|
Post by squash on Feb 23, 2015 15:57:26 GMT -5
There seems to be much discussion on another thread about this subject, so I thought maybe it would good to start a separate thread on this subject ?
Although I agree that the forest preserve lands provide poor habitat for primary game species, there seems to to be some other factors limiting these wildlife species.
In July of 1995 several micro burst swept through the western Adirondacks, the Five Ponds, and Pepperbox wilderness areas resulting in thousands of acres of old growth being flattened. Also, we have been extensively logging on private lands adjacent to these areas as well as the West Canada lakes Wilderness Area. The opening of the canopy has allowed much regeneration but yet, I can tell you first hand that the deer hunting has not improved in a couple of decades in these areas, if anything it has gotten worst.
outside of harsh winters and predation from bears and coyotes, which have always been factors in the last 75 years, anyone have any thoughts on why these disturbances/openings in the forest canopy has not improved the deer populations in these areas ?
|
|
|
Post by saquelie on Feb 23, 2015 17:24:09 GMT -5
Traditional yarding areas are devoid of food and cover.
|
|
|
Post by k9goodtimes on Feb 23, 2015 19:30:42 GMT -5
Open canopy and burn are two completely different animals. Burning, IMO, is rebirth for plants that cant compete with faster growing underbrush as well as reintroducing nutritional value to soil that is stripped by mature plants. Some species of plants and fungi cant reproduce without fire. Morels, certain pines, blueberries as mentioned, black berries flourish after a burn.
|
|
|
Post by richg072 on Feb 23, 2015 20:51:35 GMT -5
If the statements made in the prior thread that there's one million plus acres of "wilderness" is true then a couple thousand acres of blow downs is nothing and won't help in creating habitat. Enough anyway to change such a vast area. There would need to be a annual rotation and on going logging of most of the park to really help create better habitat.
|
|
|
Post by graydog on Feb 23, 2015 22:44:55 GMT -5
The preservationists one hundred years ago got it wrong. A forest without any way to rejuvenate is left sterile, unnatural and unable to support the diversity of life enjoyed by a healthy forest.
It's unrealistic to expect any policy that would allow for uncontrolled wildfires because of the danger to property and human life. Ideally the forests will be managed seeking a balance of the interests of all user groups. A properly managed forest with timber harvests and other forest products would help to relieve the burden of overly high taxes and would be a win win for all citizens of the state. But I doubt logic exists in the mind of a preservationist and with them lies the fight.
If that fight is lost then an aggressive policy of prescribed burns would conserve the forest while providing opportunities not only for the sportsmen but also the naturalists to enjoy the increase in wildlife the forest would once again be able to support. I love looking at the scenery as I hike and wildlife sightings along the way make the experience even better. I'll bet that is true for everyone including the preservationists.
Good luck and I hope some of you decide to combine with other sportsmen, loggers, and long time residents to take the fight to the legislature.
|
|
|
Post by squash on Feb 24, 2015 10:10:57 GMT -5
Open canopy and burn are two completely different animals. Burning, IMO, is rebirth for plants that cant compete with faster growing underbrush as well as reintroducing nutritional value to soil that is stripped by mature plants. Some species of plants and fungi cant reproduce without fire. Morels, certain pines, blueberries as mentioned, black berries flourish after a burn. Although I know of no hardwood or softwood species native to the Adirondacks or tug Hill that need fire to regenerate, your burning theory is interesting . Burning would create some potash to help raise the ph..
|
|
|
Post by squash on Feb 24, 2015 10:30:26 GMT -5
If the statements made in the prior thread that there's one million plus acres of "wilderness" is true then a couple thousand acres of blow downs is nothing and won't help in creating habitat. Enough anyway to change such a vast area. There would need to be a annual rotation and on going logging of most of the park to really help create better habitat. All state lands inside the park(3.5 million acres +-) whether designated wilderness or not fall under the forever wild clause of the state constitution, therefore there is no logging allowed. I don't think you would have to level a million acres to be beneficial. Deer have a relatively small home range, why hasn't these blow downs and timber harvests helped the localized deer herd ? According to Elinkas book about deer hunting in the Blue Ridge Wilderness near Blue Mtn. Lake, NY in the Adk's. . After the 50's blowdown the deer hunting was excellent there. I still believe there is something else going on, Tug Hill is mostly privately held lands with extensive logging taken place each year. We alone have been cutting 800- 1000 acres each year on the former 30,000 acre Lyons Falls Pulp and Paper property on Tug Hill, for the last decade. Yet the deer hunting has continually gotten poorer. We've always had tough winters, and coyotes have been around for over 50 years, the only predation dynamic that's changed, is the B Bear has returned to Tug Hill.
|
|
traps82
#3 Newhouse
Hope is always alive
Posts: 3,208
|
Post by traps82 on Feb 24, 2015 12:48:06 GMT -5
"Yet the deer hunting has continually gotten poorer. We've always had tough winters, and coyotes have been around for over 50 years, the only predation dynamic that's changed, is the B Bear has returned to Tug Hill."
Squash, I have read some interesting studies on black bear predation on fawns- It can be surprisingly high, surpassing coyotes actually. I'll see what if I can find them.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on Feb 24, 2015 13:04:32 GMT -5
pen. just let out some numbers that said the blackbear killed more fawns than any other preditor in penn.
|
|
|
Post by k9goodtimes on Feb 24, 2015 19:42:56 GMT -5
Im not familiar with trees in the Adirondacks, Jack pines is an example off the top of my head, but I burn my blackberry patch every 3-4 years. They always explode the year after. We harvest 20-30 gallons a year. We have groves of black walnut that acidify the soil and they love it.
|
|
|
Post by richg072 on Feb 26, 2015 20:39:51 GMT -5
squash Blow downs or even logging for that matter only provides browse/forbes/cover for so long, until it once again grows above the height deer can benefit from it. It doesn't even have to be mature timber, it can be pole timber that's tight enough to close the canopy in. No you can't log the whole park at once, and that wouldn't be a good idea anyway as you want different age class timber. A good sound timber management plan, where they selective log (not clear cut) a certain amt of land, and then next year move to a next section and so on a so on. Then in 20+ year they start all over again at the first part they started at. This way they would provide a very diverse forest instead of a unhealthy mono forest they have now. At the same time reaping the benefits on monies from the lumber, as well as providing much needed forage for all animals. At the same time this is not a cure all for bringing back deer/fisher/any animal numbers. In conjunction with habitat improvement deer numbers would have to be boosted to get them started, maybe no DMP's for two years in these areas to allow for more fawn recruitment? Maybe no antlerless harvest at all for a year or two?
|
|
|
Post by mole on Feb 27, 2015 6:12:02 GMT -5
Logging operations have changed a lot. For example here ; What took North Brothers all winter to do now is done in a week. The tops used to be left and the deer took advantage of them. now the tops are chipped and are gone. Logging does little for the deer any more.
|
|
|
Post by silverfox on Feb 27, 2015 6:38:56 GMT -5
well since other states have seemingly been a "model" for some other recent management proposals, lets take a page from some southern states reference controlled burning, i lived (stationed) in GA for 4 years and large controlled burns were and are an annual event (granted part of the reason was to keep the kudtsoo(sp) vines, or other wise known as wait a minute vines under control) the results were an absolutely plush, green, undergrowth every spring and summer within the mature woods that obviously benefited robust wildlife populations creating a much healthier habitat, and rich food source, i control burn around my pond here every winter and get the same results, instead of a bunch of dead cattail shoots, tall already seeded dead grasses, golden rod and briars, i get a plush eco system that supports a laundry list of critters, bottom line there is no arguing the benefits of controlled burning, however "logistics" of controlling at a large scale could def create challenges (and might i add it did not hurt the mature growth minus some charred bark on some of the shag bark species)
|
|
|
Post by squash on Feb 27, 2015 9:30:51 GMT -5
squash Blow downs or even logging for that matter only provides browse/forbes/cover for so long, until it once again grows above the height deer can benefit from it. It doesn't even have to be mature timber, it can be pole timber that's tight enough to close the canopy in. No you can't log the whole park at once, and that wouldn't be a good idea anyway as you want different age class timber. A good sound timber management plan, where they selective log (not clear cut) a certain amt of land, and then next year move to a next section and so on a so on. Then in 20+ year they start all over again at the first part they started at. This way they would provide a very diverse forest instead of a unhealthy mono forest they have now. At the same time reaping the benefits on monies from the lumber, as well as providing much needed forage for all animals. At the same time this is not a cure all for bringing back deer/fisher/any animal numbers. In conjunction with habitat improvement deer numbers would have to be boosted to get them started, maybe no DMP's for two years in these areas to allow for more fawn recruitment? Maybe no antlerless harvest at all for a year or two? There are few antler less deer taken in the ADK park now. As a professional Forester by trade , I'm well aware of proper Forest management and the dynamics of a successional forest. I'm all for some sort of amendment to the state constitution to allow forest management on forest preserve lands. However, this is NY, the DEC would screw that up as well, and any revenue from state timber sales goes into the general fund. Cuomo and the legislature would spend this money in NYC. End result, improper forest management, waste of timber revenue, and only a possibility of increasing the deer herd. But again, why has there not been a boost in the deer population in areas inside the park that have had logging and other disturbances to the canopy now ?
|
|
|
Post by squash on Feb 27, 2015 9:36:59 GMT -5
Logging operations have changed a lot. For example here ; What took North Brothers all winter to do now is done in a week. The tops used to be left and the deer took advantage of them. now the tops are chipped and are gone. Logging does little for the deer any more. You may be on to something here ? In the past the forest industry was critizised for leaving too much of the trees they cut in the forest. However these tops left in the forest were benifical to wildlife as well as protecting regeneration from being browsed off, and then as they decayed, put nutrients back into the soil. Now as you state, we take the whole tree. There is little left to rejuvenate the soil,except leaf litter from the residual stand,(if any) and nothing is left for wildlife. but the fly in th ointment is there are plenty of whole trees decaying in the Five ponds Wilderness area from the 95 micro burst ?
|
|