Pawildman

The browse line in a mature forest as you describe is far above the reach of the deer. Plain and simple. Again, I ask you, what is there for the deer to feed on in that enviornment? Virtually nothing. The heydays of deer hunting in the mountains was during and after the huge timbering operations took place. Just look at some of the old pictures of camps years ago. Nothing but slashings in the backround, for the most part. Plenty of cover, plenty of food. The deer herd thrived and grew. That is a far cry from the situation that exists today, and one of the prime reasons the deer needed to be thinned out before they starved out due to lack of feed. The diminishing of the deer herd in the mountains started years before the herd reduction program started. The maturing of the forests and the lack of adequate browse played a giant role.

bluebird2

How can a browse line be above the reach of the deer? If they can't reach the browse then they are not responsible for it's absence.

The deer will eat the same things they have been eating for ever. They will eat leaves ,forbes and grasses in the spring and summer and fatten up on hard and soft mast in the fall and then switch to browse and dead leaves and grasses in the winter. The deer have proven over and over again they have no problem finding enough food to be productive enough to increase the herd when the harvests don't exceed recruitment. The fact that breeding rates and productivity didn't increase as the herd in 2G was cut by over 50% , proves beyond a doubt that the habitat was not the factor limiting breeding rates and productivity.

You claim the herd in the mountains was declining before herd reduction began. So can you tell us when you think herd reduction began.

WillCz

I do not buy into the idea that the herd was reduced to save them from starvation. I see rotting corn in the food plots now.

DougE

bluebird,You and Idebate this every day on a number of different forums.I agree that deer are pretty resiliant creatures.During periods of mild winters,they can survive with surprisingly little to eat.However,a lack of browse which is very evident around Wildman's camp is certainly not optimim for the deer,forests or other wildlife that depend on habitat that's not in a park-like stage.Why do you not want good habitat?I'm very familar with the area around Wildman's camp.It used to be a huge junglebecause of a tornado that ripped through the area in 1985.Today,it's thjousands of acres of pole timber and overbrowsed saw timber with nothing but a blanket of ferns in the understory.The good news is,now that the herd has been reduced to around 10 overwinter dpsm in this area,they are actually starting to have some timber sales without having to fence the deer out.

Will,I thought you were done with this converstation.The idea of herd reductions was to provide better habitat for the deer and other wildlife.It wasn't to save them from starvation although that does happen more than many people realize.

WillCz

Just couldn't stay away.


I joined Stephen Mohr's group this past week. Amazing, but I felt like I had no other options

Pawildman

........Thanks for the suport, Doug..... It still just amazes me how some people can look into the same woods that I do, and not see the problem that I see. But, if we all felt the same about everything, there would be no controversy, would there??.......

DougE

I feel sorry for you Will.You must really be at the end of your rope if you donated money to that fine organization.

Wildman,people don't want to admit that they see what you see.

bluebird2

I never said I do not want good habitat. But the way to get good habitat is to manage the forests better and cut more timber, which DCNR won't do. If there are thousands of acres of pole timber,killing more deer won't produce better habitat, it will simply produce lower harvests. In case you haven't noticed ,as pole timber matures even established trees over 6" in diameter die out due to competition with healthier trees and there is no reason to expect an understory of seedlings and saplings of shade tolerant species.

Pole timber will always be poor habitat unless the trees are thinned allowing light to reach the forest floor. But, that costs money ,while hunters pay for the privilege to kill a deer.

DougE

If we're talking about the state forests,I'll concede that deer will always take a back seat to timber production.

bluebird2

Deer are also taking a back seat to timber production on SGLs , because many SGLs are adjacent to SFL.