# Whitetail numbers are ravaging forests



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Whit1 said:


> This topic of habitat improvement in the NL is valid.
> 
> In another forum thread Luv2 mentioned a cutting project in the Hiawatha National Forest (Eastern U.P.) called the Rudyard Project. I talked to a USFS forester yesterday and he is sending me some information on this activity. I asked him if he knew of any such projects in the NL that would benefit deer and he responded (not a direct quote, but you will get the gist of what he said), "Well, there is the work with the Kirtland Warbler habitat."
> 
> ...


There was some cutting going in in Presque Isle County in the Pigeon River County State Forest Area but I have not seen any new (two and three years old) clear cutting in the area we are hunting every third and fourth year (we rotate out of Glennie Area due to slim pickens). I did not notice any further activity this summer when hiking. We willbe back there in '05 & '06 so I will keep a lookout.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

> Biologists in PA have been claiming the deer have been ravaging our forests since the late 1920's, but we have more forested land now then we did then.


HH, What is the composition of modern PA forests as compared to the 20s? Is there anyway to compare old forest composition to the current in an area that has not been influenced by whitetails? Perhaps some researcher within a State agency, or a grad student somewhere has researched old forest surveys in terms of basal densities & species and compared to the current forest types. I would be interested to see that kind of data and consider it credible. If there is a distinct change such as the percentage of certain species shifting, I would consider that ravaging.



> Maybe because it is not as big of a problem as some seem to want to make it.





> I must say most places that I have seen with over browsing have been because there was an unnatural high number of deer being drawn to the area because of humans feeding them or winter yards. This also includes areas of food plots placed in an otherwise sub par browse area that have caused the deer to gather in a large herd were they normally would not. Usually after consuming and destroying the food plots they ravage all vegetation around until forced to leave or starve.


Ray, with respect to the not as big of a problem quote, I would again try to find some evidence that the composition of the forests in Michigan are *NOT* changing due to the presence of whitetails. I see it changing everywhere I look, even in the southern part of the state where I used to live. The woodlot in my old Barry Co. backyard consisted of oak, maple, ash, cherry and hickory. The only saplings you could find back there were cherry? 

I do agree that human supplemental feeding and supporting artificially high deer numbers in a given area has probably the largest impact on forest degradation.

Coincidentally, I find the most natural forest types (i.e. the under story matches the over story) in areas surrounding established food plots. That observation was also shared by a professional biologist I had at our hunting camp last fall, he has seen that trend across the country. 

Also, I observe the most natural forests (in terms of succession) on State land where deer densities are typically lower due to increased harvest. 

Just my observations, and by no means are they credible or scientific. I find the topic interesting, perhaps if I didnt have a job Id go back to school and research further


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Is their scientific documentation for deer over-browsing and the impact it has on the eco-system and forest regeneration? Oh yes. Here is a very, very short list of papers.


Abrams, M.D. and G.J. Nowacki. 1992. Historical variation in fire, oak recruitment, and post-logging succession in central Pennsylvania. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 119:19-28.

Allison, T.D. 1990. The influence of deer browsing on the reproductive biology of Canada yew (Taxus canadensis Marsh). I. Direct effect on pollen, ovule, and seed production. Oecologia

83:523-529.

Allison, T.D. 1990. The influence of deer browsing on the reproductive biology of Canada yew (Taxus canadensis Marsh) II. Pollen limitation: an indirect effect. Oecologia 83:530-534.

Allison, T.D. 1992. The influence of deer browsing on the reproductive biology of Canada yew (Taxus canadensis Marsh) III. Sex expression. Oecologia 89:223-228.

Alverson, W.S., D.M. Waller and S.L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer: Edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conserv. Biol. 2:348-358.

Anderson, R.C. 1994. Height of white-flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) as an index of deer browsing intensity. Ecological Applications 4:104-109.

Anderson, R.C. and A.J. Katz. 1993. Recovery of browse-sensitive tree species following release from white-tail deer Odocoileus virginianus Zimmerman browsing pressure. Biol. Conserv. 63:203-208.

Anderson, R.C. and O.L. Loucks. 1979. White-tail deer (Odocoileus canadensis) and its influence on the structure and composition of Tsuga canadensis forests. J. of Applied Ecol. 16:855-861.

Anderson, Roger C. 1994. Height of white-flowered Trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) as an index of deer browsing intensity. Ecol. Applic. 4(1): 104-109.

Atwood, Earl L. 1941. White-tail deer foods of the United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 5(3): 314-332.

Augustine, David J. and Lee E. Frelich. 1998. Effects of white-tailed deer on populations of an understory forb in fragmented deciduous forests. Conserv. Biol. 12(5): 995-1004.

Balgooyen, Christine P. and Donald M. Waller. 1995. The use of Clintonia borealis and other indicators to gauge impacts of white-tailed deer on plant communities in northern Wisconsin, USA. Nat. Areas J. 15: 308-318.

Bierzychudek, Paulette. 1982. Life histories and demography of shade-tolerant temperate forest herbs: a review. New Phytol. 90: 757-776.



Bowles, G.H. and J.M. Campbell. 1994. Relationship between population density of white-tailed deer and the density of understory trees in forests of Erie County, PA. J. PA Acad. Science 67:109-114.

Bratton, S.P. 1979. Impacts of white-tailed deer on the vegetation of Cades Cove, Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Proc. Annual Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 33:305-312.

Bratton, S.P. and E.A. Kramer. 1990. Recovery of live oak sprouts after release from browsing on Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. Unpublished report, National Park Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Brooks, R.T. and W.M. Healy. 1989. Response of small mammal communities to silvicultural treatments in eastern hardwood forests of West Virginia and Massachusetts. Pages 313-318 in: USDA Forest Service Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166.

Campbell, John M. 1993. Effects of grazing by white-tailed deer on a population of Lithospermum caroliniense at Presque Isle. J. PA Acad. Sci. 67(3): 103-108.

Casey, D. and D. Hein. 1983. Effects of heavy browsing on a bird community in deciduous forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:829-836.

Clepper, Henry E. 1931. The deer problem in the forests of Pennsylvania. PA Dept. Forests and Waters, Bull. No. 50, Harrisburg.

Clutton-Brock, T.H. and S.D. Albon. 1991. Trial and error in the highlands. Nature 358:11-12.

Commissioners of Fairmount Park. 1914. Annual Report, Philadelphia, PA.

Crawford, Hewlette S. 1982. Seasonal food selection and digestibility by tame white-tailed deer in central Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(4): 974-982.

deCalesta, D.S. 1992. Impact of deer density on species diversity of Allegheny hardwood stands. Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Warren, PA (unpublished).

deCalesta, David S. and Susan L. Stout. 1997. Relative deer density and sustainability: a conceptual framework for integrating deer management with ecosystem management. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 25(2):252-258.

Dessecker, R.D. and R.H. Yahner. 1987. Breeding bird communities associated with

Pennsylvania hardwood clearcut stands. Proc. Pennsylvania Acad. Sci. 61:170-173.

Diamond, J. 1992. Must we shoot deer to save nature? Natural History 8:2-8.

Dzemyan, J.P. 1994. Where have all the flowers gone? Pennsylvania Game News 65(5):15-17.

Fairweather, S.E. and C.M. Cavanaugh. 1990. Identification, Restoration, and Maintenance of Historic Woodlots at Gettysburg National Military Park. Tech. Rep. NPS/MAR/NRTR-90/049.

Forbes, S.E., L.M. Lang, S.A. Liscinsky and H.A. Roberts. 1971. The white-tailed deer in Pennsylvania. Research Bull. No. 170, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA.

Frelich, L.E. and C.G. Lorimer. 1985. Current and predicted long-term effects of deer browsing in hemlock forests in Michigan, USA. Biol. Conserv. 34:99-120.

Fronz, L. 1930. Deer damage to forest trees in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game News 8(12):1-10.

Harlow, R.F. and R.L. Downing. 1970. Deer browsing and hardwood regeneration in the southern Appalachians. J. For. 68:298-300.

Hassinger, J.D., R.Maurer, and S. Sterner. 1980. The impacts of deer in suburban areas and parks. Unpublished report to the Penn State Ad Hoc Deer Committee.

Healy, W.M., R.T. Brooks and P.J. Lyons. 1987. Deer and forests on Boston's municipal watershed after 50 years as a wildlife sanctuary. Pages 3-21 in: D.A. Marquis ed. Proceedings of a Symposium on Deer, Forestry and Agriculture: Interactions and Strategies for Management. Soc. Am. For., Allegheny Chapter, Warren, PA.

Hough, A. 1965. A twenty-year record of understory vegetational change in a virgin Pennsylvania forest. Ecology 46:370-373.

Johnson, A. Sydney, Philip E. Hale, William M. Ford, James M. Wentworth, Jeffrey R. French, Owen F. Anderson and Gerald B. Pullen. 1995. White-tailed deer foraging in relation to successional stage, overstory type and management of Southern Appalachian forests. A. Midl. Nat. 133: 18-35.

Jones, Stephen B., David deCalesta and Shelby E. Chunko. 1993. Whitetails are changing our woodlands. Amer. Forests Nov/Dec.1993: 20-54.

Korschgen, Leroy J., Wayne R. Porath and Oliver Torgerson. 1979. Spring and summer foods of deer in the Missouri Ozarks. J. Wildl. Management 44(1): 89-97.

Kosack, Joe. 1995. The Pennsylvania Game Commission 1895-1995, 100 Years of Wildlife Conservation. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, PA.

Latham, R.M. 1950. Pennsylvania's deer problem. Pennsylvania Game News Special Issue I. 

Lutts, R.H. 1992. The trouble with Bambi: Walt Disney's Bambi and the American vision of nature. Forest and Conservation History 36: 160-171.

Marquis, D.A. 1974. The impact of deer browsing on Allegheny Hardwood regeneration. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-308. Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA.

Marquis, D.A. and R. Brenneman. 1981. The impact of deer on forest vegetation in

Pennsylvania. USDA Forest Service General Tech. Rep. NE-65. Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Broomall, PA.

Martin, Thomas E. 1993. Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas. Am. Naturalist 141:897-913.

McCabe, R.E. and T.H. McCabe. 1984. Of slings and arrows: an historical retrospection. Pages 19-72 in L.M. Halls, ed., White-tailed Deer: Ecology and Management. Stockpile Books, Harrisburg, PA.

McCabe, Thomas R. and Richard E. McCabe. 1997. Recounting whitetails past, pp. 11-26 in The Science of Overabundance, Deer Ecology and Population Management, editors: William J.McShea, H. Brian Underwood and John H. Rappole. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

McCaffery, Keith R., John Tranetzki and James Piechura. 1974. Summer foods of deer in northern Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(2): 215-219.

McShea, William J., H. Brian Underwood and John H. Rappole. 1997. The Science of

Overabundance, Deer Ecology and Population Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Miller, Scott G., Susan P. Bratton and John Hadidian. 1992. Impacts of white-tailed deer on endangered and threatened vascular plants. Nat. Areas J. 12(2): 67-74.

Nixon, C.M. 1992. Forest fragmentation and deer. Illinois Natural Hist. Survey Rep. No. 314, Champaign, IL.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1987. Title 25, Chapter 82. Conservation of Pennsylvania native wild plants. PA Bull. 17-5027.

Porter, W.F. 1991. White-tailed deer in eastern ecosystems: implications for management and research in national parks. Nat. Res. Rep. NPS/NRSUNY/NRR-91/05, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, CO.

Rhoads, Ann F. 1996. Something is missing. Pennsylvania Game News 67(8):10-13. 

Rhoads, A.F. and W.M. Klein. 1993. Vascular Flora of Pennsylvania: Annotated Checklist and Atlas. American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.

Rooney, Thomas P. 1997. Escaping herbivory: refuge effects on the morphology and shoot demography of the clonal forest herb Maianthemum canadense. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 124(4): 280-285.

Rooney, Thomas P. and William J. Dress. 1997. Patterns of plant diversity in overcrowded primary and mature secondary hemlock-northern hardwood forest stands. J. Torrey Botanical Soc. 124(1): 43-51.

Rooney, Thomas P. and William J. Dress. 1997. Species loss over sixty-six years in the ground layer vegetation of Heart's Content, an old growth forest in Pennsylvania, PA. Nat. Areas J. 17(4): 297-305.

Scott, D.P. and R.H. Yahner. 1989. Winter habitat and browse use by snowshoe hares, Lepus americanus, in a marginal habitat in Pennsylvania. Canadian Field-Nat. 103:560-563.

Sober, Douglas G. and Peter Barkhouse. 1977. The structure and rate of growth of the rhizomes of some forest herbs and dwarf shrubs of the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border region. Can. Field-Natural. 91(4): 377-383.

Sotala, Dennis J. and Charles M. Kirkpatrick. 1972. Foods of white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginicus, in Martin County, Indiana. Am. Midl. Naturalist 89(2): 281-286.

Storm, G.L., R.H. Yahner, D.F. Cottam and G.M. Vecellio. 1989. Population status, movements, habitat use, and impact of white-tailed deer at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site, Pennsylvania. US National Park Service., Final Project Report, University Park, PA.



Streamer, Karl A. K. and Robert J. Warren. 1997. Are overabundant deer herds in the eastern United States creating alternate stable states in forest plant communities? Wildlife Soc. Bull. 25(2): 227-234. 

Stromayer, Karl A. K. and Robert J. Warren. 1997. Are overabundant deer herds in the eastern United States creating alternate stable states in forest plant communities? Wildlife Soc. Bull. 25(2):227-234.

Thompson, John N. 1980. Colonization patterns of temperate forest herbs. Am. Midl. Nat. 104: 176-184.

Tilghman, N.G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:524-532.

Tucker, S. 1993. The deer question: what to do about the deer population in the Wissahickon. Friends of the Wissahickon Newsletter 2:1-3.

Waller, Donald M. and William S. Alverson. 1997. The white-tailed deer: a keystone herbivore. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 25(2):217-227.

Warren, R.J. 1991. Ecological justification for controlling deer populations on national park areas. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Resource Conf. 56:56-66.

Whigham, Dennis F. 1990. The effect of experimental defoliation on the growth and reproduction of a woodland orchid, Tipularia discolor. Can. J. Bot. 68: 1812-1816.

Whitney, G.G. 1984. Fifty years of change in the arboreal vegetation of Heart's Content, an old growth hemlock-white pine-northern hardwood stand. Ecology 65: 403-408.

Whitney, G.G. 1990. The history and status of the hemlock-hardwood forests of the Allegheny Plateau. J. of Ecol. 78:443-458.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

When it comes to deer research, the impact of deer on the eco-system is one of the most studied topics in the world. Go to the UK or NZ websites and you will find studies going back over 100 years.

Here's a good UK paper on the impact of deer (red deer) in the UK, with lots of good discussion on how those impacts effect *other* species. Lots of good references and citations too:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/PDF.nsf/pdf/fcin36.pdf/$FILE/fcin36.pdf


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

The ravaging of the forests in the 20's was due to massive clearcutting which was followed by years of uncontroled forest fires . The forest fires killed off the thin barked trees like maples and the thicker barked trees like oak became dominant.

The fact remains that we have more forested land than we had 20 years ago and our forests were recently recertified as being managed so well that they qualify to be certified for export.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Thread title: Whitetail numbers are ravaging forests

Square miles of forestland doesnt seem relevant to this discussion, it would seem however, that square miles of forest that can support whitetail is.

With regard to the conversation, how much forestland could support a whitetail population in the 20s in Pa as opposed to the number of forestland that can support it today?

Northern Michigan has vast acres of forestland, but with each passing year it looses the capability to support the whitetail. The deer have totally eliminated the under story food source.

Inquiring minds want to know  

More forest does not necessarily mean more habitat for deer.

ferg.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Pure "forest" is bad deer habitat. Transition zones between forest and openings is the whitetails' real world. They are creatures "of the edge."


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Square miles of forestland doesnt seem relevant to this discussion, it would seem however, that square miles of forest that can support whitetail is."

I respectfully disagree . If the deer have been ravagingthe forests for the last 80 years the number of SM of forested land should have decreased significantly, instead of increasing by 300 SM.

Based on the way the PGC classifies deer habitat , a SM of saw timber in 1920 would only support 20 DPFSM the same as in 2004 and a SM of pole timber would only support 5 DPFSM.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

We should change the title of thread to be more accrate based on the article referenced; to 'Whitetail numbers are ravaging forests understory' - as was the orignal quote

"Scientists affiliated with Audubon Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Habitat Alliance say relentless whitetail browsing has destroyed the forest understory in many areas, eliminating natural regeneration of many native tree, shrub and wildflower species.

In addition to threatening the future of Pennsylvania's forests, scientists say the damage is having a significant negative impact on birds and other wildlife that depend on forest habitat."

I maybe wrong, but I took this as the whitetail are not buzz cutting down trees, thus eliminating 'forest', but rather, over the long term, making the forest devoid of the ability to sustain life, even their own life.

But - I'm only reading it - I have no first hand information, as is sounds that you may have - I'll keep watching/reading and hopefully learning - 

thanks

ferg....


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"I maybe wrong, but I took this as the whitetail are not buzz cutting down trees, thus eliminating 'forest', but rather, over the long term, making the forest devoid of the ability to sustain life, even their own life."

What the PGC has been telling us is that it is impossible to do any clearcutting because the deer will eat all the stump sprouts and seedlings thereby preventing regeneration. They have constructed numerous fenced exclosures to demonstarte this effect.
However, what they don't tell us in that in some areas oaks are regenerating quite nicely at 40 DPFSM while they claim they aren't getting any regeneration at 20 DPFSM in other areas.

They also won't tell us about the article in the Pennsylvania Game News in 1984 ,where they bragged that 75% of the clearcuts in a study regenerated commercially valuable timber in the same areas they now claim they can't do any clearcutting.

They also won't tell us that we have 3,738 SM of successful clearcuts when at the same time they tell us the deer are preventing the forests from regenerating.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

BSK, I know that there are articles on the effects and or consequences of over browsing. Am I to think because one wrote an article or observed such over browsing that it is happening here? No, but then I don't think you would expect me to. Thanks for the reference post though, I have read a few of them that I could track on line.  They remind me of a collage class reference and lecture series though. :lol: 

Benelli, I see no reason why I should not consider what you say based on your observations credible but find it funny that you would state that it is not. I know, I know to much schooling that has brainwashed people into the thinking one can not have an educated and informed opinion or be right without scientific data, except of course when it comes to evolution, then theory works, but thats another story. :lol: 


> Coincidentally, I find the most natural forest types (i.e. the under story matches the over story) in areas surrounding established food plots. That observation was also shared by a professional biologist I had at our hunting camp last fall, he has seen that trend across the country.


One would understand such an observation based on the fact that a food plot would certainly relieve the pressure and amount of browsing being done upon the adjacent forests, at least as long as they stay available. One may even say its common sense.  I know, I know, common sense is not recognized as scientific data but sometimes its all us common folk have to fall back on. :lol: 


> Ray, with respect to the not as big of a problem quote, I would again try to find some evidence that the composition of the forests in Michigan are *NOT* changing due to the presence of whitetails. I see it changing everywhere I look, even in the southern part of the state where I used to live. The woodlot in my old Barry Co. backyard consisted of oak, maple, ash, cherry and hickory. The only saplings you could find back there were cherry?


If we want to get technical I would have to agree that as long as there is one deer on the planet it will have an effect on the composition of the forest it lives in, as will the fox, mice, birds, etc... 


> Recent occurrences impacting Michigan's overall forest health have included significant statewide storm damage during 1995; an expansion of gypsy moth defoliation into more counties; an outbreak of larch casebearer defoliation affecting tamarack from the central upper peninsula to Gaylord; and lesser, more localized problems caused by oak leafskeletonizer, cherry scallop shell moth, and various oakworm species. These latter pests are not expected to greatly affect our forests.


The above comes from the DNR web page. You would think that if over browsing in Michigan was wide spread they would include it their forest health report. I believe for people wanting the experts opinion, the lack of our DNR mention of this supposedly wide spread epidemic of over browsing is also a testament to the fact it is not seen as being a major threat. I wonder how much of our forest succession has been effected by evasive plants and bugs that also gets contributed to the deer.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

BSK, thanks for the references. Maybe Frelich and Lorimer have done a follow up to their 1985 study regarding browsing on hemlocks?

Ray, with respect to my observations, they are only mine. I cannot and will not claim that my observations represent some kind of truth. I am not a biologist or botanist. However, I will maintain that I see the composition of MI forests changing everywhere I happen to look. My observations only reflect a small sample size in terms of area, just a handful of counties.

My observations have been confirmed by professional biologists, foresters, and even DNR field personnel through either on-site visual concurrence, phone or personal conversations. The data exists, and my observations can be repeated by anyone who chooses to look closely. Maybe my observations do not represent any threat to Michigans habitat, but I have yet to seen anyone / or any organization compile such data in a fashion that demonstrates habitat degradation in MI due to whitetails is *NOT * occurring. 

Also, while I do respect our DNR, I wont hold my breath and wait for them to publish any information that would confirm or deny my suspicions. After all, they discovered TB in the deer herd in 1974 but it wasnt a problem until discovered again in 1994? They do however maintain that current herd reduction efforts are designed to bring the population in balance with the available habitat, so maybe they are seeing some of the same things I am. 

I also respect your observations, maybe we are just basing our opinions on different databases (in terms of area). Common sense would suggest that is the case.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Ranger Ray,

Yes, I freely admit I don't believe much unless scientifically established using good science. I also freely admit I discount "common sense" in the face of science, simply because so often, under testing, common sense turns out to be wrong. I've also found common sense is often used an excuse to ignore a reality an observer doesn't like.

Overbrowsing of the habitat and ultimate forest regeneration problems are a concern across the Eastern US. My boss was recently in northern LP and he observed fairly severe regeneration problems and forest species change due to deer browse pressure. But if you want to know if deer are effecting _your_ forest, try a simple test. Build a 10'x10' exclosure randomly placed in the woods (or several enclosures scattered around). Make sure the fence surrounding any exclosures is at least 8' high and the wire mesh used is large enough to allow rabbits and other small animals to pass through the fence. All you want to "exclude" is deer. After construction, just leave those exclosures alone for a couple of years. Then check what is growing inside the exclosure where deer browse pressure has been eliminated versus what is growing outside the exclosure that has been subject to deer browsing.

Six years ago, with a measured deer density of 12 deer per square mile (just below capacity), we made a 6-acre clear-cut in a stand of mature white oak timber. Normally, stump sprouts would regenerate the white oak forest. However, deer love browsing white oak saplings. With a deer density of only 12 per square mile, the deer ate every white oak stump sprout in that 6-acre cut in a single winter. There are now no young white oaks regenerating in that cut. The only timber thast will be produced are the species deer do not prefer as saplings.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

BSK said:


> Ranger Ray,
> 
> 
> Six years ago, with a measured deer density of 12 deer per square mile (just below capacity), we made a 6-acre clear-cut in a stand of mature white oak timber. Normally, stump sprouts would regenerate the white oak forest. However, deer love browsing white oak saplings. With a deer density of only 12 per square mile, the deer ate every white oak stump sprout in that 6-acre cut in a single winter. There are now no young white oaks regenerating in that cut. The only timber thast will be produced are the species deer do not prefer as saplings.



Was 12 DPSM the max. carrying capacity or the MSY carrying capacity. Based on that 6 acre clearcut ,are you saying the herd should be managed at considerably less than 12 DPSM? If so, what should be the goal OWDD be for that stand of white oak?

If the six acre clearcut was surrounded by mature timber, isn't it to be expected that the deer from the surrounding area would concentrate in the only area with significant browse and therefore overbrowse the clearcut?


----------

