You statement was most certainly false and misleading. The condition of our forests is no worse and probably a lot better than it was in the mid 70's when we had 40 DPSM in the NC counties. Therefore, the habitat in the NC counties could once again support 40 DPSM , but I am not saying the PGC should allow the herd to return to that level. Remember R. Latham was just as wrong as you are when he claimed in the 50's that the habitat could never again support large herds like the had in the past and the PGC was wrong in 1980 when they claimed the habitat could only support 21 DPFSM or around 600K OWD. The deer proved that the pGC was dead wrong by increasing to 1M OWD despite the record doe harvests during the 90's.

Is their current rate of less than 1% annually utilizing even a fraction the CC potential of the forests? Or does their desire for timber profits justify the stagnant harvest rate, due to the currently low market values of hardwoods?

I never said the deer couldn't live.I said the habitat would suffer,which it did.Runing the habitat for future generations is irresponsible.

Was there ever a major crash with the deer herd in PA?Something tells me there was.When was that and why did the herd crash?

The state forests are not being managed for high deer densities.It would be foolish for them toi flood the market with more timber when prices are already down.Have you talked with any forester from the PGC or DCNR lately?I have.For quite a while,they were actually having a hard time getting loggers to bid on the timber because of the market.Fortunately,that's changing now.

The PGC and DCNR don't employ their own logging crews.They simply sell standing timber.The food and cover crews employed by the PGC are small and cover a huge territory.I have a buddy that works for the food and cover in Clearfield county.There's him and one other guy to do habitat improvements on thousands of acres.How much work can 2 guys get done on 5 different game lands that span over 20000 acres?On top of that,they have old equiptment and have to do all of their own maintenance.

I look at it like this. Pgc has reduced the entire friggin state. Many areas needed NO reduction, some needed some, but got a helluva lot more. And theres always an invalid excuse and deciet involved.

2A? The herd needed some reduction. It got slashed in half according to pgc data, and worse if you believe hunter account. The extent of it was not done for regeneration as the regen. at the time was fine in the58- 60+% range. Human conflict was rated as low for the unit (and that was with nearer all time high herd size at the time!!) So why was it done so severly? Why is it continuing according to pgc data despite claims of "stabilization" which was supposed to be in place years ago?

Then, as the habitat that was fine since day one, regeneration was improving even more all along as the herd was reduced.......Then around 2006 or so Pgc changes their assessment process and the regen. With a modern day low deer density in the wmu, due to the "change" regen. fell from good and 61%, down to....FORTY SIX PERCENT....and the next year a flipping THIRTY SIX!!! Why did they suddenly raise the bar and make changes that sent our habitat rating from the mid sixty percentile range....Down into the high thirties immediately? lmao. Would you say thats pure unadulterated bull-? Because i certainly do.

Now to turn attention toward the north...The forests arent all that different in composition than most other similar eastern mountainous forests in the nation They also have ferns growing in areas, and as with ours, your view isnt limited to a max of 50 yards in any of their mature forests. those other states arent screaming at the top of their lungs about the danged deer and destroyed forests, flipping the hunters the bird every chance they get, or enacting extreme ridiculous deer plans. Given all of the above evidence, why on earth should we as hunters believe anything the pgc/dcnr says, when their track record of telling the truth is not very good, and thats been proven many times and we all know they have, and have had some extreme obtuse thinkers with agendas putting alot of this nonsense into play.

I don't have to believe the PGC or DCNR.I've seen the studies and walked through the same areas.I live here and I can see the evidence of overbrowsing.I saw the deer get brought way down and now in areas that had no regeneration,the habitat is starting to come back.I never believed a single word that came from anyone inside the PGC or DCNR.I went out and saw it for myself.In the end,the PGC and DCNR were both right in the majority of cases.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to assess the habitat if you learn what to look for.I look at it closely every chance I get.We needed a heck of alot less deer in this part of the state.That's indisputable.

Now as far as Greene county goes,I couldn't tell you.

"Now as far as Greene county goes,I couldn't tell you."

Im not asking you to go by what you have or havent seen here, since you have no experience here. Im telling you at the moment, all you need do is look at the data logically and sensibly. Most thought the program extreme prior to the assessment change. They raised the bar by going to habitatbased management, Yet our regen. was over 60% and just fine according to pgc. Then they raised the bar AGAIN, The change was made and despite modern day low deer density and having been an increasing trend in regen previously(both according to pgc data), it fell to 46% in one year and to 36 the next... All because of that change in assessment. Thats complete bs. The habitat which has always been among the best in the state, we are now told is among the worst because of changing some words in policy? Living here and hunting here, also knowing a few things about what it takes tobe good habitat, Id say its as good as anywhere ive hunted in other states, and its better than anywhere else ive been in Pa. Thats just my opinion, however it isnt all that different from pgcs previous assessments...

Apparently you don't even realize what you are saying, because both you and RSB claimed that in areas of poor habitat ,the habitat was controlling the herd ,which means it couldn't possibly support any additional deer.

Did 40 DPSM in the 70's ruin the habitat for future generations and reduce the herd to next to nothing or did the herd rebound so that we had 1.6M healthy deer in 2001, which all the past experts claimed was simply impossible?

The herd crashed in the NC counties in 1979 due to heavy snow cover and ice storms which prevent the deer from accessing the available food supply.They did not die because the habitat couldn't support 40 DPSM.

The PGC is not saying the habitat in Greene Co, is among the worst in the state, they are saying forest health based on regeneration is among the worst in the state and 5C is rated the worst with only 26% regeneration. The PGC only evaluates the condition of the habitat based on the health of the herd in each WMU and in 2009 5 WMUs were above target for herd health and the rest were at their target goal. So after over 80 years of over browsing the habitat is just fine despite all the scare tactics of DCNR.

I believe the herd crashed one other time prior to 1950.Why did that happen?

I didn't know e had 1.6 million deer.Didn't the PGC agree that the model was flawed that came up with that number?

Deer can find food during periods mild winters but the habitat hasn't rebounded.