A trend some may not be aware of.

General discussions of forests and trees that do not focus on a specific species or specific location.

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
dbhguru
Posts: 4467
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:34 pm

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by dbhguru » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:18 pm

Joe,

Over the past 25 to 30 years, I've watched the wildlife side of Massachusetts DCR, and I've not seen any real interest on their part in species that need mature forests. In discussions, they mention the lack of early successional and late successional forests, but their management actions all go to increasing the former. In terms of the hunting fraternity, I've not seen much ecological awareness or interest. I suppose that is to be expected. What is disappointing is DCR Fish and Wildlife coaxing Mass Audubon over to the early successional habitat side of the debate.

Back in the early 1990s, Mass Audubon had a crackerjack scientist named Dr. Peter Dunwiddie. I assisted Peter in the first official DCR-sponsored study of Mass old growth. Audubon went through a period of leaving their forested lands unmanaged, courtesy of Peter's influence. Mass Audubon's hands off policy really agitated a certain retired Quabbin forester that we both know. He took it personally that Audubon was going to leave their forests unmanaged. The situation has now changed.

Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Co-founder, Native Native Tree Society
Co-founder and President
Friends of Mohawk Trail State Forest
Co-founder, National Cadre

User avatar
Lucas
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:55 am

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Lucas » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:45 pm

http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/artic ... bush-sites

http://www.deerhunterforum.com/index.ph ... /tsi.1633/

More background above.

Like most things, it is done poorly by most but some of these guys are controlling invasives, etc. The trend to natives is strong as deer do better on them.
We travel the Milky way together, trees and men. - John Muir

User avatar
Lucas
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:55 am

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Lucas » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:58 pm

Joe wrote:
wisconsitom wrote: Strange, but I've had some hunters say to me, "Joe, you go deep into the woods without packing iron?". Not sure what they're afraid of. :)
Joe
Hunters are broken into subcultures.

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=ch ... rd+animals

http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/barbara.htm

Kellert's study is still referenced.

Naturalistic is the primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors.
Ecologistic is the primary concern for the environment as a system, for interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitat.
Humanistic is the primary concern and strong affection for individual animals, principally pets.
Moralistic is the primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty towards animals.
Scientistic is primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of animals.
Aesthetic is primary concern in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals.
Utilitarian is primary concern for the practical and material value of animals of the animal's habitat.
Dominionistic is primary interest in the mastery and control of animals typically in sporting situations.
Negativistic is primary orientation for an active avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike or fear.


Click on image to see its original size

Dominionistic is a large part of the group. Typically urban and often ex military they are a large market that the industry caters to. The fear of bears, the marketing of over powered guns, etc. are often directed at them. It is the sterotype frequently seen in the Media. They are contrasted by Naturalistic hunters.

"Shooters" vs Fudds like Dominionistic vs Naturalistic hunters is a similar split in the shooting "gun nut" world.
We travel the Milky way together, trees and men. - John Muir

User avatar
Lucas
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:55 am

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Lucas » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:07 pm

wisconsitom wrote:The whole thing to aid a species.....that is already wildly out of control. No sense and all those guys and their oaks are not into forests. They are into mast crops for deer or turkey, that's about as far as their "ecological" concerns go. If a scrubby type of oak would provide those acorns, the whole Wiscosnin woods would be scrub. Wisconsin is full of these guys, their food plots spreading invasive species into the woods, the whole bit. No, I'm not impressed.
Some not all. Many of these guys are looking to control deer numbers because it reduces deer quality. The lay public thinks numbers are good.

Which invasives?

Do they have to be into forests? Compared to other abuses, they may be doing some good.
We travel the Milky way together, trees and men. - John Muir

Joe

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Joe » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:03 am

Bob, I think MA Audubon still doesn't do much if any "management" of its properties. If it does, I'd be interested to know about it and look at it- but they do support the state fish and wildlife agency's push for more clear-cutting for species which will benefit. The agency and hunters have always liked clear-cutting for game species. But then, some agency guy had a brilliant idea- convince Audubon that there is a shortage of bird species which need big clearcuts- and Audubon fell for it hook, line and sinker. So instead of the enviro groups opposing it- most now think it's awesome! The false idea is that these clearcuts will be similar ecosystems to the days of farm abandonment- but this is not true. Those old farms only slowly died off. Many old fields still had cattle but fewer and fewer over time- so the grass slowly gave way to trees. And, those old farms had berry patches, fruit trees and mixed forest types- so overall, they were very diverse- nothing like a clearcut- which after a few years grows in thickly and soon is no longer of interest to the birds which may have been attracted to the site right after the clearcut. Then they have to clearcut another site to get back that lost early succession site. Yet, they have failed to maintain remaining old fields on state land. I have periodically pestered them about this and they don't appreciate it. They claim they can't afford to hire anyone to cut those fields. The state manages to give its employees terrific salaries and annual pay raises but can't afford to find a local farmer to cut the hay! They used to- as I recall when I worked in the Savoy-Florida State Forest way back in the summer of '73. A local farmer cut the hay in the remaining fields for nothing since he needed the hay.

The absurdity of this is that the state and Audubon both like clearcuts but neither supports the biomass industry. If you're going to clearcut, you have to sell the wood to somebody- and in clearcuts, most of the wood is not sawlog quality, so it can only go to a pulp market or to biomass. There is no more pulp market here (hardly ever was) and there is only a minimal biomass market (mostly in north central MA).

Then to further promote this work- the federal NRCS office even pays really good money to owners to clearcut! When they started doing this several years ago- they were paying something like $2,500/acre to clearcut because that's roughly what it used to cost get acreage clearcut for development. But with the modest biomass market in north central MA, there was no need to subsidize clearcuts since the work would pay for itself.

Forestry policies in Mass. and probably everywhere else are and always have been CRAZY.
Joe

Joe

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Joe » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:10 am

Lucas wrote:http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/artic ... bush-sites

http://www.deerhunterforum.com/index.ph ... /tsi.1633/

More background above.

Like most things, it is done poorly by most but some of these guys are controlling invasives, etc. The trend to natives is strong as deer do better on them.
On that first site, it says, "These improvements create ideal buck habitat that not only provides bedding cover but also daytime food sources within cover, the benefits of which folks are just beginning to understand." I suggest its not so much improving habitat as it is creating a specific site where the hunter can expect to find the buck- so he doesn't have to actually "hunt" for the animal, he can sit in his tree stand and just wait for the buck to come to this wonderful "habitat". I don't say this because I don't approve of the idea or dislike hunting. I don't care what people do on their land and I have no problem with hunting though it's not for me. When someone talks about improving habitat- to me, it means making life better for the animals, not making a specific site a lure so a lazy hunter won't have to actually go "hunt" for the animals. Also, on this web page, I see the guy cutting what looks like a really nice small sawlog. I think he probably could have found a poor quality tree that would have served the same purpose. Cutting a nice small sawlog for this purpose does have the cost- the lost of that tree for future timber value.
Joe

Joe

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Joe » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:19 am

In the second site mentioned above- at the bottom of the discussion - the guy gets his forest high graded- then he goes in and hinges trees. Yikes, what a mess! What would have been infinitely better, in my opinion, would be if he had a nice silviculturally sound thinning- then maybe hinge a few trees. To me, high grading is a horrific evil. It's never justified.

Doing it the way I suggest would have resulted in just as many deer- the forest would look far better and be worth far more in a decade- and better for most wildlife species, incuding those that like big trees, hollows in live or dead trees and a diversity of species.

Joe

Joe

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Joe » Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:36 am

Lucas wrote: Dominionistic is a large part of the group. Typically urban and often ex military they are a large market that the industry caters to. The fear of bears, the marketing of over powered guns, etc. are often directed at them. It is the sterotype frequently seen in the Media. They are contrasted by Naturalistic hunters.

"Shooters" vs Fudds like Dominionistic vs Naturalistic hunters is a similar split in the shooting "gun nut" world.
I still often see on supermarket shelves- hunting magazines- with photos like the one you showed in your message. Typically, the bear is shown growling with its teeth visible in a threat mode. I've read that bears don't do that- at least not like in those magazine photos- which are taken of trained bears- trained to look viscous.

But seriously, some hunters I know are shocked that I dare go into a forest without guns. The only thing I'm afraid of out there are deer ticks and maybe hornets. I don't understand why some men like guns and like to fire hot metal into the soft bodies of animals who will experience extreme pain, fear and death. I suppose it's for "the good, healthy meat"- which is probably true, the meat probably is much better than in any supermarket- but I'm a vegetarian and my metaphysical perspective is close to Zen Buddhism, so the idea of purposefully causing pain to any creature is anathema- yet, the human race is very diverse and we should all try to have tolerance of others even if we dislike those behaviors within reason.

I think for some hunters- its the only way they know to get out in the forests. For the really macho types, hiking with binoculars is considered wimpy. And, after all, humans have been hunting since the beginning of the species- so it's built in- the instinct to do it but we also have the instinct to do other things which we refrain from. Overcoming instincts can be a good thing.

Of course with no hunting- some species will become overabundant- too many deer can damage forests. But one answer to that is to bring back big carnivores.

Another reason to favor hunting is that it's not a bad idea for a nation to have some men who know and like guns- in case of war. I'm not sure they'll be better soldiers than the guys who prefer to hike with binoculars, but it's probably true.

Joe

User avatar
Lucas
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:55 am

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Lucas » Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:06 pm

Joe wrote:
Lucas wrote:http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/artic ... bush-sites

http://www.deerhunterforum.com/index.ph ... /tsi.1633/

More background above.

Like most things, it is done poorly by most but some of these guys are controlling invasives, etc. The trend to natives is strong as deer do better on them.
On that first site, it says, "These improvements create ideal buck habitat that not only provides bedding cover but also daytime food sources within cover, the benefits of which folks are just beginning to understand." I suggest its not so much improving habitat as it is creating a specific site where the hunter can expect to find the buck- so he doesn't have to actually "hunt" for the animal, he can sit in his tree stand and just wait for the buck to come to this wonderful "habitat". I don't say this because I don't approve of the idea or dislike hunting. I don't care what people do on their land and I have no problem with hunting though it's not for me. When someone talks about improving habitat- to me, it means making life better for the animals, not making a specific site a lure so a lazy hunter won't have to actually go "hunt" for the animals. Also, on this web page, I see the guy cutting what looks like a really nice small sawlog. I think he probably could have found a poor quality tree that would have served the same purpose. Cutting a nice small sawlog for this purpose does have the cost- the lost of that tree for future timber value.
Joe
This is a reflection of limited land access. This deer habitat improvement is driven by private land restrictions. The frontier is gone. Some of these guys are limited to 20 acres. There is no going to the deer or they will be gone. "Lazy" is a misconception. The non hunting public think deer hunting is easy because they see them a lot. Deer are hyper aware of when they are being hunted and can become near impossible to hunt. That is part of the reason for hinging. You want the deer to feel secure on your land so you can have a chance. There is lots of off season scouting involved which is when your idea of hunting happens.
We travel the Milky way together, trees and men. - John Muir

Joe

Re: A trend some may not be aware of.

Post by Joe » Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:28 pm

Lucas said, "You want the deer to feel secure on your land so you can have a chance." They'd feel more secure if you gave them guns. (ha, ha, ha) Sorry, couldn't help it. Like I said, I have no problem with hunting- my main thing in life is great silviculture, so when I saw that one of the guys in that forum had his forest high graded before hinging trees- that caught my attention because I hate high grading and think it should be illegal. It never, never serves any interest of the owner- it only serves the loggers. If the loggers say it's the way to get the most money for the owner, that's false.
Joe

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussions”