[QUOTE]Both the PGC and DCNR know exactly what they're doing when it comes to sustainable foresty practices.While some private timber companies do a good job,most of what I see being cut on private property is being done out of greed by highgrading[/QUOTE

The forests on SGLs are managed for wildlife while those on SFL are managed for profit , but the herd on both is managed for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry. And, DMAP tags would have little if any effect on regeneration if the herd in 2G was being managed at 15-20 DPSM. Even with only 8 DPSM in 2gG regeneration is still rated as poor.

I know exactly how deer were managed prior to 2000, its called traditional deer hunting. Very few, if any, does are harvested, and any legal buck, regardless of age or size, is shot. It's what persisted since the close of market hunting. Our herd was being "managed" by shooting 80% of our yearling bucks annually; and it was culturally frowned upon, even illegal at times, to shoot a doe....not very biologically sound.

So like I've said, I don't know what the terms mean, but I'm willing to listen and learn....

This summer I saw a 20m X 20m high fenced deer exclosure in a forest opening. It was a jungle, with a lot of 5 yr old white oak regeneration. The corresponing unfenced plot in the same opening had nothing but invasive species growing, and even these species were browsed. About 100 yards away, there was another high fenced and corresponding unfenced plot (this time both were under a closed forest canopy). I believe they had been high fenced for 5-7 yrs. In the unfenced plot there were no stems at least 2 yrs old. Inside the fenced plot, however, there was significant oak regeneration 3'-5'. This experiment proved that even under a closed forest canopy, we can witness forest regeneration, in fact some species have evolved to be shade tolerant to exploit this niche.

There was a timber company around here called Chagrin land corp.These guys did an excellent job cutting in a sustainable fashion.They ended up selling most of their property to an inestment corp.This investment corp leased most of the property to several small groups for about 5 years or so while they went in and raped and highgraded all the mast producing trees.It's regenerating but bow it's all beech,striped maple and black birch.Over the next ten years,these areas will turn into vitual wastelands,

I agree that the state forests are not being managed for deer.That isn't their mission.I will say that without a doubt,the SGL's around here are managed for wildlife,not timber.I've been involved with the habitat improvements and the PGC does a phenominal job.

I would have to agree, When I ride on the gamelands and ride by a food plot my horses eyes want to pop out of his head when he looks at those acres of green grass way back in the woods. And when the snows to deep they have the browse line cut to nibble on on each side of the trail.

I see you insist on digging the hole even deeper by repeating PGC talking points. But the facts show that every year from 1987 to 1998 we harvested more antlerless than antlered deer. Furthermore, shooting 80% of our 1.5 buck had no negative effect on genetics or the health of the herd. Breeding rates and productivity actually decreased when HR and ARs were implement and just returned to normal last year.

If those oak saplings were 3'-5' high they were a lot older that 5-7 years, which means they got their start before the area was fenced. The rate of growth under a closed canopy that even with very low DDs the vast majority of seedlings will be browsed before they out grow the reach of the deer.

Id suggest you find a new source of information.

1992----------buckharvest: 163,159--------antlerless: 198,065
1993------------------------154,732--------------------243,236
1994------------------------157,030--------------------237,542
1995------------------------182,235--------------------248,348
1996------------------------153,432--------------------197,585
1997------------------------176,504--------------------220,284

Somebody straighten me out please.....did we shoot 80% of the yearling bucks each year? Or.....was the buck harvest made up of 80% yearling bucks?