RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

This is not what RSB keeps telling us. His programmed response is that in poor overbrowsed habitat, it takes much fewer deer to keep impacting the habitat. The study claimed that DD at or below 15dpsm were sufficient for a diverse and healthy forest, given today's timbering practices.if he is going to keep claiming such bull, he should cite studies that support his position, not the other side. And if these densities are sufficient on expansive tracts of forest land managed for timber and "all" wildlife, then obviously mixed farmland and properties managed for wildlife and not timber should be able to support much higher DD than that without excessive deer impact. (See ridiculous DD goals for 5A and 5B.)[:@]

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Maybe I'm missing it but in my mind these studies show how deer affect areas in different ways,but the effects all lead to the same conclusion.

If you fence in a desert it will not support 15 dpsm and you see no regeneration even at 5 dpsm.Yet if you fence in an area with adequate soil and rain that area will support 15 dpsm,maybe moreand regenerate.

PA is a big diverse state with many kinds of habitat.

Simply put for simple minds.;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But the PGC used these studies that were conducted in the poorest habitat in the state, to establish deer densities goals in all WMUs based, solely on the carrying capacity of the forested habitat in those WMUs.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Steel,R.s.b is 100% correct in that once the habitat is stressed,it takes very few deer to have an impact on it.If you put 15 dpsm in habitat that isn't poor,they won't likely impact it.Who said that those studies started out with habitat that was poor.

Come on up some spring and you can walk some transect lineswith me onour browse impact surveys.You'll be amazed at how much the deer impact recently timbered areas that are in the middle of very poor habitat.I'll give you a dollar for every stump sprout that you can find that survives until winter.This is in an area with a pretty high deer density but there's been massive logging taken place over the past three years.

R.S.B has a 75 acre clearcut on SGL 93that was cut in 1993,I believe.That clearcut never regenerated and turned into a meadow,even though several seed trees were left.Six years after they cut it,they erected a bunch of small fences.Today those fences are too thick to walk through and the unfenced areas are still not coming back much,even though the deer herd is greatly reduced in that area.It's amazing.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The original studies used to establish the OWDD goals began in 1960 after 30 years of over browsing. I'll have to check to make sure , but as I recall the latest research was de Calesta was done during the 90s after 60 years of over browsing. Since only 42% of the plots surveyed in 2G have adequate regeneration, should the herd in 2G be reduced to 5 DPSM. How far should the PGC reduced the herd in 2F ,where only 34 % of the plots regenerated? Why is the PGC still creating herbaceous openings for elk, if there are so many failed clearcuts creating open meadows?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The herd in 2G needed to be greatly reduced and it needs to stay low for a long time.Positive results were starting to show up.hopefully,the herd doesn't rebound too fast and we end up losing everything that we gained.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But only for the benefit of the DCNR and the timber industry. The deer and hunters will see no benefit from keeping the herd at these ridiculously low DD for a long time. If forest health hasn't improved in areas that receive adequate sunlight, why would it improve in areas under a closed canopy. That makes absolutely no sense.

BTW , I checked a 3 year old cut on a southern slope near my home and there has great regeneration ,but not one deer track, even though there was 8" of new snow. All of the tracks were on the opposite side of the round where there is very little new growth.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I still can't figure out what you have against having adequate and prefered regeneration.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I have nothing against adequate regeneration of preferred browse species and you know that. But, when 2G only has 42% regeneration with less than 10 DPSM it is fairly obvious that there are other factors limiting regeneration in 2G.

Now that I answered your question, why don't you answer my questions. The answer is you won't because there is no logical answer to those questions. Study after study has shown that the understory and browse decrease dramatically as a clearcut progress to pole timber even with no deer.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You need a study to know that?
I can cut all the standing firewood I want in 2f.