Who Has the Answer?

There has been a lot of discussion about regeneration and the carrying capacity of the habitat but very little discussion about how the PGC uses this information on how to manage the herd in each WMU. WMUs 2d, 2E ,2F and 2D are adjoining WMUs that are supposed to have similar topography, soils and forests. But, there is a wide disparity as to how the herd is managed in each WMU.

WMU Buck harvest PSM--% regeneration
2D 4.62 47%
2E 3.33 39%
2F 2.65 44%
2G 1.65 40%

Can anyone explain why 2D and 2E are being managed at over double the deer density of 2G even though regeneration in 2D is only rated as fair and regeneration in 2E is less than in 2g?

I wish ... that way maybe 2F could get unlimited tags every now and then

Here is the PGC's answer.

DECISION RULES FOR DEER MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The following rules describe the process for setting a deer population trend objective (see also
Table 21).

Rule 1. Forest habitat health must be good and deer health at least at target to increase deer
population.

Justification: Below the levels indicated in Rule 1, forest habitat health and deer health
are fair and below target, respectively. It is not justifiable to allow a deer herd increase
when forest habitat and the deer resource itself are fair at best.

Rule 2. If forest habitat health is good and deer health is at least at target, follow CAC
recommendation.

Justification: Under this situation, the two biological measures support a socially driven
management decision. If a CAC does not exist, the Executive Director serve as a
surrogate because the residing director will have the most comprehensive understanding
of social issues (Rule 7)

Rule 3. If forest habitat health is fair, take 6-year deer population and forest habitat trends
into account
a. If forest habitat health is fair and 6-year deer population trend has been
increasing, decrease deer population
b. If forest habitat health is fair but improving, and 6-year deer population trend has
remained the same, stabilize deer population
c. If forest habitat health is fair but stable, and 6-year deer population trend has
remained the same, decrease deer population
d. If forest habitat health is fair but declining, and 6-year deer population trend has
remained the same, decrease deer population
e. If forest habitat health is fair and 6-year deer population trend has been
decreasing, stabilize deer population

Justification: In some cases it is necessary to examine trends and incorporate additional
data. When forest habitat health is fair, it would be inappropriate to recommend a
standard deer population reduction without deer population and forest habitat trends.

Now ,all you have to do is explain how that criteria was applied to the 4 WMUs in question.

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=695219&mode=2

2F and 2G are almost all forest lands, while the other two have almost 30% more area that is not forests ???????

But the PGC claims the herd is being managed based on the percentage of regeneration, not on the percent of the WMU that is forested. Therefore ,according to the PGC, the areas that are not forested have no effect on regeneration,so all for WMUs should be managed at similar densities, since the % regeneration is quite similar.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The herd is not managed through buck harvest so not sure why you are using this data.

That is not true. The buck harvest is used as the starting point for all the PGCs population estimates and trends. Therefore the buck harvest PSM is a good indicator of the deer density in any given WMU.

Yes this data is incorporated into the model, but is no indication of how the herd is being managed.  They managed the herd size based on antlerless allocation.  So going back to your original statement,

" Can anyone explain why 2D and 2E are being managed at over double the deer density of 2G even though regeneration in 2D is only rated as fair and regeneration in 2E is less than in 2g"

Again, if this is correct we would expect to have half the antlerless allocation in 2D than 2G allowing for a larger population size.  When you look at the proposed antlerless allocations 2d = 50123 and 2G is 15210.  It is actually the opposite of what you are proposing.  With that being said, if the antlerless allocation is less than 1/3 of 2D, why are populations not increasing?

ORIGINAL: deerfly

There has been a lot of discussion about regeneration and the carrying capacity of the habitat but very little discussion about how the PGC uses this information on how to manage the herd in each WMU. WMUs 2d, 2E ,2F and 2D are adjoining WMUs that are supposed to have similar topography, soils and forests. But, there is a wide disparity as to how the herd is managed in each WMU.

WMU Buck harvest PSM--% regeneration
2D 4.62 47%
2E 3.33 39%
2F 2.65 44%
2G 1.65 40%

Can anyone explain why 2D and 2E are being managed at over double the deer density of 2G even though regeneration in 2D is only rated as fair and regeneration in 2E is less than in 2g?

 
First of all there are many and some HUGE differences between those units now and there always were the huge differences.
 
First you have to look at the differences in the quality of the habitat and what changes might have occurred in each.
 
Unit 2D is has a fair amount of forested land at 68.3% but it also has a healthy mix of richly fertile farmland that makes up 27.2% of the land. Three has been little change to the land use or forest practices within the unit over the years and decades. Therefore, there has been and still is a healthy mixture of crop and forestland to sustain relatively high deer populations.
 
The second factor one has to look at is the past and present deer harvest history for each unit. In counties that make up unit 2D the total harvest average for the five years prior to the inception of wildlife management units was 13.85 deer harvested per square mile with 7.72 of those being antlerless deer. Since the inception of WMUs the total deer harvest average for the first five years was 12.64 with 8.53 of them being antlerless per square mile. The last three years the total averaged 10.80 with 6.65 of them being antlerless. The hunter success rate for the unit has remained relatively unchanged. So with all of those factors it appears unit 2D can withstand those higher harvests without any significant herd reduction.
 
Unit 2E is more forested than 2D at 75.7% but it still has a reasonable amount of farmland at 19.3%. Most of the forest and farmland practices have remained relatively unchanged over the decades though the soils are not as rich and productive as they are in unit 2D.
 
Total deer harvests before WMUs was averaging 12.25 per square mile with 5.15 of them being antlerless. Since WMUs for the first five years the average was 10.00 deer with 6.43 of them being antlerless. The last three-year total has been 8.03 with 4.62 of them being antlerless. The hunter success rate has slightly declined, as has the harvest, so the indication would be that the unit has experienced a moderate deer population decline, just as was planned for the unit.
 
Unit 2F is 90.7% forest and only 7.0% farmland so it is mostly mature forest. It is also mostly public land (55.6%) and most of that is the Allegheny National Forest. It also has many areas of poor soils that were never suitable for farmland and that is probably whey it was available to become public land, no one else wanted it after they took all the timber off of it back in the early 1900’s. A lot has changed in the management of the ANF though over the past couple decades. Over the past couple decades the ANF had nearly all of their forest cutting, and thus management suitable for high deer populations, suspended by court order. They had thousands upon thousands of acres that went from seedling/sapling supporting 60 or more deer per square mile that grew into pole timber habitat that only supports about 3-5 deer per square mile. Therefore, all of the ANF and unit 2F will support far fewer deer today then it did just ten and twenty years ago. For that reason hunters can control the reduced deer populations of today with lower harvests.
 
Prior to WMUs the harvest average for 2F was 12.45 per square mile and 7.43 of them were antlerless. But now with the habitat having changed to where it supports fewer deer during the past three years the average harvest was 5.53 deer per square mile and only 2.96 of those being antlerless. The hunter success rates have been relatively unchanged though over the past several years though so it appears the herd is staying pretty stable or perhaps even slightly increasing.
 
Unit 2G is nothing at all like the other units in many ways including soil conditions. Much of 2G is mountainous with extremely poor soils that are to steep to farm and too rocky to even sprout seedlings to grow trees. Some of the valleys and ridges are far to moderate soils but that is pretty minimal. Unit 2G is 90.0% forested with only 7.6% farmland. In short most of unit 2G has always been and always will be poor to marginal deer habitat.
 
Before WMUs the average 2G deer harvest was only 8.53 per square mile with 4.66 of them antlerless deer. During the first five years of WMUs the 2G harvest had declined to only 4.00 deer per square mile with 2.35 of them being antlerless. That is way few deer harvested than ever before in the history of the counties that make up the unit. Yet during the past three years the harvest declined even more to where the total deer harvest average is down to only 2.88 deer with 1.37 of them being antlerless.
 
As anyone being objective can clearly see there is very little about the units that are the same just the same as the management objectives for the units are all different. In unit 2D the antlerless license per square mile has ranged between 23.32 and 20.16 per square mile. It might be easiest if I just post the high and low allocation for each unit in my normal format.
 
Unit………….high license allocation……….low allocation………..success rate range
2D…………………23.32………………………20.16……………….2.48 – 3.59
2E…………………22.99……………………….16.18……………….2.60 – 3.96
2F…………………18.25………………………..9.19………………..2.49 – 4.24
2G…………………12.64……………………….3.70………………...2.55 – 6.19     
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Thanks for your attempt to answer my question and your answer would make sense if the herd was being managed based on the carrying capacity of the habitat. However, the PGC claims the herd is being managed based on forest health ,which in turn is determined by the % regeneration,

WMU Buck harvest PSM--% regeneration
2D 4.62 47%
2E 3.33 39%
2F 2.65 44%
2G 1.65 40%

Since 2E and 2G have similar regeneration rates and the stated goal of herd reduction was to improve regeneration,why is 2E being managed at twice the deer density as 2G? Why hasn't the PGC reduced the herd in 2E to 8 DPSM as in 2G? Are they admitting that reducing the herd in 2E wouldn't result in increased regeneration, just as reducing the herd in 2G didn't produce the expected increase in regeneration.

 
It all has to do with how many deer each unit has and is able to support without adverse habitat affects. Since unit 2E has better habitat and been supporting more deer than 2G for decades it only makes sense they could both harvest more deer and keep more over winter deer than 2G without having adverse affects or the level of deer population collapse that occurred in unit 2G.
 
Deer management is working to varying degrees for habitat improvement in all units and in most units better then it ever was in the past. That doesn’t mean there isn’t still room for improvement in some units. That is why each unit has its own management goals and objectives.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn    

Since you didn't get your answer yet and won't get the answer you want to see go here> http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=695219&mode=2

ORIGINAL: deerfly

But I did get the answer I was looking for and that is that no PGC supporter understands how the herd is being managed in various WMUs. The answer also is that the PGC is not managing the herd based on forest health as they claim, because if they were all for WMUs I mentioned would be managed at about the same density.

 
Actually it is you who doesn’t understand deer or habitat management and how the two are interrelated; you never have and most likely never will no matter how it is explained.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

The plan is based on NOTHING. Thats why basically NONE of the prediction had come true after a decade of extreme blanket reductions in the name of the almighty trillium. Its an experiment in progress ran by delusional environmental extreme crackpots for the sake of their greenie brethren & let us not forget the timber interests. Just EXACTLY as eveland documented.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The guy that can't explain how the PGC is managing our herd ,had this to say about the doubters on another MB.

Originally Posted By: Fleroo
An AR/HR forum record. One full week, and not one post in this formerly "heated" forum.


That is most likely because all the doubters have finally seen the errors in their previous way of thinking.

****Bodenhorn

Maybe the answer is that the PGC supporters realize they can't defend the PGC plan.

 
The Penna. Deer Management Plan doesn’t need to be defended. It has been reviewed by a professional staff, hired by the State Legislature, and found to be not only valid but a good plan though a few further suggestions were made and with some suggestions being implemented. Your group even challenged the plan in court and the Judge tossed the court challenge because it didn’t have any merit.
 
I guess ablout all that is lacking is simply the ability of some to understand the plan and for some it seems even the most basic elements of how nature works.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

"The Penna. Deer Management Plan doesn’t need to be defended."

Well thats convenient for you i guess, because all attempts at doing so have failed miserably. Though i agree, pgc basically has ability to do whatever they like with our deer herd, cashing all the blank checks on it they like for dcnr and the rest of the antideer econuts. So not sure why they even make any ridiculous attempts to defend it...but they do.... And its humorous at best.

"It has been reviewed by a professional staff, hired by the State Legislature,"

By Levdansky. Who after decades in office, deservedly was tossed out of office on his keister by the voters of the state, the effort of which finally succeeded no doubt by the inclusion of fed up sportsmen voting against him for his role in hiring our past executive pgc director & deputy exec director who were fired for alleged payroll manipulation to do our audit! Pointing to such things will hardly add credibility to your argument bud. lol.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The audit found that the methods for determining herd health and forest health were flawed. Since those criteria were the basis for managing the herd that means the DMP was seriously flawed. Furthermore, the simple fact that you have no clue as to how or why the PGC is managing the herd in the 4 WMUs I cited,proves beyond a doubt that no one knows how the PGC is managing the herd. As yet, no one has been able to show a direct correlation between forest health and the deer density in various WMUs.

I guess ablout all that is lacking is simply the ability of some to understand the plan and for some it seems even the most basic elements of how nature works.

Any time you feel you are up to it, please feel free to dazzle us with you vast knowledge of the plan. Tell us why 2 E is being managed at more than twice the density as 2G even though regeneration is worse in 2E than 2G and regeneration in 2E decreased by 15 % from 2007 to 2010.

 
The audit didn’t come to that conclusion at all. It made some suggestions to move to other herd health measures based on low sample sizes for road kills and adult doe reproductive rates not being sensitive enough for a hear health measure. At the same time they recommended going even more to habitat based measures for determining the management direction.
 
I most certainly did explain the difference in both the habitat and management objectives for the units you profiled. Just because you didn’t like the answer doesn’t mean much. We all know you don’t get it; you never did and most likely never will. But, that is undoubtedly part of reason the Court rejected your arguments so I guess your not doing too well with your batting average on your understanding or being correct about a lot of things.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: retired guy

To those of you who conduct the woodland 'tours' that may be attended by Urbanites--an old story from an old publication about a similar fella.

He used to go out before the Tour and strategically place a black jellybean or two very near preselected piles of Deer poop along the Tours route. During the Tour he would eat them and tell the Urbies how tasty and good for you they were.  Said he most always got somebody to try the real McCoy.
  Just food for thought.

Pretty cute, I like that story ! LOL