Public Land Habitat Improvement Method

[UP Ed]

I just finished reading the "Manage Cover for Small-Land Success" by Bryan Kinkel in the February 2006 issue of Quality Whitetails. The article discusses the phases a 488-acre property went through in implimenting a QDM management plan. I will briefly outline the article here but what I'm wondering is if parts of this method could be used on public lands.

The management plan was broken down into three phases. First was QDM, minimum age on bucks was set at 2-1/2 years and a doe harvest was started. Second was QDM+food, this included a long-term rotational timber cutting schedule. Every four years 5% of the hardwood was clearcut. Additionally there was some select cutting of mature trees in stands not scheduled for clearcuts until far into the future. The hardwoods included alot of oaks producing good mast generally 3 out of each 5 years. The third and last phase was QDM+food+cover. The cover came about 4 years after the first cuts when the forest regenerated into the sapling-dominated cover stage.

What struck me was this question: Can this 5% clear cutting every 4 years on an on going basis supply the necessary cover and additional food to improve our deer herd on public forested lands? Another very appealing aspect of this management is the cost or lack there of. By harvesting pulp and saw logs there should be little cost and quite possibly revenue from this. I know not all lands are mast producing oaks, but by opening up the forest floor through the thinning process and the rotational clearcuts producing forage and cover, this would seem to be a possible answer to habitat improvement on our public lands.

So, what do you all think?

-Ed

[Lew]

UP Ed, The simple answer is Yes. However, from a practical stand point it is not going to work. Logging companies have big equipment and once they get it on site, they want a lot more then just 5 acres to cut. 20 acres cuts are probably doable but larger are preferred. Private land owners can work out deals to get what they want and settle for less return, but paper companies and the state have to look at getting the maximum return on their opperations. Maybe someone from the paper companies or state can comment. Lew

[Ferg]

Yep Lew is correct - I have 6.5 acres down here - with about - 7k worth of old trees on it - (mill pricing not mine) - but - nobody will come take it because there is only about 5 acres of trees - but the ones I have a stright and about 100 + feet - tall - but no takers -

ferg....

[UP Ed]

I understand that logging small acres is not generally profitable. What I was getting at was logging 5% each year of large publicly owned tracks. 5% of a section (640a) is 32 acres. If this was done over several sections I would think this would be profitable for the logger.

-Ed

[Nick Adams]

There are a variety of difficulties with the small clearcut approach:

- loggers/foresters: Operating costs per acre or unit of volume tend to go up. There is more overhead involved in moving equipment around. Entering every parcel at short intervals means keeping open and maintaining a much larger system of woods and haul roads.

- foresters/mills: clearcutting is not a good way of regenerating hard maple or of growing hard maple sawtimber

- general (non hunting) public: don't particularly like to see clearcuts

The state is pretty open in their forest management planning process. I encourage you to get involved at the local level and advocate for better management of our state forests (however you see it). Info on how to do so can be found here:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301_30505_31025-123392--,00.html

-na

[sandbur3]

Popple (aspen) forests resppond well to clearcutting. However small tracts are not worthwhile to move modern equipment around. Small patches that are relatively clearcut for firewood can create habitat. The oaks should be left standing. In some government forests small areas of hardwoods can be purchased for home firewood use. Is this available in your state?