Why you refuse to see the damage that the deer have done is astonishing.

Have you ever been to Latham's acre? The effects of deer can not be ignored.

Can you tell me the lack of ground cover is not an aggravating circumstance in the reduction of small game numbers across the state.

I don't refuse to see the damage the deer have done. I just place it in it's proper context and consider all the other factors involved.

If anyone wants the habitat produced by zero deer, then they should fence their woods and keep out the deer. it is just like your solution of buying land to offset the effects of the PGC's HR.
Thee is no doubt that deer can contribute to the lack of understory in the seedling and sapling stage. But the limiting factor in pole and saw timber stands is the lack of sunlight due to a closed canopy. If you don't believe me check out the understory in a DCNR exclosure after 10 years.

You place no balance in your demand for more deer for you to see while your neighbor whom makes a living farming is quite happy with the deer plan.


No one has suggested "no deer" Latham's acre shows the difference between none and the varying numbers we have had over the last 60 years.
Once again go to Latham's acre and you will see that PA used to have plants that grew with little or no sunlight, like grouse they are a thing of the past.

That is what you do,not me.

Wrong again. Latham's acres just like the DCNR deer exclosures shows the effects of no deer.

Grouse are not a thing of the past and neither are trilliums. When I owned 87 acres in Lack. Co. we had lots of deer and lots of trilliums where trilliums were supposed to grow. but, 200 yds. away we had zero trilliums and it had nothing to do with too many deer.

Whats the outside show you?

When I was a kid we had plenty of grouse and trilliums too, yet today we have none.

Times have changed its you that refuse to.

Why would you ever sell your land?

"Have you ever been to Latham's acre? "


You gotta be kiddin' me.:s8:

Why dont we just go to "peta acres".:confused0024:

Im not disagreeing that deer can damage the habitat in high enough densities etc... But to credit that extremist for showing extreme unnatural examples of deerless habitat and pointing to it as ANY kind of proof of much of anything... To me is meaningless.

That simply is not true. I have changed a lot over the last 50 years as I have watched the habitat change. The fields where I once picked wild strawberries and hunted pheasants and rabbits are now saw timber that is even shading out the spice bush. I have been a keen observer of the changes in habitat for a lot longer that you and most members of this MB.

[QUOTE]Why would you ever sell your land?Why would you ever sell your land?[/QUOTE

Mainly , because the land surrounding my property was developed so after the first day the deer retreated to the secure areas and the quality of the hunting dropped dramatically and that was long before the current HR plan. and, BTW, I moved to an area where I had thousands of acres of land open to the public and i didn't have to pay taxes on it.

So what you are saying is that when hunting on the land you owned went down hill you took the money and ran, sold out for free hunting and now that the hunting on the state owned land has diminished you have become a crusader against the people that manage that state land?
How can todays management plan be so bad yet the plan that ended your private land hunts, pre HR-pre AR have been so successful.
You are sending mixed signals.:confused0024:

I see no correlation. I think it was explained in the statement you quoted " because the land surrounding my property was developed" Stir the pot much Jim? lol.