Hunting Harriman

[thunnus]

Just wanted to thank you for the informed and intelligent debate.

I know this is a public forum, would any body object to me taking parts of this dialogue into a note to the DEC, senators or representatives?

Would anyone like to help draft the letter to open Harriman to bow hunting pls PM me?

Was an environmental biologist/field biologist a long time ago, have to sharpen up my writing skills.

[Curmudgeon]

Just wanted to thank you for the informed and intelligent debate.

I know this is a public forum, would any body object to me taking parts of this dialogue into a note to the DEC, senators or representatives?

Would anyone like to help draft the letter to open Harriman to bow hunting pls PM me?

Was an environmental biologist/field biologist a long time ago, have to sharpen up my writing skills.

 

I would work on something with you but won't have any time until after January 1. Send me a personal message and we'll exchange email addresses.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[NYhuntingdogs]

It is not as good because the habitat has been trashed by deer. I had time to kill a few years ago and spent some time in the park. The understory is limited to 2 species - mountain laurel and barberry. The deer have eaten everything palatable. Since predation and hunting didn't limit their numbers, they did it themselves. Unfortunately, their damage impacts all species that depend on the the understory, and prevents the regeneration of the forest.

Taking one hike doesn't qualify you to call it an "ecological disaster".  Your "knowledge of the dynamics of invasive and deer" doesn't qualify you to claim that 2 plant types dominate the understory of 80+ square miles of land.  "I decided to do some research to see who was correct."  -- Lol.

I'm not wrong about the deer - my position, although supported by facts and personal observations, just doesn't fit your narrative that deer are a terrible nuisance and a problem to be solved by hunters.  I explained that most thickets of mountain laurel and japanese barberry have thrived because of changes made by people on the land.  That's why they are predominately located near human improvement. The drainage alterations also have had a lasting, demonstrable affect on the environment.   

 

I too have explored every habitat in Harriman.  Some areas are in better shape than others.  After people introduced the Chestnut blight to this continent 100 years ago, nearly all standing American Chestnut trees were killed.  Throughout the park, there are now large monoculture stands of Chestnut, consisting of young shoots that have sprouted from the roots of the old trees.  These overcrowded shoots don't reach maturity and don't produce a seed crop.  So… because of people, a reliable yearly mast crop is no longer on the table for those pesky deer.  The deer in the park have fair-sized home ranges and they don't put on a lot of mass, between moving for food and being run by dogs on a daily basis.  The only viable claim made in that letter is the last paragraph: the winter is hard and attrition takes a toll on the deer. 

 

I like shooting and eating deer.  I'm not saying we shouldn't.

Edited November 19, 2014 by NYhuntingdogs

[Curmudgeon]

You are correct. You know the park much better than I. However, it isn't what you see that matters. It is what you don't see. Someone should do a plant survey in Harriman. Try to find the 800+ species that botanist found in Storm King. Based on my reading, I am sure many of those species have been extirpated - by deer! This may have happened 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The impacts linger on. If the article I cited was not a fabrication, and if there no deer overpopulation now, it is because the forage is diminished - thus my earlier statement that "restoration" is likely necessary.

 

Of course the barberry is closer to people. So is the buckthorn. So is the garlic mustard. So is the bush honeysuckle. People introduce it - intentionally or not. Disturbed ground is good for it. Deer encourage it by eating everything they can that competes with it.

 

Every landowner who cares about habitat (for all wildlife) should be aggressively controlling invasive plants.

 

No argument about human impacts. Maybe the new GM chestnuts will help reverse that disaster.

 

Edited November 19, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[Curmudgeon]

A good read:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmichigansaf.org%2FTours%2F05Deer%2FUSFS-2008.pdf&ei=XJ9sVMeiOdiwyATC-YKABw&usg=AFQjCNFG4QFF1ig02nW48VOAIsWf_ESixw&sig2=5mKKTI-Ks9UGAvBcRmuxIQ&bvm=bv.80120444,d.aWw

 

This is a presentation on deer management in state parks, specifially Letchworth but it applies. There are interesting graphics:

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnysparks.com%2Fenvironment%2Fdocuments%2Fpresentations%2FDeerManagementStateParksTheLetchworthModel.pdf&ei=7aJsVNqmLYOxyQTQrYCwCQ&usg=AFQjCNGKGVdHaG4ijosu59iw03nVqnXweg&sig2=Q_rpdtToGzRNaqgTG3bb2Q&bvm=bv.80120444,d.aWw&cad=rja

[thunnus]

A good read:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmichigansaf.org%2FTours%2F05Deer%2FUSFS-2008.pdf&ei=XJ9sVMeiOdiwyATC-YKABw&usg=AFQjCNFG4QFF1ig02nW48VOAIsWf_ESixw&sig2=5mKKTI-Ks9UGAvBcRmuxIQ&bvm=bv.80120444,d.aWw

This is a presentation on deer management in state parks, specifially Letchworth but it applies. There are interesting graphics:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnysparks.com%2Fenvironment%2Fdocuments%2Fpresentations%2FDeerManagementStateParksTheLetchworthModel.pdf&ei=7aJsVNqmLYOxyQTQrYCwCQ&usg=AFQjCNGKGVdHaG4ijosu59iw03nVqnXweg&sig2=Q_rpdtToGzRNaqgTG3bb2Q&bvm=bv.80120444,d.aWw&cad=rja

I'm in stand and should be looking elsewhere, the arguments made in that second link seem irrefutable.