The deer and the historical deer harvest data for the area have been proving what I have been expressing for a couple of decades now. Anyone who studies the facts with a like of knowledge and objectivity can see that the deer populations are being controlled by the environmental factors they are faced with.

There is absolutely nothing in the harvest data from the past 80 years that supports what you are claiming. Populations in the NC counties increased and deceased in direct correlation to the doe harvests and extreme winter weather conditions that occurred in the late 70s and early 80s. After supporting much higher deer numbers for at least 70 years the habitat still supported 15 DPSM in 2003 and a harvest of 7 DPSM, with good breeding rates and recruitment. But, by 2009 the same habitat only produced 8 DPSM and a harvest of 2.3 DPSM. From 2003 to 2009 the habitat should have been improving since it was supporting 7 fewer DPSM,but that didn't happen because the lower harvests equaled or exceeded recruitment.

If your theory was correct and supported by the experts, it would be presented in the PGN articles, the AWR, The Audit and the DMP. Instead all of those sources point to the fact that high antlerless harvests that exceeded recruitment are the reason that the herd has been reduced.

First of all I still haven’t seen any clarification that you are right about the amount of the State Forest actually being manage as old growth. For the record at this point I still think you are wrong amount the amount and I know that you are absolutely wrong about the value of old growth forest to the white-tail deer in the northern tier and mountainous areas of this state.

I also know you are frequently full of it in all of your conspiracy theories and other anti management nonsense.

+You really are a laugh riot. You have been trying to pin that conspiracy moniker on me for years and I have proven you wrong every time. Lets See

1. You said I was wrong about the PGC and DCNR planting mast trees until I posted a article stating just that.
2. You claimed I was full of it when I said the DCNR was liming and fertilizing their forests after years of denying they needed it until I posted a article with a photo of the machine they used.
3. You claimed they didn't fertlize cherry seedlings until I proved you wrong.
4. You still claim the reason for the low deer numbers was the harsh winter of 2003-04 in spite of the collard deer study in 2G showing survival rates of 95% and 98% and Carl Roe saying the winter kill was just slightly higher than normal for those years.
5. You claimed I was full of it on 25% of state forests being reserved for old growth in spite of the very data YOU POSTED saying it was so.
6. Even when the data from your own PGC and your own leaders say you are wrong you continue to make the same claims over and over.
7. You think nothing of calling anyone who questions you any and every name in the book ignoring the fact you are representing the PGC.
8. No matter what the topic is it's always the hunters fault if we don't meekly fall in line behind you and go along with everything you claim.
9. I'am beginning to think you are what most organizations refer to as a loose cannon. You sure don't do much to promote a positive image for the organization you represent. I believe that is supposed to be one of your Goals and objectives under the newest plan.

ORIGINAL: Big Tuna

I'm can see some of what your saying RSB  to be true,but WHY can't the PGC just say We MESSED UP ON THE HR THING,thats the biggest reason there are less deer in the mountains 10 years of hammer time.And some of the NEW laws are very helpful for the TRUE Poacher.And I think you know what I'm talking about without posting all of them,but I can post them if you can't figure out what I'm talking about. PGC pushed the HR and like so many of us we fell into the trap.

 
I don’t believe the Game Commission messed up with herd reduction other than by not doing a lot earlier. If they had been keeping the deer herds in balance with their food supply along time before they started with the latest herd reduction I believe we would have a lot more deer in the big woods area today.
 
The messing up has been when we had past or present Boards of Commissioners who refused to follow the antlerless allocations and harvest recommendations of the wildlife and resource management professionals and instead tried to appease hunters with lower allocations. That resulted in years, and many cases even decades, of carrying more deer through the winter than we should have. That in turn resulted in more habitat impact then we should have seen and lower fawn recruitment rates. Those declining fawn recruitment rates actually resulted in deer population that were in some years declining from natural environmental conditions more than they were from hunter harvests.
 
When deer population are declining from habitat and environmental conditions (poor mast crops, harsh winters, lack of wintering ground habitat, predation, etc.) more than they are from hunter harvests it is simply impossible to increase the long term deer population without first improving those habitat or other environmental conditions.
 
I believe we are seeing that very example of cause and affect in many parts of the northern tier and mountainous regions of the south central Pennsylvania deer range over the past several years and in some areas decades. I don’t believe harvesting fewer deer is going to result in any long-term deer population gains and instead believe it very well may result in having even fewer deer at some point in the future.
 
I believe that as a result of having spent over thirty years studying the affects of both increased and decreased deer harvests in some of what was once the state’s best deer hunting areas and is now the state’s lowest deer population areas.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

So, what does that tell us about the ability of the habitat to sustain more deer? If the fawn recruitment is declining as harvests also decline then it shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out that something other than harvests is adversely affecting the ability of a deer population increase.
 

It tells us absolutely nothing about the carrying capacity of the habitat because the harvests are exceeding recruitment and if the harvests were eliminated the herd would increase to 40 DPSM as stated in the SCS Audit, the Michigan study and in Susan Stout's research.

BTW, did you forget about when you told us that as the herd was reduced breeding rates and recruitment would increase and hunters would be harvesting just as many deer as in 2000. Now you are claiming the habitat can't support half as many deer as we had in 2000 and that the habitat is still limiting recruitment. That makes absolutely no sense,but I am not surprised.

A few small plantings of apple and pear trees you say. A few small test areas that prove liming and fertlizing don't work you say. Perhaps you should do a bit of research before trying to be the expert. I showed you this before when we debated the topic but you still ignore the facts when they disagree with your opinions. When the soil is so poor it takes years for a seedling to develop just hit it with some lime and fertlizer and forget the fence. That's what the folks were telling you in 2000 but it was just our tin foil hats talking according to you.

This is taken from the DCNR website found under Silviculture/Timber Management

Herbicide

Herbicide application is used when fern, grasses and undesirable shrub and tree species are competing with the establishment and growth of more desirable tree seedlings. Guidelines on herbicide application are found in "Regeneration Project Options, Procedures & Guidelines", Pa. Bureau of Forestry, July, 1997.

Fertilization

Aerial and ground application of fertilizer is used to establish black cherry regeneration in Allegheny hardwood stands following overstory removals. Fertilization has proven to be effective when there is adequate regeneration present, but deer browsing prevents it from developing. Fertilizer applied at the appropriate time and rate stimulates black cherry seedlings to rapidly grow out of the reach of deer, usually within one or two years. Herbaceous plants also respond vigorously producing large quantities of palatable browse that is more than deer can consume. This can effectively dilute the browsing pressure on the emerging forest stand. This is very cost effective since it eliminates the need for a deer fence. Complete guidelines on fertilization are found in "Regeneration Project Options, Procedures & Guidelines", Pa. Bureau of Forestry, July, 1997 and in "Fertilization of Young Clearcuts", Brad Nelson and L.R. Auchmoody, USDA Forest Service, Warren, Pennsylvania.

Actions:

Continue to study the effects of fertilization and liming of forest stands on both trees and the ecology of forest communities.
Tree Planting Guidelines

Tree planting is sometimes done to supplement natural regeneration, increase species diversity, and improve wildlife habitat. On some highly disturbed sites it may be the only means available to reestablish forests. Artificial regeneration will be considered on state forest land when natural regeneration is not feasible or when necessary to maintain or restore desired tree species. However, the low cost and practicality of natural reproduction make it the most favored technique for reproducing state forest land.

Wildlife habitat improvement, supplementing natural regeneration and forest restoration are acceptable state forest management activities where artificial regeneration can be considered. Natural catastrophic events (i.e., insect infestations, frost events, wind fall and wild fires) that are followed by natural reproduction failures and periodic silvicultural treatments that have failed to naturally regenerate adequately may be candidates for restoration. In these instances of natural and anthropogenic regeneration failures, often the establishment of preferred regeneration can only be accomplished in a timely fashion with artificial regeneration.

Complete guidelines on tree planting (artificial regeneration) may be found in "Regeneration Project Options, Procedures & Guidelines", Pa Bureau of Forestry, July, 1997.

Additional ecological considerations on tree planting are found in the Ecological section of this plan.

I know that you are absolutely wrong about the value of old growth forest to the white-tail deer in the northern tier and mountainous areas of this state.

I never said there wasn't value in winter habatit in the valleys and you know it. We both know there is. I have said that not timbering 47%/48% of the state forest and allowing 25% of it to be Old Growth forest is not going to allow deer numbers to increase as you claim.

The enviromentalists didn't push for Eco-System Management and Old Growth Forests to increase deer numbers. The Enviromentalists pushed for reducing the deer numbers to acheive the dream of Eco-System Management and Old Growth Forests. They have said it, even the QDMA has said the result will be fewer deer, why won't you admit it.

post edited by S-10 - 2011/04/04 15:43:47

After haveing read RSB's posts each and every day,one would think he would take his ball and go home. It is very apparent that he is in the wrong classroom. I have finally learned the definition of "WAFFLEING". Too bad my hard earned license dollars leak down to his sarcasm........arbyb

ORIGINAL: S-10

A few small plantings of apple and pear trees you say. A few small test areas that prove liming and fertlizing don't work you say. Perhaps you should do a bit of research before trying to be the expert. I showed you this before when we debated the topic but you still ignore the facts when they disagree with your opinions. When the soil is so poor it takes years for a seedling to develop just hit it with some lime and fertlizer and forget the fence. That's what the folks were telling you in 2000 but it was just our tin foil hats talking according to you.

This is taken from the DCNR website found under Silviculture/Timber Management

Herbicide

Herbicide application is used when fern, grasses and undesirable shrub and tree species are competing with the establishment and growth of more desirable tree seedlings. Guidelines on herbicide application are found in "Regeneration Project Options, Procedures & Guidelines", Pa. Bureau of Forestry, July, 1997.

Fertilization

Aerial and ground application of fertilizer is used to establish black cherry regeneration in Allegheny hardwood stands following overstory removals. Fertilization has proven to be effective when there is adequate regeneration present, but deer browsing prevents it from developing. Fertilizer applied at the appropriate time and rate stimulates black cherry seedlings to rapidly grow out of the reach of deer, usually within one or two years. Herbaceous plants also respond vigorously producing large quantities of palatable browse that is more than deer can consume. This can effectively dilute the browsing pressure on the emerging forest stand. This is very cost effective since it eliminates the need for a deer fence. Complete guidelines on fertilization are found in "Regeneration Project Options, Procedures & Guidelines", Pa. Bureau of Forestry, July, 1997 and in "Fertilization of Young Clearcuts", Brad Nelson and L.R. Auchmoody, USDA Forest Service, Warren, Pennsylvania.

Actions:

Continue to study the effects of fertilization and liming of forest stands on both trees and the ecology of forest communities.
Tree Planting Guidelines

Tree planting is sometimes done to supplement natural regeneration, increase species diversity, and improve wildlife habitat. On some highly disturbed sites it may be the only means available to reestablish forests. Artificial regeneration will be considered on state forest land when natural regeneration is not feasible or when necessary to maintain or restore desired tree species. However, the low cost and practicality of natural reproduction make it the most favored technique for reproducing state forest land.

Wildlife habitat improvement, supplementing natural regeneration and forest restoration are acceptable state forest management activities where artificial regeneration can be considered. Natural catastrophic events (i.e., insect infestations, frost events, wind fall and wild fires) that are followed by natural reproduction failures and periodic silvicultural treatments that have failed to naturally regenerate adequately may be candidates for restoration. In these instances of natural and anthropogenic regeneration failures, often the establishment of preferred regeneration can only be accomplished in a timely fashion with artificial regeneration.

Complete guidelines on tree planting (artificial regeneration) may be found in "Regeneration Project Options, Procedures & Guidelines", Pa Bureau of Forestry, July, 1997.

Additional ecological considerations on tree planting are found in the Ecological section of this plan.

 
Did you happen to notice that the comments on the fertilization were from 1997? That was more than ten years ago and was still a relatively small testing process. You should call the Doctor Stout, who was part of the research team on this, and see what she has to say about it fourteen years later. I don’t think you will like what you hear though.
 
Fertilization is different than liming and though they also did some testing with lime the researchers have very few positive comments on those experiment as well.
 
They were both just experiments, nothing more than a drop in a very large bucket and both were found to be virtually ineffective, as large-scale management objectives even though there is no question both did provide some short-term growth spurts where applied.
 
The same thing with your talk of planting mast-producing trees in the state forest. In the big picture it was and still is nothing more than a very tiny splash in a large ocean of forest. Nature plants millions of desirable seedling on nearly every square mile of forest every spring. There aren’t enough commercially available seedlings in the entire world to come close to competing with what nature is already doing. If nature can’t keep up how in the world would planting a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand seedlings make a difference in establishing a new forest.
 
In most cases if you plant mast producing trees without a fence to protect them it is simply a waste of energy and seedlings and a lesson in futility. That being said though, there are still some planted on pretty much all public lands every year to help establish some areas with better wildlife habitat.
 
Are you complaining about that too, or just what is the point you are trying to make?
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: arbyb

After haveing read RSB's posts each and every day,one would think he would take his ball and go home. It is very apparent that he is in the wrong classroom. I have finally learned the definition of "WAFFLEING". Too bad my hard earned license dollars leak down to his sarcasm........arbyb

 
Well of course those that only want the anti-hunting, stop harvesting does or other misguided anti-management nonsense heard what my to stop posting.
 
But, I care too much about the future of hunting and our resources to allow only those trying to destroy our future with misguide nonsense to be the only ones putting out information on these sites.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: World Famous

I'm missing something somewhere. If we have a fictitious unit that WOCC is 10 deer per sq mile, with a 1-1.5 ratio b/d. 20% natural mortality, takes spring time to 3 buck and 5 doe.The 5 doe will have 10 fawns of which 4 will die . Total deer for the hunting season the remaining 8 deer plus 6 surviving fawns for a huntable population of 14 deer. 3 doe will be taken and 1 buck, roughly by the numbers posted for sucess rate, and I am being generous.We still have the same, stable population as the previous year.If there is enough food to support 80 deer per square mile, we still have only 10 deer to eat the food supply, but they are huge bodied that means they are healthy. In 5 years of the same harvest rates, we still have only 10 deer per sq mile on this unit.Does that mean we have reached carrying capacity because the herd has not grown? Being not the sharpest knife in the drawer, what am I missing here?...WF

 
Even though your estimations of the number of fawns born and dying is probably off a good bit in most units, you might not be missing anything in you final conclusion.
 
If you have stable or declining deer harvests and still don’t have an increasing deer population then yes you have reached the natural carrying capacity of the area in question. That is the point I have been trying to get people to see and understand for a long time.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

Did you happen to notice that the comments on the fertilization were from 1997? That was more than ten years ago and was still a relatively small testing process. You should call the Doctor Stout, who was part of the research team on this, and see what she has to say about it fourteen years later. I don’t think you will like what you hear though.

Fertilization is different than liming and though they also did some testing with lime the researchers have very few positive comments on those experiment as well.

They were both just experiments, nothing more than a drop in a very large bucket and both were found to be virtually ineffective, as large-scale management objectives even though there is no question both did provide some short-term growth spurts where applied.

The procedures quoted were from the late 90's just as much of todays research quotes procedures and research as far back as the 30's. As long as it is revelent it doesn't matter when it's from.

Those were not just experments, it does not say or indicate that. It's just another example of you playing the expert without knowing what your talking about.
Care to point out where it says they were virtually ineffective. Must be your using a different language. I read it in English.

Maybe you should tell the farmers and fruit growers lime and fertlizer are a waste of money.

 
I have talked with a number of the people who did the liming and fertilizing and know what they had to say about it. There is an entire Experimental Forest within my district. I frequently get to see first hand what they are experimenting with and hear first hand what they are learning, both positive and negative. They don’t usually go back on the web site and explain all of the experiments they tried that eventually proved to be less that effective even if they at first looked promising though. They have worked on thousands of forest management experiments that never get much if any recognition on their websites.
 
There is a huge difference between liming and fertilizing a farm field verse doing so with a forest. Even farmers have learned that lime and fertilizer also make the undesirable stuff grow better and if you don’t then control that it can take over and destroy the desirable crop. It is simply not all as black and white as you wish it were.
 
Stop down at the Forest Resources Lab in Warren County some time and ask Doctor Stout about the various forest management experiments they have worked on. You can even ask her about the ones conducted in my Elk County district. You would probable even learn a great deal if you could go there and ask some questions with an open mind.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

Or you have taken the deer herd low enough to where predators and natural mortality will offset any amount of reproduction you can get regardless of the health of the deer or the forest.

Mortality from deer was over 20% before herd reduction. Now we have half the deer and many more predators. Do the math.

 
Isn’t that a part of the carrying capacity picture and totality of the environmental factors?
 
To the best of my knowledge the only thing that will offset predation is improved habitat that increase the recruitment, provides better escape cover (in this case ground cover to hide in) or a combination of the two.
 
Reductions of predators is also an option in some cases but there is virtually no season or limit on coyotes and there is no limit on the number of bear hunters permitted to hunt the areas. So, with those things in mind what would you do to improve the situation?
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

If you have stable or declining deer harvests and still don’t have an increasing deer population then yes you have reached the natural carrying capacity of the area in question. That is the point I have been trying to get people to see and understand for a long time.
 

The reason people don't believe you is because what you claim to be true is a flat out lie .The deer harvests are determined based on the number of antlerless tags issued and they have noting to do withe the health of the herd when the goal is to reduce the herd in order to promote the regeneration of valuable timber species.

 
That is simply an opinion that you or anyone else has never been able to support with facts. Therefore it is simply an opinion of no merit, even though you sure do wish it were true.
 
Actually based on the private messages I have receive it appears there are a fair number of readers who seem to be finding what I have to say making a lot of sense to them. Some will never accept it though, because it simply isn’t what they want to believe or because it doesn’t fit their personal and often misguided agenda.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

Even farmers have learned that lime and fertilizer also make the undesirable stuff grow better and if you don’t then control that it can take over and destroy the desirable crop. It is simply not all as black and white as you wish it were.

GEE dumb old me---I always thought that was why they made fertlizer with different amounts of nitrogen, potash, and potassimum. There are even other types for special use. I've probably got more knowledge of it's uses and limitations than you so cut with the lecture. How come the documented written and posted word is only gospel when it agrees with your opinions and worthless when it doesn't.

 
Well dig up something current on the subject if you can find something.
 
I can dig up tons of old research papers on any number of long past experiments that didn’t provide a workable management opinion. Just because someone has tried something and found it provided some short term benefit but not of long term or cost affective benefit doesn’t mean it should become a standard management practice or option.
 
Perhaps someday there will be more reasonable methods of application and benefit from liming and fertilization of our forest. I hope there is but so far we aren’t there and maybe never will be, at least in our lifetime. But even that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t still do more research on the possibilities.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: S-10

Isn’t that a part of the carrying capacity picture and totality of the environmental factors?

Actually no, it is part of what is ideal under Eco-System management where all plants and animals are in porpotion with each other so that no one group of plants or animals will negatively affect another.

The trick is to convince the hunters to take the deer numbers that low before they get discouraged and quit hunting the area. If that happens and they leave early the deer could rebound and undo everything you have strived for.

 
What is negative about having the various species all in a correct natural balance as long as they are still using hunters to reach that correct natural balance across those various species?
 
Why do you think they have been trying to reduce the deer herd and get it in balance with the habitat? Do you think they just wanted to reduce the deer numbers to discourage as many hunters as possible? Do you think it was all just so more hunters would quit hunting and stop buying a license so both deer and habitat management would be more difficult in the future?
 
R.S. Bodenhorn