If I am reading this right, the discussion is whether habitat is a limiting factor in thePA herd vs. harvest. While this is a very convoluted subject,a whitetailed deer herd has the capability in good circumstances, food, cover etc.to double in size every 2 years. In a normal situation a doe will produce 2 fawns, one buck and one doe. So that would be the natural buck/doe ratio if nature had her way. However in an effort to please sportsmen, a buck only harvest was instituted in most states to increase the crop. PAG was courageous to start the programs theydid, as they have the deer herd in mind, as opposed to setting game laws with the hunter (AKA cash cow/revenue generator)as the primary cause for concern. One thing many hunters seem to forget is that we are stewards of the land and its inhabitants and we have to do what is right for them, not us, to maintain the natural resource. Sometimes, this includes making unpopular decisions to do the right thing. Doe harvests is one that springs to mind, as is antler restrictions that Mr. Alt instituted in his wisdom, to help bring the deer herd back to a better healthier ratio. This was never about trophy hunting, but buck doe ratio. Do you ever wonder why you walk through the woods and see very little scraping and rubbing activity? There is no need for it in many areas of the country as the bucks have too many does to breed now. They don't need to advertise. That is a sure sign of a skewed buck doe ratio. How many of us in the northeast seen 2 bucks fighting? Now ask someone from texas or Kansas and they will say its commonplace. When the ratio is correct, there is more activity and more competition. I wish my state would fix the buck do e ratio. They do allow generous amounts of doe harvest, but its not enough. Our head biologist in my opinion is scared to make such a decision because he saw first hand what the PA hunters did to Gary Alt. I think the fact that 90 percent of our forest land is privately owned plays a part also. Still, what's best for the wildlife?

Browse can be devastated very quickly. Coupled with a large canopy, an average acre of woods can produce about 200 pounds (dry weight) of food annually. When you take in to consideration that a single deer needs 6 to 10 pounds (dryweight) food per day, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how much damage 1 hungry deer can do to an acre of woodland. Conversely, 1 acre of food plot can produce a ton of food annually. Let's not forget the maturation of the forests and the ever encroaching developer sucking up more habitat daily.

Acorns aren't browse per se. Browse is described as any woody or herbacious plants or forbes (weeds) Acornsare a seasonal intermittent mast crop. Red oaks are a 2 year tree. They will set flower in year one, and produce acorns in year 2. White oaks are a 1 year tree. (If at any time we have a late frost the crop can be lost) They set flower and produce seed in the same growing season. However they only produce a good crop every 3 to 5 years, so they are iffy at best and can't be considered a mainstay, unless you are fortunate to have pockets of oaks on alternating schedules. We need always keep in mind that deer are very territorial and will not tolerate deer from outside their range to come in and start eating their acorns when times are bad in their own neighboorhood. This year there are no acorns to be found here, and the herd seems to be down. I have not seen a squirrel this year either, another dependent of the acorn crop.

Habitat is indeed a limiting factor in deer herd size. If you look at the understory in your wood lot you will see the browse line, where the deer have eaten as high as they can reach, standing on their hind legs. Again, keeping in mind that we are stewards and managers for the sake of the flora and fauna, we need to remember there are other animals out there. In the Northeast there are 27 species of shrub nesting birds that are threatened or on the decline, just due to the fact that the whitetail deer has devastated the understory. That first 6 feet that we call a browse line is home to many birds, and insects that normally nest in and feed upon them. So again there are many consequences to a carrying capacity issue.

Another issue many states have is legislators. These politicians in many cases are calling the shots when it comes to wildlife and game laws. (Vermont's Deerherd winterkill nightmare of the late 60's early 70's for example)This is ridiculous. Setting game laws and carrying capacities are to be left to the scientists and biologists that we employ to do this. Would you want your car mechanic making your medical decisions? They are experts and again while they have to make some unpopular decisons, seasons, quotas, antler restrictions etc., they are doing it for the animals, not man, who in some instances just thinks they should be able to take what they want and screw everyoneelse. That mentality is akin to someone saying, well the deer population is low, I better go out and kill one before they are all gone. That was done 80 years or so ago and it took us many years to fix it. If you are a true conservationist you will look in to how these decisions are made and if your legislators are involved. Support the decisions your biologists make and call your legislator when these changes are being made and let them know how you feel. Then tell them to start legislation letting the biologists make the game laws, not a bunch of bleeding heart liberal bunny huggers. They won't do it willingly as they hate to let any bit of power go from their hands.

ALso, While these discussions are very interesting and educational, I think we need to remember we are all on the same side and should treat each other with respect and courtesy.

Get out and hunt.