Originally Posted by dce
There is no lie and there is no green certification conspiracy theory.I had the original report and it clearly stated that in order to keep the certification,DCNR had to do whatever politically was necessary to change the state forest management from a paradigm of mazimum sustained yield to one of bio diversity.That applied to sthe state forests,not private property or state game lands.DCNR asked for many things including longer seasons,group hunting.baiting etc.What they got was DMAP which has been and is a good tool.At one time,DCNR had all of this posted on their website so it's never been a big secret.The truth is,many areas of the NC were decimated and the deer herd needed to be reduced greatly.As a result,the habitat is coming back and the deer are indeed bigger and healthier.By the way,the 1.5 million acres of SGL's are not certified and they're not dmap's which tosses that theory right down the toilet.Speaking of tool,the guy who wrote that nonsense is a tool and a fraud.He claims to have written the first bear and elk management plans for the PGC and he never even worked for them.
From what I am seeing:
The FSC cert was brought in first (1997) with one of the reasons of obtaining the cert to be used as a tool (leverage) for deer management in the future. Deer management was out of the DCNR jurisdiction. There were no known economic benefits of PA having the FSC cert at the time, but studies have now shown consumers are willing to pay more for materials that are “green”.
Once the FSC cert was in place the audit CARs were then able to be used to persuade the PGC for increased herd reduction. This was also coupled with support from other organizations (Audubon and PA Habitat Alliance) wanting ecosystem management, not herd management. I did not find any CARs for over browsing in the last few audits.
Thanks for pointing out the one guy was a “tool”. You get into these papers put out by “experts” and if you start digging into the references it seems like there is so little new research at times, just one researcher regurgitating the findings of another in a way to support their opinion. I will read his works with a different lens in the future.
As I keep saying new to all this, but do enjoy knowing the “whys” of how the decisions were\are made. I get it that there were way too many deer, especially up north. I also wonder how small the deer population has to be to not need to be fenced to allow for regrowth after being timbered. Seems like a pretty big expense per acre.
I mentioned the SGLs only as I don’t see that many deer there which I find odd as they are not FSC certified or DMAP, unless it is because of over hunting or lack of feed or both.
Are the current WCUs are too large for effective “ecosystem” management? My uneducated eyes see areas of inequality in deer populations in 2C. I do wish my eyes would see a few more deer on the public lands in my area....