If deer numbers aren’t already increasing in any portion of unit 2G it is because the environmental conditions will not allow for more deer on a sustainable bases, not because hunters are shooting too many.[/quote

Are you really that ignorant as to claim that the habitat in 2G that supported 40 DPSM during the 70s and 25 DPSM during the 80's and 15 DPSM during the 90s can now only support 8 DPSM Why haven't breeding rates,recruitment and harvests increased as you predicted they would?

ORIGINAL: deerfly

If deer numbers aren’t already increasing in any portion of unit 2G it is because the environmental conditions will not allow for more deer on a sustainable bases, not because hunters are shooting too many.[/quote

Are you really that ignorant as to claim that the habitat in 2G that supported 40 DPSM during the 70s and 25 DPSM during the 80's and 15 DPSM during the 90s can now only support 8 DPSM Why haven't breeding rates,recruitment and harvests increased as you predicted they would?

 
First of all those DPSM numbers you are using from back in the 70s, 80s and 90s were really Deer Per Forested Square Mile (DPFSM) instead of deer per square mile (DPSM) as was used to represent the current deer density. Even though that was just another of your dishonest and flim-flam attempts it is still irrelevant in the facts.
 
As you pointed out the deer numbers for the big woods have been on a steady decline since back in the 70s. That should be a pretty clear indication that the habitat has not been able to sustain the higher deer numbers for a long time. I have been saying for decades now that the big woods deer herd has been actively reducing its own numbers from declining habitat since way back in the 50s and maybe as far back as the 40s in some areas.
 
Yet hunters still don’t get it. The more they demand lower deer harvest the faster the herd declines. The only time the big woods deer herd was holding its own was through the 80s when they were harvesting a higher number of does for several years. Then the public and political outcry forced the reduction in doe harvests and the herd once again went right back to a steady natural population decline. The best part is that every piece of data you can prove just makes that even more evident to anyone objective enough to see the reality of the facts and data.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

First of all those DPSM numbers you are using from back in the 70s, 80s and 90s were really Deer Per Forested Square Mile (DPFSM) instead of deer per square mile (DPSM) as was used to represent the current deer density. Even though that was just another of your dishonest and flim-flam attempts it is still irrelevant in the facts.

As you pointed out the deer numbers for the big woods have been on a steady decline since back in the 70s. That should be a pretty clear indication that the habitat has not been able to sustain the higher deer numbers for a long time. I have been saying for decades now that the big woods deer herd has been actively reducing its own numbers from declining habitat since way back in the 50s and maybe as far back as the 40s in some areas.

I’d like to tell you a story about six deer in Michigan on the George Reserve. In 1928, two
buck and four does found themselves all alone on 1,146 acres behind an 11.5 foot deer-
proof fence. While the soil was poor, the reserve boasted diverse topography and
vegetation. The University of Michigan inherited the George Reserve in 1930. Being an
institute of high learning, researchers decided to learn about those deer, in particular,
population dynamics. In a drive count in 1933, a minimum of 160 deer were counted.
Knowing that ALL the deer were not counted, it was estimated that more than 220 were
likely living on the reserve. For those of you keeping score, that’s 88 deer/square mile at
the very least. Those six deer had been very busy. Surely this must be a fluke.
Not if it happens twice. In 1975, the population was reduced to 10 deer, by 1980, it had
grown to 212. It is important to note that this population growth rate isn’t the maximum.
With no mortality and maximum reproductive rate, the population of 6 pioneer deer could
have grown to more than 300, and, the gang of 10, even more.
A deer population on excellent range can double in two years. And poor range conditions
don’t slow down the growth by much, with a population still being able to nearly double in
four years.
With this kind of reproductive potential and superior adaptability, the white-tailed deer will
always be a fixture on the Pennsylvania landscape.
By J. T. Fleegle
PGC Wildlife Biologist

ORIGINAL: deerfly

First of all those DPSM numbers you are using from back in the 70s, 80s and 90s were really Deer Per Forested Square Mile (DPFSM) instead of deer per square mile (DPSM) as was used to represent the current deer density. Even though that was just another of your dishonest and flim-flam attempts it is still irrelevant in the facts.

Wrong again!! Prior to 1980 deer densities were reported as DPSM. From 1980 to 2002 they were reported as DPFSM, but I converted those densities to DPSM. Therefore , your cheap shots have no factual basis.

As you pointed out the deer numbers for the big woods have been on a steady decline since back in the 70s. That should be a pretty clear indication that the habitat has not been able to sustain the higher deer numbers for a long time. I have been saying for decades now that the big woods deer herd has been actively reducing its own numbers from declining habitat since way back in the 50s and maybe as far back as the 40s in some areas.

Wrong again, In 2003 the habitat in 2G supported enough deer for hunters to harvest 7 DPSM . In just one year ,due to high antlerless numbers, the harvest dropped to 4 DPSM . And, despite the fact that there was a lot more food/deer, the harvest dropped to 2.28 DPSM by 2009. The fact that the herd continued to decrease as the amount of food available /deer increased . rpoves beyond a doubt that you theory,that the habitat is controlling the herd, is bogus.

And just to put the icing on the cake we have this from the PGN.

I’d like to tell you a story about six deer in Michigan on the George Reserve. In 1928, two
buck and four does found themselves all alone on 1,146 acres behind an 11.5 foot deer-
proof fence. While the soil was poor, the reserve boasted diverse topography and
vegetation. The University of Michigan inherited the George Reserve in 1930. Being an
institute of high learning, researchers decided to learn about those deer, in particular,
population dynamics. In a drive count in 1933, a minimum of 160 deer were counted.
Knowing that ALL the deer were not counted, it was estimated that more than 220 were
likely living on the reserve. For those of you keeping score, that’s 88 deer/square mile at
the very least. Those six deer had been very busy. Surely this must be a fluke.
Not if it happens twice. In 1975, the population was reduced to 10 deer, by 1980, it had
grown to 212. It is important to note that this population growth rate isn’t the maximum.
With no mortality and maximum reproductive rate, the population of 6 pioneer deer could
have grown to more than 300, and, the gang of 10, even more.
A deer population on excellent range can double in two years. And poor range conditions
don’t slow down the growth by much, with a population still being able to nearly double in
four years.
With this kind of reproductive potential and superior adaptability, the white-tailed deer will
always be a fixture on the Pennsylvania landscape.
By J. T. Fleegle
PGC Wildlife Biologist

ORIGINAL: S-10

Expert Angler





Posts: 421
Joined: 8/11/2010
Status: offline quote:

ORIGINAL: S-10

Yep, 2g never did support very many deer, That's why this is just a dream and never happened. Any reduction in DPSM in 2G had nothing to do with man.

The Pennsylvania State Forests, managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Bureau of Forestry (BOF), has undergone a third-party review of the sustainability of the forest ecosystems on these lands, a process known as Green Certification. Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) was the auditor. This process found that the primary factor threatening the sustainability of these forests is overbrowsing of vegetation by white-tailed deer. In response to this threat, and as a condition for DCNR to retain "certification," the auditors required the following CAR (Corrective Action Requests):

CAR 2003.4
SCS acknowledges that solutions to the Pennsylvania deer density problem cannot be designed and implemented solely by BOF because currently the Pennsylvania Game Commission regulates deer seasons, bag limits, antlerless licenses and all other regulatory functions used to reduce deer density by hunting. Within these realities, SCS requests that BOF take meaningful actions that are within the Bureau's control. Thus: by the 2004 annual audit, the BOF shall develop a 1st draft of a written deer management plan and shall initiate earnest and aggressive strategic, public advocacy, and political actions aimed at liberalizing hunting regulations in ways that reduce the deer density on State Forests. Possible strategic, public advocacy and political actions include:
-- Pursuing active public advocacy by senior BOF representatives in key political and public policy arenas, assuming an assertive and leadership role urging effective solutions to the deer density problem
-- Implementing better utilization of the current DMAP program such that the program can be expanded to cover all appropriate District Forests in 2004 and succeeding years
-- Obtaining improvements in DMAP opportunities that would help increase deer harvest (increased allocation of licenses per DMAP unit, allowing hunters to obtain multiple rather than single DMAP licenses per DMAP unit, increasing season length for DMAP, making DMAP applicable in all seasons, counting DMAP permits "bonus" deer, and not as part of the season bag limit, including early and long seasons, adding additional DMAP licenses for areas within DMAP units where hunting pressure traditionally is low) through direct solicitation with the Pennsylvania Game Commission.




Why do you find it so objectionable that professional resource managers are able to understand that deer need to be in balance with their habitat and food supply? Anyone who really understands how nature works knows you can support more deer in a healthy forest that isn’t being over browsed than you can in a forest being damaged by too many deer.

People like you can only see a conspiracy and have no concept of the reality of how nature works or that the professional resource managers are really only trying to assure the best possible future for both the forests and wildlife that require them for their own existence, and that includes the best possible deer populations for the future.

That is just sad that hunters are so far out of touch with reality. It is probably the biggest threat to the future of hunting out there and what is really sad about it is that how the hunter is the one working the hardest toward destroying his own future.

R.S. Bodenhorn

(in reply to S-10)
Report | Post #: 35

That's the RSB we all know, when your claims get beat up by your own leaders, your own biologists, and your own collard deer studies you
revert back to the old, predictable, "it's all the hunters fault" fallback position.
Those resource managers your refering to in my above post are the California greens who run the certification system and who are calling the shots on the state forest. They have put 48% of the forest off limits to logging, put restrictions on much of the rest and have dedicated approx 25% of it to Old Growth Forest. That is no conspiracy theory as it is all well doucmented in many different locations. Tell us again how many DPSM that is going to support since the mature forest is one thing that limits the deer numbers.
It must seem lonely out there when we can prove you wrong by using the PGC's own experts, studies, and biologists. As I suggested before perhaps you should convince them they are wrong and you are right before you try to convince us.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

As for your comments on the State Forest issues I think you are full of bologna. How about a link to the percentages of the state forest being managed in old growth and amount off limits to logging you suggested?

Once again you are flat out wrong and S-10 is dead on right. Even the link you posted shows that only 53% of SFL is open to multiple use which includes timbering.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Guess what the DCNR has posted under the heading Ecological Considerations

QUOTE: The Bureau has delineated proposed old growth areas on State Forest lands. These areas account for approximately 25% of the State Forests.

I wonder which Real Facts RSB wants us to look at. Still think I'am full of bologna RSB?

ORIGINAL: S-10

So--After claiming I am full of bologna, saying you can't find anything to support my comments or negative views, wanting the link to see the whole story and not just the snippets and half truths, and wanting us to look at the REAl facts, GUESS WHAT. "You found exactly what I said." GUESS WHERE-- In the very DCNR link that YOU POSTED. Perhaps next time you should actually read what you post BEFORE telling us what it says.
As for your interpetation of "The Bureau has delineated proposed old growth areas on state forest lands. These areas account for approx 25% of the state forests"
You should have actually read what I copyied from the DCNR website and posted above in this thread before giving us your view.
Under goal 2 and objectives it clearly states the goal is to INCREASE the Old Growth forests area and tie the existing areas into one another where they can.
When the DCNR posts their 15 year plan and state they are changing to Eco-System management which is basicly all plants and animals living together without mans interferrence, and dedicating 25% to old growth forests which only supports a very few deer, and not timbering the majority of the forest to let the light in which promotes growth, tell is again how we are going to have all these deer you talk about.