I work up at the Grail, which has woods that stretches from Duncan through to the Boulevard. When I first started coming up here, I couldn't walk easily thru the woods, too many plants, I would stick to the path. Now it's clear, except for the barberry bushes.

I used to just think the deer were pretty, and didn't connect them with the change in the forest.

Then we got a forester to check out the woods, and he informed us that as the mature trees died, no others were coming to replace them, and eventually the forest would vanish. The deer are eating the baby trees, as they sprout and try to grow.

Nature is out of balance.

Here's another fresh assessment from just across the river. It will not only ring some very familiar chords but offers some useful metrics for correlating environmental signs with deer population.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008810030372

It also warns of the consequences of inaction.

In studies in Southern Japan, even a harvestation (hunting head count) of 10,000 to 20,000 would have had little effect on the damage to area flora. Southern Japan is quite humid and lush compared to the Hudson Valley. I can foresee a sort of "Easter Island Effect" here; with no more to eat, their population plummets with trees and other flora (mostly young pines and hardwoods) coming back quicker than the deer population if they near extinction in the area. But I'm sure a lot of people are feeding them because they're cute or for perceived humane reasons. Perhaps stringent feeding laws? The fires certainly caused a lot of damage and has certainly sped up the population decrease, or am I wrong there?