This a pretty general question that cannot be answered with one answer.I'd be nothing but foolish to spout some number without expecting a whirlwind of disagreements in regard to an answer you want me to give.
Without infosuch as terrain, water sources, proximity to urbanized areas, high traffic areas, the last time the land was timbered, what % of browse is available,etc. You can't say clearcut 4% of all 70 yr. old tall timbered forest.However in an area such as mine the private clubs have decided to cut nearly 40% of alltheir property.Theadvantage of this will not be seen for probably 3 -5 yrs as far increasing cover and viable habitat for wildlife. I believe this was excessiveonly because the State lands surrounding these properties do not offer the undergrowth and browse the deer once residing in the clearcut areas now need. There wouldn't be an issue if the State Lands have been managed to support wildlife. But the deer won't stay in the woods where there isinadequate food sources, inadequate cover and less then favorable arrangement. It isn't like these woods didn't support twice as many deer 30 years ago. But these deer were anything but impressive in any way shape or form other than in mere numbers. The state lands can support more deer, history is evidence to that. But the habitatcouldhave been andeven more today can be much better.Even if they were to hinge cut these areas of old standing pine the habitat would be more conducive in terms of providing cover and travel corridors which offer wildlife a real and perceived sense ofsecurity.