Originally Posted by DougE (Post 3586244)

And I walked through his study area with two foresters,two different times.Everyone agreed that there was no difference between the limed areas and the ones that had no treatment.DCNR and the US forest service have all done studies on liming and it's never been proven effective.I didn't simply discredit the man.I went out and personally looked at the areas he limed.None of the foresters that I know ever studies under Dr Sharpe.If it really worked,why wouldn't they be implementing it?

Besides,you need to research Dr Sharpe more.Please show me where he's stated that deer aren't a major factor effecting regeneration.

Originally Posted by Screamin Steel (Post 3586268)

You're missing the point, here, Doug. regeneration ONLY takes off when you eliminate the deer ENTIRELY from the equation. Not in real world scenarios (outside the exclosures.). Are you reccomending they kill every deer in the state to achieve their forest goals? That's the only way your magical regeneration formula works. You keep raving about this magical regeneration in the absence of deer, yet the PGC data shows very miniscule improvements within WMU's, and in some cases regression. Obviously they aren't seeing all the wonderful improvements in 4D and 2G that you are claiming where the herd was reduced.

Originally Posted by bluebird2 (Post 3586258)

Since reducing the herd by 50% in 2G. resulted in a decrease in forest health from 45% in 2005 to 38% in 2007, do you support reducing the herd in 2G to 2 or 3 DPSM, as the exclosures indicate is necessary to get adequate regeneration?

Originally Posted by DougE (Post 3586423)

many of DCNR'S TIMBER SALES ARE NOW NOT BEING FENCED.