DEER PERCEPTION REPORT
by Bill Cook, MSU Extension Service Forester

The politics of Michigan deer management have always been controversial, sometimes heated, occasionally even hostile. The mystique surrounding white-tailed deer reaches religious proportions among many folks.

All deer hunters, naturally, look forward to this traditional time, deeply ingrained into Michigan outdoor culture. Some hunters hold the annual November ritual as a holy pilgrimage.

Deer also attract other strong proponents. Tourists love to see the animals, especially the moment when a youngster sees their first deer. People feed them, watch them, and manage forests for their benefit. With little doubt, they are the most revered wildlife species in the state.

So, what happens when the poster-child of all that is good with nature becomes an ecological threat? It's not difficult to imagine the clash of values and ideals.

Deer browsing causes millions of dollars of damage to gardens, shrubs, and the plant industry. Farmers claim crop losses. Body shops rake in the revenue from increased car/deer collisions. Deer have long prevented trees from adequately regenerating in much of our forests. They have spread diseases such as bovine tuberculosis and Lyme disease. Overbrowsing diminishes habitat for endangered species, wildflowers, songbirds, and other wildlife. They contribute to the success of invasive plants.

Michigan is experiencing a growing frustration among many folks about the negative impacts that deer have on our properties and to ecological conditions in many places.

Michigan has done little to assess the impact of deer in the natural landscapes. Biologists use well-grounded, science-based methods to determine the size and condition of the deer herd, but very little is done to assess the habitat impacts, especially in the vulnerable habitats. The size of the herd is one question. The more important question, ecologically, involves the impact of those deer. Science cannot fully answer that question on a statewide basis. However, much research exists on site-specific locations and on certain aspects of forest ecology. But that's not enough to convince the opposition or risk policy changes.

Given the lack of rather costly statewide vegetation inventory data, the Michigan Society of American Foresters (MSAF) polled their membership about perceptions of the deer impacts on forests. Collectively, those opinions were derived from nearly 400 years of trained professional field experience during the five years from 2003 to 2007. Foresters across the state are witnessing some scary things done by deer to our forests.

The overwhelming opinion among MSAF foresters is that deer depredation is a serious issue in many areas of the state, has been a serious issue for a long time, and will not likely change within the next decade. This may not sit well with some of the strong advocates for as many deer as possible. But its the closest thing we have to a statewide assessment. And its the opinion from folks who know what to look for.

If you're interested in reading the report, it can be found on the MSAF website [ http:/ /michigansaf.org]. Look for the link on the home page.

Of course, science and professional opinion seldom rule the day. The debate about deer and deer impacts will remain in the political and social arenas. In the meantime, hundreds of foresters quietly go about their business, watching the forests, and working towards a bright future. They're a hopeful and idealistic bunch.

A FORESTRY SUCCESS STORY
by Rick A. Lucas, CD Forester

The Pine River Area School Forest (PRASF) consists of 651 acres scattered throughout 5 townships within the school district. The largest contiguous parcel consists of 320 acres found in Leroy Township of Osceola County. Most of the tracts of land were gained at a time when school districts took title to tax-delinquent lands deeded by the state and in some cases counties. When titles were given to school districts, they were generally on the basis of a small purchase price, often only $1. For the record, at the time of purchase in the 1940’s, the PRASF consisted of three separate schools located in the communities of LeRoy, Luther and Tustin. It wouldn’t be until the late 60’s that the school district would consolidate and take its present form.

During the late 80’s and early 90’s, the school district implemented a couple selective thinnings where it was needed as determined by the local Conservation District (CD) Forester Rick Lucas. It wasn’t until approximately 2004 when the current school administration and school board took its hardest look at the forest. It was during this timeframe that state legislation allowed schools an opportunity to sell these lands and keep up to 50% of the proceeds to address school budget short-falls. Facing a tight budget situation, the school board faced a great deal of public outcry to sell the land. Over the course of several school board meetings, it was determined that the school would retain the land and instead look to manage it more actively.

At the urging of CD Forester, Rick Lucas, the school district enrolled the forest in the American Tree Farm Program. The Tree Farm Program is an organization which promotes the growing of renewable forest resources, while protecting environmental benefits and increasing public understanding of all the benefits of productive forestry. The Tree Farm Program is a great tool for any school or township owned property. Participants in this program are required to have a certified management plan. Timber harvesting and reforestation needs are among a few of the many activities included in these plans. Participating ownerships are re-inspected every 5 years by a certified inspector to update needs. Additionally, in situations where local leadership may change frequently, such as is the case with school boards and administration, the Tree Farm Program adds stability to the decision making process.

Following the certification of the school forest in May of 2006, it was determined that several tracts of forest were in need of harvesting. The school board was encouraged to hire a consulting forester to administer timber harvesting needs. After completing a formal process, Ken Ford of Lake States Forestry Consultants was hired to oversee operations from start to finish.

The first tract of timber offered for sale consisted of a little more than 20 acres of mature red pine. The recommendation for the tract resulted in a final harvest with plans to replant the site the first spring after completion. The planting was completed early this spring. Sale of the trees generated $62,000 for the school and assisted in the purchasing of a $75,000 bus.

According to Jim Ganger, Superintendent of the Pine River Schools, the school bus was bought to “maintain a healthy and safe bus fleet for transporting students. We probably get 10 to 12 years of service out of a school bus before it is spent, and we have to replace one or two buses every year to maintain our fleet. We have a very large district, and our transportation system is critical for a lot of students.”

In the near and distant future, the school’s plans for money generated from timber sales will go toward district facility improvements. According to Ganger, the money will be used to replace roofs and make necessary building repairs. “We have two roofs that are very critical and need to be replaced soon,” said Ganger, noting that the school also has several buildings that will need a roof replaced because they are “aged and deteriorated.”

Ganger went on to say that the school only cuts trees at the time that it is recommended by Lucas and in accordance to their management plan. Ganger said the school district is fortunate to have “a lot of” acreage compared to other school districts in the surrounding area. “It’s unique to our district that we have control of 651 acres. It’s a valuable resource for the community and the school district if it’s managed correctly.”

The school district will soon reap the benefits of additional timber sales. Sometime within the next year, 3 more tracts are scheduled for selective thinning. These tracts will be marked by Ken Ford and offered through a competitive bidding process to prospective buyers.

According to Granger, it has been a real positive experience for the school board and administration in taking a more active role with managing the school forest. He concluded by saying, “We’re trying to be good stewards of the forest and manage all the acreage in a responsible manner. We’re not in the business of timber management or following timber markets. So we’re grateful for the local professional assistance we have received.”

A lot of private land owners have the same opportunity as the Pine River Area Schools to improve the overall health of their forest while also generating income. Contact a professional forester to look into your options.

TREE IDENTIFICATION
By Bill Cook

Many people pride themselves on their skill in identifying trees. Maybe the trees are in their yard or woodland. Sometimes, people have a heightened ecological conscience. For whatever reason, the new green of the season prompts many to learn about trees. Michigan boasts around 100 tree species, depending upon how a tree is defined. It's impossible to fully understand a forest without knowing who grows there. Trees are not the only life form, of course, but they are the dominant life form and impact everything that occurs in the forest. And of course, its difficult to fully appreciate the amazing natural resources of Michigan without considering forests.

There are about a dozen characteristics available to help identify trees. Learning which subset of characteristics to use for a particular tree is where practice and skill are needed. Some characteristics are seasonal, such as leaves, fruits, and flowers. Most others are more year-round, such as twig and branching patterns, buds, bud scars, bark, tree form, site, and tree associates. For some trees, paper birch for instance, most people only need to look at the white, peeling bark. Easy. Although, sometimes pale versions of quaking aspen have been mistaken for paper birch. Trees with acorns are one of several oaks. Maple leaves have a distinct palmate shape.

Many people refer to all conifers as – pines—when most conifers are not pines, especially in the U.P. That's just not correct. Pines make up only about 42 percent of the conifer volume in Michigan and only 24 percent in the U.P. Northern white cedar is, by far, the most common conifer in Michigan.

Because there are only about a dozen common conifers (only four are pines!) in the forest and identification is fairly easy to learn; beginning a tree ID quest with the conifers will build confidence.

Another good tactic for beginners is learning the ten most common tree species first; sugar maple, red maple, white cedar, red pine, quaking aspen, northern red oak, white pine, bigtooth aspen, hemlock, and basswood. Once these trees are known, comparing them to unknown species will often make the identification process move quicker.

Using easy seasonal characteristics is another good way to learn to identify trees during the off-season. Finding cherries goes a long way to segregating the cherry species. While doing that, its a good time to observe other key features, such as bark patterns and buds.

A tree with an opposite branching pattern narrows the choices down to maples, ashes, and dogwoods. Once you know that, its not too difficult to use a field guide to learn the species. However, make sure you have a tree and you're not looking at a shrub. Some of our shrub species also have opposite branching.

Leaves are a popular way to learn tree species, and they're a good technique during the growing season. Naturally, some tree species have variable leaf characteristics, so be cautious. Use multiple samples from the same tree to get an average appearance. Again, once you know the species, take the time to notice other characteristics that will help you identify the tree during the leaf-off season.

During the winter leaves can still sometimes be a good ID feature. Beech and ironwood often retain light brown leaves throughout the winter. Similarly, red oaks and sometimes sugar maple hold onto some of their leaves that are lower down on the tree. And, of course, all the conifers except tamarack and larch have needles year-round.

Considering –where—the tree grows can be quite helpful, especially for sites that are particularly dry or wet. A pine on a dry sandy plain will most likely be jack pine. A broad-leafed tree in a swamp will likely be black ash or one of the elms. Black and white spruce can be difficult to distinguish by needle appearance, but if its in a lowland site, its probably black spruce. If the site is upland, its probably white spruce.

The more trees you know, the easier it is to learn more. One of the best field guides is –Trees of Michigan—by Linda Kershaw. Norman Smiths –The Trees of Michigan and the Upper Great Lakes—is also good. For the U.P. and nearby regions, the on-line U.P. Tree ID website is good [ http:// uptreeid.com]. Happy hunting.

PRIVATE FOREST CONSIDERATIONS FOR SNOWSHOE HARE
By Rick Myrick

Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus), sometimes called varying hare, are well suited to the snow-covered environment of Northern Michigan’s latitudes. Deriving its common name from its large densely hair covered hind feet, the snowshoe hare’s “snowshoes” help it remain near the top of deep snow while moving.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has identified the snowshoe hare as a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) due to its declining population and associated threats, which includes loss of habitat. Private forest landowners are in a perfect position to further snowshoe hare habitat by encouraging those vegetative cover and food species that benefit the hare.

Snowshoe hare range in Michigan throughout the Upper Peninsula and have been noted as far south as the approximate middle of the Lower Peninsula. The snowshoe hare’s home range varies depending upon region and vegetative structure, with typical ranges noted between 15 to 25 acres.

As the amount of daylight begins to diminish in autumn, the pelage of the varying hare begins to molt from brown to white. The thick insulating white fur not only protects the snowshoe hare from plunging northern winter temperatures, but also serves as camouflage in snow conditions.

Snowshoe hare populations tend to fluctuate over a well-documented 10 year cycle. The MDNR, in referring to recent snowshoe hare densities in Michigan, notes “harvest trends indicate that populations have been in decline for the past 15 to 20 years”. It is currently unknown if this decline is related to the natural cyclic pattern. However, biologists suspect there may be other causes, such as habitat loss, forestry and wildlife management incompatibilities and high terrestrial predator densities contributing to the decline.

In contrast to the almost ubiquitous cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare are not well adapted to agricultural landscapes. Varying hare in Michigan utilize landscape features that are typical to its range. Lowland conifer swamps dominated by northern white cedar, as well as peat lands such as spruce/tamarack bogs, are common forest types that provide habitat for hare.

Varying hare habitat quality is primarily determined by the presence of dense cover. Typically, more cover, more hare sustainability. In order to evade predation, snowshoe hare require brushy cover to provide visual obstruction to escape from avian and terrestrial predators.

Snowshoe hare are somewhat opportunists and feed on a variety of woody shrubs, tree species and other green vegetation, depending upon season, range and species density.

Winter foods include saplings, twigs and branches from white cedar, white spruce, balsam fir, white pine, red pine, white birch, sugar maple, red maple, and aspen (sometimes called popple).

Summer diets include birches, aspens, willows, alders, sumacs, dogwood, grasses, and clovers. In Michigan, intense browsing of similar species by the overly profuse white-tailed deer population has been identified as an associated threat to snowshoe hare abundance as well.

Consider favoring the aforementioned tree, and shrub species within your woodlot, should they exist, to enhance possible habitat for snowshoe hare. Planting appropriate species for varying hare is certainly another excellent option to consider, depending upon soil type, current cover and future landowner goals.

Private landowners are key to conserving wildlife habitat. Perhaps Lepus americanus will be your next beneficiary.

Mr. Myrick is a forester with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. He has a master’s degree in Wildlife Science from Texas A&M University, and a bachelor’s degree in Conservation from Northern Michigan University.