After reducing the herd in KQDC by 60%, here are the effects on forest regeneration.
33
Overall Deer Impact. - Based on the diagram (Fig. 4, Appendix 1) and associated
interpretation of impact levels, deer impact for 2008 is characterized as “moderate” for the ANF
ownership/management unit, and “moderate to heavy” for other ownerships/management units,
reflecting a return to heavier impact for all ownerships/management units, with impact classified
lower on the ANF ownership/management unit.
There were still more than 50% plots with no advance regeneration of any species in 2008,
as in 2005-2007. Additionally, percent plots no impact, and severity levels of impact on all
indicator species climbed rapidly in 2008. This situation is likely due to the residual impact of
recent (prior to 2005) levels of deer impact, to reduced levels of tree harvest existing outside of
fenced areas, and to interference from ferns and grasses. Without harvests to open the forest
overstory, there is less stimulation for development of abundant and diverse advance
regeneration of seedlings outside of fenced areas. High deer impact in the past favored
predominance of ferns and grasses in the understory (ferns and grasses are little eaten by deer:
removal of competing tree seedlings by deer allowed ferns and grasses to spread and interfere
with development of tree seedlings). The window of lower deer density and impact that
occurred 2005-2006 appears to be closing, rendering it less likely that cooperating landowners
within the Project Area will be able to take down existing fences and to build fewer fences
around some but not all new timber harvest sites.
So, can anyone tell me how much the herd has to be reduced to produce good forest health which require 70% regeneration.