bluebird2

The volume did not increase due to the increase in growth of mature saw timber that began as seedlings at the turn of the century, it increased because the amount of forested acreage increased significantly at the same time the PGC claimed there was severe over browsing which limited regeneration. If that wasn't the case the amount of volume would be decreasing , because the mature trees with the highest volume are the ones that are being cut , and that would result in a decrease the volume of wood. in our forests.

bluebird2

The following quote from DCNR's ,"Sate of The forests"
also supports my position the amount of forested acreage almost doubled since 1907.

gnhuntn

you've got to be kidding me? "doubled since 1907"? Are you actually claiming that this point proves that the deer do not impact regeneration? Do you believe that there just might be a chance that since there were very few deer back then it might have contributed to the successful regeneration...not to mention the fact that many parts of the state (northcentral primarily) were almost entirely clearcut at that time and any regeneration would certainly add to the forested acreage significantly. Come on.....If you are not a politician, then I think you truly missed your calling.

bluebird2

Here is the link to the DCNR report I quoted. It shows that our forests continue to increase from 1907 to 1978 and that included the period when we had 1.3 M deer in just 30 counties in the northern tier.

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry...A_DCNR_FIA.pdf

After reading that report would you care to revise your comments?

gnhuntn

Actually No, I would not like to revise my statement. If you look at the bar graph in the report that shows the millions of trees in the various years you will see that following the low point in 1907, the amount of forestland increased until 1965 and from that point on, which I wasn't in the woods back then, but wasn't that the general time frame for when deer herds began to increase? Also, I believe that the increase in forested acreage shown between 1907 and 1965 is basically successional resulting from the clear cuts of around 1900. If you look at some photos of Lycoming County from that time it shows the entire mountains in the Pine Creek Valley without a tree on it. Obviously, following this extreme logging, forestland in general would have to increase dramatically. What's also note worthy is the discussion on even aged forests included in the material.

gnhuntn

I did not clearly finish one of my thoughts in the previous post. The bar graphs show the increase in forests from 1907 to 1965 and from that point forward it appears that the acreage was fairly stable. Thus supporting the even-aged info, deer overbrowsing claims (if in fact that is when the herds were increasing significantly), etc.

bluebird2

No, the highest deer densities in the northern tier counties occurred in the 1930's and it peaked again in the mid 70's and the quote I posted shows that forested acreage continued to increase until around 1978 and after that point it remained stable ,except for the loss due to development, not to over browsing.

gnhuntn

I don't agree. The graph clearly shows that the amount of acreage in 1965 is very close to that of both 78 and 89. The question is what is the acreage figure for 65 and anyone who looks at the graph would agree, I think, that the acreage is very close to that of later years. The info quotes acreage for 78 and 89, nowhere does it say that it increased steadily until 78. Again, I believe you are misrepresenting the numbers to try and prove your point. To be fair, I did not read every word so please tell me where the information proves my interpretation of the bar graph is wrong....other than the acreage figures for 78 and 89 being slightly different.

Just curious, do you have any thoughts on the claims of even aged stand and the lack of understory in the information?

bluebird2

The following quote from DCNR's ,"Sate of The forests"
also supports my position the amount of forested acreage almost doubled since 1907.
Quote:
Forestland is Stable Across Most
of Pennsylvania
In 1630, forests covered an estimated 95 percent of Pennsylvania.
Then, beginning in the mid-1800s, nearly all the forests in
Pennsylvania were harvested by the developing nation for
agriculture and wood products. The area of forestland reached an
all-time low of about 30 percent in 1907.
Since the early 1900s, the forests have recovered and total
forestland area appears stable. The current inventory shows no
net loss of forestland statewide. Today, forests cover about 58
percent of the land area in Pennsylvania, totaling 16.6 million
acres, compared to 16.8 million acres and 16.7 million acres
in 1978 and 1989, respectively. However, certain portions of
Pennsylvania, especially the southeast and south- central regions,
are losing forestland to sprawl and development. Regional
analyses to determine changes in forestland area are underway
and future reports will provide insights as data become available.
__________________
In Miss. ,ARs reduced the average rack size of 2.5+ buck across the entire state

gnhuntn

Yes, I read that, and again it does not say that it was increasing until 1978. Please look at the graph and tell me that you don't agree that the numbers appear to be very similar beginning in 1965 and continuing right through 2002? That is my point. I am not doubting that the forests doubled since 1907, heck the mountains were literally a "moonscape" back then. I'm surprised acreage hasn't increased more than double. You also say that the forests continued to regenerate during high deer numbers in the 30's. Again, Wouldn't it be possible that the forests of the 30's were in fact those trees from the succession following the clearcuts primarily maturing, not actually new stands of timber....Hint, the reference to even aged stands. I'm no forester but wouldn't even aged stands indicate a lack of regeneration, regardless of the cause?