Nope I can anyone several areas where the mid level understory is coming back to the point where those 100 yard shots are no longer possible and deer do exist there.

You say it only takes a deer or two to prevent regeneration in exclosures with max. sunlight and the max. rate of growth, yet you expect to see a well developed understory in pole and saw timber with minimal sunlight and the slowest rate of growth. That doesn't make any sense what so ever.

You wanna use an exclosure where a deer or two might have made it into for an indeterminant amount of time as an example of what "should be normal' in the way of regeneration? No way hoss. You wanna show what is "normal" you show me fenced areas with known densities of deer inside at "normal" generally acceptable levels, over a known period of time, then assess the damage. If the forest composition then mirrors that found throughout most of the state, and for that matter the huge majority of the eastern US, then i say forget the enviro-agenda, because its pretty clear those types of habitat they are currently striving for are meant to be niches here and there, and not the norm throughout every inch of forest. Id also like to know why this hasnt been done (effects of given number of deer on habitat) when it shouldve been only common sense. That is, unless deer are not to be given much consideration in this management fiasco.

Whether those thicket in a mature forest conditions CAN prevail under ridiculously unnaturally low deer densities isnt in question. I agree it can. But I say it SHOULDNT as its not "normal" conditions, and we are to pay far too high a price for it, and we, or society for that matter is gaining little. There is nothing that shows we must strive for that either. Whether to do so or not is a decision based on opinions and values. Not necessity. Some value extreme levels of biodiversity. We value deer. Currently there is no compromise, those valuing extreme diversity are running the show.

[quote=Cornelius08;3553190]You wanna use an exclosure where a deer or two might have made it into for an indeterminant amount of time as an example of what "should be normal' in the way of regeneration? No way hoss. You wanna show what is "normal" you show me fenced areas with known densities of deer inside at "normal" generally acceptable levels, over a known period of time, then assess the damage. If the forest composition then mirrors that found throughout most of the state, and for that matter the huge majority of the eastern US, then i say forget the enviro-agenda, because its pretty clear those types of habitat they are currently striving for are meant to be niches here and there, and not the norm throughout every inch of forest. Id also like to know why this hasnt been done (effects of given number of deer on habitat) when it shouldve been only common sense. That is, unless deer are not to be given much consideration in this management fiasco.

It's been done quite a few times.

It does make sense because none of these exclosures are over 70 acres.If the habitat is poor to begin with,one deer can certainly inhibit regeneration in a 70 acre exclosure.

Are you trying to out do RSB with your gross exaggerations? If one deer can inhibit regeneration on 70 A and DCNR is limited to 70 acre clearcuts, than according to you it only takes 1 deer/70 acres to inhibit regeneration, which means you support a goal DD of less than 5 DPSM. That makes you even worse than the PGC.

Nope,the discussion was about regeneration under a mature canopy.DCNR often fences in areas prior to a cut to get some advanced regeneration going.If a deer gets in one of those exclosures,they can wipe out any regeneration in a short times.I've seen 3 deer completley wipe out almost all oak regeneration in a shelterwood cut.The maple did fine but the deer eat the more prefered browse first.If the surrounding habitat is good and the deer have enough to eat,that won't happen to that extent.If the habitat is poor,it takes alot less deer to make an impact.That's what we gace in the NC part of the state and that's why we need less deer.

Your discussion with TL may have been about regeneration under a closed canopy , but my comments were based on the comparison of regeneration with adequate sunlight verses a closed canopy.
So the fact still remains that if one deer/70A can inhibit regeneration under a closed canopy, than there is no reason to expect regeneration under a closed canopy unless there are less than 5 DPSM. Is that what you want?

..More likely the only thing learned in that regard is that more environmental extremists have "learned" the only way to experience their unnatural nirvannah is to jump on board at pgc and grab the wheel.

"It's been done quite a few times. "

Not by pgc that im aware of. Yet they have how many "exclosures" in use for long term?? Thats because theyd rather not commit to reasonable deer densities, but instead look at completely unnatural conditions and point to those as what we should shoot for.