You show me proof that this is all about oak regeneration.More than half of the state doesn't even have oak.

I will, right after you list the reports where DCNR expressed serious concerns about the lack of regeneration of cherry, birch, beech and red maple.

lol. Good point bb. lol

Also its pretty well known that secondary goals exist. Such as extreme unnecessary, unnatural levels of biodiversity.

Yeah,lol they're really concerned about invasive species that they don't want.You guys are too much.

None of the trees I listed are invasive species. They are all native to PA and have existed in our forests as long as the oaks.

Sorry,they have little value to wildlife and practically no commercial value,except the black cherry.In any event,anyone that wants to manage a piece of property for wildlife or timber would want to reduce those species.

You bring up a good point though.Cherry is more valuable than oak and the deer generally don't touch it unless they have no other choice.Why would they want to regenerate oak over cherry?If they did,they wouldn't have to worry about an overabundance of deer.

Are you telling me that they're trying to kill all the deer statewide so that they can regenerate oak in large sections of Pa that are northern hardwoods?

Grouse eat black birch buds and deer love red maple and can survive quite nicely in a forest of red maple ,beech and striped maple at 40 DPSM. lots of birds and animals eat the black cherries and birds ,squirrels and chippies eat the red maple seeds.

No one said they did. If an area is all oaks ,ash and maple it is hard to regenerate a stand of cherry with no seed stock.

You were talking about oak with with quote,correct?So what is it?Is it all about oak or isn't it?

It's all about oak where oak are the dominant tree species in the existing canopy. In the rest of the state it is about SCS certification of DCNR forests.

I gotcha.It's about oaks if it fits your agenda at the moment,otherwise it's about something else.

Now you are just being silly. you know that I have said all along that the current HR push was the result of DCNR wanting their forests to be recertified. That requires that the statewide herd be reduced to allow regeneration of the existing canopy trees whether they are oak, cherry ash or hard maple.

And I still say that's nonsense.Why would they reduce the herd in areas like 2A and 5c THAT HAVE VERY LITTLE IF ANY CERTIFIED TIMBER?Forest certification played a role and that's where dmap came in to play but it didn't effect the majority of the state.

DMAP would have been totally worthless if the herds hadn't been reduced both on private land and SGLs along with . Even with DMAP and statewide HR they still have to use exclosures to regenerate oak in many areas.

Also, DCNR can't sell all the DMAP permits they are issued. Imagine how much harder it would be to sell them if we still had 1.6 M PS deer and were harvesting around 300K antlerless a year. Furthermore, DCNR would have no hope of reaching their goal of a 1:1 B/D ratio without statewide HR.

Doug, how could the "regeneration based" management and its supposed "benefits" be defended and justified if applied only to the units with dcnr lands?? If its supposed to be sound then how could they ever explain NOT going that route statewide? lol.

Pgc is supposed to be managing our deer herd. STATEWIDE. Including but not limited to the stateforest system.

With our fine:lmao: system set up so that there are no limitations and everything is WIDE open to interpretation....theres an excuse for every inch of Pa having fewer deer.... In fact, we could cut the herd in half again and make rational sounding excuses as to why its necessary based on the current system. The current excessive unnatural "biodiversity" nonsense only proves my point..

True but BB claims that the herd was reduced statewide to satisfy the forest certification that's on a very small percentage of the land in Pa,which is total nonsense.Like I stated earlier,the number of deer in an area like Green county would have no bearing on the forest certification.

As Cornelius already stated ,the PGC couldn't just implement HR in those WMUs with state forests. If they did it would have been obvious that the HR was only for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry. So the PGC came up with the song and dance about the health of the herd, increased breeding rates, higher productivity and a shorter breeding period so the predators would be flooded with fawns and none of it was true.

Pure speculation.

Pure speculation is the best speculation you can get. It is much better than the lies the PGC told hunters to sell their plan. Which do you prefer,pure speculation or lies?

How do you like this pure speculation?

[QUOTE]SCS acknowledges that solutions to the Pennsylvania deer density
problem cannot be designed and implemented solely by BOF because
currently the Pennsylvania Game Commission regulates deer seasons,
bag limits, antlerless licenses and all other regulatory functions used to
reduce deer density by hunting. Within these realities, SCS requests that
BOF take meaningful actions that are within the Bureau’s control. Thus:
by the 2004 annual audit, the BOF shall develop a 1st draft of a written
deer management plan and shall initiate earnest and aggressive strategic,
public advocacy, and political actions aimed at liberalizing hunting
regulations in ways that reduce the deer density on State Forests. Possible
strategic, public advocacy, and political actions include:

And where does it state anything about statewide herd reductions?It doesn't.The SCS is only concerned about the state forests and it even specifically states that.I rest my case.

It is only appropriate to rest your case if you have a case to rest. The fact is that DMAP harvest rates average less than 2 DPSM and that is only for the specific area that is DMAPPED. That harvest rate wouldn't keep up with recruitment in any WMU, which means that if the herd in the entire WMU wasn't reduced DMAP harvest alone would be totally meaningless. Even with a 50% reduction in the herd in 2G, DMAP harvests are not enough to eliminate the need for exclosures. So the fact is you don't have a case to rest.