The question isn't whether or not elk are grazers,the question is do they browse on the same trees deer browse on.And the clip from the PGC website answered that.Yes!

DougE-dce, I have to call you on your assumption of elk doing less damage. In fact, the PGC extended the elk range due to the many complaints of farmers and land owners in the elk range. That's a fact. Ask your elk expert friend from the PGC. In fact, that was the primary reason for the expansion. In fact, the PGC has made offers to fence certain properties so as to minimize elk damage. They sure don't do that for deer.

I haven't seen any effort to make clearings specifically for deer, and deerdo frequent fields.

Once again, your knowledge and credibility are lacking.

And you did refer to Jim Slinsky as "Slinky", a term I'm sure you would never utter in his presence. Of course you could go to the USP / Slinsky meeting in Ulster, PA this weekend and call him "Slinky." But, I really don't think you will. It is my opinion that a man who calls another man juvenile names lacks the character to come up with logical reasoning for such an assault, and no real fortitude to speak of.

By the way DougE, what's your nick-name?

Stop the Petty Bickering

The elk range was absolutely expanded because of crop damage because elk are grazers.They're primary food is not woody browse.They didn't expand their range because they were overbrowsing an area and causing damage to the habitat.

They have food plots on every game land,primarily for the deer.It's your knowledge that is obviously lacking.

Rich,I live up here 365 days a year and see elk on at least a weekly basis and watch them regularly.I also hunt in areas where there's a relativelyhigh population and I've never seen them in a thicket of oak browsing.I can take you up to Evans fire tower road where we'll most likey find elk tracks and none of them will be in the oak regeneration.They'll be in the fields along 255 grazing.They do occassionaly browse but they graze alot more than deer do.When the snow is real deep,you can see where they strip the bark off of aspen and red maple but that is a far cry from competing with the deer.They won't and can't strip the bark off of oak.There is no comparison to the damge deer do to seedlings as compared to elk.The reason it isn't documented is because it's minimal.

Crazy Horse,
I've read ALL the posts in this thread and IMO DougE has stated well published scholl of thought among wildlife biologists. Not just the PGC.
I would suggest to u , before you accuse anyone else of lying ,to do some research of your own. Your statements seem to be based on hearsayand uneducated assumptions. You have provided no factual basis for your statements.Unless u consider the USP a factual resource.
It is a simple procedure...just do it.

Let's do get back on track, that percentage was 30-40% when pressed for an estimate.

And no we don't have 70 deer /sq. mile. The population estimates varies from 8 deer /per, to around 50/per. depending on the area you are in. In April we have a Penn State Wildlife Biologist coming to do a pellet count and browse study. We'll see then. Doug knowe the #'s for sure.

But we're getting off track ,Aren't we????

I don't doubt what you are saying about your elk herd Doug but we have the buggers on VCR tape browsing on red maple.They are moving the elk to sproul ST forests and other places for tourism within the PA wilds.And some of the places they're moving them don't have alot of field to graze in.Doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere on this one.
Somehow elk got thrown into the subject of the PA orgs being discussed.It does seem to be a problem with so many members dropping out.Not sure where they put their money but if some goes toward habitat improvements like PANWTF does the lost memberships hurts us all.

Archer58, DougEuses the term proven fact freely. Then when asked for information onhis proven fact. The proven fact information is not provided and will never be provided. I am waiting forhis habitat, enclosure, liming and elk/deer data all of which he states are proven facts. By whom? Him!

Some of his stuff ispulled out of the air.

Example:
From my experience our game lands have better habitat than most private land and therefore more deer in many cases.I'm sure some game lands have less deer than comparable private property but the reason for that is simple.Access is not regulated on game lands like it is on private property.

Give me the data to prove the above. This is a big state andhe will certainly amaze me with the data to back it up.

LineHog,
Let's give him a chance to deliver. I do know that Doug knows the people who have this data & will get it. Somehow I don't think you will believe it anyway. The sources for this info. are certianly the PGC and DCNR biologists.
I do not however think that anyone has any type of private land vs. public land stats concerning population.And I don't think he ever said that.I'll check the posts again.

And I was also referring to your statements. Where is your"data" or info.derived from, and let's see it.

p.s. What's a LineHog?

LineHog,
try this link for deer density on PA State Forests.

http://www.state.pa.us/papower/cwp/view.asp?Q=453848&A=11

Habitat information can be found on theDCNR website.