ORIGINAL: deerfly

I have the report as a PDF file and like you, I couldn't find a link. But here is a quote from the report.

When densities exceed 30 deer per square
mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain
body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying
capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical
habitat structure and species composition occur.

If DR. R. said that breeding rates ,productivity and the breeding window remained unchanged, he lied. Any shift in sample size and distribution should have resulted in an increase in breeding rates and productivity rather than a decrease. Besides, in 2G where the herd has been reduced the most and where there should have been the most improvement the number of embryos/doe dropped from 1.55 in 2000 to 1.35 in 2008 and in 2F it dropped from 1.72 in 2002 to 1.61 in 2008.

"I asked Doctor Rosenberry point blank and face to face in front of the entire region, much of the administration and the biological staff that very question of why the breeding and reproductive data had shown a decline in recent years. He as a matter of fact stated it was due to the shift in where the largest sample sizes of highway killed deer came from before and after antler restrictions. He also pointed out that the declines were not reflected in the individual units as it was in the statewide data..."

"It is also pretty well known, in both the forest and wildlife management professions, that in some areas we might never have a healthy forest of wildlife community again because of all of those past mistakes of carrying way to many deer for way to long."

It is now time to get off of here and move fully into the Christmas season.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

They have done control burns at clear creek several times...

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I have the report as a PDF file and like you, I couldn't find a link. But here is a quote from the report.

When densities exceed 30 deer per square
mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain
body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying
capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical
habitat structure and species composition occur.

Of course you wouldn't conclude that over browsed hardwords can sustain 40 DPSM because you are in denial and accepting it would mean you have been wrong all along. Whether you like it or not the history of the PA herd also shows that our forNF.
ests can support over 40 DPSM. After being over browsed during the 20s and 30s ,when the population peaked at over 40 DPSM , the doe only season in 1938 and following severe winters dropped the population to around 20 DPSM. from there the population continued to increase to over 40 DPSM in the 70s  and this information is documented in a report on the history of the ANF.

 Anytime you think you can support your claim that HR resulted in a significant increase in breeding rates and productivity please feel free to post that data and i will respectfully blow it to shreds.

MERRY CHRISTMAS to all.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I have the report as a PDF file and like you, I couldn't find a link. But here is a quote from the report.

When densities exceed 30 deer per square
mile, deer obtain enough nutrition from plant species resistant to high deer densities to maintain
body condition and a high reproductive rate: this point is likened to “nutrition carrying
capacity.” When deer densities are this high, significant reductions in plant diversity, vertical
habitat structure and species composition occur.

Of course you wouldn't conclude that over browsed hardwords can sustain 40 DPSM because you are in denial and accepting it would mean you have been wrong all along. Whether you like it or not the history of the PA herd also shows that our forNF.
ests can support over 40 DPSM. After being over browsed during the 20s and 30s ,when the population peaked at over 40 DPSM , the doe only season in 1938 and following severe winters dropped the population to around 20 DPSM. from there the population continued to increase to over 40 DPSM in the 70s  and this information is documented in a report on the history of the ANF.

Anytime you think you can support your claim that HR resulted in a significant increase in breeding rates and productivity please feel free to post that data and i will respectfully blow it to shreds.

MERRY CHRISTMAS to all.

The deer obviously don’t seem to agree with your opinion on how many of them can live in the northern tier of today. I will put much more faith in the deer being correct on how many can or should be sustained on the habitat than I will on you being correct.
 
That is the problem with what many of you are and have always been demanding; nature will not allow it but you want to blame that fact on the Game Commission because they can’t force nature to do the impossible.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

post edited by RSB - 2010/12/25 10:34:00

The deer obviously don’t seem to agree with your opinion on how many of them can live in the northern tier of today. I will put much more faith in the deer being correct on how many can or should be sustained on the habitat than I will on you being correct.

That is the problem with what many of you are and have always been demanding; nature will not allow it but you want to blame that fact on the Game Commission because they can’t force nature to do the impossible.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

 Maybe it is because the current antlerless allocations show no correlation to the size of the herd, the health of the habitat or the health of the herd. Our herd is no more healthier than it was when we had 1.6 M deer and regeneration has decreased instead of increasing as the herd was reduced.

The PGC has lost all it's credibility with the majority of deer hunters and some hunters are desperate to find a solution  to the problem the PGC has created.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The deer obviously don’t seem to agree with your opinion on how many of them can live in the northern tier of today. I will put much more faith in the deer being correct on how many can or should be sustained on the habitat than I will on you being correct.

That is the problem with what many of you are and have always been demanding; nature will not allow it but you want to blame that fact on the Game Commission because they can’t force nature to do the impossible.

The deer have no say in how many of them can live in the northern tier today. The herd in 2G had no problem producing a harvest of over 20,000 antlerless in 2003  and subsequent doe harvests have prevented the herd from increasing since then. Those are the indisputable facts that refute you misguided opinions.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that neither the deer reproductive rates or fawn recruitment rates are influenced by the amount of food available for the deer? Are you not saying with statement that the deer numbers can be grown to unending supplies regardless of the habitat and food supplies? You mean that deer populations don’t crash from a combination of winter mortality and reduced fawn recruitment rates when they exceed their winter food supplies?

Are you seriously trying to tell us that neither the deer reproductive rates or fawn recruitment rates are influenced by the amount of food available for the deer? Are you not saying with statement that the deer numbers can be grown to unending supplies regardless of the habitat and food supplies? You mean that deer populations don’t crash from a combination of winter mortality and reduced fawn recruitment rates when they exceed their winter food supplies?

ORIGINAL: S-10

That is only an opinion that is shared by those that refuse to learn or accept the real facts provided by both the deer and their habitat (food supply).

R.S. Bodenhorn

That might make sense except per your own agencies findings----DEER HEALTH IS GOOD IN ALL WMU"S EXCEPT ONE. As you said before= listen to the deer,they have no ability to provide false information, and the deer are saying they are fine. And yet you are advocating unlimited doe licenses for the next decade in the northern tier. Nice----I see Christmas break was short

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Are you seriously trying to tell us that neither the deer reproductive rates or fawn recruitment rates are influenced by the amount of food available for the deer? Are you not saying with statement that the deer numbers can be grown to unending supplies regardless of the habitat and food supplies? You mean that deer populations don’t crash from a combination of winter mortality and reduced fawn recruitment rates when they exceed their winter food supplies?

The graph I referenced shows that reproductive rates an recruitment decrease when the herd in over browsed hardwoods exceed 45 DPSM. No, deer numbers can not be grown to endless supplies and I never implied that they could. Everyone knows that there is a limit to how many deer the habitat can sustain. The problem is the PGC is manaGING THE HERD IN 2G at around one fourth of the MSY CC.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that neither the deer reproductive rates or fawn recruitment rates are influenced by the amount of food available for the deer? Are you not saying with statement that the deer numbers can be grown to unending supplies regardless of the habitat and food supplies? You mean that deer populations don’t crash from a combination of winter mortality and reduced fawn recruitment rates when they exceed their winter food supplies?

Wrong again. The harvest was high because even in an over browsed habitat the herd in 2G was at less than 50% of the MSY CC and would have continued to increase if the PGC hadn't issued 52,000 tags which produced a harvest that exceeded recruitment. Remember , the winter in 1993 was more severe than in 2003 or 2004 yet the herd did not crash and increased despite of the high antlerless harvests.

If the herd in 2G was above the MSY CC in 2000 breeding rates and recruitment would have increased significantly as the herd was reduced ,but that didn't happen and that alone proves the herd was not at the MSY CC in 2000.

We can’t see the charts you are talking about to see the totality of what the studies had to show and imply. Those of us who have been debating you for years all know though that you tend to use snippets of data and information out of the intended context to support your opinion even when the correct interpretations of the data don’t support your argument.

I was right here through the 1993, 1995 and the 2003 and 2004 winters. I know darn well that the 1993 winter was not even close to the severity of the 2003 or 2004 winters as it relates to the affect it had on the deer. The 1993 winter had more snow total but it DIDN’T hold on nearly as long without breaks in between the major snow falls. In 1993 in this area we had a lot of snow that arrived in doe season, melted off a few weeks later then another deep snow dump a month later that lasted about a month but the deer had a major break in the middle of all the snow. In 1995 we had a large snowfall in November but once again it opened up after a few weeks and we had very little snow for the middle of the winter than another snow dump for the late part of the winter. I

The hardest past is and always has been getting enough hunters to understand enough about REAL deer management that they will allow the correct management decisions the opportunity to work.

You bet I am an advocate for unlimited antlerless licenses in the northern tier. I have seen how well it works toward improving deer populations in ALL of the areas that have had unlimited antlerless licenses for about the past twenty years. Where they have unlimited antlerless licenses the deer habitat is being protected by harvesting enough does to have support more deer. Consequently the deer populations in those areas has been very stable even though they harvest about four times as many deer per square mile year after year for decades now as they have ever harvested in these areas where we keep harvesting fewer and fewer deer to let the herd grow