Doug, Doug, Doug...It's as though the PGC had their hand up the back of your shirt and was playing vantriliquest.

Doud Said..."It's best to have a mix of timber.That's why they won't cut more than 1% a year.Do you realize thatin many state game lands,the timber isn't vauable.It's not all red oak and cherry and not all of it can be easily harvested because of the terrain.Do you also realize that very few stands of timber in the northcentral part of the state are over 100 years old.There isn't much of a chance of that timbering starting to die and rot in the near furure.Besides,the bigger it gets,the more it's worth in most cases.You're the one that's not playing with a full deck."

If that's the reason they won't cut more than 1% per year why are they on a 100 year rotation program. Isn't there any other method?

If the timber on many Game Lands isn't valuable why not whack it down and plant something the game would prefer? Also, what better place to initiate the methods of successional forestry discribed in the Grouse Study?

What are you talking about when you say the terrain is too difficult? I've hunter Idaho and have seen timber operations on some of the steepest slopes in America. If they can harvest it in Idaho why can't they harvest it in Pennsylvania? Do the foresters in Idaho know something the foresters in Pennsylvania are totally unaware of? Are the timber guys in Pennsylvania bone heads?

Doug, you need to revisit reality. Oh, and enjoy the electricity. Whith many hunters abandoning and shutting down their deer camps you may well see an increase in your electric bill.