|
Post by dougell on Jul 9, 2008 15:51:52 GMT -4
Well,she's been studying the effects for a long time.What was wrong with her answer?
|
|
|
Post by yihunt on Jul 9, 2008 16:26:05 GMT -4
"Penn State University professor emeritus William Sharpe "
Pretty good credentials to be wrong.
Hey Doug, refresh my memory, what was it that you majored in??
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 9, 2008 16:47:39 GMT -4
I majored in Business management but I know a whole bunch of people that majored in forestry and do research in that field.None of them agree with William Sharp.These areas already had advanced regeneration present and the sites were also picked that were in direct sun light.Explain to all of us why they get fantastic regeneration when they only remove one variable,the deer.
|
|
|
Post by Twowithone on Jul 9, 2008 18:15:02 GMT -4
Well,she's been studying the effects for a long time.What was wrong with her answer?
She really never gave a answer doug. She sat there like a drone. The GC. Supervisor said go hunt squirrels. J. Kraft said your killing an industry thats been around for a long time. I forget what the other guy said and his affiliation was it DCNR, Audobon, one of those 2 groups. Tell me doug all these people you know that work in this field who are they employed by. Even your Collins Pine people are saying slaughter the deer.
|
|
|
Post by guru on Jul 9, 2008 18:38:24 GMT -4
"Explain to all of us why they get fantastic regeneration when they only remove one variable,the deer."
Thats definately not always the case, even according to the highly anti-deer dcnr. Also the effects of acid MAGNIFIES the impact of the deer. The saplings are in the most vulnerable stages far longer. Also, regrowth of browsed specimens takes far longer.
Also interesting to note that according to Mr. Squirrel hunter Roe, pgc has been cutting trees they'd believed to be 100 yrs old, only to find they are MUCH older when rings are counted. The growth rate has greatly slowed in even the mature trees, and it has NOTHING to do with deer... So why shouldnt it be believed that this penomenon also has effects on early growth??
|
|
|
Post by Twowithone on Jul 9, 2008 19:01:39 GMT -4
guru thats funny you brought that up. Also interesting to note that according to Mr. Squirrel hunter Roe, pgc has been cutting trees they'd believed to be 100 yrs old, only to find they are MUCH older when rings are counted.This was,nt state gamelands but up in the ANF. That tornado that blew through there in 85 we made stools out of some of those trees and put them by the firepit. We quit counting rings at 86 and there were definitely more rings. The great lumber era of the 1800s. Laurel Hill did,nt get logged till 1886 so the forest up North were logged prior to 1886 and there wer,nt any gamelands around then C.Roe should do some homework on this subject. SW. part of the state was the last to be logged.
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jul 9, 2008 19:38:59 GMT -4
if deer are the only factor how do you explain all the area's covered with ferns and pines. it would seem liming would do some good in these area's
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jul 9, 2008 22:03:42 GMT -4
Doug said: "I majored in Business management but I know a whole bunch of people that majored in forestry and do research in that field."
Gosh but that sounds a lot like what Jim Slinsky bases his knowledge of wildlife and habitat on.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 10, 2008 10:13:18 GMT -4
TWO,I watched that meeting twice.Dr Stout agreed that acid rain is an issue but its not the most important issue and it's not practical to lime the entire forest.I don't know anyone from Collins pines.I know several that work for DCNR,PSU,the US forest service and some are private forest consultants.these guys have years of education both in research and in the field.
GURU,when you remove only one variable(deerr)and get fantastic regeneration the majority of the time,it's deer that's the problem.I've seen failed exclosures myself but by enlarge,most are successful.that points to deer as the primary cause.it can't even be argued.
LB,no one said deer are the only cause,just the biggest.When you see areas covered in ferns,that is a sign of deer overbrowsing.If you want a more detailed explanation i'll give it to you.However,when you see ferns dominating the understory,it means that at one time,you most likely had way too many deer.Besides,ferns,especially bracken ferns just love lime.Why would you want to excellerate their growth?Those areas need either herbiside or fire,not lime.
CH,DCNR has done extensive work with Lime,fire and herbisides in the state forests around here.I've walked through these areas and have been shown the effects by the people who did them.i know for a fact that Slinky has never been there.
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jul 10, 2008 15:11:18 GMT -4
"i know for a fact that Slinky has never been there."
The fact that Slinsky has never walked "there" has little to do with it. The fact remains, as you yourself have stated in so many words that your knowledge is basically NO DIFFERENT than is his. In effect you and Slinsky are very much the same when it comes to credibility.
|
|
|
Post by biggtrout on Jul 10, 2008 15:15:38 GMT -4
Dougell,
Face something, The PGC and DCNR ( along with the majority of the PSU forestors) are more interested in politics than healthy forests. Their political aspirations taint all of their actions and answers.
One PSU Forestor, Dr. Sharpe, is able to honestly speak the truth about forests, acid rain and deer - and you don't believe him - instead you side with the Politicians - and make ridiculous statements such as those regarding Ferns - which is right out of the Alt, Shissler and Schaeffer playbook.
NO Doug...the ferns do not exist because of the deer - the ferns exist and thrive because of the acid soil. The deer population has NOTHING to do with the abundance of ferns. That is an absolute fact - look it up on the internet by doing a search for "Hay Scented Ferns Acid Soil".
Any forest in this state can thrive with a deer population of 20 or more per square mile, The USDA studied this matter - independent of the politics - and that was their determination.
Would you care to argue with both Dr. Sharpe and The USDA - still claimng the political forces behind DCNR, namely Alt, Shissler and Schaeffer are correct?
|
|
|
Post by yihunt on Jul 10, 2008 16:33:37 GMT -4
"I know a whole bunch of people that majored in forestry and do research in that field.None of them agree with William Sharp."
That doesn't surprise me, they probably all stayed in a Holiday Inn express!!
"Explain to all of us why they get fantastic regeneration when they only remove one variable,the deer".
Why, you'll deny the facts like you've done all along.
|
|
|
Post by mrlongbeard on Jul 10, 2008 21:58:51 GMT -4
but you said control burns don't do a thing why would you want to use it now
|
|
|
Post by crazyhorservn on Jul 11, 2008 7:38:39 GMT -4
Controlled burns most certainly work at improving habitat. It's Mother Nature's main remedy. We haven't put it to proper use for many decades in Pennsylvania, preferring to resort to "cutting" which affords a profit. Remember, there is NO PROFIT in burning.[/u] In a businessman's mind Burning is waste. In a Naturalists mind Burning serves the land. In areas where the land will only produce Pole Timber Burning should certainly be introduced. I do believe that burning and the carbon it produces would tend to limit the acidity in the soil.
I should tell you that they do burn areas in the Wildlife Management Areas of New Jersey. Many of these WMA's (which are the equivalent of our Game Lands) are in what are known as the Jersey Pines, and subject to wild fires that often make the news. Yet NJ somehow manages to have controlled burns on a regular basis to improve their habitat. I'm not saying NJ is perfect, but they are clearly a step up on Pennsylvania when it comes to managing their WMA. Of course we must keep in mind that the Jersey Pines are mostly Pines and Scrub Oak and not conducive to growing Saw Timber as is the case in PA. And obviously PA will not sacrifice Saw Timber for improved habitat even if its in a useless Pole Timber stage and will never reach the Saw Timber level.
|
|
|
Post by dougell on Jul 11, 2008 8:42:15 GMT -4
When did I ever say controlled burns didn't do a thing?I've walked through several areas that were burned.They do a great job of killing the competing vegetation.What I said is that they're very impractical,do to the current liablility laws
CH,you do realize that the oak you speak of is resistant to fire.Why do you think 40% of pa is oak/Hickory?
|
|