DanesDad--this thread has now inched ahead of the (Night Before Christmas)thread in number of hits per day so to answer your original question-- No- apparently "this isn't getting old".

If the spread of the invasive species is the birds fault, then when does tweety bird season come in.

No wonder you hardly have any deer.

They love the stuff around here as do the grouse and bunnies.


Ironhed

A view from afar ( sometimes those not directly involved can  be quite objective)
I would love to see a bar graph where Deer density in Pa is compared to harvest (does and bucks). NOT just when increased doe hunting started, but  start a decade before the increased tags.
Also should be stats on how many acres have grown into mature forest and how much agriculture has been lost as well as deforestation acreage (new roads, housing  etc)
I have never seen the entire picture for any state clearly displayed, only partial glimpses of deer stats without seeing the whole story.
The guys I used to hunt with in the Catskills cant understand where all the deer went. I visited after almost 30 years and what used to be farm and brushy land was now woods with a canopy. It simply  cannot hold the number of deer that it did years ago.
Remember the increases in flora and game  at Yellowstone after the fire and the Aderondiak Forest after the fire. Aderondiak is now back to maturity and holds few deer per square- however decades ago  it was NUTS.
   I like to compare the "OLD DAYS" when I was a kid hunting in places to now but rarely consider the changes in the woods over the course of a lifetime. It can kinda get away from ya. Spots I hunted Woodcock and Grouse dont even exist anymore. Oh the ground is still there but its  not the way it was and the birds are someplace else.( hopefully  creating a new generations memories)

ORIGINAL: wayne c

My position on multiflora wouldnt be popular with some landowners, but I think its great if only considering the land for game habitat. Superb rabbit and pheasant cover providing safe haven from fox and avian predators. Also have known of some great deer bedding areas consisting of it, and its a super abundant source of quality browse throughout the winter.

I like the stuff.

 
It really is good habitat for wildlife so I like it too where it isn’t likely to become an issue on private lands.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

I can’t find anywhere I said multi-flora rose was a problem where farmers were producing a cultivated crop. Obviously where they keep tilling the soil or annual mowing they keep the multi-flora rose in check. But, that is still far cry from it not being a problem in the farming community, as I said.

I agree you didn't say multiflora rose was a problem for farmers that are producing a cultivated crop, but you did not exclude them when you said multiflora rose was a problem for farmers. I live in an area that is intensively farmed and the only areas where multiflora rose is a problem is in pastures where the farmer can't mow. Any farmer that doesn't mow their pastures at least twice a year is inviting the take over by multiflora rose.

Neither of those species has been a problem in forested habitats or in forest management.”

That is absolutely not true. Any time a cut is made in our area of 5C multiflora rose becomes a major invasive competing species. In order to hunt and area that was cut five years ago I had to use a brush cutters to cut trails through the multiflora rose and i still use a hand clippers when I try to get through different areas of the cut.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I can’t find anywhere I said multi-flora rose was a problem where farmers were producing a cultivated crop. Obviously where they keep tilling the soil or annual mowing they keep the multi-flora rose in check. But, that is still far cry from it not being a problem in the farming community, as I said.

I agree you didn't say multiflora rose was a problem for farmers that are producing a cultivated crop, but you did not exclude them when you said multiflora rose was a problem for farmers. I live in an area that is intensively farmed and the only areas where multiflora rose is a problem is in pastures where the farmer can't mow. Any farmer that doesn't mow their pastures at least twice a year is inviting the take over by multiflora rose.

Neither of those species has been a problem in forested habitats or in forest management.”

That is absolutely not true. Any time a cut is made in our area of 5C multiflora rose becomes a major invasive competing species. In order to hunt and area that was cut five years ago I had to use a brush cutters to cut trails through the multiflora rose and i still use a hand clippers when I try to get through different areas of the cut.

 
That is because basically, at least from my perspective, 5C is what I would consider a farming community. Just because there are some small woodlot mixed into the unit that still doesn’t mean it isn’t basically a farming community. Which pretty much proves the very point of what I said about multi-flora rose in the farming communities in the first place.
 
Unit 5C is 43.9% agricultural lands and 9.9% developed so in my opinion that makes it primarily a farming community habitat type even though there are some woods mixed into it.
 
Here in 2G only 7.6% is agricultural land and 0.6% developed and the neighboring big wood unit, of 2F, is only 7.0% ag. land and 0.8% developed. Multi-flora rose and autumn olive is not a problem in the forested of either unit even after a clear-cut. Both are sometimes a problem in the limited farmlands of the units though.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

And in his previous posts RSB was concerned about dirvesity and losing the NATIVE plants.

Prince Gallitzin State Park recently began eliminating invasive species. These non-native species often proliferate explosively, quickly taking over and excluding native species, which lessens the diversity in an area. The targeted species for removal are autumn olive, multiflora rose and Tartarian honeysuckle. Although these invasive species do provide habitat for some animals, diverse native plants provide better habitat for a wider range of animals. The park has begun removing the invasive species, tilling the ground and planting native grasses and wildflowers which will provide a more natural habitat for a greater variety of wildlife.

You just can't type so much without counterdicting yourself time and time again. The PGC and DCNR realize the invasives they planted are crowding out the native species so why don't you. Perhaps you are only concerned when you can blame something on the deer.

There you go again trying to make it sound like I said something I never said. I never said invasive species weren’t a problem or that they didn’t out compete native species. In fact I said just the opposite. Failure to acknowledge that some of those species make good wildlife habitat though is just plan stupid because some of them are very good wildlife habitat. The only problem with them is in the fact they take over and in some cases, certainly not all but in to many cases just the same, they become invasive and crowd out native species that are equally or even more desirable.
 
No one can ignore the fact that the real reason many of those non-native aliens got planted, at least in this part of the state, is because many of those desirable native species couldn’t grow here because we had too many deer for them to survive the constant deer browsing. The only alternative for some areas was the alien species that either deer didn’t eat or that grew so fast the deer couldn’t keep up with them.
 
Species like barberry, another non-native invasive, was planted all over the northern tier forests in an attempt to have something as a winter food that turkeys could eat before the deer eat it all. That is just one of the many alien and non-native species planted across parts o this state to hopefully sustain higher deer population.  
 
We all know you don’t like to hear the real facts about over populations of deer but those are not only the facts but well documented facts of what happened as a result of decades of trying to keep more deer on the land the natural and native habitat could sustain.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

No one can ignore the fact that the real reason many of those non-native aliens got planted, at least in this part of the state, is because many of those desirable native species couldn’t grow here because we had too many deer for them to survive the constant deer browsing. The only alternative for some areas was the alien species that either deer didn’t eat or that grew so fast the deer couldn’t keep up with them.

Species like barberry, another non-native invasive, was planted all over the northern tier forests in an attempt to have something as a winter food that turkeys could eat before the deer eat it all. That is just one of the many alien and non-native species planted across parts o this state to hopefully sustain higher deer population.

You better look up the dates of those plantings before making those claims. Here is what the PGC is doing with your barberry, autumn olive, multiflora rose and honeysuckle and WHY. Keep digging that credibility hole

Habitat Work Underway on State Game Lands

Game Commission food and cover crews begin season of wildlife habitat improvements

HARRISBURG, Pa., April 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Pennsylvania Game Commission's teams of land managers, foresters and Food and Cover Corps crews are focusing their efforts – and the agency's resources – on a massive amount of habitat improvement projects on the more than 1.4 million acres of State Game Lands this spring.

"Wildlife habitats are changing across the landscape as farming practices evolve and urban/suburban expansion convert former wildlife habitats into various types of developments, from homes to shopping malls," said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. "According to Pennsylvania's Wildlife Action Plan, 300 acres of wildlife habitat are being lost every day, primarily to sprawl. Some counties have seen an increase in housing units exceeding 20 percent in recent decades.

"For this reason, the Game Commission's network of State Game Lands is critical to ensuring that wildlife will always have access to the three habitat components it needs to survive: food, shelter and water. And, through our habitat improvement efforts, we strive to ensure habitat diversity for all wildlife."

As an example, Dan Yahner, Land Management Group Supervisor (LMGS) for Fayette and Somerset counties, said plans are being made to develop SGL 93 in Somerset County into small game habitat.

"The majority of the 600-plus-acre SGL is a reclaimed strip mine backfill," Yahner said. "Phase one is conversion of the mining sediment ponds into large shallow wetland areas. Phase two will be spraying to eliminate the fescue grasses and locust trees that were planted solely to establish ground cover. These plants have practically zero benefit to wildlife. Then the land will be laid out into contour strips and planted with a variety of annual and perennial plants.

"Fields of mixed clover and small grains such as sorghum, wheat, rye and sunflower will be planted for food. Fields of warm season grasses will be planted for nesting and escape cover. Fence rows of fruit-producing shrubs and trees also will be added. The Food and Cover Crew in Somerset County is basically starting with a blank slate that currently is barren of small game. If all goes according to plan, within five years, this new SGL 93 should be a paradise of small game hunting."

Northcentral Region Field Forester Larry Sheats said a detailed analysis was completed on SGLs 98, 114 and 323 in Clearfield, Lycoming and Centre counties, respectively.

"The analysis included habitat species composition, soil production potential, operability, age class and spatial distribution of habitats, proposed permanent early successional (seedling/sapling stage) extended rotation (mast) areas, and desired future habitat age class distribution," Sheats said. "All of this data will be used by the agency to guide future habitat improvement decisions for these SGLs."

Lycoming/Union Counties LMGS Tom Smith said, in an effort to provide better quality small game habitat on SGL 252 in Lycoming and Union counties, the Game Commission will contract out about 145 acres for brush-cutting.

"Predominantly invasive shrubs, such as honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and autumn olive, all stems less than five inches in diameter, are to be cut to ground level," Smith said. "Desirable species that benefit wildlife, such as crabapple, apple, dogwood, and red osier dogwood, will be retained. The Food and Cover Crew also will be doing the same type of brush-cutting on another 21 acres."

Bucks/Lehigh/Montgomery/Northampton Counties LMGS Dave Mitchell reported that, on SGL 168, in Northampton, Carbon and Monroe counties, his crews have cleared almost 40 acres of invasive barberry from some old fields. As a result, 20 acres will be planted in corn, soybeans and clover, and the remaining acreage will be allowed to revert to native plants.

"This should provide more food for wildlife than the area had in the past," Mitchell said. "In addition, the crew

ORIGINAL: S-10

No one can ignore the fact that the real reason many of those non-native aliens got planted, at least in this part of the state, is because many of those desirable native species couldn’t grow here because we had too many deer for them to survive the constant deer browsing. The only alternative for some areas was the alien species that either deer didn’t eat or that grew so fast the deer couldn’t keep up with them.

Species like barberry, another non-native invasive, was planted all over the northern tier forests in an attempt to have something as a winter food that turkeys could eat before the deer eat it all. That is just one of the many alien and non-native species planted across parts o this state to hopefully sustain higher deer population.

You better look up the dates of those plantings before making those claims. Here is what the PGC is doing with your barberry, autumn olive, multiflora rose and honeysuckle and WHY. Keep digging that credibility hole

Habitat Work Underway on State Game Lands

Game Commission food and cover crews begin season of wildlife habitat improvements

HARRISBURG, Pa., April 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Pennsylvania Game Commission's teams of land managers, foresters and Food and Cover Corps crews are focusing their efforts – and the agency's resources – on a massive amount of habitat improvement projects on the more than 1.4 million acres of State Game Lands this spring.

"Wildlife habitats are changing across the landscape as farming practices evolve and urban/suburban expansion convert former wildlife habitats into various types of developments, from homes to shopping malls," said Carl G. Roe, Game Commission executive director. "According to Pennsylvania's Wildlife Action Plan, 300 acres of wildlife habitat are being lost every day, primarily to sprawl. Some counties have seen an increase in housing units exceeding 20 percent in recent decades.

"For this reason, the Game Commission's network of State Game Lands is critical to ensuring that wildlife will always have access to the three habitat components it needs to survive: food, shelter and water. And, through our habitat improvement efforts, we strive to ensure habitat diversity for all wildlife."

As an example, Dan Yahner, Land Management Group Supervisor (LMGS) for Fayette and Somerset counties, said plans are being made to develop SGL 93 in Somerset County into small game habitat.

"The majority of the 600-plus-acre SGL is a reclaimed strip mine backfill," Yahner said. "Phase one is conversion of the mining sediment ponds into large shallow wetland areas. Phase two will be spraying to eliminate the fescue grasses and locust trees that were planted solely to establish ground cover. These plants have practically zero benefit to wildlife. Then the land will be laid out into contour strips and planted with a variety of annual and perennial plants.

"Fields of mixed clover and small grains such as sorghum, wheat, rye and sunflower will be planted for food. Fields of warm season grasses will be planted for nesting and escape cover. Fence rows of fruit-producing shrubs and trees also will be added. The Food and Cover Crew in Somerset County is basically starting with a blank slate that currently is barren of small game. If all goes according to plan, within five years, this new SGL 93 should be a paradise of small game hunting."

Northcentral Region Field Forester Larry Sheats said a detailed analysis was completed on SGLs 98, 114 and 323 in Clearfield, Lycoming and Centre counties, respectively.

"The analysis included habitat species composition, soil production potential, operability, age class and spatial distribution of habitats, proposed permanent early successional (seedling/sapling stage) extended rotation (mast) areas, and desired future habitat age class distribution," Sheats said. "All of this data will be used by the agency to guide future habitat improvement decisions for these SGLs."

Lycoming/Union Counties LMGS Tom Smith said, in an effort to provide better quality small game habitat on SGL 252 in Lycoming and Union counties, the Game Commission will contract out about 145 acres for brush-cutting.

"Predominantly invasive shrubs, such as honeysuckle, multiflora rose, and autumn olive, all stems less than five inches in diameter, are to be cut to ground level," Smith said. "Desirable species that benefit wildlife, such as crabapple, apple, dogwood, and red osier dogwood, will be retained. The Food and Cover Crew also will be doing the same type of brush-cutting on another 21 acres."

Bucks/Lehigh/Montgomery/Northampton Counties LMGS Dave Mitchell reported that, on SGL 168, in Northampton, Carbon and Monroe counties, his crews have cleared almost 40 acres of invasive barberry from some old fields. As a result, 20 acres will be planted in corn, soybeans and clover, and the remaining acreage will be allowed to revert to native plants.

"This should provide more food for wildlife than the area had in the past," Mitchell said. "In addition, the crew

 
Where does that news release say that the previously planted species of barberry, honeysuckle, multi-flora rose and autumn olive were not good wildlife habitat? Just because the invasive, that were once planted because deer didn’t destroy them, are being replaced with more desirable species most certainly doesn’t mean the now known to be invasive species weren’t a benefit to the wildlife.
 
It certainly seems that in your world everything is either all one way or all the other way and anything in the middle is just part of a huge absence of meaning, logic or perhaps even existence. I can’t get my brain to go to the goofy places yours seems to be so much of the time.
 
Would it have been better if in the past, when we couldn’t get any native species past the affects of deer browsing, to just refused to plant any wildlife habitat on those old fields and reclaimed strip jobs being managed for wildlife because it might someday be declared a nuisance or invasive species? The simple fact is some of those invasive species we are plagued with today were the ONLY option at the time for a plant that could be used to benefit not only small game but in some cases turkey and even the deer themselves. The reason though was because we were still stupid enough to try carrying way to many deer at the expense of everything else including the future for even the deer they were trying to over protect to appease what has ultimately turned out to be a bunch of ungrateful hunters.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

The simple fact is some of those invasive species we are plagued with today were the ONLY option at the time for a plant that could be used to benefit not only small game but in some cases turkey and even the deer themselves.

Care to back that up with some data from someplace besides your own claims and opinions? Again, you better look up when you started planting that stuff and check the deer densities at the time.

Would it have been better if in the past, when we couldn’t get any native species past the affects of deer browsing, to just refused to plant any wildlife habitat on those old fields and reclaimed strip jobs being managed for wildlife because it might someday be declared a nuisance or invasive species? The simple fact is some of those invasive species we are plagued with today were the ONLY option at the time for a plant that could be used to benefit not only small game but in some cases turkey and even the deer themselves. The reason though was because we were still stupid enough to try carrying way to many deer at the expense of everything else including the future for even the deer they were trying to over protect to appease what has ultimately turned out to be a bunch of ungrateful hunters.
 

That is absolutely pure unadulterated nonsense. native species such as white birch, black birch,red maple and white pine routinely repopulate strip mined areas. But DCNR lists those species as competing vegetation along with striped maple, laurel, blueberry and ferns. The only thing that has endangered the future of the deer and deer hunting is the ridiculously high antlerless allocations.
In 1997 it only took 640K doe tags to keep the herd stable and now the PGC claims it takes over 800K tags to keep the herd stable even though the buck harvest in 1997 was 177K while in 2009 it was only 108K.

Here the first one that was easy to find without even spending any time looking.

It was easy to find because it doesn't show anything. Show me the medical doctors name. where are the lawyers, where is Pennsylvania, It is generalities about the spread of the disease. YOU said the PGC was afraid of lawsuits from going against the medical profession. Your nose is growing. What doctors testified that the spread of lime disease was a direct result of too many deer? The PGC claimed lime disease was caused by deer in urban areas. That is documented-----The public was frightened and asked for fewer deer in urban areas. that is documented---- The PGC started herd reduction in urban areas. That is documented---- The PGC now says deer have little or nothing to do with the transmission of lyme disease. That is documented. There was no more danger of a lawsuit then than there is now. You tried to B.S. us again and got caught again. That is now documented. G-night

The simple fact is some of those invasive species we are plagued with today were the ONLY option at the time for a plant that could be used to benefit not only small game but in some cases turkey and even the deer themselves.

Care to back that up with some data from someplace besides your own claims and opinions? Again, you better look up when you started planting that stuff and check the deer densities at the time.


A lot of information can be found in this link. I will dig up more when I find the time.

[color=#800080 size=3]http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/invasivetutorial/problem.htm

Here again the information you posted is interesting but does nothing to back up your claims and only serves as an attempt to worm your way around my challenging you on your wild claims.
There is nothing concerning your claims that the invasives were the "ONLY" option available to plant on strip mines, etc. We know that to be false.
There is no mention of the deer being responsible for the spread of the invasives .
There is no mention of planting barberry because the deer ate everything else.
It does support my assertion that man is 100% responsible for the planting and spread of invasives
Remember, it was you that said we need to stop questioning the experts and let them do their thing. Seems like we should have questioned them a lot more and a lot earlier.
Some invasives were planted on state forests and state game lands by well meaning folks and I can understand that. What I don't understand is your continued insistence that everything is the deers fault when even the information YOU post does not support that contention.
The farmers planted invasives in error on their lands for fencing and other reasons. They now have to deal with the results.
The PGC and DCNR planted invasives on the state forests and state game lands in error. They now have to deal with the results.
Don't try to say the PGC is removing them because of problems with the farming community, It's because of the problems they are causing on the gamelands. The DCNR admits it, Your leaders admit it, why won't you.

"Lyme Disease" was named after the Connecticut town where it was first observed- We Ct folks have been around it for some time now-more than other folks cause it started here.  It is especially destructive to our dogs.
Lost my best lab this year even with all the appropriate shots, repellents  etc. Most of my friends with field dogs have also experienced it. The tick carrying the disease is common to deer in the warm months and then moves onto mice in winter, but dont be fooled, its out in your yard too. It was initially found to be quite prevalent in our deer herd and was first thought to ONLY be on deer- not so. It is a very tiny tick that looks like a pencil dot when its on you as opposed to the large ticks one can readily see.- I had to take the CURE some years ago myself.
Yale New Haven Hospital took on the first comprehensive study of the disease and in all probability has the best historical and updated info available.
I went to the ER to report having found a little teeny weeny Lyme tick on my leg after clearing a marijuana field ( I was a Narc for many years) and was fortunate to get a Doctor who was filling in and was a full timer with the Lyme project.
It is commonly found on dogs and persons who have never had anything to do with a deer. I cannot stress enough the need to have your dogs on a regular Lyme preventative no matter where you live cause this disease is evrywhere now and it is devastating to dogs. They are rarely the same after getting it -even when making it through the cure.
Its not so nice for folks either-early detection with the BULLSEYE sore is imperative to be found early on. One of my grandkids has also had the cure after finding the Bullseye on his back. Early cure-no problem - finding it too late commonly results in long term issues.
Therefore it looks to me like S10 is probably correct when he reported that your state first said deer were responsible for the spread of Lyme but that its now aware of broader conditions for the spread.