---

Apparently you have a short memory and a very selective way of viewing the evidence. you predicted breeding rates would increase as the herd was reduced but, instead they decreased. That alone proves the herd was below the MSY carrying capacity of the habitat in 2000. If the harvests hadn't exceeded recruitment over the last 8 years elk Co. would still have over 25 DPFSM instead of 8 or 10. To show you I am right the over browsed habitat in 2F was still supporting 22 PS DPSM in 2005, 3A had 32 PS DPSM,2E has 32 PS DPSM2C had 20 DPSM and 4D had 21 DPSM. Isn't it amazing that all the WMUs surrounding 2G can support almost twice or more the number of deer as 2G.

Explain that one if you can.

---

---

So for over 80 years the habitat supported 25 DPSM and now you are claiming the habitat suddenly decided to control the herd ? Try again.

---

---

ORIGINAL: Coalcracker

Now you went a chased RSB away again, shame on you for asking him questions that he can't answer. We all know he prefers to do a monologue, rather than debate.

---

---

As for the deer numbers in the units around 2G that too has been explained. All of the units have different habitat that supports different numbers of deer. All of those units also have a management goal and objective that fits that unit, instead of just one management objective for all units.

---

---

In some areas the habitat is supporting far more then 25 deer per square mile. In other areas it is very obvious the habitat doesn’t support any way near that number of deer, and the deer themselves prove that too.

---

---

The negative effects of acid rain on regeneration are still mostly unproven theory and that type of theory attracts the same kind of ecoweenies that the global warming hoax does

---

---

.
Tree planting (artificial regeneration) generally is not
necessary in Pennsylvania. Through the use of
acceptable silvicultural practices, most of Pennsyl-
vania’s forests will regenerate naturally from seeds or
sprouts. Studies show that naturally regenerated trees
usually grow faster and survive better than planted
trees. However, trees may have to be planted to
reforest former strip mine sites, old fields, conifer
plantations, and areas where insects or diseases have
killed all the seed-producing trees.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

This is what the Penn Sate School of Forestry has to say about regeneration in PA.
Note, there is no mention of a problem of over browsing by deer!!!!

---

---

Classic Bluebird twisting of the facts. One lone paragraph does not give a representation of Penn State Forestry School's position on deer and regeneration and you know better. Their position has been that deer have a very large impact. For all we know, it's probably all through whatever report you clipped this little sound byte from

---

---

ORIGINAL: Screamin Steel

If deer, other wildlife, and the forest itself co exist in harmony for over 80 years at densities of 25dpsm, and suddenly in the last ten years, that same forest can no longer support a fraction of that many deer AFTER 80 YEARS!!!!! It doesn't take a genius to figure out that another factor has come into play and altered that relationship, and it's not the deer. Two possible factors being forest management and pollution. WE are still learning much about how pollution is affecting our planet. Can bad air quality affect certain species of plant regeneration, as well as acid rain? There is a a broad area of the Rothrock SF where poor red oak regeneration has been specifically attributed to acid rain, and that assessment came straight from DCNR.

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

If that is your position , all you have to do is post a report from the PS School of Forestry that contradicts what I quoted. The only reference to deer in the report was that timbering provided additional food for deer.

---

---

Note, there is no mention of a problem of over browsing by deer!!!!

---

---

No , I am not busted. I already had those articles on fencing bookmarked on my computer. I simply posted the quote to show the apparent effects of deer on regeneration varies depending on the author of the report.. The report I referenced didn't even mention over browsing, while the reports you listed were intended to emphasize the impact of deer on regeneration. Different authors with different agendas.

---

---

Furthermore, despite all the doom and gloom claims about overbrowsing the article I referenced shows that the amount of forested acres is still increasing. How is that possible when we had a record number of deer in 2001?

---

---

[blockquote]quote:

Furthermore, despite all the doom and gloom claims about overbrowsing the article I referenced shows that the amount of forested acres is still increasing. How is that possible when we had a record number of deer in 2001? [/blockquote]



Very good question. One which deserves an answer, yet will most likely conveniently go ignored! (LOL

---

---

So big deal, you managed to find one paragraph where deer werent mentioned. The fact that you would even try to post just that one small snippet as evidence that Penn States researchers dont consider deer is simply ridiculous. It just proves once again that you will go to any length to perpetuate your warped agenda.

---

---

According to U.S. Forest Service inventories, forest
areas are actually increasing in Pennsylvania. Forest
area throughout the Commonwealth is currently at its
highest level since the late nineteenth century. In the
heavily populated Southeast, forestland increased
more than 6 percent between 1978 and 1989. Likewise,
it increased 4.5 percent in the Northeast and 3 percent
in the West. Even in the Poconos, an area of rapid
population growth, total forestland increased 1
percent. Today, about 60 percent of Pennsylvania is
forested.

---

---

ORIGINAL: livbucks

Winter kill.
I wonder why it died?

---

---

ORIGINAL: blkpowder

Poor BB keeps taking a beating!!

---

---

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

But only from those that have to rely on cheapshots or lies and can't support their position with facts. Livbucks can't even tell us the RDD on which he wants deer management to be based, RSB doesn't know that we no longer have DD goals, BTB lied about what I posted and BWJ admitted he posts nonsense.

---

---

ORIGINAL: livbucks

Probably the deer retaliating for density being managed higher in 2f than 2g.
It's a principle thing.

---

---

ORIGINAL: livbucks

Probably the deer retaliating for density being managed higher in 2f than 2g.
It's a principle thing.

---

---

The challenges are many. We can relate the failure to many issues: loss of seed sources, competing understory plants such as ferns or mountain laurel, too many poor quality trees and wrong species left after harvesting, and excessive deer populations. The latter issue is very controversial, but if there are only a few seedlings or stump sprouts of desirable browse in the woods, even a few deer can have a major effect.

To learn more about your wood's future as you walk through the winter landscape, look for young trees on the forest floor. Are they poking up through flattened ferns? Are they extending above the snow? Is there a general layer of shrubs that deer apparently don’t eat? Are deer stopping to browse on the seedlings you do see? Do you see evidence of deer, turkey, and squirrel digging and scraping for seeds in the forest litter? There are many questions to consider in understanding the potential of your woods to provide future benefits.

Research studies repeatedly find that if you fail to have regeneration in place before harvesting, you will struggle to get regeneration in the future. Other competing plants will have the advantage over young trees trying to establish themselves. Seedlings already on the site, that are tall and strong, can compete successfully with other plants. If repeated browsing has created misshapen seedlings with multiple tops, their ability to develop into quality stems may be frustrated. The evidence of wildlife looking for seeds clearly suggests your overstory trees are fruiting, but if none of the seed ever sprouts, there could be too much competition for mast, or light conditions either in the canopy or close to the ground may not be ideal.

---

---

Often people question why we don’t have more deer and blame the lack of deer on hunters harvesting too many deer. Though it is possible to over harvest deer in some small pockets of any area I believe the following pictures show the biggest reason we don’t have more deer in most areas. When you have winter habitat that is severally affected by the deer, like this obviously is, harvesting fewer deer would do nothing more then create more winter mortality and food for the predators or scavengers.

---