---

DCNR keeps good records and has a good handle on the situation in their districts.Last year,for the first time in years,they haven't had to fence all of their timber sales.That's because of less deer,plain and simple.This area was devistaed by having to many deer for way too long and it takes very few deer to continually impact the habitat under these conditions.It is getting better and DCNR has the data and facts to prove it.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

In 2006 DCNR said only 24% of the plots surveyed had adequate regeneration. The fact they still have to fence some areas means their still not getting good regeneration even with 10 DPSM., so isn't the logical answer to reduce the herd even more so DCNR doesn't have to spend any money for fencing. Could the fact that only half of DCNR land is managed for timber be a contributing to the need for very low DDs. Old growth forests are very poor deer habitat with little or no browse.

Dr. Al recommends a sustainable doe harvest of 29 adult doe/year. In 2007 we harvested 11 doe PSM,5B was 4 PSM ,5C was 8.7 and 2A was 7.9. So once again thsi shows that the PGC is managing out herd at densities that are considerably below the MSY carrying capacity.

---

---

BT,I'm not talking about old growth forests.I'm talking about Moshannon state forest.Ever been there?

---

---

ORIGINAL: White-tail-deer

Anyone else get the feeling BB may have a few more aliases?

---

---

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"There's nothing anonymous about me Cornelius.I don't hide behind a phony name."

....Aside from being a guy that blindly supports our failed deer program on a few different messageboards, and a guy who got booted from one of them, I still dont have a clue as to who you are, nor do I care, but I think you knew what the point was. Most arent gonna take the word of an unknowngarbage man, plumber or insurance salesman over the word of a noted professor.

As for not calling anyone a liar, You said Sharpes article wasnt true....Id say that qualifies.

"You don't have to believe me.Many others with actual forestry credentials felt the same way. "

An extremelyvague statement and heresay doesnt overrule the good professor. Sorry. Even if you could cite "others with forestry credentials" if they fall under the umbrella of pgc or dcnr of our state, you may as well not bother to mention. They are a huge part of the reason we are where we are in the first place. They are vehemiently anti-deer. Unlike them, Sharpe on the other hand is completely unbiased and has no agenda..

"Please tell me,how does it make sense that acid rain is the limiting factor when all you have to do is fence out the deer."

Because acidgreatly limits growth. Magnifying the deer damage 10 fold. Inside the fence is a completely unnatural condition with ZERO deer impact, and the only way everywhere outside of the fence is gonna look just like the inside is with nearly zero deer outside as well. If the soils were not so depleted and acidic inside and out,the outsidewould look to some degree more like the inside, but never exactly as the areas with ZERO deer.

---