Screamin Steel

For clarification, VF contains 3500 acres, or 5.5 sq miles. 185 deer (their stabilization goal) equates to 34 dpsm. Have to say that is WAY more than the 5 or 6 set as goals in my WMU's with way better forest health!!!!

BTBowhunter

The only "word games" were yours when you contradicted your own posts.

I simply said that there were plenty of deer to be harvested in 2B. You just have to know where to hunt. In the space of less than a page, you've both disputed and inadvertently supported that statement.

Aint me blowin the smoke......

bluebird2

Why don't you tell everyone how much profit I made after deducting ten years of mortgage payments,taxes, insurance and the realtors commission from the sale price?

BTBowhunter

Just to be clear Steel, I didnt say or mean to imply that BB supported a DD of 200 PSM. My point was to point out the folly of his suggestion that VF could support 200 DPSM. Now we all know that any piece of ground could do that but for how long?

My point was and still is that statements like that do not serve anyone well. I understand that he wasnt advocating 200 DPSM but why even use such an outrageous number? His use of it simply undermines his credibility and doesnt help those who support higher but more reasonable numbers either.

bluebird2

Did the PGC undermine their credibility with you when they set their ridiculous goals for 5C and 5b. How about when they ignored their goal of 15 dpsm for 2g and then reduced the herd to 8 dpsm? How about when they fraudulently misrepresented the B/D ratio or when they lied about the number of additional buck that would be protected by ARs?

VF is not the only example of how ridiculously low the PGC DMP are. A study conducted in NY showed that the MSY carrying capacity of mixed wood lots and farm land was 95 DPSM while the PGC claimed it was 5 or 6 DPSM.

When the PGC starts telling hunters the truth , I will stop using VF as an example of the true MSY CC of the habitat.

BTBowhunter

So you seem to be saying that you'll stop making ridiculous claims when the PGC uses numbers you like?

bluebird2

Nice spin,but wrong again. I did not make any ridiculous claims about VF, I reported the facts ,unlike the PGC.

germain

Take places like VF and treasure lake.Do you guys think the shrubbery at houses is what keeps these deer alive compared to 2G?A deer eats approx 3-6 pounds of browse a day.How many freaking shrubs do these people have?

Cornelius08

"My point was and still is that statements like that do not serve anyone well. I understand that he wasnt advocating 200 DPSM but why even use such an outrageous number?"

I think he made a very good point. If a piece of land can hold that many, a ridiculous extreme, for ANY amount of time, what are the odds it can't hold a reasonable amount of deer long term? But instead we are told statewide the deer densities must be lower than any other similar "normal state". You are talking 2 extremes. 200 dpsm....and the levels our statewide goals are leaving us with.

Screamin Steel

Valley Forge has supported those numbers for decades, and the herd was continuing to grow, until the implementation of the controlled hunts. Obviously, biodiversity and plant life must be suffering severely, but I believe that wildlife managers should take a long, hard look at VF, as it seems to starkly contradict accepted management models in regards to the herd/ habitat relationships. It has shown a carrying capacity far beyond scientifically accepted limits, and sustained it for a long period of time and I believe is probably a testament to the abilities of nature to adapt much greater than we like to give her credit for. Some around here are fond of repeating the mantra of "the worse the habitat, the fewer deer it takes to continue to impact it", and I'm not entirely disagreeing.......but there are always variables at play...that only nature controls.....remember that the last decade in PA was punctuated with several severe drought years....obviously plant growth is affected directly by rainfall amounts....Is it possible for an overbrowsed forest to regenerate with a "middle ground" deer density of 25 dpsm? Lots of variables come into play, and will change significantly over different landscapes even within the same forests, but we have to assume that the answer would be YES. The PGC and DCNR are trying to "force" regeneration by eliminating deer from the equation, or reducing them to an insignificant role. I disagree with that strategy. They constantly accuse hunters of placing less value on non game species and plant life, in favor of deer and other game, due to our biased interests. What they have done is no different. They have lessened the value of the deer in favor of other species due THEIR biased interests. Another glaring question we should be asking, is what their base model for this biodiverse landscape? At what point in PA history did this forest of diversity exist, and what documentation do we have of it? We have little written natural history of PA from the period of early settlement, and it consists of a few sketchy journal entries. We know that the settlers, with unregulated hunting and wildlife marketing, hunted many species to the brink of extinction. Then, heavy timbering at the turn of the century, forever changed our forests, and set the stage for species like deer to explode. In short, I challenge anyone to show us hard evidence, beyond meaningless speculation, of what level of biodiversity existed in our PA forests at any time...even prior to man's interference. Without it, we are simply allowing a bunch of radical eco extremists to manage our resources based on a dream of a garden of eden style forest of biodiversity, that may have never existed...atleast not in the magnitude that they suggest. No different than letting the hippies turn us into a socialist or utopian society, because they think it MIGHT work. I don't know about you guys, but I don't care to be part of a biodiversity experiment based on what MIGHT HAVE existed centuries ago. Interestingly enough, these same groups advocate eliminating all "foreign" species from non-native landscapes...an extremist ideal. In PA, they would have you say good bye to brown and rainbow trout, carp, ring-necked pheasants,...just to name a few. They have lots of nice big changes in store for us.Sorry. I went off on a tangent.