The previous DD goals implemented in 1980 were based on 20 years of research with deer in enclosures with the 3 different stages of timber development. But 20 years of scientific research, plus 20 years of data using that system didn't justify the HR required by SCS in order to get the DCNR forests re-certified. Now DCNR is even DMAPPING wilderness areas where they have no plans to harvest timber, yet they want to artificially manipulate the deer herd.

"The previous DD goals implemented in 1980 were based on 20 years of research with deer in enclosures with the 3 different stages of timber development."

I was aware of the dd goals based on timber stage, and knew they had to have been based upon some study, but wasnt aware of how they were obtained, or from where. Didnt know if it had been a "Pa specific" study conducted in Pa or if it was a generalization based on forest type across the northeast etc. Also if it were done in Pa not that it matters much, but didnt know if it were Pgc, dcnr, or whoever else that had conducted it. Was this a study done by pgc?

Also why have exclosures to see how growth can occur with no interference from deer, if such a condition is not an acceptable option? Seem unrealistic to relate such extreme condition to real world practice.

The PGC did studies where they fenced off diffent areas with different dd's as did the US FOREST SERVICE.There's been several of these studies done and results are on the internet.I had some mailed to me and some I copied from PDF files.The PGC will mail you copies.You should get them as the results are pretty interesting.R.S.B was even involved with some.

Here is a link to a PGN article that references the study.
http://www.fortgrundsow.com/PGN1984AprHowItWas5.jpg


The exclosures are an acceptable option if DCNR is willing to spend the money necessary to construct the exclosures. They are a much better option than reducing the statewide herd to a density that DCNR can satisfy SCS without fencing. But, DCNR will not be willing to fence wilderness areas so the tree huggers can see more trilliums ,so they are using DMAP tags instead.

The vast majority of exclosures aren't experimental.They're done in areas with mainly poor habitat and they can't get desired regeneration until deer numbers are extremely low.That's a fact.I've walked through literally hundreds of exclosures and the vast majority of them get deer inside them on a regular basis.In fact,the older exclosures with electric fences had deer inside them pretty much all of the time.I've hunted hear these fences and have seen deer actually run between the wires.There's a hundred acre exclosure on Moshannon state forest not far from where I used to live.It was an old electric fence that was taken down about 5 years ago after being up for about 15 years.I consider it a failure because it's almost 100% red maple even though most of the overstory is oak.I used to bust my buddy's chops about it's failure because he's the district forester.He told me that the oak was doing well when they first cut it but enough deer got in,couple with a dry summer or two wiped out all the oak and gave the maple a chance to take over.I thought he was crazy until I looked at a differnt exclosure this past year that was a 70 acre shelterwood cut.It was cut a few years ago and two years ago the oak was regenerating beautifully.Three deer got in and literally wiped out ever small oak seedling and there was a visible browse line on every single stump sprout and every single sapling that was almost making it past the deer.The maple was slightly browsed but no where near the extent the oak was.Deer are picky and they eat the most prefered species first,altering the compostion of the forest.The problem gets magnified when the surrounding habitat is already poor because the deer key in on any new growth that's prefered.I had to see it to believe it but it's a fact.

Electric fences are a joke and anyone that would expect electric fences to exclude deer is a XXXXXXX. One deadfall or a weed or two can ground a fence and make it totally useless.

I have an issue with wilderness areas that can never be timbered but there's nothing any of us can do about it.Let me get this strait though.What you're saying is the deer herd should be allowed to grow on state forests to the point where there's never going to be any type of understory?That's just flat out selfish and self centered.

Even when the fences are hot AND THEY USUALLY ARE,deer still would get in.They still get in woven wire fences on a regular basis.Trees knock them down.Sometimes they never get all the deer out to begin with and they even jump over some.Regardless,the regeneration inside those electric fences is a stark contrast to what would regenerate had no fence been there.

Wrong again. The SFL should have an understory where the environmental conditions allow an understory. Do you expect to find a well developed understory in old growth forests? should SFL have a well developed understory under dense stands of hemlocks or white pine? If a stand of oaks , red maples and beech regenerates in beech and red maples stand is that the fault of the deer or mother nature?

Should a northern hardwoods stand have an understory?