I just don't understand this.[:'(] We had been told, by Dr Alt and DNCR, that the deer are eating themselves out of their homes, and that drastic herd reductions are needed to "save" our forests. They point to fenced-in plots where the protected growth is thicker than outside the fence. I have seen their fenced in areas (Sullivan County) and they clear-cut them first. By clear-cutting, you are removing the forest canopy, which then allows sunlight to reach the forest floor, necessary for new growth. This is important as anyone knows, clear-cuts, in a few years, are game magnets, providing forage and cover for deer, turkey and grouse. Now I see an article in Sunday's Allentown Morning Call in which biologists are lamenting the downward spiral of the ruffed grouse, putting the blame on PA's maturing forests preventing new growth, which provides etc, etc. Nowhere in the article was over-browsing by deer given as the problem for lack of undergrowth. [>:]

Independent logical thinking like that will not be tolerated . We,as hunters , are to blindly accept the fact that the reason saw timber has no understory is due to overbrowsing. we are expected to ignore the PGC studies that show browse generation decreases by 75% after 12 years in a clearcut even if no deer are present.

Most if not all of PA forest was clear-cut in the early 1900's, so that in turn is just recently putting most of our forest in the mature stage. The amount of clear-cuts that are actually done in PA our very low compared to what we once did. So that is the major factor in the downward spiral in grouse population (lack of habitat). Deer do play a role in there browsing but that is on species such as oak and maple. We still get regeneration but it is birch, beech, and striped maple because deer do not desire these species. If more landowners would do more clear-cuts and less diameter limit cutting, such as 12 and up and high grades our forest and probably our wildlife would be a lot better off. But everyone is affraid to use clear-cuts as a proper management tool because they look bad.

I'm not getting into a GC debate here. What I will say is that I hunt around one of the first areas to be fenced after logging in the ANF. We walk thru the fenced areas to get to our spot. The very same year that the fences were erected there were trails wore into the ground around the INSIDE of the fences, an incredible amount of deer sign and MANY MANY fresh rubs on the small trees left standing. The deer entered the fences at will it seems. I think the fences are HIGHLY ineffective and a big joke in our deer camp. As a matter of fact, after a few years we began to hunt INSIDE the fences! We have kicked deer up and watched as they effortlessly jumped over the 10 foot high fences and sought refuge inside the fenced areas. Out of the 4 fenced areas, only two had regrowth and the other two are like wastelands with NOTHING growing inside. The interesting thing is that the deer do not go into the two areas that have no growth , but they are constantly in the two that are heavy with new growth. Of course they go where the food is, but doesn't it seem funny how the trees can grow good and support deer in two of the areas? The two areas that have no regrowth are on the north slope of a major gorge.

The reason that regrowth does not happen is because the tree huggers have lobbied to limit cutting to small acreage "tracts". A hundred years ago they cut EVERYTHING and the sun reached the ground sunup to sundown. With limited tracts, the rising and setting sun is shadowed in most of the tract, thereby limiting the dose of precious sunlight reaching the ground. In Northern regions, the amount of sunlight received plays a vital role in the success of regrowth. Tracts cut on any hillside except southern are doomed to failure, especially since they are also required to leave a few mature trees standing in the middle of the tracts. WHAT A FARCE!

There will be no talk of good forestry practices tolerated here! Asking DCNR and the PGC to improve thier combined 3.9 million acres of habitat is crazy talk....

Given the option, both PGC and DCNR choose to sit in an office, sip coffee, reduce the herd to amazingly low numbers for 20 years...and cross thier fingers and hope some regen and diversity happens.

They may not control private timber lands, but they could at least put some effort into good forestry practices on thier own lands.
And the PGC is the better of the two. The PGC at least tries on areas that are accessable on SGL's and does have some good things on part of thier sgls.

You know at one time just a few years ago the PGC actually formed a citizens habitat committee, then they abruptly cancelled it once they met for a few months and made suggestions. Roxane Palone made the motion to disolve the committee. Apparently she did not like thier suggestions. ...and she is the resident forester.

....anyways, asking for better forestry practices has not worked well so far in Pa. I think thier lobby is stronger than our lobby.