Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Knowledge of Forest Certification Program needed

 
bat man said:
Cant you find any articles I want to read on how acid rain or lack of fire is the main driver of forest woes?
Click to expand...
i probably could.

just found more "players" in global forestry realm that are putting varying measures of blame on ungulates....so that if their names pop up they are known.
 
I;m not entirely sure that you guys in MN experience acid rain to the extent that we do here in NE. The following is what i have found searching for acid rain deposition related issues....they are mostly based out of the NE.

interesting that this on the PA DCNR website....Deer impacts are the second topic on the page while acid deposition is about 2/3's of the way down.
http://dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/deer/howisthehabitat/

also from the PA DCNR. has a list of of references pertaining to soils and forest health....lots of mention of acid deposition in references.
http://www.apps.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/sfrmp/soils.htm

pay to play
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112799000298

didnt have time to read this one...but it sounds contrary to the "pro-deer" side.
http://www.deerandforests.org/resources/deer-acid-rain-and-other-factors.pdf

didnt read all the way through.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0039755

press release from PSU about your buddy Bill Sharpe's findings.
http://news.psu.edu/story/185931/20...pert-blames-forest-problem-acid-rain-not-deer

here is one from Colorado State.
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~dan/papers/EffectsAcidDeposition_199X.pdf

http://ny.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri984267/WRIR98-4267.pdf
 
I spent last night trying to find a study on regen in the absense of fire across different soil types. Couldn't even get close to finding one. Most of that research is locked up behind a $35 fee to read. May have to start identifying more science wonks to see if they can help find what I'm looking for.
 
smsmith said:
We don't. You guys out east get much more than other areas of the U.S.
Click to expand...
I know the NE is the worst place for it based on the location of the sources of the pollution and the jet stream, but was not sure if it's even something worth digging into for you guys in the upper mid west/Great Lakes.

It would seem that some other cause like a change in the natural disturbance regime due to past/present forestry practices and those practices effects on soil health may be the avenue to pursue for you guys.
 
SD51555 said:
I spent last night trying to find a study on regen in the absense of fire across different soil types. Couldn't even get close to finding one. Most of that research is locked up behind a $35 fee to read. May have to start identifying more science wonks to see if they can help find what I'm looking for.
Click to expand...
Most of the scholarly writings are pay to play.....sucks.
 
Interesting read from a Connecticut Botanical Society 14 year browse study. The conclusions at the bottom are quite revealing and it shows that regen issues of desirable species are not as cut and dried as the Foresters and Certification groups would like us to believe.

http://highstead.net/pdfs/Eds article in Bot Society.pdf
 
Sat through my first stakeholder team meeting and in my first small group spoke with a soil and water guy who had planted the same 300 acre field with pines twice and switched to white spruce on round 3. Deer ate them first 2 tries.

So I asked the DNR why there exists no programs to address the hot spot. 2 DNR folk quickly answered there were programs, when a voice from the back of the room announced 'the MN DNR has no programs to address the issue being discussed', and we moved on.

Betting I know how many in the group may vote for that zone since zone wide herd reduction is the only tool they have. Even though it will not address this guys issue of trying to plant tress next to areas where private landowners allow no hunting.
 
I am voting a percent change to a perception. I let the DNR know that their perception of the herd is so wildly different than the hunters perception that I needed to know whose perception I was voting on. I do not anticipate a perceived increase to the herd of MN. But the DNR may perceive differently.

Lots of Dogs and Ponies.
 
Batman-it is sad that money, our time, and so much electronic ink is wasted on this process.
 
What is truly sad is that when your Legislators were presented with all this overwhelming evidence of management abuse and number jockeying, they all decided to let it take place again.

They had an opportunity to make some real and lasting changes to an obviously suspect system and they dropped the ball. You are all lucky this wasn't something more serious, like tampering and abuse of your state tax code or something of that nature. Looks like you will need to do some housecleaning in your next election, that is the only way to be taken seriously now. Vote out those that refused your audit request in favor of those that are of the same mind as you, then you may have another shot at an audit. Until then, any future chance at an audit just became exponentially harder.
 
Last edited:
smsmith said:
In other words...never
Click to expand...
After hunting here for 47 years, I feel things will probably stay about the same if we are lucky. A few decent years and lots of years less than decent.

That is why I have adjusted my goals and might just as well be happy with a young deer for the table. For the time being, that deer should be a buck for the benefit of our herd.

Many of our politicians listen to MDHA and they let the ball drop by not supporting the audit or at least by not speaking up for the hunter and challenging the DNR.
 
There are a few areas in MN that are managed for and support more deer than others. Some areas are wooded, mostly private lands, not too far north to be short of food or w/ too many wolves, and lots of cover exists. The same cannot be said for much of the state.....but there are some exceptions out there. Still....it would be hard to invest in a "deer property" in much of MN these days and the best deer zones have been diminished in size over time.
 
The advisory team meeting was interesting. When talking to a couple of local wildlife managers it sounded like they aren't involved in the modeling and the decisions that are based on the model. They did not outright say this, but when I asked questions about changes for our permit area and looking at then numbers on the reports provided said "that doesn't make sense that your area went back to IH in 2011". I doubt any of those managers would spend any time rocking the boat. They seemed happy to talk to people that are interested in the habitat and improving local deer numbers but would likely keep overall goals lower since that makes it easier to deal with problem areas. Again, none of them outright said these things, but it is the feeling I got from conversations with them.

The people sitting down in St Paul and Madelia don't know anything other than what the models tell them. I don't think they get much input from the local managers.

Talking to a couple different team members it sounds like the only ones that are still seeing decent deer #s have large private parcels surrounded by other hunters with large private parcels. One guy in permit area 221 said they have 700+ acres that has quite a few deer, but he also bow hunts on some public land and the numbers are way down there over the last 10 years.

Overall very few people want to blame hunters shooting too many deer for lower numbers.
 
smsmith said:
Still waiting for the class action lawsuit on the DNR for negatively impacting rec land value in MN :)
Click to expand...

I have a realtor running like comps on 100 acre chunks and smaller for past 10 years. One set SE MN, one set central and one set NE MN.
 
West Branch said:
The advisory team meeting was interesting. When talking to a couple of local wildlife managers it sounded like they aren't involved in the modeling and the decisions that are based on the model. They did not outright say this, but when I asked questions about changes for our permit area and looking at then numbers on the reports provided said "that doesn't make sense that your area went back to IH in 2011". I doubt any of those managers would spend any time rocking the boat. They seemed happy to talk to people that are interested in the habitat and improving local deer numbers but would likely keep overall goals lower since that makes it easier to deal with problem areas. Again, none of them outright said these things, but it is the feeling I got from conversations with them.

The people sitting down in St Paul and Madelia don't know anything other than what the models tell them. I don't think they get much input from the local managers.

Talking to a couple different team members it sounds like the only ones that are still seeing decent deer #s have large private parcels surrounded by other hunters with large private parcels. One guy in permit area 221 said they have 700+ acres that has quite a few deer, but he also bow hunts on some public land and the numbers are way down there over the last 10 years.

Overall very few people want to blame hunters shooting too many deer for lower numbers.
Click to expand...
Our area manager seems like he is involved in the decisions on how our area is managed and he looks at the model results.

Are these managers you are talking with totally ignoring the deer.....or maybe they have been told to be non-commital?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top