Originally Posted by Cornelius08

In your opinion... If the species cannot grow under normal conditions, (and normal conditions = normal deer densities)then we shouldnt be pampering them along, they are clearly niche species, and simply arent meant to be widespread everywhere. Just an attempt by man at manipulating the habitat to what a few want. Nothing more. Why arent the enviros at dcnr pushing to go back to the way it was when we were largely a conifer forest?



Then we have no problem. The regeneration has been and is fine in most areas. The worst areas clearly have other factors in play.



Apparently you think the Pa "forestry community" are unbiased? lol.

Sorry but most arent buying what pgc/dcnr/audubon are sellin' these days. Pretty clear theres a pretty hefty agenda in play. Doubt it? See info on the Pgc biodiveristy partnership. Its also no big secret how important the timber dollar is. SOme would rather ring out every last penny before caring about "responsible" deer management.



If you'd stick to a few constants in your current argument, It'd make it more efficient for me to dismantle. You speak of "huge areas of the state" then later in the argument you revert to "your area". Quit squirmin' and take your medicine!



You've mentioned these "reams" on 3 different message boards fairly often for quite some time now. And while Im sure the people who are the problem in this "dcnr" Pgc audubon, may have manufactured a ream or two.... Noone else in the nation agrees with them....

Noone else is pushing for extreme unnatural levels of biodiversity, and none are using strictly habitat based deer management.