When you consider that generally they use herbicide, lime, and fertlizer inside the enclosers along with some seedling plantings in addition to sometimes burning and generally outside the enclosures they do not.

Ya see dars needs all that mumbo-jumbo and all I need is to use common sense and look inside fences and then look outside... and realize something is wrong/different ....much simpliar...

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: DanesDad

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

In that particular section I would have to say the only way for re-generation of a valued species would be planting... It even gets sunlight.. everytime I ask the forester he just says "we don't know why " ... interesting ...

One thought I have is wondering about a big gas line that runs thru it buried in the ground ?????

But DCNR says " no" ..

So, if the forester doesn't know why the area didn't regenerate as expected, and because the deer were controlled via being fenced out and therefore were obviously not a factor with regard to regeneration, then would you agree that it is possible for other elements besides deer to have an adverse impact on regeneration?

Where are you going with this?

Danes,

I originally wasn’t headed anywhere with the questions, I simply wanted to know why they were doing a controlled burn in an enclosure that had been used for a deer impact experiment.  Nothing less, nothing more.  As I stated, inquiring minds want to know.

However, when Doc answered with the information from the forester that they did not get the regeneration that they had hoped for and they had no idea why, it raised more questions.  One of those questions was – if deer were eliminated from the possible contributors to non-desired regeneration (please see my other post concerning the design of the experiment so that I don’t need to reiterate it here), then what exactly, in singular or combination, was leading to the non-desired regeneration – whether that non-desired outcome was a non-desired mix of species, amount of growth, etc.  In other words, if the deer were not primarily responsible, and that is what the experiment results says and if the experiment is not deemed flawed, what is causing the problem?

It all goes back to the DOE (design of experiment).  Looking at it in generic terms, so that one cannot say but what about this minute thing or that once-in-a-blue-moon situation by bringing specifics into it, let’s say that there is a condition that is non-desirable and the experimenters wish to determine the root cause.  A typical way of going about that determination is to use a fishbone diagram that places possible causes on the rib bones of a fish.  Typically these fall into what is known as the 4 M’s – man, material, machine, and management.  Obviously, those would need to be renamed here – man becomes animals, material becomes the plants, machine becomes the environment, and management becomes anything that steps away from nature just taking its course.

Under each of those categories, possible causes of the issue are listed.  As an example, under the animals, deer, rabbits, and other herbivores would be listed; under plants other competing species would be listed; under environment soil quality, sunlight, water, etc. would be listed; and under management logging, permitting old growth, controlled burn, etc. would be listed.

To design the experiment then, each of the viable causes is isolated and becomes the sole variable.  The experiment would have a control area, and preferably areas, that had whichever element that was being studied in a normal population/condition as the control group (in other words nothing changed) and an experimental area that had that element removed (if it was deemed detrimental) or added (if it were deemed lacking).  By conducting the experiment in such a manner, the difference between the control area and the experimental area determines the affect that the studied element has on the cause.  This should be done with each possible root cause in order to determine which were contributing to the non-desired outcome.

If that portion of the experiment did not yield conclusive results, then the experiment needs to go further and use a matrix that creates combinations of possible root causes and the experiment starts over.  This is done until a Pareto graph shows the top few causes of the non-desired effect.

Once those root causes are known, the corrective actions are developed to mitigate those issues.

What seems to have happened here, however, is that deer were considered the only plausible root cause, so they were the focus of the experiment – something that is often done when time and/or funding is an issue.  From the results of the experiment, it seems that the deer were not the root cause of non-desired regeneration, at least in this area, because when they were removed (please see the other post which posses questions pertaining to whether the experiment designers considered the deer that did get in as significant or not) the area still did not revert to the desired regeneration and the forester was left saying that they didn’t know why it did not.  The experiment removes the deer as a possible cause, so it has to be something else.

However, presuming the outcome of the experiment was going to point decidedly to deer, a corrective action, reduce the number of deer, was put into action before the results of the experiment were compiled and proven, again, at least in this area, that deer were not the sole or even the primary cause of the non-desired regeneration.   It would seem that by not waiting until the experiment ruled the deer in or out as the root cause, the corrective action was in error.

Again, when I asked the original question, I wasn’t headed anywhere.  I still am not.  I am just trying to understand the logic, or perhaps lack thereof, of the DOE and the possible premature corrective action.

 

the key is to have the correct natural balance instead of extreme high numbers many hunter want and demand.

R.S. Bodenhorn

generally they use herbicide, lime, and fertlizer inside the enclosers along with some seedling plantings in addition to sometimes burning and generally outside the enclosures they do not

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Some fenced areas still don’t have good regeneration for a number of reasons but many other areas came back with great regeneration as soon as the deer browsing was minimized. Some fenced areas would have actually come back with a more desirable forest component if there had been some deer inside the fence to control the pioneer species.

Would you please list the number of reasons why some exclosures don't have good regeneration with zero deer.

The resource professionals recognize that a healthy forest needs a balanced deer population to help control some of the species that deer like to eat. But, the key is to have the correct natural balance instead of extreme high numbers many hunter want and demand

Have the experts determined the deer density that is needed to achieve the ,"correct natural balance" ? Is 8 DPSM in 2G enough to achieve that natural balance and if it is , why is 2G the only WMU where forest health is rated as poor?

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Ya see dars needs all that mumbo-jumbo and all I need is to use common sense and look inside fences and then look outside... and realize something is wrong/different ....much simpliar....


The same rain hits both areas and the soil is basically the same in both areas...and even on a clear cut that parts get fenced the same sunshine hits it all at the same rate.. that sure narrows the field to what the differences are...

you also have to remember that clear creek is DCNR and they have to manage the "future" forest differently and for different reasons than the PGC manages the SGLs...

Even in your postings on Clear Creek You show burns INSIDE THE FENCE ONLY and talk about other treatments INSIDE THE FENCE so you know what is going on on but don't want to admit it.

Anyone can see that 90% of the time the fenced areas do great in re-generating themselves without outside interference or help. I was simply showing what is ALSO being done to help the poorer areas ""where nothing is growing of value".

Deer numbers can be huge and the environment can carry them and all are happy -till that one slow growing season, then--------

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Deer numbers can be huge and the environment can carry them and all are happy -till that one slow growing season, then--------

But that has nothing to do with what happened in PA. Even with 1.5M PS deer our herd was still below the MSY carrying capacity, which is 50% below the max. CC. Our herd was in no danger of crashing in 2000 when the HR plan was implemented.

Your comments are nothing but your opinion and are not supported by the facts as provided by the deer themselves or their food supply. In much of the state the deer herd was only growing through the late 90s and early 2000’s because we were having a run of good mast years with virtually no winter. That allowed for higher than normal fawn recruitment and abnormally inflated deer populations.

Currently, 90 % of timber harvests in this area must be fenced to ensure forest regeneration and sustainability.