Acid effects growth. Slow grow, impeded germination and slow recovery = multiplied effects of what otherwise would have been no deer damage. And thats just one issue. Not even speaking of the invasive species and plethora of other issues effecting regeneration....
Sure it does. They are the experts remember? lmao.

All you do is make up claims that you can't support. When you can provide a link to the report or study that supports your claim you might have a little credibility.

The WMI report didn't state there was a lack of regeneration. The audit , just like the DCNR reports said there was a lack of regeneration of commercially valuable species. The WMI report also stated that environmental conditions other than deer were responsible for the shift in tree species
Remember , you told use that just 3 deer in an exclosure wiped out the oak regeneration. So, do you support a DD of 3 DPSM in all of our oak forests?

Find a link or a study yourself. Better yet, take a drive, get away from your little 27 acres in Easton and drive up to the ANF and see for yourself.

There is no need for me to do that when I have the professionals from the PGC, DCNR and USFS and WMI supporting my position,while you have nothing at all to support yours.

Nope,there's all kinds of prefered regeneration in exclosures that grow at a rapid pace.

Now thats funny right thereI dont care who ya are!

You spend most of your waking hours trying to discredit those very folks!!

All you have to do is take a drive to the unprotected clearcuts and the exclosures all through the ANF to see the difference.

Full sunlight and zero browsing will in fact result in rapid growth of all species including shade tolerant species. the question then becomes which species survive to become dominant trees after 40 or 50 years. Would it be the slow growing oaks or the fast growing red maples ,birch and aspen?

Measured the growth rates of all the preferred species that have come up in the last decade inside those fences have ya?

As for rapid pace, id imagine it would seem that way compared to areas outside the fence in "natural" conditions. Though most likely slower than should be regardless...

Depleted soils, acid...whatever youd like to blame, depending upon species, there are many culprits.

Ive seen Carl Roe admit to this himself when speaking of timbering gamelands. Said they were cutting trees that were twice as old as they thought they were because of the decrease in growth rate. Sorry, but i dont think blaming the deer would be very rational in that example.

but that phenomenon COULDNT have any effect on a tender delicate little sapling though, could it?

Wrong again!! The pGC forest health estimates and the WMI estimates are based on the data provided by the USFS and I have posted nothing that would discredit their data. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about!!!