S-10

Please explain how you can have regeneration inside a fenced area and not have the same regeneration outside the fenced area (immediate vicinity) with the only difference being the fence?

And if you don’t think that is possible, then take RSB up on his offer and join the group on May 31st so you can see it first hand.

You guys can have the last word on this one.

Observer, there are lots of posible reasons for that to happen. Deer do eat things, I have always said that. Deer in large numbers can hurt the ecosystem, I have always said that.Lack of sunlight inhibits growth, the experts say that. Acidic soil inhibits growth, the experts say that. Does the area outside the fence get as much sunlight as the area inside? Was the area inside sprayed with a herbicide? Was the area inside limed or fertlized? Were all the deer removed inside the fence? Was the area inside the fence planted. As I said earlier you can get SOME regeneration by doing nothing more than erecting a fence in the middle of the woods but any white paper you read will say to get "acceptable" regeneration you have to have light, use herbicide to remove undesirable growth, etc. Unless the PGC is planning to remove ALL the deer from Penns Woods the Show and Tell areas are just that and I have been in and around many in my lifetime. Remember, much of what I post is taken from reading, study results, white papers, articles, university research, etc. as well as my own experience in planting, timbering and clearing on my own land. The post Doc made on the Kinzua Coop area supports a lot of what I have been saying. Some folks take offence to what I post because it contradicts either their beliefs or what they are trying to sell. That's not my fault, I try to only post or say what I can back up with other data. I also realize in some cases different Experts have different opinions to draw from which makes debate lively and a great learning experience.

Quote :

s-10 wrote : Observer, there are lots of posible reasons for that to happen. Deer do eat things, I have always said that. Deer in large numbers can hurt the ecosystem, I have always said that.Lack of sunlight inhibits growth, the experts say that. Acidic soil inhibits growth, the experts say that. Does the area outside the fence get as much sunlight as the area inside? Was the area inside sprayed with a herbicide? Was the area inside limed or fertlized? Were all the deer removed inside the fence? Was the area inside the fence planted. As I said earlier you can get SOME regeneration by doing nothing more than erecting a fence in the middle of the woods but any white paper you read will say to get "acceptable" regeneration you have to have light, use herbicide to remove undesirable growth, etc. Unless the PGC is planning to remove ALL the deer from Penns Woods the Show and Tell areas are just that and I have been in and around many in my lifetime. Remember, much of what I post is taken from reading, study results, white papers, articles, university research, etc. as well as my own experience in planting, timbering and clearing on my own land. The post Doc made on the Kinzua Coop area supports a lot of what I have been saying. Some folks take offence to what I post because it contradicts either their beliefs or what they are trying to sell. That's not my fault, I try to only post or say what I can back up with other data. I also realize in some cases different Experts have different opinions to draw from which makes debate lively and a great learning experience.

You really need to attend one of our habitat/deer management tours here in Elk County.

Even though things are improving outside the fences the past few years I am confident you would find it to be a real eye opener. You are pointing toward all kinds of forest regeneration issues, and yes they are issues, but they simply don’t matter and can’t even be evaluated unless the deer numbers are first maintained within the proper balance.

I can also tell you that I have never seen or heard of any liming occurring within a forested area beyond the small experimental plots being done by the Forest Service. To the best of my information and knowledge that experimental project is even proving to be not affective and waste of the lime.

There are areas that have been timbered where lime was used when they were required to plant some of the log landing areas to grasses, but no in the forested areas. There are also lots places the Game Commission uses lime in the forest surrounded food plots located on our game lands or other cooperator lands.

Dick Bodenhorn

S-10..  LAST CHANCE.....


you wrote....

Quote :

FLIR is said by those using it to be between 85-95% accurate.

show me somewhere that this is stated.... and 85-95% percent accurate at WHAT ?????

The deer population of a state ???? , a county ?? a township ??? a square mile ?? or a certain small area at a certan time of day at a certain time of the year ???

ALSO.... show me where DCNR states it was dissappointed in the FLIR and that the FLIR proved them wrong...... it did what it was supposed to do.. show the number of deer in a particular area at a particular time... and as stated above it varied from low to high populations....

S-10 wrote--

Quote :

The DCNR attempted to use FLIR to difuse the critics claimimg they were inflating the deer numbers to justify killing so many. What actually happenbed was the FLIR showed the critics were correct and there were fewer than claimed. The DCNR then claimed the FLIR was only a minimum number and was off by as much as 50%

your assumptions are getting to be a PAIN !!!!  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-30 04:54:33 --

I told you before Doc, I seldom make assumptions. This is what your Rosenberry from the PGC has to say about FLIR. Looks like 90% to me. Don't spin the dense cover bit either as that was known up front and is also why they don''t do surveys after leaf out. I actually  thought I had already posted it a couple days ago.

Damm-I did it again-here it is

www.pagameandfish.com/hunting/whitetail-deer-hunting/PA_1005_01/index.html

Here is another one--average the 100% and the mid of 70-90% and you get the same 90% average. You can't use the dense folage number because they knew that befoe hand and accepted that FLIR couldn't work there. That is also why they don't do flyovers once the leaves come out. It is sure more accurate than counting poop from a deer I have in the freezer. Got to go, the steelies just called and want to play tug of war.  

--Last edited by s-10 on 2009-03-30 09:44:02 --

adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/regulations/count-deer-population.h

It is probably true that FLIR is able to detect 90% of the deer in open woods, just as was reported.

The problem with FLIR though is that if you do discount the dense cover of the hemlock bottoms, as you suggest we should, you might also be discounting the majority of the deer in a FLIR flight area, depending on the winter conditions at that time.

We know for a fact that when the snow gets deep enough, and even to some extent during a perfectly normal winter, the majority of the deer leave the open woods of the mountain tops and plateau and head into the thermal cover of the pine and hemlock bottom lands. Those are the very areas where the deer should be during the time the FLIR was conducted. For that reason it really is hard to tell just what the real point of accuracy of FLIR was without first being able to determine the percentage of area that couldn’t be accurately surveyed and then determining what percentage of the deer are being missed in those areas.

I think FLIR is interesting and had some population dynamics value but I think the accuracy of the counts is very dependant on many variable weather factors for each area and even the time period of the flights. Even if it had been 100% though it didn’t show that the area should or even could support more deer. Those are just some of the factors that many hunters seem to be missing or failing to acknowledge.

Dick Bodenhorn  

It may be time to send S-10 packing.... once again he's up to his tricks .. making up things people say and taking things out of content....

I asked for proof where someone from PGC or DCNR states FLIR were 80-90% accurate at telling the deer population in an area..

Quote :

I told you before Doc, I seldom make assumptions. This is what your Rosenberry from the PGC has to say about FLIR. Looks like 90% to me

S-10 responds with an article from the Pa fish and game rag of a magazine and of all things ---- with an article by Jim Bleech -----
it's an opinion piece by Jim Bleech... no PGC or DCNR statements.. JIM's opinion !!!!!!!


notice when he is quoting someone and when he is just writing his OPINION.... he does not quote Dr Rosenbarry as saying anything about FLIR being 90%....

Quote :

One of the great deer debates has been about population estimates. Some satisfaction on questions over accuracy of deer population estimates was derived through aerial surveys that began last February using a method called forward looking infrared (FLIR). The surveys were conducted by Vision Air Research Inc., which is based in Boise, Idaho, and funded at a cost of $180,000 by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Airplanes outfitted with the latest aerial infrared sensor technology, which records heat-generated images, flew out of State College. The House Game and Fisheries Committee has closely watched progress of the survey. Areas chosen for survey were selected based on locations hunters complained were devoid of deer and locations that were known to have been over-browsed. Goals of the program included evaluating the success of DMAP, verifying local deer density reports, linking deer population numbers to habitat conditions on a widespread scale and investigating whether or not infrared was a valuable tool for conducting similar large-scale studies. No totally accurate method of counting deer on a large scale has ever been devised, but this is as good as it gets. FLIR generally captures 90 percent of the deer in hardwood settings but is not as accurate in dense conifer cover. "I don't think there were any big surprises," Rosenberry said. "Some of the more interesting results are the variability of deer populations on a small scale." Results of the FLIR survey indicated that both sides of the deer population arguments are correct to some extent. We will look at specific results when we break the state into regions.

SO THE TRUTH IS.. s-10 used an opinion piece by a writer... and the ONLY thing Chris said about FLIRs was----

"I don't think there were any big surprises," Rosenberry said. "Some of the more interesting results are the variability of deer populations on a small scale."

Just more bull from S-10 ..

care to try again about the 90% ... how about what the company that does them ... what do they say... never mind --- I can tell you it's not 90% either when it comes to counting free roaming wildlife in a large wooded area.....!!!!!  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-30 13:42:30 --

Now here is a TRUE statement by DCNR on FLIRs..... since most of the areas cover on the FLIRs that were done here in Pa were NOT... repeat were NOT...open areas... you decide how accurate those counts were....

Quote :

How accurate is FLIR? Compared to other deer surveying techniques, FLIR data is very accurate. Detection rates have been reported as approaching 100 percent in open habitats, 70 to 90 percent in hardwood forests, and 30 to 50 percent under an evergreen canopy. FLIR survey data should be therefore viewed as a minimum deer density. FLIR pictures are detailed enough to differentiate between deer, elk, bears and other forest animals. What does FLIR tell us about deer populations? FLIR data shows the distribution of deer on a given tract during the night the survey was flown in February, March or April. The minimum densities offered by FLIR data allow biologists and forest managers to compare results of other population survey techniques to gauge their accuracy and effectiveness. Survey results also demonstrate that deer are present throughout state forestland. What FLIR does NOT tell us about deer populations: FLIR data only offers a minimum deer density during one particular time. It cannot tell us how deer use habitat during different times of day, throughout the season or during varying weather conditions. During hunting season, deer densities may be dramatically different based on mating behavior, food availability and hunting pressure.

sure ain't gonna base by hunting stand location on any FLIR done in Jan Feb or March in an open area or a leaf-less hardwood forest... .. how about you ??????????  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-30 13:45:48 --

Hope I do not get in trouble for this post !!!!

So when that FLIR is happening just how much of an area are they ACTUALLY looking (filming) at at any given minute... a mile ??? 1/2 mile ??? a township ?? how about a SQUARE MILE AT A TIME..  now that would really tell us something...

OH WAIT ..

HERE'S THE ANSWER..

DEPENDING ON WHAT CAMERA they are using ---

Quote :

At 1,000 ft. above ground level looking straight down using the wide FOV the footprint or area covered by the sensor is 360 ft. x 234 ft. while the narrow FOV provides a footprint 90 ft. x 59 ft. The look angle for this survey averaged 55 o providing a footprint width of 440 ft. in wide FOV and 110 ft. in narrow FOV.

so give or take a large football field or pasture ...

shoot just the sound of the plane at night could move deer further than that in about 45 seconds    

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2009-03-30 20:50:10 --

How you can call that article an opinion piece is beyond me. All the info was only what the PGC gave the writer and I'am sure you know that. What do you want, a quote for every sentence. Follow the flow with an open mind. There again, it's not my fault a PGC supervisor said something you don't want to believe. You may get in trouble for that last post because game managers all across the country are using FLIR percisly because it is the most accurate method at the present time to verify numbers. It's not 100% accurate, but nothing is in free ranging game counting. If you want to send me packing because you don't like me posting articles and data you don't like or want to believe It's your site and you can do as you please. I thought some of the others who sometimes disagreed with you got fed up and left but maybe I was wrong and you gave them the boot. Shut me off if you want but we both know you have no good reason other than I post a lot of info that counterdicts what you want to believe. Regardless, this is my last post on this particular thread.

It's an opiniuon article because he has taken info from MANY SITES and wrote an article about them... threw in a few quotes and made it appear (at least to you) to be all coming from the PGC... some is right off the
webapge for the FLIR company, some is the harvest figures and info on the PGC website...  

VERY VERY LITTLE is coming from an individual...  

I call those opinion articles.. they are what the writer thinks.. not what someone is telling him.......

and as for this remark ----

Quote :

I thought some of the others who sometimes disagreed with you got fed up and left but maybe I was wrong and you gave them the boot.

Have no idea what you are talking about...

I banned two guys from the USP and they have been banned from every other board I am aware of too!!!

and Penn quit because of making enemies over saying people were cheating on the trivia contest... and to telll the truth I miss him... but he made his own bed on that one....

that's in about 4 years... pretty good I'd say...

I'm sure guys that like stirring the pot may have quit posting.. but that was fine with me... I started this board and run it for folks to talk about what ever they like...

90% of the member here respect the PGC and support it ..

that automatically just pisses guys like you off to no end.... and the bull starts ..

the best thing to do is just ignore those folks and they go away...  

If they are not stirring folks up they are not having any enjoyment out of the board..

Your little "tiff" about trout last week is a perfect example... there was NO REASON for that at all...

do what you want I could care less...

I personally don't see what you add to the discussions... other than an arguement...

and to tell the truth I'm tired of E-mails and private messages asking me to edit your posts or give you the boot ..

so do as you will...

I'll not reply to another of your posts and if they (your posts) do not get replies from other members.. I'll remove them.............