LOL! I'll give you credit for creativity

That fairy tale is a complete fabrication but We'll give you a C+ for the effort!

They do spay when they can.Moshannon state forests have several areas that they sprayed.With the more recent budget constraints.who knows how much they'll be able to.


Not everything is about oak regeneration.Alot of our forests are northern hardwoods and there are no oaks in a northern hardoods stand.

I'm seeing you on that Tony. I read a study on maples dominating landscapes back in the 90's, and the deer weren't mentioned as the greatest factor. Top reason stated was lack of forest fires in this century. That problem started long before the deer herd rose to it's peak densities in the NC. In burned over soils, like existed commonly before modern fire control practices, oaks had a decided edge, thriving in burned over soils where maples struggled. This kept the maples in check for centuries, until man interfered and started putting down fires quickly, before they spread. If deer herd is at low enough levels to have the luxuries of eating only preferred species such as oak, than our lower DD has actually compounded the problem...giving another competitive edge to the maples. Why don't we see controlled burns performed extensively in clearcuts...then reseeded with oak? Do this on a large scale in an area with reasonable DD, then fence a small exclosure and I bet your photo looks quite a bit different than the one a few pages back!

Years ago,the oaks thrived because of forest fires.oaks have thick bark and deep root systems so they can withstand fire better than thinner barked maple.Red maple used to actually be called swamp maple because it mostly grew in wet areas where fire couldn't get at them.It's true that fire suppression is a major reason for the dominance of red maple.More controlled burns would be nice but they're lablor intensive and there's a very short window in which they can be done.They can't do them until the snow is gone and they can't do them much into the end of April because of ground nesting birds and the damage to other young wildlife.On top of that,conditions have to be perfect.On top of that yet,up until this year,the laws were not in favor of those lighting the match.Controlled burns can be beneficial at times but there use is limited.I've walked through several controlled burns and some other invasive species like sasaphrass take to them as well.I can show you two burns in Moshannon state forest where the sasaphrass has almost completly taken over immediately after a burn.

Our lower dd's have not compounded the problem.

[QUOTE]They do spay when they can.Moshannon state forests have several areas that they sprayed.With the more recent budget constraints.who knows how much they'll be able to.[/QUOTE

But even in areas that are sprayed, unless the stand is clearcut, the shade tolerant trees in the mid-understory become the dominant canopy trees and prevent oak regeneration.


BTB, Are you claiming deer aren't attracted to the exclosures and clearcuts? I think even Doug would disagree with that.

ABSTRACT:

No one has denied that bigger cuts do better.Overwhleming the deer with a big cut is sure way to get decent regeneration.Unfortunately they can only cut so much on game lands before they'll eventually have too much pole timber.On top of that,they have to have enough diversity in age class to benefit the species that need mature forests.DCNR has different issues to deal with.They're mandated to only cut 70 acres at a time and they can only have so many timber sales within a certain distance of each other.There are several huge clearcuts within a mile or two of my house on land owned by a timber company.They cut a few of these areas when deer numbers were fairly low.The regeneration is excellent and there's more food than the deer can ever eat.I hunt the area when I have tags for that spot and do well on a consistant basis.The problem is that these clearcuts are so large and thick,it's almost impossible to get the deer out and as a result,everyone still complains that there's no deer.Timbering on a large scale does wonders but it's not always practical and it's not a longterm solution in every case unless there's enough timber to keep rotating.

Who imposes those mandates? Is it state law, and SCS requirement or is it just DCNR policy?

Couldn't tell you.I just know on the district level that they can't cut more than 70 acres at a time.I don't believe it's an SCS mandate but I could be wrong.I'm simply going by what the district forester told me.I'll ask him when I get a chance.

So you really don't know if the BOF is limited to 70 acre clearcuts. from memory I believe one cut in one of the DMAP reports was 73 acres.