---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

It tells me that if an over browsed forest of beech, birch and striped maple can support 40 DPSM , a healthy forest with preferred browse species can support even more deer.

---

---

For how long is that subjective part you deny exists.

---

---

There is no "natural" balance.
We changed all of that, so a new balance is needed to best serve the interests of all people.


It is you that needs to think before you post. The natural balance today is based on todays conditions, not the conditions that existed 200 years ago.
The quality of the habitat determines the natural balance and some areas may only be able to support 20 DPSM while other areas may be able to carry 40 DPSM.

---

---

quote:

But, the less desirable forage is still more than adequate, to maintain max. breeding rates and recruitment. That is why it is called the MSY CC.


Thanks for proving my point that you are concerned about nothing but producing deer no matter what the impact on the habitat or other wildlife.

---

---

That may well be happening on some properties. Some landowners and timber interests are short sighted just like the USP and co is short sighted about deer management. That is the decision of the property owners and not yours or mine. Second, what does that have to do with how the PGC manages deer numbers

---

---

So you would advocate total decimation of preferred browse on a sustained basis?

---

---

So you would advocate total decimation of preferred browse on a sustained basis?

---

---

The quality of the habitat determines the natural balance and some areas may only be able to support 20 DPSM while other areas may be able to carry 40 DPSM.

---

---

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

and the same old dance.....

---

---

ORIGINAL: DougE

I took a walk in Moshannon state forest yesterday afternoon.This area used to have a ton of deer but really took a beatingright after 2001 because it has fairly easy access.I hunted it this year for two days during firearms seasonand saw a fair number of deer and very very fewhunters.There had been some logging over the past8 years and the regeneration was starting to look pretty good.The deer herd started to rebound probably because there was less pressure and more food.In any event,I saw 4 live deer yesterday in the two hours I was walking around the crunchy snow.I found one dead deer,probably either killed by coyotes or just lost during huntingseason.In any event,I was checking outan area near a small hemlock stand that was cut about 4 years ago.Almost every blackberry stem and every seedling,other than beech was browsed.Alot of them were browsed down the diameter of my small finger.If the herd continues to grow in this area,there will be almost no preferred regeneration.Right now,it's quickly turning into a beech and striped maple stand.It's unfortunate because three years ago,the oak regeneration was looking pretty good.

---

---

I see an ironic problem looming ahead in areas like the one you describe above Doug. Hunter pressure seems to have dropped considerably in the big woods areas where HR did what it needed to do and now the herd may be at risk of rebounding too far without enough hunter harvest to keep the herd in balance with the habitat once again. I can see even more DMAPS etc popping up in the future

---

---

Remember, I said it was the PGC's responsibility to manage both the hunters and the herd.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

So , does that mean you want hunters to kill more deer and reduce the herd to the biodiversity carrying capacity? Do you even know what the biodiversity density might be?

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Are you now going to start sending me threatening letters.? Have you no class or will you stoop to any level , no matter how low it might be.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

What's your real name? Feel free to post it with your name address and telephone number and don't forget your email address.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bawanajim

Hi I'm Jim,and I'm going for a

---

---

have no idea what the name thing is about

---