bluebird2

If you prefer to say the acreage peaked in 1968 instead 1987 that's fine with me, but the fact remains that no forested acreage was lost due to failed regeneration even at the high deer densities during the 30s and the 70s. Since the report is based on the number of forested acres instead of volume, it is clear that the increases were not due to the growth of trees that began growing before 1930.

While it is true that many of our forests are even aged stands of saw timber, that does not mean all of those stands are of the same age. We have a stand of poplar saw timber that were seedlings during the 50's and we also have adjoining stands of oak ,ash and birch that are around 100 years old.

Also remember our forests almost double despite losses due to roads, surface mining, power lines,gas lines and development. Thousands of acres were lost just in the Poconos due to the numerous subdivisions.

crokit

GNHUNTING:


Welcome to Bluebird2

BTBowhunter

Been away for a few days and come back to find another example of half the story from the bird. Why make a point of the amount of forest without also noting that the makeup is changing? Most desirable species are declining including red and white oak while the less desireable species like black birch and striped maple have increased.

Kind of like the guy who's garden was taken over by weeds rationalizing and telling us that it's still the same size and it's still green.

bluebird2

Wrong again, I provided the whole story since I provided the link to the full report. But the fact is that our current oak forests that developed around the turn of the century develop under entirely different conditions than exist today so it is unrealistic to expect the forests to regenerate with the species composition.

BTBowhunter

Yep, You're finally catching on! We didnt have too many deer back then.

Cornelius08

Good points about in not being possible bb. Less deer shouldnt equal worse regeneration than when the all time high herd size existed in the north. Therefore imho you cannot blame the deer. Not when timbering practices are encouraging and enabling the deer damage.

What do you attribute the problem to? I can think of many things that could very well factor in....

Previously the huge clear cuttings were not effected by deer because of their sheer size. But dcnr & pgc dont want to cut more than 1% year (and often less) because they dont want to glut the market and lower prices, yet at the same time they dont want to live with the effects of NOT making larger cuts....

We have much more acidic soils than previously. Also tons upon tons of biomass having been removed via the logging through the years = less nutrients in the soils and slower growth rates.

INvasives more of a problem.

Those are just a few things that come to mind quickly. Anything you agree with, disagree with or can add to the list?

bluebird2

Wrong again. There were so many deer during the 1920's that they closed buck season in 1928 and had an antlerless only year. In the 1930's there were 1.3 M deer in just 30 counties which resulted in a density of over 40 DPSM. None of the NC counties have anywhere close to 40 DPSM today and they did before this latest round of HR initiated by Alt.

BTBowhunter

Wrong yourself bird! My post was in reponse to your reference to the turn of the century, not 28 years later.

Once again, you've dodged the facts. The fact is that deer overbrowsing has contributed to a shift away from desirable species like oak and to undesireables like striped maple and black birch

bluebird2

Wrong again. The post by me which you referred to contained no reference to DDs because we all know that DDs were very low during that period. The reference was to the environmental factors which Cornelius pointed out in his post. The changes in those conditions along with,changes in forestry practices may be as big a factor in the shift in species as browsing by deer.

BTBowhunter

LOL! Duck and dodge! You're fairly good at shifting the subject around but not good enough! you still are ducking the issue of the shift from desirable to undesireable forest species and that deer have a lot to do with that. The issue was never whether the total amount of forest was shrinking. It was about the shift in species in the forests that have been harvested.