bawanajim

I really see private land owners taking control of deer management on their own.More posting and fewer doe hunters.

I understand the scientific part of deer management but this report does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Just when will we have killed enough deer?
To say the habitat in 1B is bad is really a stretch. I See the terms "P.G.C. & credibility" being brought up a whole bunch in the near future.
We've been listening to the experts tell us that after we reduce the herd so that the habitat will come back so will the deer,now we hear that we need to yet kill more deer so that we don't lose all of the habitat to the few deer we have left.

bluebird2

Does that explain why the reproductive rate in 2F is so much lower than in 2G ,yet the DD is so much higher? Does that mean that restoring the habitat in 2g is more important than the habitat in 2F. Can you cite the PGC study that accounts for the variation in reproductive rates verses regeneration rates and deer density. Or , do you only have the tired old,worn out PGC talking points

Cornelius08

"Just when will we have killed enough deer?"

Good point. And its vividly clear how "convenient" our "guidelines" of using habitat and herd health can be when you want it to be whatever you want it to be!!

This plan should have used a system like other states for herd levels. . But then they couldnt have reason to blatantly slaughter the herd.

The plan was designed to take herd to rediculous lows in every aspect of its makeup. Less doe=Far less deer simply for them having been removed from the herd. Less doe also =less deer recruitment. Lower doe age structure, as a side effect of the plan = lower recruitment since younger doe have less fawns.

Even though all of the above have caused both a smaller herd and loss of recruitment, we still have, in wmus like 2A HIGHER allocations than we did years ago when we were actually trying to and succeeding in reducing a larger herd, with amuch higherrecruitment rate!

Those absolutely rock bottom deer density goals,that pgc previously had intended to use immediately before going to the "goalless" system we have now, look like they may still be the goals. If that is indeed the case, the state is gonna get a helluva lot worse...and stay there.

ManySpurs

I've been saying this all along. There is no relief in sight from the PGC. That is precisely why I, along with many of my friends and all of my family, have been barraging our political reps with letters, emails and phone calls. To hell with the PGC and their small group of sheep.

R.S.B.

I don’t have much time today or this evening to be on this or any other site.

This is what I could find real quick that does a pretty fair job of explaining the scientific methods involved in doing the habitat plot surveys and the browse impact studies. It is all done scientifically.

This link also has a link that will take you to the KQDA studies and there is also some good information there as well.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/deer/browsing_impact2006.pdf

I believe these the same methods used in the studies done by the Game Commission and the U.S. forest Service.

When I get time I will try dig up the methods from the Game Commission resources.

Though some people don’t like the results the studies are showing I think it absolutely fool hardy to ignore what these studies are showing.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bawanajim

Thanks for the link.

Cornelius08

And I'd expect more than a link that you're not even sure about and a comment of "foolhardy" to convince anyone that what is being done is right, since Ive posted so much that points exactly in the opposite direction. I also understand your time constraint.

Fact is, as Ive said 1000% times, according to the "SCIENCE" our regeneration was fine until the change to the evaluation method was made. There is no reason for me to believe it was necessary by any stretch of the imagination. Its 100% SELECTIVE science. In this wmu there are 2 options "scientifically speaking"

option #1---have acceptable regeneration, acceptable deer numbersand reasonable level of biodiversity.
option #2.. have unnatural levels of regeneration, rock bottom deer numbers, and ridiculous audubon bantered for levels of biodiversity.

We have clearly taken option 2, when the huge majority would like option 1, with neither being any more "scientific" than the other. Judgement call on what we should desire by pgc/dcnr. And in this case the damn straight wrong one as usual.

Cornelius08

Rsb, Id imagine that the same deal pgc is using. On the annual report, it stated the regeneration study was being conducted with dcnr. Browsed quickly if it had explained this "dire need" to change the evaluation method from previous year, I missed it. Doesnt matter. I wouldnt buy any trumped up explanation anyway. Its not hard to compare the relationship of deer and habitat now compared to previously, and the trends speak for themselves, and what they say is pgcis being far less than honest in expressing their "goals" and the extremes they are willing to go to in pacifying dcnr and audubon/other environmentalists.

The timber/econut organization....dcnr...has a great deal of "love" for deer as Im sure we are all aware! (LOL) And their "system" now dictating our deer numbers not only on state forest but everywhere else is nonsensical to say the least. If anyone ever had any doubt who was steering the ship, i think it is more than clear now.

bluebird2

What is a healthy forest?
Game Commission’s deer program uses regeneration
to measure forest health

Forest regeneration is a good measure of forest habitat health. When a forest can produce enough young trees to
replace the canopy trees when they are cut, blown down, or die, it provides a sustainable and healthy forest.
Deer and other wildlife need healthy forest habitat for food, cover, and survival.

To assess forest habitat health, the Game Commission uses data collected from the Pennsylvania Regeneration
Study (PRS). The PRS is a collaborative effort between the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
U.S. Forest Service, and Penn State University. PRS plots are located in every Wildlife Management Unit on
both private and public forest lands. It takes five years for all plots to be visited across the state.

Regeneration is measured by the number of tree seedlings and saplings. At each plot, seedlings and saplings are
counted and categorized by species. Additional information collected includes an estimate of deer impact,
percent cover of competing vegetation, and other site limitations.

At the Game Commission’s request, data are compiled according to the number of plots with enough seedling
and saplings to replace the overstory trees. Whether a plot has enough young trees depends on observed deer
impact in the area. For example, a greater number of saplings are required to replace the existing canopy where
deer impact is “very high” compared to fewer saplings required where deer impact is “very low”.


Areas with ample food to support the local deer population will be evident by very low to medium deer impact.
Areas lacking food to support the local deer population will be evident by high to very high deer impact.

Deer are not the only factor affecting forest health
A healthy forest can maintain and replace itself, but deer are not the only factor influencing forest health. Other
important concerns are amount of light reaching the forest floor, soil conditions, diseases, pests, and
competitive vegetation. The ability to reduce the influence of non-deer factors such as light and soil conditions
on regeneration is a strength of PRS data.

For example, the amount of light reaching the forest floor can substantially affect the number of seedlings in a
forest. Fewer young trees are found under a closed canopy than under a more open canopy. Because of the
relationship between sunlight and regeneration, the PRS only measures regeneration plots where enough light
reaches the forest floor to stimulate regeneration.

Changing soil conditions can affect regeneration. Some tree species, such as sugar maple, are more sensitive to
certain soil acidity, while others, such as white pine and black birch, are more tolerant. Within the PRS,
regeneration is assessed by tree species groups, not by regeneration of a single species. This tree grouping also
includes both acid sensitive and acid tolerant trees with each species given equal weight in assessing
Deer impact Habitat condition
Very low Seedlings and saplings common and free to grow with minimal browsing, diverse herbaceous community present.
Low Seedlings and saplings common, widespread, light browsing, diverse herbaceous community present.
Medium Seedlings and saplings present but browsed to uniformly low heights, only unpalatable herbaceous plants present.
High Seedlings and saplings lacking, with "hedging" apparent from heavy browse pressure, few herbaceous plants.
Very high Seedlings and saplings absent, heavy browse line apparent, only hardiest, unpalatable species present.
regeneration. In other words, a black birch seedling is equal to a sugar maple seedling in the assessment, thus
reducing the influence of acid deposition on regeneration assessment.


Ranking Forest Health

Assignment of “Good”, “Fair”, and “Poor” follow specific criteria. A WMU’s forest habitat health will be
considered “Good” if the observed percentage of plots with adequate regeneration is greater than or equal to 70
percent. A WMU’s forest habitat health will be considered “Poor” if the observed percentage of plots with
adequate regeneration is less than 50 percent. “Fair” forest health falls between “Good” and “Poor”.

Conclusion
The primary performance measures for forest habitat health provides a scientific foundation upon which deer
management recommendations can be established and progress monitored. As with all scientific endeavors,
measures are assessed and adjusted as circumstances change and new information becomes available. We
expect to regularly evaluate and refine these measures to ensure management recommendations are based on the
best available information.

In addition, a healthy deer herd will not necessarily correspond to good forest health. Alternative food sources,
such as agriculture crops, can elevate deer nutrition but not increase forest regeneration. For this reason, deer
and forest health measures are evaluated separately.


Examples of tree species measured for the deer management’s assessment of forest health
Eastern Hemlock Black Gum
Red Maple Aspen
Sweet (Black) Birch Other Birches
Beech Other Maples (except Norway and Striped)
Ash Other Conifers
Yellow Poplar Black Locust
Oaks Sweet Gum
White Pine Honey Locust
Sugar Maple Black Walnut
Hickories Sycamore
Black Cherry Elm
Forest health
Percent of plots with
adequate regeneration Description
Good >70% Forest canopy replacement will occur without further actions to mitigate deer
impacts.
Fair 50 - 70% Forest canopy replacement can occur but DMAP, and some deer deterrent
fencing are required.
Poor <50% Forest canopy replacement will not occur without deer deterrent fencing and
DMAP.



The DCNR browse study is very biased. Although they list 5 potential causes for the lack of regeneration they don't list the percentage of plots that lacked regeneration due to causes other than deer. The PGC study showed an average of 42% regeneration while the DNR study only showed 24% regeneration.

bluebird2

I finally found the PA Regeneration Study and here is a quote regarding the results from the study.