Do you know how many loggers that loose their jobs from this ??

Here's what DCNR calls/says about old growth forest ==

Old growth forests are considered an endangered habitat in Pennsylvania. However, just as with some endangered species, with care, effort, and enough time, forests can recover many of their old growth characteristics. While there is endless discussion about what exactly constitutes old growth, in general it means that a true old growth forest would be near climax and has suffered few, if any, intrusions by humans. It means that it would be as you would have found it prior to European colonization or perhaps even before Native Americans began imposing their imprint on it. Breaks in the canopy would be caused by falling trees, dying of old age or struck by lightning. "Tip-ups," the masses of roots turned up when a big tree falls over, would be common.

By that kind of a definition, there is virtually no old growth left at all in the Eastern United States, because disease has removed major components of most of our forests and extinction or extirpation have removed important contributions to the forest ecosystem. The chestnuts are gone, the passenger pigeons and the wolves are gone. The balance among the plants and animals is quite different than it was 500 or 1,000 years ago.

In spite of all that, there are still important forest remnants with old growth characteristics with much to teach us. They provide what we have left of the starting point, the bench mark against which our era can measure itself. Time and care can re-create what in the future will pass for old growth, in spite of its differences from the old growth of the past, so preserving future old growth sites is also an important work. That is why second-growth ravines such as those leading up to the plateau from Sinnemahoning Creek along Bucktail State Park Natural Area are included in this list. Such places are mature second-growth forests now. With time, they will become true old-growth.

Finally, it is also important to include representatives of different ecosystems in old growth, not only the typical hemlock-white pine or hemlock-beech associations of the well-known Cook Forest and Heart's Content. It is for those reasons that places are included in this tour such as Bear Meadows (a large ancient bog) and Cranberry Swamp, giving visitors a broader vision of the varied components of the entire macro-system. While it is true sometimes that "we can't see the forest for the trees," it is just as true that we should not confuse the forest with the trees. In other words, while we speak of old-growth forests in terms of the major tree species found there, old-growth is really a term describing entire ecosystems. The other plants and animals who live within the tree-defined framework are vital to the whole.

There really aren't any remnants of the horizon-to-horizon forest that was encountered by the first European settlers. Most of that was cleared for farms. Most of the remainder was logged off by the 1920s. What we have left now as "old growth" were, with one or two notable exceptions, largely the inaccessible, steep slopes or accidents of boundary overlaps. It's those that we celebrate here. They give us a fascinating glimpse of the majesty and complexity that was Pennsylvania old growth forest.

If we want to go back to the 1910s.
Then I want the streams all of limits to any developement...

No siltation from farming, no mine disharge, no gas well disharges, no cattle destroying the creek banks, no bridges to impede water flow,no dams, sounds kinda silly doesn't it....

If managed properly (not by a bunch of treehuggers) a forest is much healthier with selective logging..

And by the way it wasn't the timber industry that raped the land it was the tanning industry at the time that took every tree no matter the size when our forests were raped....

Once again I will say that the fear of old growth forest management is one born of ignorance of the value the deer themselves find in old growth forests.
 
Old growth forest are where you find the pine/hemlock stands that are absolutely critical in having enough suitable wintering grounds to have long term and sustainable increases in the deer populations in much of the northern and mountainous regions of the state.
 
The real limiting factor in having more deer in those areas today is the lack of quality wintering grounds and until we do have more quality wintering grounds we will probably never have any significant long-term increase in deer numbers. I see it every time we have a harsh winter with deep snow conditions; the deer get forced off of the ridges and plateaus and into the river and creek bottoms. They are sometimes locked into those wintering grounds areas then for a couple months or longer. In many cases those areas presently have very little old growth pine or hemlock and the deer are trying to live on rhododendron and other poor quality foods simply because that is all there is. The lack of quality old growth habitat in those wintering grounds areas is absolutely a really major limiting factor on the having higher or sustainable higher deer populations in those areas that lack quality old growth forest components in the right places. It simply doesn’t matter how much quality browse you have on the ridge tops and plateaus because once you have a harsh long lasting winter without enough quality wintering grounds your deer population is going to decline and perhaps crash if you get a series or even just a couple harsh winters in a short period of time.
 
I would like to see a lot of planning into the areas where we need quality old growth and it would provide the most benefit, such as along our waterways and other bottomland corridors where deer and turkey typically go now during the harsh winters. It takes about 200 years to grow a pine/hemlock forest component to maturity. Since it has only been slightly over a hundred years since the lumbering boom removed almost all of the historic old growth we are still a long ways from once again having a mature pine/hemlock component.
 
Of course we already lost another important component of what was once a great value to the deer in their wintering grounds habitat with the chestnut blight man brought to this continent. The chestnut was a tree that did well in the bottoms as well as the ridges and though it couldn’t get established under a closed pine/hemlock canopy it did grow right along the edges of those old pine/hemlock wintering grounds. Since chestnut were a late blossoming species it was rare that they were hit with late frosts and thus a chestnut mast crop was very reliable as a winter food supply and on the very edges of the wintering grounds where it provided a winter food supply where it was of the most value.
 
We have more oaks today to kind of take of the chestnut, but unlike the chestnut they are not as late to blossom and are therefore not a consistent mast producer. We are also losing our beech mast crops that were vital to deer, turkeys, bear, squirrel and many species or birds and smaller mammals so that lose is one that all wildlife and wildlife enthusiasts, including hunters, are going to feel a negative affect.
 
The bottom line is that the best possible future for many wildlife species and for hunters is not negatively affected with a good management plan to increase the amount of old growth forest management. Yes, it might have a somewhat negative affect on those who only want to take a money crop from the public lands but what is of the greater value to hunters, someone making more money from our public lands or having them managed for the best possible wildlife and hunter value?
 
The public land of this state is really the only place there is a logical ability to dictate how our forests are managed for their long-term health or wildlife benefits. I suspect most private lands will continue to be managed with financial grains, as their primary objective so I suspect there will always be a lot of area that will never be managed with any thought toward the wildlife value that comes with having a healthy old growth forest component.
 
Before anyone starts condemning the forest management plan they should take the time to learn about the values those various forest components, within that plan, actually have toward the future of the wildlife, in this case deer, we all want. As I have said before there is no bogyman in the forest management plan of about having a forest certified as being managed in a sustainable way. The fear of those things, as in most fears, is simply a fear born of ignorance of many of the real factors involved.  
 R.S. Bodenhorn                

Sounds like the environnut agenda is alive and well..


More old growth forests for no good reason other than an extremist agenda. And everyone who disagrees is ig'nernt.

Alleghany County is just full of old growth timber.Must be the reason for increase in deer numbers there....WF

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Sounds like the environnut agenda is alive and well..


More old growth forests for no good reason other than an extremist agenda. And everyone who disagrees is ig'nernt.

 
I am telling you and everyone else flat out that more old growth forest in the right places would absolutely result in the northern tier and mountainous regions being able to sustain higher deer populations. In this area of the state the lack of quality wintering grounds is the biggest factor preventing higher deer populations.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: World Famous

Alleghany County is just full of old growth timber.Must be the reason for increase in deer numbers there....WF

 
Allegheny hardly fits into the northern tier or mountainous region category though does it.
 
Besides the only thing sustaining those high deer populations in Allegheny County is the fact that between the hunters, the deer cull permits and highways they are harvesting enough deer to keep their habitat in pretty good condition. Remove that high harvest rate and you would eventually see the day when even Allegheny County had very few deer.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn  

You are so wrong about that it fits perfectly with I said about a fear being born of ignorance.
 
The fact is the deer populations across our northern tier and mountainous regions of the state have been actively reducing their own populations for decades. That is exactly what the deer, their habitat and the historic deer harvest results all are proving.

As yet you have failed to provide one iota of evidence to support your theory that the deer are actively reducing their own populations. As long as hunters are harvesting both buck and doe, there is nothing you can provide to prove that the deer are controlling their numbers. Breeding rates ,productivity and recruitment have all been good in 2G for many years and there is no evidence that the habitat is controlling the herd and the deer have proved that over and over again.

I’d like to tell you a story about six deer in Michigan on the George Reserve. In 1928, two
buck and four does found themselves all alone on 1,146 acres behind an 11.5 foot deer-
proof fence. While the soil was poor, the reserve boasted diverse topography and
vegetation. The University of Michigan inherited the George Reserve in 1930. Being an
institute of high learning, researchers decided to learn about those deer, in particular,
population dynamics. In a drive count in 1933, a minimum of 160 deer were counted.
Knowing that ALL the deer were not counted, it was estimated that more than 220 were
likely living on the reserve. For those of you keeping score, that’s 88 deer/square mile at
the very least. Those six deer had been very busy. Surely this must be a fluke.
Not if it happens twice. In 1975, the population was reduced to 10 deer, by 1980, it had
grown to 212. It is important to note that this population growth rate isn’t the maximum.
With no mortality and maximum reproductive rate, the population of 6 pioneer deer could
have grown to more than 300, and, the gang of 10, even more.
A deer population on excellent range can double in two years. And poor range conditions
don’t slow down the growth by much, with a population still being able to nearly double in
four years.
With this kind of reproductive potential and superior adaptability, the white-tailed deer will
always be a fixture on the Pennsylvania landscape.
By J. T. Fleegle
PGC Wildlife Biologist

Now let's see if you can provide anything that refutes the claim by FLeegle that even on poor range an unhunted herd on poor range will almost double in just 4 years. Does Fleegle have his head in the sand?

Does Fleegle have his head in the sand?

She.

I bet you have a forestry degree don't you RSB..
You should change your initials to R-BSer...

RSB must think if he mixes five pounds of truth in a hundred pound sack of manure we won't notice the smell.

ORIGINAL: S-10

RSB-- instead of just YOU telling us how many more deer we will have as a result of Old Growth Forests how about posting where someone else says it and gives the reasons it will happen.

Two days ago you just knew I was full of it when I said the DCNR was going to increase it to 25%. You were wrong.

Yesterday you just knew I was trying to mislead folks on what INCREASE old growth forest meant. You were wrong.

Today you are all for Old Growth and anyone who disagrees with you has their head in the sand or other dark places. You are wrong again and you know it.

If you would actually read a bit you would see that much of the proposed old growth areas are located on steep hillsides and ridges where timbering is difficult anyway. Are the deer going to winter up there?

How many deer get killed in Cooks Forest or the other old growth areas.

How much feed does a deer get from a 300 year old pine/hemlock.

What we need is more timbering of the existing forest to open up the forest floor to some sunlight not more and bigger trees shading it out. The greens made sure that is not going to happen.

Some of us actually read up on these things and know what it means for deer hunting. It's a good thing we do with fellows like you and Alt spreading so much manure.

 
First of all I still haven’t seen any clarification that you are right about the amount of the State Forest actually being manage as old growth. For the record at this point I still think you are wrong amount the amount and I know that you are absolutely wrong about the value of old growth forest to the white-tail deer in the northern tier and mountainous areas of this state.
 
I also know you are frequently full of it in all of your conspiracy theories and other anti management nonsense.
 
As for Cooks Forest I have no idea how many are killed there but I do know that during harsh winter years a lot of deer winter there that would simply die and a lot more would have lower fawn recruitment rates if they didn’t have that area as a major wintering grounds.
 
As for being a deer hunter, I assure you I am very much a deer hunter and hour for hour of hunting time I would stack my success rate up against any of you. For the past thirty-four years my deer hunting time has been very limited because most of my time is spending my time protecting the deer resource from illegal hunters. I hunt all of the seasons with all of the legal weapons even though I get so little time to hunt. I further suspect at 63 Penna. deer I have probably harvested more than most of you have. Especially since I hunt in units where there have typically been no second or third round antlerless licenses. No make no mistake about the fact that I have a very serious interest in not only what is best for the deer but also what is best for the future of deer hunting.
 
The problem with some of you is you simply don’t pay any attention to what deer are doing or in need of any time except when you are hunt for them. Some of you simply have no real knowledge of how nature really works or what benefits what in nature, even though you obviously think you do. Therefore it seems to me you are really among the worst enemies of not only your own interests but also the future for deer and their habitats. Thankfully there are more knowledgeable people than you making the resource management decisions within this state.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn 

    Hunted large "old growth in the Aderondak SF in Ny- sometimes you even see a track in there. Actually had a canopy and NO brush when ya walked around all day unless you were around a place with some evergreen - yea deer live on evergreen all year. 5 days 5 experienced hunters NO deer seen.>>>>>
    They tried to 'select cut' a very large watershed/park here in ct near my home.  The self proclaimed Urban "environmentalists" went NUTS--No more cutting. There is no brush in there either any more and very few tracks of deer --just passing through.
  I'm sure the EDGES of those huge places have deer but its not the norm for the woods  to have much of a herd as the forest matures.
      WAY before all of your ancestors came over here and wrecked it the Indians practiced controlled burning- whenever a place grew up and the game decreased they lit it up and didnt come back for a few years. Problem solved.

To stabilize the deer population in Alleghany County....WF