ORIGINAL: DougE
Who refuses to cut trees?That statement is simply ridiculous.How much do you think they should cut per year?
There should be an understory,even in a mature forest and the vast majority of the northern tier has none.There are many shade tolerant speces that should be growing beneath the canopy but decades of deer overbrowsing took care of that.A deer needs several pounds of browseper day,especially during winter when there's no mast to eat.When there's no browse,the deer disappear.Hobble bush is an excellent shade tolerant browse species that used to cover the forest floor of the northern tier.When was the last time you saw it growing?It's been decades because the deer ate it all.
You are 110% wrong that there would be nothing growing on the forest floor if the deer were all gone.DCNR has pre-sale exclosures all over the place around here where they try to get some advanced regeneration prior to a cut.They all have regeneration to some extent.The PGC has put up exclosures under a mature canopy and the growth is spectacular in some cases.Light certainly helps but you can only cut so much per year.You can't just go in and clearcut the entire state.DCNR is mandated to cut areas no bigger than 70acres.If they don't fence the cuts,the deer congregate and destroy most of the regeneration.That's why millions of dollars are spent each year on fencing.When you have good habitat and tyen you cut an area,the deer don't have nearly the impact.When you cut an area that has poor habitat,it takes very few deer to ruin any regeneration.
I will try to go thru this . Cutting less than 1 % of the available timber when you need the money and you need the canopy removed is irresponsible.If some one at DCNR mandated nothing more than 70 acres cut he is a fool and letting irrational regulation stand in the way of realistic goals should be wrong in everyones eyes.
From what I get out of the whole plan was to regulate all common since options away so that your original goal can be reached.
The elimination of the whitailed deer seems to be the easiest way to achieve these goals .
I am not saying there are not problems with habitat and how deer affect it but why don't we change the rules and get timbering at a realistic scale.
I live in Crawford county and we are a by product of your problems.we have fantastic deer habitat because the land is held by private citizens who understand that trees are a renewable crop that needs to be harvested. But Dr .Alts plan is still in effect here also and it has had great effect.Most ofthe land is posted and no one wants you to kill a doe.If you don't own land you are hosed. I own 149 acres of some of the best deer habitat you will ever find.You are more than welcome to come and see it.I have more deer in my woods than you people want in whole counties.The one size fits all management system might work when the government owns all the land but here that is a different story,Here land owners actually like deer,we like seeing them ,hunting them and eating them,and if the choice to me is seeing a hobble berry bush or seeing a deer I'm going to side with the deer.You guys believe that what you are doing is right ,maybe in your area it is ,in my area I believe I'm right. And since I own my land your wishes will only be wishes because until I die or sell it not you or anyone else will not kill the doe on my land.