I've visited several high fenced experiment plots with corresponding unfenced control plots in multiple locations across the state. Every time without exception, the high fenced plots had significant hardwood regeneration, and the control plots had none whatsoever.

I'm not a forester, and am not familiar with the saw/pole timber terms you used. I'm very confused by your post and would appreciate elaboration. My logic is as follows....In the past (prior to antler restrictions) we had virtually no forest regeneration statewide. That is not argued. By reducing and maintaining low deer densities forest regeneration will increase. As a result of increased hardwood regeneration, nutrition, and therefore the carrying capacity will increase.

I agree whole-heartedly. This is the main reason I suggest managing deer on a smaller scale.

That simply is not true. while the PGC has claimed our forests have been severely over browsed since the late 1920's, the amount of forested acreage has increased instead of decreasing. If you don't believe what iI am saying ,just go to the DCNR website and you will see I am right.
QUOTE]As a result of increased hardwood regeneration, nutrition, and therefore the carrying capacity will increase.[/QUOTE]

The CC capacity of over browsed beech ,birch and striped maple can support 40 DPSM at the MSY CC of the habitat. But, WMU 2g is being managed at 8 DPSM. Does that make sense to you?

"My logic is as follows....In the past (prior to antler restrictions) we had virtually no forest regeneration statewide."

There is a very big flaw in that logic. The earliest pgc regeneration assessment, I believe, which data was collected from 2001 to 2004 showed only 7 wmus rated as "poor" for regeneration out of the total 22. That can be found on the 2005/06 pgc annual wildlife report, deer section.

I also agree with what bb has stated, but he is speaking of the worst areas and not addressing the "statewide" part of your statement.

Not gonna speak for all Northern tier WMU's but until HR, there was virtually nothing below the browse line in the forested areas of 2F and the very small part of 2G where I hunted. Now those areas are coming back but slowly.

It's also completely meaningless to talk of what a stand of striped maple and beech can support. Few landowners will be willing to let that happen to their forest. Too many hunters forget that without the landowner, many of us will have no place to hunt. We get to hunt many of those forests simply because we are a useful in controlling the herd. That goes for public lands as well, with the exception of Game lands, of course.

And I'm so willing to bet that as a QDM practicioner, you are managing all your properties at or below 6 dpsm, which is the goal established for WMU's 5A and 5B just a few years ago. Right. QDM are the biggest bunch of hypocrites I've ever met...support the PGC deer plan 100%, though almost none of them even hunt public land....expect all of us that do to "make do" with way less deer, even though you could never imagine sitting in the food plot box blind and not watchng forty deer at a time, let alone the need to stuff your bucks full of supplements to "maximize" their antler potential...anything to fill up the wall faster and make it easier to bag big bucks with regularity. I'm convinced (after meeting and knowing many QDM members personally) that it all boils down to antler greed...though they try to candy coat it and make it sould like they are some kind of conservation heroes,(seem to love patting their own backs) it's still all about antlers. Period.
So go ahead and tell us all about how the deer herd is going to be permitted to rebound when the hobblebush flourishes, and all the state's big $ hardwoods aren't nibbled anymore. Like they would allow it, when DD of less than 25 dpsm have been shown to have "unacceptable" levels of browse damage. Talk all about forest health, when it isn't even a mute consideration on your QDM lands.

This sums it up very well to me . Its not so much how many deer the forest can handle, its how many deer the non hunting public are going to tolerate doing damage to property and themseves. I also realize deer are not managed for hunter satisfaction. Hunters are a tool in the wildlife management program. These agencys have a good gag going on, they get the tools of the trade to finance the management program. I don't think we will ever see a herd increace, herd stabilizion at the most. There are to many Pa. citizens who couldn't give a rats behind if some hunter doesen't fill his tag. Whats most important to them is they don't have to deal with the deer on a year round basis.

It is not meaningless when you realize Alt was claiming our deer were unhealthy due to over browsing and the lack of an adequate food supply. But the fact is they was more than enough food for the deer in the NC counties when the latest HR plans started in 2000.

Also, even after having 40 DPSM in the 30s and 70s, we still don't have vast areas of beech birch and striped maple. What we have much higher percentage of saw timber than we should have which results in a lot of areas with no due to a closed canopy, not because of over browsing.

The CC capacity of over browsed beech ,birch and striped maple can support 40 DPSM at the MSY CC of the habitat. But, WMU 2g is being managed at 8 DPSM. Does that make sense to you?[/quote]

It makes sense to me.Once the habitat gets degraded as much as it is in 2G,it takes far less deer to continue to impact the habitat.While deer can certainly survive in poor habitat,it makes no sense to increase the population if they're forced to eat indicator species like beech.That proves that other more valuable and more preferred species are getting wiped out.I don't understand why anyone would find that acceptable.

2g certainly averages out to overwinter less deer than most places.However,the deer are not evenly spread out.Huge areas have absolutely pizz poor habitat shouldn't have hardly any deer.Seek out and find the places where deer should actually be and you'll find deer densities far above 8 dpsm.

Why didn't all the preferred species get wiped out when we had 40 DPSM in the 1940s and and 1970s? Don't we have any stands 30-60 year old pole timber stands of oak,ash and maple? Why did over 70% of the plots regenerate in the NC counties during the early 80's, after the area had been over browsed since the 20", and even though there were a lot more deer?