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

[BJE80]

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.

I'm sure it is different all over in the north. I admit I've never been in the Bayfield area. I spend a lot of time in the NE near Three Lakes and Eagle river grouse hunting. It is very tough to find any young forest up there.

 

[wiscwhip]

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.

It has nothing to do with what "I" believe, it is S-C-I-E-N-C-E, plain and simple. The habitat manipulations/improvements were taking place before the white man ever set foot here. Do some research man.:rolleyes: You can choose to bury your head in the sand if you like but piles of proven scientific evidence and research point to a pre-Columbian population of between 9 million and 19 million deer annually(some estimates are as high as 24-34 million) and that the Native Americans inhabiting North America harvested an estimated 4.6-6.2 million deer per year. So your right, there were not millions of deer in North America before the white man, there were potentially tens of millions. But you just sit back with your Cracker Jack box PhD:rolleyes: and keep believing that there were few deer in North America in the millennia before the white man arrived and the Indians did nothing to manipulate the general habitat of North America well before a white man ever set foot here. Those paleontologists and other scientists that study this type of thing are all just idiots and their knowledge of things like this obviously pale in comparison to yours.:rolleyes:

 

[Terrific_tom]

I'm sure it is different all over in the north. I admit I've never been in the Bayfield area. I spend a lot of time in the NE near Three Lakes and Eagle river grouse hunting. It is very tough to find any young forest up there.

At one time Bayfield County was 2nd to only Waupaca County for deer kill and it wasn't that many years ago. The habitat has not changed. It would be like Waupaca County deer kill would drop by 70% and then blaming it on habitat. The difference between the 2 Counties is that most of Bayfield County is public while Waupaca county is mostly private. With the unlimited antlerless tags issued in previous years the antlerless deer on public land in Bayfield county were more easy to get at than those on the private lands of Waupaca county. The DNR always knew this but chose to keep on giving out unlimited antlerless tags in Bayfield county until it was too late.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Interesting discussion. I can only speak for my state of Pa., but before the big logging days of the late 1800's, deer numbers were fairly low compared to what they became after logging. The mountains here were literally stripped bare ( historical pix prove it ) and the virgin forest was primarily white pine and hemlock. After the massive & widespread logging, we had miles & miles of new growth. Much of that secondary growth was hardwood - oak, maple, hickory, ash, birch, cherry, etc. For years there was massive availability of young, easy-to-reach browse and thick cover from predation - man or animal. That was the main reason for the deer numbers climbing quickly over the next 50 years in Pa.

In my own lifetime, the best deer numbers that I've seen have been in areas where large areas were clear-cut in a patch-work method allowing ample cover and mature timber for hard mast, as well as new young re-growth at browse height. But the areas that were clear-cut were large ( in total acreage ) and were done where 3, 4, or more cuts were done separated by sections of untouched forest. The large acreage cut allowed deer to browse different areas without wiping out every living thing. The Pa. Game Commission planted feeder fields of greens that took some pressure off the timber re-gen. as well as planting the access roads with clover, birdsfoot trefoil, etc. Un-scientific, but that's what I've observed here.

 

[chickenlittle]

I think the low deer by the time of wide scale logging in northern PA was the result of market and subsistence hunting rather than poor habitat. The deer population was so low that the game commission imported deer for restocking. The change in hunting laws and switching of land to agricultural production helped the recovery. Over the last 50 years, much of that ag land has reverted back to forest.

 

[dogghr]

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.

The main factor one must take into account when comparing herds of centuries ago....Most were migrating animals. They moved as food and weather dictated therefore overbrowsed areas could rebound before the animals returned. Great example are the buffalo and for that matter elk herds of the Yellowstone ecosystem. These animals never weathered the winters there but migrated to warmer climes and better food sources as winter came on. But as land became blocked, their easy exodus was impeded. Thus they are now exposed to harsh winters, increased predation, and over browse of landscape simply because they have no way to move elsewhere. That's why many of the Indian groups were migratory, simply following the food supply. Even of those that weren't, they typically had hunting parties that traveled, typically in the fall,, to hunt animals moving from summer to winter grounds. Areas like mine, did not have huge Indian colonies, but they were very active here during those hunting seasons.

In addition, overstress on the evironment in some areas occurs because we often insist on having a large number of animals WE want for that area when in reality, that animal was normally never naturally present in that part of the country in large numbers.

 

[dipper]

Hey tom, I'm actually a liberal spy sent here to spike the cool aid and convert deer hunters who currently want a deer behind every tree. My cults mission is to completely exterminate the whitetail deer to extinction. :)

 

[Turkey Creek]

The negative impact of Native Americans and white man on the resources 200 years ago in North America was sustainable, not so now. I would agree though that ag production has definitely increased whitetail deer populations in general, but at some point that trend is reversed when you realize that deer cannot survive in nothing but a cornfield year round.

 

[wiscwhip]

The main factor one must take into account when comparing herds of centuries ago....Most were migrating animals. They moved as food and weather dictated therefore overbrowsed areas could rebound before the animals returned. Great example are the buffalo and for that matter elk herds of the Yellowstone ecosystem. These animals never weathered the winters there but migrated to warmer climes and better food sources as winter came on. But as land became blocked, their easy exodus was impeded. Thus they are now exposed to harsh winters, increased predation, and over browse of landscape simply because they have no way to move elsewhere. That's why many of the Indian groups were migratory, simply following the food supply. Even of those that weren't, they typically had hunting parties that traveled, typically in the fall,, to hunt animals moving from summer to winter grounds. Areas like mine, did not have huge Indian colonies, but they were very active here during those hunting seasons.

In addition, overstress on the evironment in some areas occurs because we often insist on having a large number of animals WE want for that area when in reality, that animal was normally never naturally present in that part of the country in large numbers.

I would agree to the extent of most areas that would have been overbrowsed, would have only been damaged in the short term, as groups of animals would have had an opportunity to move on to "greener pastures" as it were. Given the amount of acres that have been converted into strictly ag land and cities interspersed throughout the home ranges of most species, it is inevitable that through the loss of habitat and migration lanes many areas now sustain long term overbrowsing affects. Whitetail deer have never been a migrating species in the strict sense of the word, not to the extent of bison, caribou, or even elk, but just shifting to wintering grounds that were relatively near their normal home ranges, generally between 5 and 30 miles.

 

[dogghr]

I agree the whitetail is not as migrating as other species depending on your definition. They indeed travel good distances if allowed as seen with their movement in areas of the rockies where they transition winter-summer grounds just as their friend the mule deer do in that area of the country. And they did at one time, make a fairly long movements even in areas of the east. But in part, that is not as necessary for them now due to the cutover of the mature forests that began 150 yrs ago allowing a more browseable flora. In addition, the expansion of fields/ag land, allows them now to find food without having to enter into a migration movement. Thus they are remaining in the same area, eating year round, and if overpopulated for the sustaining habitat, tend to have a detrimental affect on present and new growth. That is one reason our TSI on properties increase browse since the fallen tree hides new seedlings from browsing deer until it can establish itself enough to handle that pressure.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Chickenlittle - Yep - market hunting knocked the deer # down, but there weren't as many before logging as after when miles of new growth made living easy for the deer. And yes the PGC stocked deer - from Michigan - if I remember the history correctly.

I would have to disagree on the amount of ag land reverting to forest again. LOTS of former ag land is now housing developments, strip malls, banks every 1/4 mile - you know - for all our money that we're flush with, and in eastern Pa - gigantic automated warehouses of 750,000 square feet and up. I don't see forest reverting anywhere NEAR those kinds of acreages.

 

[dipper]

The negative impact of Native Americans and white man on the resources 200 years ago in North America was sustainable, not so now. I would agree though that ag production has definitely increased whitetail deer populations in general, but at some point that trend is reversed when you realize that deer cannot survive in nothing but a cornfield year round.

Great point Tc, the deer need habitat. With the global demand for food drastically increasing, habitat opportunities will decrease. Humans have already ran the buffalo population to near extinction compared to their historic range. Attempting to force more and more deer/ square mile of habitat isnt a reasonable approach to long term deer management.
Maybe I'm the only one who has experienced the destruction deer can play on a property. The biggest game changer that hasn't been brought up is invasive plants. Deer don't browse things like multi floral rose, buckthorn and garlic mustard. These big nasties will consume the landscape if deer numbers aren't kept in check. Something extremely important to consider when attempting to increase your local deer population. I think many dnr haters forget how big of a threat invasive plants are!

 

[chickenlittle]

BnB, read this link on PA forests. Says forest acreage has rebounded since 1960 and been stable at 59% in recent years. "Land-use patterns suggest that the amount of forested acreage has remained stable because losses caused by development in the Southern Tier have been offset by gains resulting from agriculture declines in the Northern Tier counties,"

http://news.psu.edu/story/293182/20...-pennsylvanias-forest-cover-remains-stable-59

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Chickenlittle - That's an interesting read. The gas development has eaten up a lot of acreage in my section of the state ( where I hunt ), that's for sure. I'd love to know the acreage that WAS forested vs. what has become pads or pipelines, frac ponds, storage areas, etc. Thanks for the link.