fawn crop to die within days of being born. That failure to recruit fawns during a year causes a significant reduction in the deer population. The deer numbers will then only increase again with good habitat and during good environmental conditions. That is exactly what happened with deer population declines pretty nearly all across this state just a few years ago.

Your comments:

Quote:

Im not the one who "thinks" they have it all figured out. I just know a tall tale when Im told it. To insinuate we needed statewide carpet bombing which is exactly what we got, and immense reduction even in the best areas of the state at times as much as 50-60%, in areas of low human conflict and habitat that never rated poor, in the worst areas of the state taken to rock bottom and all areas in between felt the wrath of the pgc slaughter and some can make excuses till blue in the face, but many areas were overdone severely, and others, no reduction was warranted in the first place. I know youve been around these debates on a few different message boards for some time now, and I know you are aware of the influence audubon, timber industry and others have had on the deer program. While you'll never admit its the "driving force" behind the program, because those are good enough reasons for most to agree with "staying the course".

The affects of Nature most certainly aren’t a tall tale; they are reality though and that seems to be something a lot of people refuse to accept or deal with.
We didn’t have any carpet bombing either, every unit was managed differently based on the facts the deer and habitat within that provided. I already pointed out that the habitat on over 90% of this state were sending a very clear message that they couldn’t support the continuous increase of the deer population through anything but ideal conditions.

Your insistence that something other then doing what was best for the wise and responsible management of the resources of this state is another positive indicator of your being clueless of the facts of reality. There is no conspiracy, just good common sense management based on the facts provided by the resources.

Your comments:

Quote:

I agree with "sound scientific management" in principal. Currently the "practice" has quite a few divets, and the reason has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with who is on the boc and others making the decisions.

Rebuild pgc using "hunter friendly" biologists who actually care about the sport and Im sure "scientific management" would STILL BE scientific management, but Id lay a wager it would NOT mirror this current plan. Many other states do have such a "hunter friendly" system in place and NONE are following pgcs "lead". Thats because while Pgc thinks they are in the lead, they are actually so far behind, theyve been lapped.

It might be true that deer management in Pennsylvania is behind the times. If it is behind the times, or other states, it is only because we had far too many times in the past when the Board of Commissioners listened to the demands of clueless hunters and Politian’s instead of doing what the professions knewto bethe best things for the future of both the resources and the hunters. Those benefits would also have benefited the clueless if we could just do as the deer and habitat have repeatedly proven to be the right and responsible thing to do. But, to many people, like you have always stood in the way of having the best possible management in this state. When you want see what the real problem is just look in the mirror, you and your attitide are a large part of the problem.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

The current forest habitat surveys do not measure habitat health, they only measure forest health based on the regeneration of the existing canopy. Forest health in 5C is rated poor but the habitat is excellent and can definitely support a lot more deer than the PGC will allow. Winterkill is almost non-existent and the deer can survive even the harshest winters because the they don't depend on browse to survive under the most extreme conditions which only last for a few weeks at most.

Furthermore, no state manages their herd based on the most extreme winter conditions . All herds are managed based on the average weather conditions rather than on the extremes, including the PA herd.