Cornelius08

"Making those comments just proves how little you know about the interactions between deer and the health of both the forest and the deer."

C'mon Rsb, you know you dont believe that any more than i do. How about we stick to the facts and not try the petty game of trying to discredit each other based on absolutely nothing. Ok? lol

"It also shows that you have absolutely no idea what deer eat"

Oh for the love of christ man. Cant we keep this on a reasonable rational educated adult level? Here should I slam you back by saying RSB YOU DONT KNOW WHAT A DEER TRACK LOOKS LIKE NAAA NA NAAA NA NAAAA NAA! lol.

"If our forests had any way near the amount of trillium and hobblebush they should have we could support at least twice and probably three or more times as many deer as a forest without those species."

No. There is absolutely no study that support the claim you just made and it was completely pulled out of the air. And "how much hobble bush and trillium there should be" is VERY open to debate.

"Furthermore, foresters could give two hoots about either of those species since they NEVER produce one single cent of timber or commercial value to anyone. The only benefit either species have is as a wildlife benefit that is used almost exclusively by the white-tail deer as food. "

I agree about the foresters, BUT you forget the ecoflakes who are seeking better forests that fit their idea of what a forest should be. It is they who frequently whine about the hobblebush and trillium and it sure as hell isnt because they want more for deer food. I know you are more aware of Audubon and others plight, so I'll refrain from posting another audubon thread. As you know, there was much audubon involvement in the structuring of our deer plan from its inception.

"The plan and simple fact is that people like you have no clue about how the forest or deer should be managed for the benefit of anything. "

I absolutely most definately do. And for you that is one helluva big problem. It makes your damage control efforts 10 times harder when you have no logical rebuttals, but have to reduce your posts down to nothing but a sluggish ineffective attack on my credibility.

" If you want to have high, or even moderate, deer numbers anyone with half a functioning brain cell should be able to figure out that you have the MOST DEER where you have the healthiest forest. "

Not when the habitat health guidelines are so stringent that they will NOT ALLOW for a larger deer herd in the first place. More deer eat more. That does NOT permit for a healthy forest rating by the current extreme standards, nor will it ever, especially when those standards are and have been tightened and changed as we go along!!.

Cornelius08

Double post.

R.S.B.

Those comments prove that you have no idea about what it takes to have more deer either.

Sorry SPORT but you are wrong and simply have no logical concept of reality as it relates to forest health or deer numbers.

R.S. Bodenhorn

R.S.B.

Nope, just pointing out that you are just another clueless individual that constantly blathers on about many things you so obviously know nothing about. Yet you jump around calling anyone and everyone a liar that brings forward any studies and supporting facts or evidence that contracts your total nonsense viewpoints and ramblings.

It is becoming increasing obvious that all you really know about the affects of nature is based on what I deer looks like. And, even that might be pretty seriously in question since you can’t seem to see enough of them while hunting in one of the areas leading the state in both deer numbers and deer harvests.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

Once again RSB is wrong and Cornelius is not only right , but the experts support his position. In a healthy forest the experts state that at 8 DPSM , the biodiversity carrying capacity,"lose preferred herb and shrub species:songbird abundance declines. At 12 DPSM,you lose songbird species,habitat declines, lose the shrub layer and shrub species.

So in order to have the kind of healthy forest RSB supports , the herd has to be kept at around 12 DPSM, even though the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat is over 40 DPSM.

R.S.B.

No, that too is nothing more then another example of either your total failure to understand deer/forest health reality or another of your attempts at misleading people into false impressions by usingan out of text snippetfrom somereal facts.

What you posted might be true if the entire habitat of the area consisted of nothing but mature forest. But,the forestedhabitatisn’t all mature forest in most cases. There are generally some clear-cut areas in the forested habitat that are capable of supporting WAY more then even twenty or thirty deer per square mile of that particular clear-cut habitat. Then there are the forest openings, farm crop areas or home lawn/shrub fringe areas that help support more deer then a mature forest would typically support. Then you have all of the various habitat edges that also boost deer densities beyond what could be long term sustained in just a mature forest.

Where you do have nothing but mature forest you bet the deer densities will be lower then where you have mixed habitats. But, make no mistake about the fact that a healthy forest with an under story of the high quality deer food species, like hobblebush and trillium, will still support far more deer then an over browsed forest habitat that no longer has those species. That is exactly why many of the areas of mature forest in units like 2G can't support more then 4 or 5, or in some cases even fewer, deer per square mile today.

Once again the true is that your lack of knowledge is jumping out at anyone that actually does understand the deer habitat relationships. In plain and simple terms, that anyone can understand, it is obvious that you either don’t know what you are talking about, that you have a very misguided agenda or as the building evidence suggests, you haveboth little knowledge and a misguided agenda that is proving to be harmful to the future of hunting.

R.S. Bodenhorn

bluebird2

The problem is the PGC has been disregarding the benefits and added carrying capacity of the various habitat types you mentioned and instead have been managing the herd based on the regeneration of forested habitat. As a result the previous DD goals were highest where there was the highest percentage of forested habitat and much lower in areas with mixed farm land and would lots.
The experts completely disagree with your position. The studies all show that in order to maintain a forest with a well developed under story the herd has to be limited to around 12 DPSM for the long term. It does not allow for increases in DD even though the carrying capacity may have increased.

Here is the link to one of the studies that support Cornelius's position.

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

It is clear from the study that they are referring to the typical northern hardwood forest and not just a mature forest as you claim. You consistently contradict the experts from the PGC and you reject the studies by experts that are much more qualified that you could ever hope to be. Furthermore, the deer have repeatedly proved your theories and predictions to be dead wrong and if you persist I will post the list of your failures once again.

IF you think you are so much smarter than Cornelius , SS and I, why don't you prove it by listing all the predictions you made about the plan that have come true!!!

bowtruck

once again id like to thank rsb for bringing his knowledge and factsfor us.

Bluebird thats a interesting link thanks

bluebird2

But the deer have proven that RSB's knowledge and facts to be wrong over and over again ,so why would you thank him for erroneous information?

R.S.B.

Thanks for the link even though I have read this report before. In fact I have discussed this very topic with both of the authors. I am also quite familiar with the study area they discuss in this report since I was one of those that help public demonstration tours within these deer enclosures during the research years. From there we then took the tours a short distance further into the game lands, of McKean and Cameron Counties, to Latham’s acre.

You just made it even more obvious that you not only don’t have a clue about the variances of deer populations relative to their habitat and food supplies but also that you either didn’t read or understand what the report said.

This report is very clear that deer densities do change and are very much relative by changes in the habitat within the mature forest, whether those changes are deer impact, man or naturally induced habitat changes.

Here are a few of the comments that clearly establish that very point being expressed in this report.

The impact of a given deer density on re-sources depends on the surrounding landscape. Results of the northwestern Pennsylvania enclosure study (Tilghman 1989, deCalesta 1992) suggested that the impact of deer on ecosystem components was a function not only of deer density but also of forage availability (Fig. 2, from Marquis et al. 1992).Other scientists (Palmer et al. 1997) linked deer condition and recruitment to deer density and forage availability. These studies suggest the need to ex-press impacts of deer on ecosystem components relative to forage availability and scaled to the land-scape where they occur.

By linking deer-ecosystem interactions to RDDs of specific landscapes, we account for the dramatic differences in carrying capacity and resulting eco system effects that have been discussed by many researchers(Porter et al. 1994, Stout and Lawrence 1996, Porter and Underwood 1997). RDD also provides a frame-work for understanding why deer impacts change even as deer density remains the same, e.g., as a forested landscape develops from one dominated by seedling-sapling stage stands with abundant deer food to one dominated by pole timber stands with little deer food. Before the RDD model can be used with confidence, we must define the scale requiredfor evaluating deer impacts on ecosystem components within landscapes and improve our ability to estimate K in real landscapes.


The actual deer density associated with RDD will vary within landscapes, depending on the amount of forage available for deer and associated K. The ANF serves as an example. Much (65%) of the forest is managed for benefits including timber production, using clear cutting and thinning (Allegheny Natl. For. 1986). These areas produce more deer forage and higher K values than on areas managed for wilderness or recreation, where no cutting is al-lowed. The deer density associated with any particular RDD—RDDs for sustaining biological diversity, for example—is higher on areas where managers use timber harvesting than on other areas because K is higher in landscapes featuring timber harvests. Thus, management areas allowing timber harvest can support higher deer densities while sustaining biological diversity, and might be favored by hunters who like to see many deer during hunting sea-son. Management areas with less forage production will support lower deer densities, and may be favored by hunters who enjoy a wilderness experience in less accessible areas (i.e., without logging roads).


Adoption of this conceptual framework will require research that provides managers with better tools than are currently available to assess the carrying capacity of specific landscapes. Better understanding of the effective scale at which deer interact with habitats is needed, such as research underway at Huntington Forest (Matthews 1996). We also need straight forward ways to estimate the K carrying capacity of these habitats. Similarly, more effective tools for the estimation of deer density itself are also required(Healy et al. 1997). In particular, research should be designed to test systems in which K changes (or is changed by human uses, such as agricultural) on short time scales (B. P. Shissler, Nat. Resour. Consultants, Inc., Fort Hill, Pa., pers. commun.).


Once again you have failed make any point other then proving how little you know and understand about deer management and the relationships between deer number, their food supply or their long term sustainability.
Now I will also provide some information links on hobblebush.


http://www.ct-botanical-society.org/galleries/viburnumlant.html


http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/2756/


http://www.enature.com/fieldguides/detail.asp?recNum=TS0234


http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Portals/3/Abstracts/Abstract_pdf/U-V/Viburnum_alnifolium.pdf


http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/hobblebush_viburnum_lantanoides

　
Notice how it grows within reach of the white-tail deer within sun dappled areas of a mature forest. Deer thrive could thrive on it if we could get it growing in our forests and along forest edges once again. For decades the only places I could find it were on top of rocks or steep road banks where deer could get to it. It has started to recover slightly the past few years though. I also have old pre-lumber boom days pictures that show the forest floor this part of the state totally covered with hobblebush as the under story of the mature forests that occurred at that time.

R.S. Bodenhorn