It has been explained to you time and again.
You just don’t like the answers so you continuously pretend the answers don’t exist or are incorrect.

What is incorrect is you and your wanting to cling to those past management practices, including those estimated numbers, that have been proven to be a failure because they didn’t work to have sustainable deer habitat or higher deer populations.

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.

The deer and their food supply provide that management direction in each unit, just as it should be.



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.


R.S. Bodenhorn

Not hardly.

I obviously have a lot more to do with my time then you retired guys do though. I can’t keep up with all of the posts that are made in a day and just try to hit the ones that are the most outlandish, full of nonsense and outright fairy-tails.

R.S. Bodenhorn

Without a doubt you are a champion spinmeister and some true believers and blind followers may even believe your spin. But , others were paying attention when the PGC told us that all WMU's were being managed with a goal of good herd and forest health and low deer/human conflicts. They PGC also claimed that the herd was not being managed on deer density goals for individual WMUs.

Therefore, unless you are claiming the acceptable goal for 2F and 2G is poor forest health and it doesn't matter how many deer each unit has, your explanation makes no sense.
While that is true, it is also true that the study said the(average) habitat in the NC counties supported an average DD of 25 DPSM for 80 years, so your claim that the habitat is controlling the herd in 2G at 8 DPSM ,is simply ridiculous.

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.

I find it amusing that the same minority that cites acid rain as the culprit for poor regeneration is also the camp that claims the PGC has been taken over by ecoextremists.

The negative effects of acid rain on regeneration arestill mostlyunproven theory and that type of theory attracts the same kind of ecoweenies that the global warming hoax does.So what it seems we have here is ecoweenies accusing the PGC of bowing to the ecoweenies[&:]

In the short time I've been on this site,I too witnessed ecoweenies accusing the PGC of bowing to ecoweenies. They want to toast the PGC weenies. Then you have the hunting weenies roasting the PGC weenies for their decisions. Then the PGC shows data to explain to the hunting weenies as to why the PGC are not weenies for their decisions. Maybe this whole matter would be better handled by Hillshire Farms? [/align]

Your reasoning is flawed because the ecoweenies are not blaming acid rain for the lack of regeneration, they are blaming the deer. While it is true that the effects of acid rain on oak have not been proven, it has been documented to effect the health of mature oak and sugar maple and as yet they don't know what effect that may have on seed production or viability.

Steel,Red oak is tolerant of acidic soils.I can show you dozens of exclosures that were never treated and have have excellent oak regeneration.The only thing they're missing is large deer herds.I can also show you areas that were limed and you'll see no difference between the treated and un-treated areas with the exception of bracken ferns.Bracken ferns seem to take a liking to lime.

Acidic soils shave had a very pronouned effect on hard maple,not oak regeneration.The soils in oak forests are very acidic by nature,regardless of rainfall

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