The argument always was that the timber interests wanted the deer exterminated because they were gobbling up their valuable cash crop. My opinion is based on that premise. Hardwood species do not germinate and grow as an understory in a mature forest. The best way to regenerate a mature hardwood forest is clearcutting. The plant species that grow in this condition are tremendous. There is so much browse that deer simply cannot make a dent, provided their numbers are kept reasonable. Of course the clearcut will revert back to pole timber in 25 years, but that is the whole idea. Selective cutting is what makes the problem we have today. Not enough of an area is cut first of all (70 acres). Then, many trees are left, which cuts precious sunlight which is the main ingredient in the equation. These trees end up as blowdowns shortly afterward because they were accustomed to sharing the windload with the rest of the forest. There is no sense in it. As a benefit in clearcutting, as areas are clearcut and attract the deer, the shade loving species can grow in the mature areas without being eaten. The problem is that the tree hugging, all or nothing mentality is actually very bad for the forest. I have never wanted a deer behind every tree. I have always said that I feel there ARE too many deer. Not that there areALOT of deer, but too many for the mishandled, mismanaged, poor habitat in this state to properly support. When forests began to be manged with thier aestheticvalue as a factor, we began this downward spiral to what we face today. The entire Northern tier needs leveled. The longer we wait, the worse it will get.