This E-mail is in response to a question in another thread on the 2008 allocations....

it explains why the deer health and habitat health do not match in all DMUs.... and I thank Bret for taking the time to respond and for allowing me to share the reply here on the board...

I started a new thread because it does refer to habitat which is a BIG part of the PGC deer manangemnt programs... and one of my favorite thinks to discuss.....

Quote :

Dave, Sorry for such a late response.   Our annual reports and research analyses are consuming all my time now.   Below is a response from the Deer Section to your question. Given our time constraints and limited personnel, we cannot provide such a detailed explanation for all questions, but we felt we should respond to this one. You can post this on your website as a response from the PGC Deer Section. "First, all habitat quantity and quality, not just "forest habitat health" will affect deer health. Deer health depends on habitat because deer get their nutrition from the habitat in which they live. However, we only consider "forest habitat health" in making management recommendations. Other habitat types can provide nutrition to deer, but are not a part of our "forest habitat health measure". For example, in agricultural landscapes, deer can impact forest health, but forests are not the only type of In agricultural areas, deer can impact forests significantly, yet still be healthy because of the high nutrition plane in the ag land.   Compared to forested lands, agricultural lands tend to have better soils with increased nutrient levels that grow plants that are more accessable to deer. Second, the measurement of forest habitat health does not dictate what deer health will be. Health assessments of deer and forest habitat are judged separately. Deer health is based on its own measure and what is needed for a deer population to be sustainable. Forest health is based on its own measure and what is necessary for a forest to be sustainable. The point at which a deer population is sustainable is not necessarily the same as the point where a forest is sustainable. A sustainable deer population (i.e., deer health "at target") occurring at a point where the forest is not sustainable (i.e., forest health "poor") is not unexpected based on previous experience and research. The fact that assessments of "forest habitat health" and deer health do not agree in all WMUs is expected and does not invalidate the fact that deer health is affected by nutrition they get from the habitat." Bret D. Wallingford Deer Biologist PA Game Commission

Very good explanation. I had become concerned in certain parts of Washington and Greene counties when browse lines were beginning to appear 5-6 years ago.  The deer were healthy but the agriculture inflated the carrying capacity and the forest was beginning to suffer.  That trend has been reversed somewhat.  Thanks for posting Doc.  

--Last edited by dpms on 2008-05-12 19:55:45 --

That was great of Bret to send a response.  dd