Quote :

Now let's get to the main reason why deer populations are as low as they are in so many other places. The answers I will give you have proven themselves in Penns Woods over the past 100 years. The deer population has proven these answers too, with their flesh and blood over the past 100 years. The number one reason the deer population has gone so low in many of these areas is there is no supply of good quality food left there for deer to survive on in large numbers any more. It's sad but it's the truth. And the reason that the good quality food is so scarce is two fold. First of all, through all those years when deer were more plentiful, they were eating up the good foods much faster than mother nature or anyone could replace them. So now those good foods are gone on the thousands of square miles of our big woods. What grows in there place are plants of poor quality, such as some species of ferns or small trees and shrubs like striped maple, sweet fern, or a little beech bush. Plants like these cannot and will not support large herds of deer no matter what reductions are made in the hunting seasons for buck or doe. So the high deer herds of the past have caused the low deer herds of the present. They did so by just wiping out the food supply. The second major reason is that the big woods country has grown and aged into a much more mature forest, one that cannot supply as much food for deer because many of the good edible species small buds and branches are out of deer reach. But todays' mature forest would support more deer if the deer herd in years gone by hadn't been carried so high that many of the small trees and shrubs that will stay in a mature forest understory were browsed out of existence..

I jusy LOVE you guys who "cherry pick" certain years and certain counties.. to try to prove your point... NONE of you can use 5 year averages to show your point because that doesn't hold true for what you are try to sell,,, you folks should open a used  car dealership....

and you are still using dpsm or dpsfm... this is 2007.. we are not using that anymore....

plus you are using figures that are almost 30 years old..... and recent figures.. that just silly... like comparing apples and oranges...

I think I'll just let frank1 go about his "sales" pitch and I don't think he will find one single person here that agrees with any of what he is selling.....

My point was using 1984 then 1987 then jumping to 1997... and trying to say antlerless allocations were the reason is silly ...

the habitat also continued to be destroyed during those years and especially the years before.... the habitat in 1984 and 1987 may have been able to support those numbers although I suspect the real numbers were MUCH higher... the forest of 1997 thru 2001 could not support that number and as I said... there are still hundreds of areas in Elk county that could not support 10 dpsm OR dpfsm..

I invite you to attend one of RSB's tours and see FIRST HAND... although I know that will not happen....

I have been on MANY of the tours and the whiners and complainers... NEVER SHOW UP...

proving to me they know they are trying to "sell BS" on the internet... instead of learning the truth about deer and habitat with hands on learning....

IMHO the herd was in need of a reduction in that area and most of the deer were congested in the areas near farms at the time.  I know I was in the woods hunting you could go days then without seeing deer.  Specifically in Elk County being heavily wooded there was not that many deer there at that time.  I hunt SGL and Seneca land if that helps which really lacked good deer habitat and still do.

I am not sure what area (county) you are talking about with your last post where you state 21dpsfm in 1999... it isn't for 2G because I don't think there was a 2G as such in 1999...

so if it were Elk county I find it interesting that the hunters were averaging 3.2 does per sq mile and 3.2 bucks during the years 97-01..... which would be only harvesting  1/3 the available deer.... in fact for 20 years Elk averaged only 3.9 does and 3.5 bucks.. among the lowest in the state.... so why did the herd decline if not for habitat before HR... ??????



20 year averages per sqaure mile

COUNTY...DOES/BUCKS

Elk...3.9/3.5

Jefferson...7.1 /5.1

Forest...8.6 /5.5

Warren...7.0/4.6

Mckean...5.4/4.0

Potter...5.4/4.2

Clearfield...10.5/5.6


Just how many deer did clearfield have that they could average KILLING 16 dpsm, not counting poachinig, cars, starvation etc.....

and that's a 20 year average folks..... and the first few years of HR saw that figure go up even more.....

and the folks want to cry about deer hunting in 2G.....   killing 16 dpsm for over 20 years and having to hunt a more in balanced herd today.... I can see why after being SPOILED and getting use to killing/shooting deer rather than HUNTING deer they are the loudest ones complaining now... just the facts  

How could anyone think that the habitat  would not and did not suffer trying to carry that many deer .....

?????????????????????????????????????

I have seen the habitat and i know of areas in elk county were the only winter food is Hemlock trees.  There are not may deer in that area but recently with the antler restrictions there are some nicer bucks.  No the deer will never be huge but they are respectable 8 and 10 pointers.  The thing is if you get one of thise nice deer you know you hunted hard or you are one of the lucky guys.  

--Last edited by Flyfisher on 2008-06-12 13:24:18 --

Quote :

FlyFisher wrote :  There are not may beer in that area

I beg to differ, I bet you there is alot of beer in that area on the weekend after thanksgiving.

That is near my home grounds and yes there is alot of beer there EVERY WEEK-END.....


Ain't typos a Bitch ??????

LOL yeah with the brewery and all there are a few herds of beer in the woods.  

LMAO!

corect me if i am wrong but wasn't it part of the PGC's plan to shrink the size of the deer herd to match the habitat?

This allows the forest to regenerate and eventually come back stronger.  Better habitat makes for a bigger deer herd when the habitat comes back.  If the habitat is there you will get more deer.  The deer were harvested for a reason. To let the forest regenerate.

Quote :

FlyFisher wrote : corect me if i am wrong but wasn't it part of the PGC's plan to shrink the size of the deer herd to match the habitat? This allows the forest to regenerate and eventually come back stronger.  Better habitat makes for a bigger deer herd when the habitat comes back.  If the habitat is there you will get more deer.  The deer were harvested for a reason. To let the forest regenerate.

I agree.

There are areas with more deer but many of those farmland areas are not open to public the major deer kill is more for crop damage than by hunters.  Personally I see noth wrong with farmers protecting there livelyhood.  

Quote :

frank1 wrote : Apparently you missed this statement by Bret Wallingford. Quote : "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. Note that the PGC does not include the habitat value of anything but forested habitat.  Therefore  in areas with mixed farmland  and forests the herd is being reduced to much lower levels than the habitat can support,in order to insure regeneration of commercially valuable timber. Therefore, the herd will only be allowed to increase if significant areas are clearcut to increase the carrying capacity of the forested habitat.

frank,

What happens after these significant clearcuts go to pole stage?  

--Last edited by Buff on 2008-06-12 17:28:46 --