WAs DougE Right??
01-18-2010, 08:11 AM
#31
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Sounds like an extreme example doug. Picked specifically to be pointed out in the habitat tour. Im sure other things were in play besides those darn vermin deer, besides every inch of ground isnt the same, nor was every inch of Pennsylvania intended to be a wall to wall carpet of oak sapling. Im also pretty sure Ive seen similar sites on occassion in other areas of the state and for that matter other states. Hardly denotes catastrophe. But Im sure thats exactly how its addressed by pgc.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-18-2010 at 08:31 AM.
01-18-2010, 10:43 AM
#32
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,262
Sounds like an extreme example doug. Picked specifically to be pointed out in the habitat tour. Im sure other things were in play besides those darn vermin deer, besides every inch of ground isnt the same, nor was every inch of Pennsylvania intended to be a wall to wall carpet of oak sapling. Im also pretty sure Ive seen similar sites on occassion in other areas of the state and for that matter other states. Hardly denotes catastrophe. But Im sure thats exactly how its addressed by pgc.
01-18-2010, 11:09 AM
#33
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"It's not an extreme example.That's a very common occurence in areas that have overbrowsed habitat."
I believe it is an extreme example. Its not the norm for the state overall by any stretch or even there in the north. Overbrowsing was claimed to be ongoing up there many decades ago...and yet unit 2g is not one big failed cut meadow. And most likely never will be.
"That's what huge areas of Pa are faced with and that's why we have to have less deer than we normally should have to put up with. "
And i disagree. Huge areas of Pa are facing very poor deer management and thats the only threat currently.
Only reason we "have" to put up with fewer deer is because pgc & dcnr says so. Its the option theyve chosen for us. Putting the values of the decision makers above the rest of ours. Trillium hobblebush and squeezing every cent they can from timber over deer. It is optional. We dont "have" to have fewer deer, just as we dont "have" to have more. Its a matter of what we want. We want reasonable levels of deer and a reasonably healthy habitat. They dont care about deer but want exreme unnatural levels of biodiversity, and a completely unnatural full shrub layer which automatically rules out decent deer numbers right from square one. Our choice has been made for us.
I believe it is an extreme example. Its not the norm for the state overall by any stretch or even there in the north. Overbrowsing was claimed to be ongoing up there many decades ago...and yet unit 2g is not one big failed cut meadow. And most likely never will be.
"That's what huge areas of Pa are faced with and that's why we have to have less deer than we normally should have to put up with. "
And i disagree. Huge areas of Pa are facing very poor deer management and thats the only threat currently.
Only reason we "have" to put up with fewer deer is because pgc & dcnr says so. Its the option theyve chosen for us. Putting the values of the decision makers above the rest of ours. Trillium hobblebush and squeezing every cent they can from timber over deer. It is optional. We dont "have" to have fewer deer, just as we dont "have" to have more. Its a matter of what we want. We want reasonable levels of deer and a reasonably healthy habitat. They dont care about deer but want exreme unnatural levels of biodiversity, and a completely unnatural full shrub layer which automatically rules out decent deer numbers right from square one. Our choice has been made for us.
Last edited by Cornelius08; 01-18-2010 at 11:14 AM.
