Yes, deer are a plague. Not only because they strip forests of seedlings, but also because of the hazard on the road they cause. My Suburban was virtually totaled when I hit a deer this fall, but was actually worth repairing in spite of its age, and insurance paid for the repairs. Deer also are changing the species composition of our woodlands. My favorite hardwood tree here in the eastern part of the US is white oak, and it is also the favorite of deer, and over time these will be virtually eliminated from our eastern forests.
Joe: I should have made more clear that what I am calling the "q" system for uneven forest management can be adapted for any species of trees and any site quality. The maximum "target diameter" can be adjusted, and the "q" ratio can be adjusted, and the length of each harvest cycle can be adjusted, and the size of each unit can be adjusted, etc. And a goal of species diversity can be built in. There is no reason why this system wouldn't work for redwoods. Also, I think I made a mistake about the number of trees allowed to reach the maximum diameter in each unit--I think it is only one. And that tree would generally be a very especially well-formed and vigorous tree to have made "the cut" so many times and be the "last tree standing," so to speak. I have a research report on this system produced at Fernow, and need to find it to double check some things. When I have time--I have very slow dial-up internet--I will see if there has been any recent follow-up research on this silvicultural system. I might just call the research station at Parsons.
What we should focus on is that this IS very interesting and important research, regardless of how much it can actually be used. So many people complain that too much forestry research is done simply at the beck and call of the forest products industry, and focuses simply on "productivity" at the expense of the environment. This research is the opposite, and is focused on finding new possibilities for uneven-aged, sustained yield forestry that will protect the land, carry substantial biomass, and enhance aesthetics. I mightily applaud this kind of research, AND, maybe at some point, or at least some land owners, could find a way to actually use this system.
Most schools of forestry have courses in, and maybe even offer "programs" or "concentrations" in forest aesthetics. Unfortunately, much of this is to "mask" the destruction caused by bad forest management, putting "lipstick on a pig." But maybe even this is not all negative. One specific example is the shaping of clearcuts so they are not so visually ugly. But forest aesthetics research goes beyond this to include the effect of certain mixtures of species, and a variety of other things, including urban "forest" plantings. At some point forest aesthetics "merges" with landscape design/architecture. Maybe Fredrick Law Olmstead was a actually pioneer in forest aesthetics, although Lancelot "capability" Brown came even earlier.
I would guess that in all this the idea of managing a forest purely for aesthetics has come up for discussion, but I tend to doubt that anything like that has ever been done. I have thought a lot about it, and have often thought a lot about aesthetics when managing my own forest. Of course, ideas about what's beautiful vary a lot, so purely objective standards about what species are best, and what mixtures are most beautiful at different seasons will vary. Certain visual effects are more basic. One thing I did is when I had a new forestry road built, was work to have curves where they would be most visually appealing, and had the road crest a hill at the best point, etc. Also, of course, I avoided destroying the most beautiful groups of trees.