Deer account for almost half of long-term forest change, study finds

[MA VT Flatlander]

http://www.news.wisc.edu/23393

 

[ELH]

Very informative. I think setting up a deer exclosure is a very good way to see if you have an over browsing issue. I have toured areas that utilize exclosure fences, and it's amazing to see the difference between what grows inside and outside of the fence. I would recommend that anyone with questions about over browsing on their property to put one up.

 

[wiscwhip]

I does pose the question though, as one always hears that North America was teeming with large herds of game animals before the Europeans came to the New World, was there issues with overbrowsing of forests and other areas? If the stories of the massive numbers of wild game are true, I would think that this would have had to be an issue in some areas. Granted, there was no large ag or cities to encroach on the habitat and the natural order was mostly untouched, but one would think that localized conditions of overbrowsed forests were quite possible.

 

[biglakeba$$]

There is the concern of what deer do to forests...

I look at our neighbors pastures and there isnt a living green thing on hundreds of acres for 5 ft off the ground.

Maybe we should reduce our angus populations to save the forests before we lay so much blame on deer for the minimal damage they do in comparison in some areas.

I realize deer are far more ranging, but man, looking at pasture areas in our area, whatever the deer do is simply tiny compared to what the cattle are doing.....

 

[Terrific_tom]

If you look at the picture in the article, it sure looks like the trees inside the fence[leftside of picture] are a lot younger than the trees on right side.

 

[SD51555]

All rubbish. Another poorly timed hit piece on deer. The only thing that would have made it more laughable is if it had been written about the arrowhead region of MN.

 

[dipper]

within 3 years of hammering does on my place my place went from the picture of the maple on the right to solid 4" msples like the ones on the left.
There wasn't deer 150 years ago like today. Virgin forests didn't provide browse and we know there wasn't ag fields. There wasn't habitat.....
If u can't understand these basic concepts u will struggle at managing your property-imo

 

[SD51555]

I get that. But this story, and the common woes over the arrowhead region of MN are written about areas that have no deer. I question "why now" on this story? It frustrates me to no end that deer continue to be viewed as a pest by everyone but deer hunters. The places with the lowest populations have the greatest concern over the threat from deer existence.

 

[dipper]

This is far from anything that is new or cutting edge. there is no greater conspiracy or motive. If u want to believe otherwise do it, but u are right, that will make u a minority.

 

[Turkey Creek]

Sent this to my son. He studied this in his forest ecology class at the u 2 years ago. He said it basically turns forests into mature ones and screws up the canopy structure.

Correct.

Same with over use by livestock. You can see examples of that all around where I live.

 

[wiscwhip]

There wasn't deer 150 years ago like today. Virgin forests didn't provide browse and we know there wasn't ag fields. There wasn't habitat.....
If u can't understand these basic concepts u will struggle at managing your property-imo

Really??? You better do some more research. Native Americans have been doing habitat improvements and forest manipulation for thousands of years through the use of forest clearing and prescribed burns.

The most significant type of environmental change brought about by Precolumbian human activity was the modification of vegetation. … Vegetation was primarily altered by the clearing of forest and by intentional burning. Natural fires certainly occurred but varied in frequency and strength in different habitats. Anthropogenic fires, for which there is ample documentation, tended to be more frequent but weaker, with a different seasonality than natural fires, and thus had a different type of influence on vegetation. The result of clearing and burning was, in many regions, the conversion of forest to grassland, savanna, scrub, open woodland, and forest with grassy openings. Early researchers thought that no large burning was carried out by natives, but research during the latter half of the 20th century has shown that many or most of the presettlement fires were intentionally caused.

Follow the science not the romanticized novels of fiction writers.
Romantic and primitivist writers such as William Henry Hudson, Longfellow, Francis Parkman, and Thoreau were major inventors of the The Pristine Myth, which became part of American heritage. Influenced by Western prejudice against primitivism and hunter-gatherer societies, many people still believe that Native Americans lived in complete harmony with the environment and neither disturbed nor destroyed but took only what was absolutely needed for survival. One of the powerful technologies which Native Americans had was fire, and they clearly changed the landscape with it. Sometimes to clear the woods, sometimes to create a berry patch, the changes spread across the continents.
When first encountered by Europeans, many ecosystems were the result of repeated fires every one to three years, resulting in the replacement of forests with grassland or savanna, or opening up the forest by removing undergrowth. More forest exists today in some parts of North America than when the Europeans first arrived.

Generally, the American Indians burned parts of the ecosystems in which they lived to promote a diversity of habitats, especially increasing the "edge effect," which gave the Indians greater security and stability to their lives. So extensive were the cumulative effects of these modifications that it may be said that the general consequence of the Indian occupation of the New World was to replace forested land with grassland or savanna, or, where the forest persisted, to open it up and free it from underbrush. Most of the impenetrable woods encountered by explorers were in bogs or swamps from which fire was excluded; naturally drained landscape was nearly everywhere burned. Conversely, almost wherever the European went, forests followed. The Great American Forest may be more a product of settlement than a victim of it.—Steve Pyne”

You may want to read some of the writings by the author below,
Henry T. Lewis, who has authored more books and articles on this subject than anyone else, concluded that there were at least 70 different reasons for the Indians firing the vegetation. In summary, there are eleven major reasons for American Indian ecosystem burning:
Hunting
Crop management
Insect collection
Pest management
Improve growth and yields
Fireproofing areas
Warfare and signaling
Economic extortion
Clearing areas for travel
Felling trees
Clearing riparian areas

As these examples clearly show, habitat and habitat manipulation have been around for a very, very, long time. Don't kid yourself, what we are doing today is not something the almighty whitetail hunter of the 20th century has "invented", people have been doing it and doing it well for thousands of years before the white man ever came to this continent.

Thus ends your habitat manipulation history lesson for the day.

 

[shawnv]

The point is pretty much every group but us hunter's have determined the amount of deer we had/have is too high for one reason or another.

 

[wiscwhip]

My fear is that this determination will continue to be reinforced as time goes on, the science to prove it is there. When one really looks back, I think the deer herds of the late 1970's and very early 80's are about what we can expect moving forward. I can't see the scientists agreeing that more deer than what we had at that time will be sustainable in the landscape.
For anyone who hasn't read the document in the following link, I encourage you to do so. Even though this information is from all the way back in 1998, the methods are still the same today and every one still applies. It is titled "Wisconsin's Deer Management Program: The Issues Involved in Decision Making", I would encourage guys to read it even though they are not from WI, because these issues are everywhere and your states use these same criteria to manage your deer herds.

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/documents/Deerbook.pdf

 

[shawnv]

From the US Forest Service (2012). http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/news/review/review-vol16.pdf

 

[wiscwhip]

From the US Forest Service (2012). http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/news/review/review-vol16.pdf

Did I just read that someone in the scientific community has found evidence that too few deer, yes I said too few deer, can also have a detrimental effect on the proper natural regrowth of forests?:eek:

 

[BJE80]

Did I just read that someone in the scientific community has found evidence that too few deer, yes I said too few deer, can also have a detrimental effect on the proper natural regrowth of forests?:eek:

Yes. Yes you did. I am shocked as well.

 

[dipper]

If u want to believe otherwise do it, but u are right, that will make u a minority.

Like I said, if you think there was millions of deer in North America like there is today, so be it. take a walk in a forest that hasn't been logged in a 100 years, and there isn't any ag around and tell me how many deer that habitat produces.....kinda sounds like northern wi. Sure there's great habitat around beaver ponds and such, but that's where the deer are.
If you think an Indian was able to contribute to mass habitat improvements that were unintentionally created by the white man, by all means feel happy about that.

 

[dipper]

Did I just read that someone in the scientific community has found evidence that too few deer, yes I said too few deer, can also have a detrimental effect on the proper natural regrowth of forests?:eek:

Just like humans don't destroy and deplete their environment either. You guys are nuts!

 

[BJE80]

If we would cut more up north there would be enough new generation to go around to support more deer. As it stands, there is little new generation so therefore those areas get picked off right away by what deer are there. I never see any select cutting north of Hwy 8. It is either clear cut (not enough) or left standing to become mature.

 

[Terrific_tom]

Like I said, if you think there was millions of deer in North America like there is today, so be it. take a walk in a forest that hasn't been logged in a 100 years, and there isn't any ag around and tell me how many deer that habitat produces.....kinda sounds like northern wi. Sure there's great habitat around beaver ponds and such, but that's where the deer are.
If you think an Indian was able to contribute to mass habitat improvements that were unintentionally created by the white man, by all means feel happy about that.

Dipper I have to disagree with your statement that it "sounds like Northern Wisconsin". I spend a considerable amount of time each fall In Bayfield and Douglas County. Last fall I was there for over 5 weeks and in the woods every day. There is more great habitat than there is old forest in these 2 counties with plenty of logging going on. This old growth with no under growth is limited to Wilderness and Natural areas and even some of these areas have decent undergrowth. It doesn't matter if you are in old growth or recently cut areas, the deer numbers are low to non-existent. I can show you areas where it would be considered some of the best habitat in the whole state of Wisconsin and not find a single deer track. If you don't believe me come up this fall and ride along for a few days and then see if you would make that statement. The DNR has been making the statement about poor habitat to cover thier a$$ for over killing the deer herd up North. The invite to ride along goes out to any one that believes that the reason for low deer numbers in the Northwoods is due to poor habitat.