STATE OF THE STATE FORESTS
by Georgia Peterson

Forest Health Update: What’s Bugging the DNR (and the rest of the state’s forests)

The state’s economy is going to heck in a handbasket, but at least we have our forests, right? Perhaps, but we have a lot to think about when it comes to maintaining their health. The DNR’s forest health team just compiled the 2008 Michigan Forest Health Highlights, comprised of the top forest insect and disease frustrations. The following are a few highlights of the Highlights:

We’re still dealing with drought. Although the past year gave us a pretty good dose of precipitation (except for parts of the Western UP), it takes several years for trees to recover from drought stresses. The forest health folks listed two recent bad spells, mostly during 2002-03 and 2006-07 (and 2008 for parts of the Western UP). Many different forest pests take advantage of weakened trees and stands during this time, especially wood borers, bark beetles and Armillaria fungi. Diplodia shoot blight has also increased drastically during the latest droughty spells on jack and red pines. Aspen decline is also a result of the recent dry spells. Different areas report aspen stands with thin crowns and small leaves, sometimes ending up with pockets of serious tree top kill and outright tree death. Forest tent caterpillar may also have played a role in these aspens’ problems. Researchers found similar aspen declines after a drought in 1976-77, so we might at least be able to take heart that the aspens overall may recover if our precipitation remains in the near-normal range.

There has been an unusual problem with white pine in the understory along the AuSable River in Crawford County for at least three years now. MSU researchers identified a particular blight, Diplodia scrobiculata, as the cause of large branch and small twig cankers on these pines. This specific fungus was originally reported in Connecticut, but this is the first time it’s been seen in Michigan. DNR staff have found up to 90% of the understory white pines dead in the in the most highly affected areas. It also seems to be spreading to the larger specimens in the forest canopy. This Diplodia appears to be spreading along the river corridors of the Manistee and the AuSable, and even creeping inland. So far, the specialists’ best guess is that drought and competition stress have allowed this fungus to become an issue. Lots of eyes from the DNR, MSU and USDA Forest Service are keeping track of its progress.

Beech Bark Disease (BBD) continues to spread and wreak havoc in the Eastern UP and western portions of the Northern LP. Places like Ludington and Tahquamenon State Parks where the infestations were first detected are facing serious cases of “beech snap,” an extremely hazardous condition where trees break off unexpectedly. These areas are now seeing 75% of its beech completely dead. DNR staff are dealing with these infestations at both the management and research levels. Management strategies include reducing the amount of beech in stands ahead of the killing front and increasing overall species diversity. Some beech is maintained even where BBD is located to extend potential production of beech nuts for wildlife. The small bright spot lies in ongoing research. There have been some trees that appear to be resistant to the disease. DNR and Forest Service researchers have collected samples from these resistant trees, and are poised to plant the first seed orchards this year (2009). The hope is that the seed from these special beech trees will eventually help restore this very special and important species in BBD-impacted areas.

The DNR, MDA and MSU are keeping a watchful eye on any hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA) occurrences. This small, cottonylooking scale-like pest sucks the juices out of the needles and twigs of eastern hemlocks, eventually killing the tree. This is a very serious killer of hemlock stands in the Eastern US, but Michigan has so far been spared any major outbreaks. Unfortunately, HWA-infested landscape hemlocks were found in the Harbor Springs area in 2006. By the time the problem was detected and the landscape trees destroyed, some native trees in the surrounding area had already been infested. These and other surrounding hemlocks have since been removed, and the MDA applied an insecticide beyond that to hit any adelgids that might be hard to detect. So far, there have been no additional HWA sightings in the region, but the MDA and DNR continue to monitor hemlock in the area.

Another relatively new arrival is the European wood wasp (EWW), otherwise known as the Sirex wood wasp. In its native European land, this insect is only a pest on dead or dying trees. In non-native pines, however, it can become a problem. They seem to be attracted mostly to stressed trees in the Great Lakes region to-date. The pines that are susceptible in Michigan include most 2- and 3- needle species, such as Scots, jack, red and Austrian pines. Because this pest has recently been spotted in the Great Lakes region of Ontario, traps have been set on our side of the border, particularly north of Detroit and the thumb. A few have been found in these traps this past year, so researchers know they’ve landed. It’s an important new pest to keep in everyone’s sights. Go to the full 2008 Michigan Forest Health Highlights report on the DNR website for more information on how to detect Sirex (www.michigan.gov/dnr, click on “forests, land & water” on the left side of the page, then “forest management & planning,” then “forest health”). If you suspect that you have one of these creatures, contact the MSU Plant Pest Diagnostic Clinic at 517- 355-4536, or your local county MSU Extension office.

Of course, the full highlights report also describes the latest findings and efforts on several of our other nemeses, like emerald ash borer, oak wilt, forest tent caterpillar and jack pine budworm. The more we all are aware of the nasties that are out there, the more likely we’ll be that our forests will remain healthy.

IT’S NOT ALWAYS THE BUYER
by Bill Botti

Much has been written in these pages on the risks a landowner takes in dealing directly with a timber buyer. We have occasionally been taken to task by people in the industry for overstating the case. It’s true that people get swindled from time to time but it’s also true that many, if not most, buyers are reputable individuals. What we seldom hear about, however, is the risks taken by the timber buyer in dealing with a landowner.

Once in a while a story comes our way of unethical practices followed by landowners or foresters. Here are a couple of examples – with the names changed for obvious reasons.

Jack hired a forester to examine his property and make recommendations and write a management plan. He knew he had some mature timber, and when the forester recommended a timber sale, Jack agreed. Several bids were received and the high bid was selected. A contract was signed with the high bidder – an award-winning logger known for his careful and skillful operations.

Shortly after the logger started work, the forester got a phone call from Jack saying there was a serious erosion problem on the site. The forester rushed out and found the “serious erosion” to be the slight soil displacement resulting from skidding a large oak log on frozen ground. It amounted to a little loose sand on top of the leaves and snow. “That’s going to work its way down the hill and into the lake,” Jack complained. The forester pointed out that this was normal and that a little sweep of his foot or a couple of rains would restore the site.

The logger agreed to back-blade the roads and trails at the end of every work day and Jack backed off on his complaint. But at the end of operations, Jack complained about the condition of the roads. The forester pointed out that they were in better shape than they had been before the job started. “I know,” Jack replied. “I was just hoping I could get a little something extra here.”

XYZ Logging Company approached Herb about buying 58 trees from his woods for $18,000, saying he had marked the trees for Herb to look at. Herb walked through the woods and agreed to the deal. He took the money in cash. Unfortunately, Herb didn’t count the marked trees and the buyer from XYZ had neglected to mention he’d only marked about 30 so far. When XYZ marked the other 28 trees, Herb was irate. He confronted XYZ and the buyer offered to cancel the deal if Herb would just refund his money, but Herb had already spent it.

Herb called Brian, his local forester, and asked him if he could sell the marked trees. Curious, Brian asked who had marked the trees; upon hearing the story, he advised Herb to seek legal advice. Herb had hoped Brian could sell the trees for $18,000 so he could buy the contract back from XYZ. Brian didn’t take the job, so we don’t know how this one turned out.

Sometimes the forester does something disappointing. Francine called a forester to help her manage her woodland. She chose a forester from the list provided by the local office of the Extension Service. Several weeks went by. One day she received a $15,000 check in the mail from ACME Logging. About a week later she received a letter from the forester saying, “By accepting the check from ACME Logging, you have entered into a contract with ACME for the sale of your timber.” Francine didn’t like the way this was going, so she called ACME, who agreed to cancel the contract if she would refund the money. She sent the money back and fired the forester. Later, she hired a different forester and things went much better.

George acquired some property that included 30 acres of high quality hardwood timber. He called a forester from a list he’d acquired and asked him to look at the timber and set up an improvement cut. When George went to look at the trees the forester had marked, he found more of the high-value trees marked than anything else. He now says he doesn’t care to deal with a forester again.

What is the take-home message from all of this? I guess it’s that we should be cautious when entering into a business deal — but there’s more than that. Landowners, don’t try to milk something extra out of a timber sale by pretending to be upset by “damage” that isn’t there. If you want something extra, ask for it — you might be surprised how often you can get it just by asking. Ask a forester to provide references. Foresters, shame on us if that’s the way we behave. And, to all of us – landowners, buyers and foresters, let’s be genuine in our dealings and treat others the way we’d like to be treated ourselves.

ASSESS YOUR LAND’S POTENTIAL FOR WILDLIFE
By Rick A. Lucas

The unfortunate discovery of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Michigan last August has, at least for the near future, eliminated one means by which many hunters and other recreationalists attract wildlife. Experts say it will likely take up to three years of intense testing before we will know with greater certainty what we are up against. In the mean time, it is incumbent upon every one of us to do what we can to protect Michigan’s rich hunting heritage and our native wildlife to prevent the spread of this disease.

I have heard many individuals state that this disease couldn’t have come at a worse time. Truth be told, is there ever a good time for something like this to happen!? It’s like getting sick or having a flat tire, you don’t get to choose when and where it happens. It just happens and you deal with it. Speaking as a long time dedicated deer hunter, I, for one, am just grateful, that our departments of agriculture and natural resources had a surveillance and response plan for dealing with CWD in place before its discovery in Michigan.

The significance of this effort has been vastly under stated and I feel under appreciated. Following the discovery of CWD in Wisconsin in 2002, in February 2003, Governor Granholm signed an executive order creating a task force to address the threat of CWD in Michigan’s deer and elk populations. This task force was charged with the responsibility of developing a plan to survey and detect CWD in captive and wild cervids in the event CWD was ever discovered in Michigan. The unfortunate confirmation of CWD in Michigan began the implementation phase of the response plan. One of the action items of the response plan was to place a ban on baiting deer or elk. The ban applied equally to feeding for recreational viewing as it did for hunting.

Many have openly expressed their disapproval of this decision. The discovery of CWD is serious business and would be devastating if it were found to exist in our wild deer herd. A healthy white tail deer herd in Michigan is critical to this state’s economy. Some reports state that deer hunting alone annually generates more than $500 million dollars to the state’s economy. Many have argued that the economic contribution attributable to baiting and feeding wildlife should be taken into account. But stop and think for a moment, what will you be baiting or feeding in the future if we don’t have a healthy wildlife population to feed. Better yet, for the hunter, where will you be spending your money to hunt? It won’t be in Michigan if the worst case scenario plays out!

Granted, there is a lot that the experts don’t know about this disease at this time. However, there is too much at risk to be wrong. The long term consequences in dealing with this disease are not entirely clear. However, it is going to be far easier to deal with this disease early on than it will later.

For the private landowner previously accustomed to utilizing supplemental feeds to attract wildlife to your property, you don’t have to miss a beet (pun intended), if you actively manage your property. Now would be a great time to assess your land’s potential for wildlife. Most landowners cite attracting wildlife to their property for recreational hunting or viewing opportunities as one of their highest priorities for owning the land.

When managing to attract wildlife species on private parcels, it is important to understand that you are managing the habitat to attract the desired wildlife species to your property and not managing the wildlife population of a species as a whole. Due to the relatively small size of most privately owned parcels, few landowners have the luxury of managing their property to meet all the needs of a wildlife species. Therefore, it becomes necessary to also look at surrounding properties. Many times, neighboring properties provide a vital habitat requirement that your property does not provide.

The most successful wildlife habitat enhancement efforts, utilize a total resource management approach. This approach includes active management of the forest resource, as well as, openings and any water resources occurring on the property. It’s important to recognize, what grows on your property, plays a critical role in determining what wildlife will live there. Additionally, keep in mind, a forest is constantly changing and no one forest meets all the needs of every wildlife species. When managing the forest resource for wildlife, there will always be winners and losers.

Most attempts at enhancing wildlife habitat start out with good intentions on the landowner’s part, but fail when a multitude of factors are overlooked; many of which aren’t obvious at first glance. The easiest, yet most under-utilized approach is to have a certified resource management plan writer prepare a plan specific to your site. Such a document would take into consideration the landowner’s goals and objectives for ownership; existing habitats and natural features of the property; property size; wildlife species present in your area; and habitats and natural features on surrounding properties. And although this article has more of a wildlife habitat enhancement emphasis, all management plans reflect a multiple use approach.

The management plan is a document that describes what you have to work with, what you ultimately desire, and how and when it will be accomplished. Having a management plan in place helps the landowner to avoid a ‘hit and miss’ approach to their decision making. Furthermore, the process of developing the plan helps you recognize the potentials and limitations for managing timber and wildlife on your land. Encouraging more private landowners to prepare a management plan for their property is a high priority in Michigan. Getting a management plan for your property is really quite simple and in many cases the cost of preparation can be offset by a DNR program called the Forest Stewardship Program. If you have access to the internet, to locate a certified plan writer in your county follow this path: www. michigan.gov/dnr; click Forests, Land & Water on the left side; locate Forest and Land Programs Listing near the center of the page and click the down arrow; from the pop-up menu that appears, click Private Forest Land and then click Go at the right side; click Forest Stewardship Program; about half way down click Certified Plan Writers. You should now be looking at a map of the state by county. Click any county to obtain a list of certified plan writers for that county. At the bottom of each plan writer’s information, it will indicate if they have grant money to apply toward the preparation of your plan or not. If you do not have access to the internet, simply call your county Conservation District, MSU-Extension or DNR office and they will be able to assist you.

Once you make the commitment to actively manage your property, don’t give up. It’s going to take some time, effort, and yes, money. Sometimes it takes a few years to see the results, but the payoffs can be big. With proper planning and some careful execution, your land management efforts can yield more forest and wildlife benefits than you ever thought possible.

THAT VARMINT'S A MARMOT
By Don Ingle

The fresh fan of yellow sand along the roadside near the Sauble River caught the eye. Some critter was doing a little spring housecleaning after spending a long winter in an earthy burrow.

It could have been one of several species which use burrows but the odds-on favorite was a varmint called a marmot – a groundhog to some and woodchuck to others. A critter associated with forests edges and meadow openings, it is a common animal of our woodlands.

With snows gone from the south-facing slope and the increasing amount of sunlight warming the soil, the resident of the burrow sensed spring and decided it was time to be out and about after snoozing away the winter; that meant pushing out a load of sand and debris that had closed the burrow’s front door to keep the cold out.

Spring is the time when Mr. Woodchuck gets the urge to find a mate and make more of its own kind. If a young man’s thoughts turn to thoughts of love in spring, so does that of the chubby ground squirrel also called a groundhog. (And yes, groundhogs are members of the squirrel family.) After all, it’d been more than six weeks since that more famous groundhog in Pennsylvania made predications on how long winter would last.

Woodchucks breed at one year of age. Mating occurs in March and April and gestation is about 30 days. The female produces a single litter with sizes ranging from two to nine young, though the average is usually three to five.

Young woodchucks are born naked, blind, and helpless. Weaned at six weeks, the young begin to wander from the natal burrow and live by themselves shortly after that.

Woodchucks have been known to live five to six years in the wild.

They are solitary and are most active in early morning and late afternoon. They dig their own burrows, each of which may have as many as five entrances. Abandoned burrows, or burrows containing a hibernating woodchuck, may be used by snakes, opossums, cottontails, skunks, weasels, foxes, and other wildlife.

If there was any doubt that they belong to the squirrel family consider this: they climb trees when they need to or want to - usually to escape enemies. Thanks to their excellent eyesight they can spot intruders or danger at a long distance.

When startled, a woodchuck sounds off a loud, shrill warning whistle; this gives them the nick-name “whistle pig”.

By summer’s end, woodchucks have gotten fat in readiness for hibernation. Most enter hibernation triggered by decreasing day length. A hibernating woodchuck coils into a tight ball with the head resting on its lower abdomen and the hind parts and tail wrapped over the head and goes into a deep sleep. During this sleep, their respiration and heartbeat are greatly decreased, and body temperature is considerably lower than when the animal was active.

During hibernation, the breathing rate may be reduced to only one breath every five or six minutes, while the woodchuck’s heartbeats may be as few as three beats per minute, in contrast to the normal rate of 80 to 95 beats per minute. Rectal temperature reaches a low of 38°F during hibernation, while the normal summer reading is 90°F. (Who knew?)

To fatten up, woodchucks feed primarily on grasses, clover, alfalfa, wheat, corn, soybeans, and berries. Bark may occasionally be consumed. As vegetarians go, the woodchuck is world class.

Hunting woodchucks is a challenge — shots are mostly made at long range with rifles suited to long range accuracy and flat shooting.

The meat of a woodchuck is quite edible and well worth the hunting . Woodchuck tails and hair are prized by fly tiers.

Most farmers are happy to allow hunting as these critters can mess up a pasture.

And now, woodchucks are waking up and starting the game all over.