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.

Yes, like there was some "big bang" or something. I agree with you, this is a mystery to me, If it is true.

Here is the link to the report by the SCS. The quote is from the first paragraph on page 11.


http://www.scscertified.com/PDFS/forest_statepenn.pdf

What an utterly absurd claim to make!

LOL here you go...

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh145.pdf

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/news/resource/res2008/08-1217-naturenotes.aspx

http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/info/pubs/management/PA%20Regenerating%20hardwood%20forests.pdf

http://psuforestmgmt.cas.psu.edu/regeneration.htm

http://aginfo.psu.edu/News/2004/12/forests.html

http://www.extension.org/pages/Young_Penn_State_Researcher_Immersed_in_Pennsylvan ia_Deer_Study

Not all these links are straight to PSU school of forestry but all these links are either to Penn State or someone citing their research and ALL name deer as a significant factor in forest regeneration. It took just a few minutes to find these. There are most likely dozens more at least

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?

Yes, you are busted once again!

You presented one paragraph and tried to pass it off as evidence that Penn State didnt consider the negative effects of deer on regeneration.

You said:
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.

Exactly. Greatpoint. Samecould be said of biologists as well. You can take one who has hunting as an interest and loves whitetail deer, and take another who is a treehugger and abhors deer, have themboth constructtheir owndeer programs within thehabitats cc,and Id lay odds that one would have deer densities double the other, even though both resultscould be said tobe "scientifically" acceptable.

On the topic of deer impact on regeneration, deer arent the only factor, and its debatable wether or not there are more significant factors that magnify deer damage.

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

Whether or not it was a good question doesn't change the fact that asking it was a duck and run, bob and weave dodge to the fact that the [&:]bird was busted once again for posting blatant distortions.

It's a tired old tactic to change the subject when a lie is confronted and proven.

Here is the link to the report which I quoted and you obviously haven't read.

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uh097.pdf

Once again it is you that is busted for falsely accusing me of taking the paragraph I quoted out of context and misrepresenting the content of the report. We all know that all foresters consider deer to be a potential problem regarding regeneration, but the report I quoted clearly shows that the deer have not been devastating our forests for the past 80 years.

Here is another quote from the report citing the increase in forested land.
Once again there is no mention of deer preventing regeneration and according for a decrease in the amount of forested land.

Winter kill.
I wonder why it died?