This is kinda beating a dead horse but after the statements these people made about hunters/hunting I don't think hunters are a main concern.With the deer numbers so low in many areas they are going to have a tough time getting enough hunters to kill the amount of deer they want eliminated.It's just not worth the trip for people to travel 3-4 hours north and hunt with numbers so low.Sure the few people who live in the area and have the year to scout can find the few pockets of deer left.I personally think there's more to this extreme deer reduction then regeneration but that's another story.
I sure don't claim to be a biologist T but I do have eyes and hunting experience.I did a little test at my cabin.Under the thick canopy there was basically just fern growing.I opened an area up and in a year there was thick growth including wild flowers,oaks,blueberry,and other plants.Yet where I didn't cut the trees down just 20 feet away it's still ferns.I've seen deer eating in this new growth and the white and red oaks are still there.If you would like I could see if I still have those pics and post them.
In another area there's an opening in the woods where young white oaks are thriving in multiple stages.But the sun gets in.If you look to the left or right under the canopy there's no growth.So from what I see with my own eyes tells me if you properly open the canopy even with deer regen will happen.You can kill every deer in the county and if the sunlight doesn't get in new growth won't occur.
When the tornado went through in 85 needless to say new growth occured in the area,so thick you couldn't walk in it.But the new trees that grew were junk trees.Why?Because that's basically the forest type in the area.The deer didn't eat all the oaks,the cherry,maple,and beech shade out the few oaks that sprouted.There's alot more to it then kill all the deer and in this process this state is going to lose alot of license revenue.