Yes we can agree that pole timber is generally poor deer habitat but I don’t know where you get the idea that much of the state, or even any county or management unit, is in pole timber.
Based on the most recent forest index survey I can find only 29.2% of the state was in pole timber.
I am going to post the amount of seedling/sapling, pole and mature forest percentages for Elk County, your home county and also for the state.
Area…………………….Seedling/sapling……………..pole stage……………..mature forest
Elk Co……………………..8.5 %……………………….18.2 %…………………..73.3 %
Luzerne co………………..10.2 %………………………46.6 %…………………..42.3 %
Statewide…………………14.1 %………………………29.2 %…………………..56.7 %
You really shouldn’t try to evaluate and talk about the whole state based on just your little bit of knowledge about your own back yard.
I did not say much of the state is in pole timber, I said 50-60% WILL be in pole timber . Here is what I said and it is not what you claimed I said.
WE will always have a lot of areas with very poor habitat because 50-60% of our forest habitat will be in the pole timber stage and I think we all age that pole timber will always be poor habitat no matter how many deer we have.
By cutting 1%/year the percentage of saw timber will decrease and the percentage of pole timber will increase ,since the pole timber stage is the longest stage in the production of saw timber. So despite the attempts to improve the habitat, in the long term the carrying capacity will decrease instead of improving as predicted.
Now will you please explain why breeding rates dropped by 6% in such a short period of time when you predicted they would increase significantly?