link to annual report

When the page loads, click on the link titled: Deer Health, Forest Habitat Health, Deer Harvests, and Deer Population Trends by Wildlife Management Unit. Scroll down in the pdf file, i believe it is on around page 10.

DOC we agree, new website is "poop". Here is the issue I have doc. In 1994 the Forest Investments tract was heavily cut. That area is now extremely thick with desirable species that are in the 12-16 year old class. How did it regeneerate if the population was too high.

Bottom line is the foresters need to stop complaining and start managing, but oooops that would cost money. Face it cutting 40 acres in the middle of a mature forest is basically like throwing out a pile of corn. Deer magnet. Make some significant cuts, burn them post cut and move on instead of the current pick and choose practices of timbering.

MM..

In 1994 the Forest Investments tract was heavily cut. That area is now extremely thick with desirable species that are in the 12-16 year old class. How did it regeneerate if the population was too high.

where is the Forest Investments tract

I can talk to one of the PGC land managers in the area and ask his opinion...

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

since deerfly took the time to get the info he was referring to, I think it only fair I make one more reply to this topic based on what he posted..

...I do not see where too many WMUs (only 2) moved "down" from one rating (i.e.) good to fair to poor etc... while 4 moved up.. poor to fair and fair to good

IN FACT ....

I deal strictly in factual data

Please explain how you can have a decline in regeneration of -2% but go from poor UP to fair ??????

That's factual ????

2G 259 42 Poor----40----Fair---- -2%

plus the way I see it the decline is/was less than 10% state wide, and I figure it is because the deer herd as a whole state wide is not as low as many think it is ... and with lower and lower harvests each year the chance of the herd increasing is greater and as the herd grows the regeneration will decline, just like in years past..



I'm done now

Here is a quote from the 2007 AWR ,regarding the ratings of,good,fair and poor.

Decision Rules Used to Determine Forest Habitat Health.--We developed a set of criteria to
assign a value of “Good”, “Fair”, or “Poor” for forest habitat health. A WMU’s forest habitat health was
considered “good” if the observed percentage of plots with adequate regeneration was greater than,
equal to, or not significantly different than 70%. If a WMU’s forest habitat health was not significantly
different from 70% and not significantly different from 50%, then forest habitat health was considered
“fair”. A WMU’s forest habitat health also was considered “fair” if: 1. the observed percentage of plots
with adequate regeneration was equal to 50%; or 2. between 50% and 70% and significantly less than
70%; or 3. not significantly different than 50%. A WMU’s forest habitat health was considered “poor” if
the observed percentage of plots with adequate regeneration was significantly less than 50%.

Note that the data from 2010 shows that 12 WMUs would still be rated as poor based on that criteria, but the PGC chose to rate them as fair and didn't bother to explain how or why they did so. Even 5C which has always been rated as poor was raised to fair with only 26% regeneration.

So, it appears that the forest health assessments are irrelevant, which means one has to rely on the actual % regeneration in order to compare decreases or increases in regeneration and regeneration decreased in 16 out of 21 WMUs from 2007 to 2010.

Why would you say that when regeneration decreased in 2G as the herd was reduced while it increased in 2F with much higher deer densities than in 2G? Can you explain why regeneration in 2G decreased as the herd was reduced by over 50%?

Doc, it surrounds chappel fork between 321 and 59.

Well, it looks like I may have misjudged you since it is obvious from your answer that you have given the subject considerable thought and came up with a reasonable and logical explanation for why regeneration didn't increase in 2G as the herd was reduced. While I agree that there are factors other than browsing that are limiting regeneration, I don't think acid rain is a major factor. The successful regeneration observed in exclosures pretty much eliminates acid rain as the major limiting factor. But, the DCNR DMAP Enrollment Reports, the report from ANF and the Audit all point to competing vegetation and invasive species as a major limiting factor preventing regeneration

You want to remember that in many cases they herbicide spray and even lime/fertlize the ground inside the enclosures plus the sunlight gets to the ground so the growth gets a good start. A Penn State Hydrogolist(sp) Dr William Sharp has done studies and co-authored a paper which basicly says our ground sucks as a result of acid rain from all the coal fired generating stations in Ohio and the midwestern states. He states you could kill every deer in the state and still not have good regeneration. He says a bit of lime would take the place of killing the deer. Penn State even designed and built a machine to spread the lime on some test sites. They have since sold it to a Pa. company that does it for the timber folks. Of course he doesn't offer to pay for the lime needed to do 17 million acres. It's easier and cheaper to kill the deer than lime the forests or shut down the generating stations so that's what we are doing.

ORIGINAL: DanesDad

What exactly is growing in the exclosures? Every one I've seen has a large amount of growth in it. Much much more than what is on the outside. But, is the lush growth inside the exclosure of any future value? Are we regenerating the types of plants that will provide a lot of food for deer in the future? Is there a lot of oak and soft mast trees along with things like trillium and other ground plants that deer prefer or is it a bunch of Hemlock and Striped maple and other things of low nutritional value? Does acid rain and soils of low PH supress acorn growth? Because if there was a direct correlation between deer populations and browse available, then what has happened to the deer in 2F and 2G would HAVE to create an increase in regeneration.

The vast majority of exclosures are constructed to insure the regeneration of oaks and from what I have read they accomplish that goal. But, what I am looking for is a report that documents the long term beneficial effects of the exclosures on oak regeneration along with the effects on the understory during the 60 years of the pole timber stage. In my opinion the dense stocking of the exclosures will result in intense shading and virtually no understory or ground cover after 15-20 years.

One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that the PGC does not base it's determination of forest health on the total regeneration of all species. Instead it is based on the regeneration of the trees in the existing canopy even though the natural progression of a forest is from shade intolerant species to shade tolerant species.