Just a point of view

[BobT]

It seems that there is such a strong push these days to “save our forests” from forest farming. There are those that believe to cut a tree is a bad thing and should never be done. Some of these are even members of our own fellow outdoor and hunting enthusiasts. These people are misinformed and believe that a mature forest is more beneficial to wildlife than a young forest. This isn’t necessarily true. I know from my own personal experience as a deer hunter, grouse hunter, and logger that I have found my best opportunities for viewing and/or taking game in young forest areas. The canopy created by mature trees inhibit growth of underbrush and forces the wildlife, in particular grouse, to concentrate on the edges of the mature forest where they become easier targets for predators. When an area is clearcut it opens up the forest for regrowth and the resulting explosion of food and cover provides great opportunity for wildlife.

A friend of mine, MS in Forestry and VP of Forest Policy for Minnesota Forest Industries, can attest to this. They’ve been fighting an uphill battle for decades to save our MN forest products industry despite the fact that the industry replants more trees than it takes and has been for many years.

I recently read an article in The Minnesota Sportsman magazine from Ron Hustvedt Jr. that seemed to support my experiences and viewpoints quite well. I thought I’d share some statements from the article. I’m sure it’ll bring up some good debate.

Ron Hustvedt Jr. –

“Aspen provide magnificent habitat for grouse, and where aspen is a significant portion of the landscape, you'll find the best hunting locations.”

Dan Dessecker, biologist for the Ruffed Grouse Society –-

"We have a lot of good quality grouse habitat right now, but we are seeing some trends suggesting that aspen harvest and management is declining. As it does, we'll see future declines of grouse habitat."

Ron Hustvedt Jr. –

“Large contiguous stands of pure pines don't provide much in the way of grouse habitat.”

Michael Larson, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources grouse research biologist --

"Ruffed grouse respond more to forest structure than to species composition, and it just so happens that aspen offers high-quality habitat throughout its varying stages."

Ron Hustvedt Jr. –

“One general feature to look for in quality ruffed grouse woods is a thick, younger stand of woods. As the leaves come down, grouse rely on dense woody stems for cover rather than cover in mature open stands.”

Michael Larson, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources grouse research biologist --

"They need thicker woods like hazel, alder and the shrubby growth found along the edges of more mature stands and openings." When an area is harvested, this brushy area is allowed to expand, opening up a significant new territory for the birds.

Ron Hustvedt Jr. –

“Southeastern Minnesota used to have denser populations of ruffed grouse, but those numbers have declined for a variety of reasons, namely the continued maturation of the forests.”

Don Nelson, the MDNR's wildlife manager in Rochester. –

"Those brushy edges are good, especially in the late season when the birds head into their winter cover. Working conifer stands on the edge is also productive."

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that we should wipe out all of our mature forest areas with reckless abandon but I also think it is to our advantage and to the advantage of the wildlife to allow responsible forest management that includes tree harvesting.

[Neighbor_guy]

Yep, clear cut a forest, save a grouse. At least 5 or 10 years from now.......

hmmmmmm I think I see a cyclical patern, 5-10 years in length.....

Sometimes forestry guys managing for trees and wildlife guys managing for "other" need to sit down and work something's out. Managing for grouse is not that popular, not like managing for deer. But the deer and moose benifit greatly from clear cuts as well.

[fishroger]

Im in the forestry business and see alot of land primarily in north central mn. Your pretty much right. Aspen is a important wildlife tree for both deer and grouse, especially in the younger stages, 1-10 yr old. Seems like the best grouse areas have young dense aspen with some low area. And there is usually some type of fruiting shrub like chokecherries, pin cherry, or dogwood. However, it sems like they need some middle aged and mature aspen. In many areas the grouse will eat the mature aspen buds in the winter, ever wonder why you see a grouse way up an aspen tree in the middle of the winter, its eating those buds. Also, if there are some good mature oaks that are producing good acorn crops thats a bonus for both the deer and grouse. You wont see alot of grouse in pine areas, just not alot of food there. Maple, oak, basswood areas are not that good either, not enough cover or food.

[DanH]

A cpl of thoughts:

The shift in species priorities appears to be coming from the DNR. Looks like the DNR is encouraging management of a larger number of species and of different ages, in addition to Aspen. Not necessarily at the expense of Aspen. Aspen will remain the primary harvest species. The benefits of clear cuts for Grouse are well known, and I too enjoy them each fall. The benefits of promoting a wider variety of species and ages aren’t as well recognized yet, and won’t be promoted by the paper pulp industry or the RGS.

The clear cuts I’ve seen in MN are relatively small and appear to be well managed as opposed to some of the massive clear cuts in Western states such as Idaho. Which have caused habitat loss, erosion, and water pollution.

The real threat to MN habitat/the outdoors is sulfide mining for nickel, copper, and gold. As currently proposed in the Superior National Forest. Sulfide mining practices introduce threats to the ground water that are irreversible.

[Tom7227]

What gets cut and what gets re-planted is influenced in large part by the market for the material in question. If there's no market for lumber there won't be any logging, and the same with pulp wood. I agree with BobT that from the perspective of game a young forest is best based on everything I've ever read or encountered. It seems that the 'don't harvest' crowd is looking at it from a short term aesthetics view cause they don't know much about reality. The massive fires that occur with incredible regularity are part of the result.

That said I do have some concern about some of the info I've read about some of the fast growing species that are being developed. Short term gain seems to be the controlling factor. At some point the soil is going to be impaired and then what is the solution. Same can be said for some of the material I've read about biofuel. I certainly am no expert and will continue to study the issues. The only thing I know for sure is that it's never as simple as some would try and have you believe.

[BobT]

I think I can agree that a well blended forest of mixed species is better in the long run for both the forest and the wildlife. I can see where clear cutting can produce some issues in this regard as aspen are quite prolific and can choke out a lot of competition, at least when it is young.

One thing that I have noticed over the years is that when I visit areas we clear cut back in the 80s, today I see a pretty good variety of types in the areas so it would seem that nature can and will take care of itself.

I also agree with you, Tom, with regard to the fast growing hybrids. I wonder what kind of problems they may present some time down the road.

[brittman]

You can clear cut in 20 - 80 acre blocks depending upon overall size of the area. (Maybe possible to even clear-cut 10 acres if you can find a logger willing to do it).

Clear cuts let dogwoods find a place to grow. They can become quite prolific given a litte sun.

Patchwork of many age classes of aspen and other woods. You can leave blocks of older forest in the mix also. Big balsams are great winter grouse cover (shelter), but they need an area close by to feed on.

[CodyDawg]

The thing that rubs me the wrong way is the "green" movement and how they want to go paperless on everything. While some of this may be beneficial (less ink for example), the fact is that paper is a renewable resource.

We recently looked into recycled paper vs non-recycled paper. yep, recycled is more money. significantly more.

[brittman]

The thing that rubs me the wrong way is the "green" movement and how they want to go paperless on everything. While some of this may be beneficial (less ink for example), the fact is that paper is a renewable resource.

We recently looked into recycled paper vs non-recycled paper. yep, recycled is more money. significantly more.

Yah the cutting of forests is part of it, but the chemicals used in the paper making process are downright nasty and remain an issue...

Recycled paper is up in price because of demand ... Companies like Walmart essentially demand its use in products they put on the shelf.

[DanH]

In some 50 year old pine stands (rows of trees) I noticed that the loggers made hedge rows between the stands. Basically 6' high berms. Perhaps made form the undesirable left-overs. In newer clear cuts I've not seen this practice. Instead the undesirable debris is left as-is in the field. Someone told me that the reason for the berms was to isolate acidity leaching from the decaying wood and is supposed promote faster regrowth.

Anyone with any logging experience know why the practice of making berms has been abandoned?

[fishroger]

there called windrows. They found the debris broke down faster if spread around and contacting the soil. Also, bio mass utilization is starting to become big. They pretty much chip everything that is not lumber or pulp material. Quite a bit being sold to power comapnies as fuel and some for mulch and animal bedding.