Emerald Ash Borer Info
Click here
Bill Botti's Tree Series
Click Here
Craig Kasmer's Wildlife Series
Click Here
|
Art and photos on this website may not be reproduced without written
permission of Michigan Forest Association. Other material may be
reprinted with appropriate credit.
|
Privacy
Statement
|
Michigan Forests Magazine
Excerpts From Summer 2009 Issue
Conservation means the wise use of the earth
and its resources for the lasting good of men.-Gifford Pinchot |
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR DIFFICULT SPECIES
by Bill Cook
MSU Extension Service Forester
Forest management
practices vary considerably across forest types, site conditions,
market availability, and many other factors. There simply is not any
single way or best way to manage all forests, or even a particular
kind of forest. While nature is a dynamic system that defies simple
categorization, there remains a body of knowledge and experience
that can be very effectively applied.
In many cases, some tree
species are difficult to regenerate. Nature has a lot of variables
to consider. When you mate that with the number of human variables,
there is little wonder that a “one size fits all” prescription is a
very rare thing in forest management. In some cases and in some
places, forest regeneration cannot be achieved.
Certain trees
immediately come to mind; white cedar, paper birch, white pine,
eastern hemlock, oaks, basswood, hickories, butternut, and others.
There are two broad categories of reasons why trees sometimes don’t
regenerate well. First, environmental reasons and, second, human
reluctance to implement proven forest management techniques. Of
course, the reasons are often inter-related.
Environmental reasons
range widely. White-tailed deer may preferentially feed on some
seedlings. If browse pressure is too high, many years may pass
before regeneration can grow past the height of a deer. Competition
with understory plants may preclude the success of certain species
of trees. Site and soil conditions may have changed, preventing
regeneration. The introduction of insects and diseases can all but
eliminate some tree species.
These effects typically don’t occur
everywhere. The effects might ebb and flow over time. In other
cases, impacts are widespread and long term.
Examples? Well, deer
browsing can easily preclude the regeneration of cedar, white pine,
hemlock, and other species. Pennsylvania sedge can inhibit
regeneration of not only most trees, but also many understory
plants. Historic fires and changes in water tables due to road
construction can alter site conditions that prevent regeneration of
some tree species. Most everyone will remember the devastating
effects of Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight. The emerald ash
borer currently threatens similar loss in our ash resource.
The many
environmental challenges to tree regeneration represent one more
good reason to actively manage forests. Nature will not necessarily
produce what we want or need. Nature is not always best. Nature has
also been forever altered by human history.
Despite some of these
environmental factors, the human element is more important. What are
some of the human variables?
Perhaps, the main challenge is the
widespread benign neglect many forest owners implement on their
forest lands. Doing “nothing” has consequences in forest composition
and ecology, sometimes negative consequences. Species such as aspen,
paper birch, cherry, and balsam fir disappear.
Certain insect and
disease cycles can accelerate, diversity may be lost, tree stress
increases, and forest vigor declines. These outcomes come as a
surprise to many.
Many tree species require bare mineral soil and
lots of sunlight in order to reproduce. In nature, these conditions
occur after wildfires, severe windstorms, and widespread mortality
from an insect or disease. In forest management, harvest techniques
mimic these natural events, but are often considered “bad” because
of their visual impacts.
As more people build more homes in the
forest, a whole host of problems increase, particularly the
introduction of exotic pests. Broken canopies result in the more or
less permanent reduction in late successional plants and animals. A
well-planned timber harvest has temporary environmental impacts and
resembles natural occurrences. Forests never recover from home
construction and urban splatter.
Human perceptions, values, and
desires often trump science and research. This is particularly true
in forestry. As a result, that lakeshore cabin surrounded by paper
birch becomes a sea of broken trees and thick shrubbery because the
owner chose not to open the canopy and disturb the forest floor for
the paper birch seeds. White pine is underplanted at considerable
cost, in less than optimum conditions, because revenue generating
methods are somehow perceived as harmful. Yellow birch is subjected
to “plan B” site quality because thick mats of forest litter cover
the soil.
If someone were to stick their neck out and try to suggest
a single forest management technique that would resolve most of
these regeneration challenges, it would probably be a combination of
timber harvesting (more light) and soil surface disturbance (good
seedbeds for many species). The science is there in most cases. Of
course, such suggestions fly in the face of certain visual quality
perceptions. However, this wouldn’t be the first case where the
realities of nature and human attitudes don’t match! And, it won’t
likely be the last. As always, work with a professional forester to
help you make the best decisions possible.
|
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED LEASING YOUR LAND TO HUNTERS?
By Rick A. Lucas
Conservation District Forester
The leasing of private lands for
hunting has gained popularity over the past several years, and this
trend is likely to continue. I personally, have leased my 118 acres
in Osceola County for more than fourteen years now. The idea of
offering a hunting lease seemed pretty natural given my profession
as a natural resource manager. Combining this with my passion for
deer and deer hunting, I’m able to generate a profit at a popular
time of the year when the land would otherwise be vacant since I do
all of my hunting in the U.P.
The primary reason hunters lease land
is to obtain a better quality outdoor recreational experience than
they can obtain otherwise. Finding a quality place to hunt these
days can be more challenging than locating the game pursued. Every
year thousands of acres are lost to urban expansion and public land
is becoming increasingly more crowded. What is a hunting lease? In a
hunting lease situation, the lessee is paying for access and the
hunting experience of legally harvesting those game animals allowed
under the lease. It does not convey rights to take the wildlife.
Native wildlife cannot be leased or sold by a landowner because it
is publicly owned by the state. A hunting lease is not a guarantee
that you will see and harvest the game allowed under the lease.
The
two most important qualities that most hunters cite when looking for
a lease are less competition from other hunters and abundant game
densities. Among the other qualities are an atmosphere in which they
feel welcome; a safe and secure place to hunt with control over the
number or distribution of hunters; a convenient or close location to
home; the potential to harvest trophy quality game; and convenient,
comfortable and dependable camping and lodging. It’s not necessary
that every lease have all of these characteristics to be successful.
However, the more attractive the property and the hunting
experience, the more marketable and valuable will be the lease.
There are several factors that influence the price and
attractiveness of a lease. The size of the property is among the
most important factors in determining the lease price. A parcel with
a square shape is better than property with a linear shape. Other
factors include: the facilities (accommodations) and/or services
provided; the quality, quantity, and type of game species present (A
lease where wildlife habitat enhancement measures are actively
applied will demand a higher price); location; the number of people
who have access to the property; the distance from population
centers; and the length of lease. I made my lease more attractive by
providing several easy to perform features. They include the
construction of a designated, primitive camping site which includes
a fire pit (with wood provided), trash cans, clothes line, buck
pole, pitcher pump for cleaning up, and an outhouse. Additionally, I
constructed and placed eight enclosed blinds, seven food plots which
I plant each year and a well maintained trail system for easy access
throughout the property.
In my part of the state, the lease market
rate varies from $10 to $25 per acre. If there is no lease market
rate established for your part of the state, consider your annual
tax obligations on the property as a good starting point for
negotiations.
Marketing your lease won’t be as difficult today as it
was when I started back in 1994. Back then advertising made all the
difference between leasing your land and not. Today, pick up any
outdoor magazine or publication popular to the Michigan outdoors and
you will see numerous ads beginning to appear in mid-summer by
hunters looking for leases. To make your lease more visible consider
the most effective and least expensive means, which is
word-of-mouth. Other methods include placing an ad in a newspaper or
outdoor magazine advertising section; placement of an ad in a
sporting goods store, taxidermy shop, etc.; or visit a local
conservation group. Before you do any of this, make sure you first
decide what the property has to offer (e.g. huntable species, scenic
country, solitude, possible amenities, etc.).
One of the biggest
concerns most landowners express when deciding on a fee access
system is, “Am I liable for damages if someone gets hurt on the
property?” Fear of liability has discouraged many landowners from
entering into a lease agreement, even though lawsuits against
landowners for negligence in hunting-related accidents are uncommon.
I have to admit, early on, this was my concern too. To lessen my
fears, I visited a lawyer. He said, “Anybody can sue anybody for
absolutely no reason at all these days.” However, he went on to
explain that in order to be held liable for personal loss or injury,
negligence must be proven in a court of law. A landowner is most
often and easily held liable for gross negligence or willful
misconduct when they intentionally set traps aimed at, for instance,
harming trespassers. Beyond any intentional bad actions, the
landowner must be proven to have breached the duty of reasonable
care expected under the law.
With this same lawyer’s assistance, I was able to draft a written
lease agreement. Prior to the start of each lease period, I require
all lessee’s to sign a lease contract with a written liability
waiver releasing me from responsibility for personal injury or
property loss. I further establish an understanding and written
agreement with my lessees that it is impossible for me to identify
every hidden danger on the property. Lastly, they agree to accept
the property “as is”. It’s still not a bad idea for first timers to
consult with your insurance company or an attorney. Good
communication between all parties involved will prevent many
problems.
Making your land available as a hunting lease won’t be for everyone.
Some landowners won’t like dealing with the public to the extent
necessary to manage a lease.
However, this may be a good opportunity for some to generate
additional income, get assistance with the completion of certain
projects on their property, and to control poaching, trespassing and
vandalism. Those who pay for the hunting opportunities tend to
provide routine patrols or checks on the land.
Before you decide to lease, evaluate your property and other
resources. Answering a few questions will allow you to assess
whether or not your property is suited for a lease arrangement, how
much revenue can be expected, and for which species the hunting
rights should be leased. If you have additional questions or would
like a copy of my lease agreement, simply call me at the
Conservation District office daily at (231) 832-2950 or email me at
rick.lucas@mi.nacdnet.net. I would be more than happy to share with
you my experiences.
|
EDITOR'S NOTEBOOK
PRESERVING THE "JACK PINE WARBLER"
By Don Ingle
When several Au Sable River anglers encountered a fellow with a cage
of drablooking birds in the back of his pickup on 2009’s trout
season opener, one angler had to ask – “What in the world are you
doing with those birds?”
It turned out he was a US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist and
had been collecting brown-headed cowbirds from traps set within the
jack pine forests of the Au Sable watershed. These nest invaders
were slated to be destroyed in order to protect the nests and
hatchlings of the most endangered song bird in Michigan, the
Kirtland’s Warbler, a native of the Au Sable watershed shed and
found nowhere else.
With the arrival of the returning warblers from their over-winter
quarters in the Bahaman Islands to nest and breed, reducing the
numbers of the parasitic cowbirds is a vital management step.
Cowbirds are lazy, parasitic parents – laying their eggs in the
nests of other birds to hatch. Larger cowbird hatchlings compete
with the warbler young, even pushing smaller warblers out of the
nest to perish, so cowbird numbers must be reduced in order to
protect the small “Jack Pine” warbler. Most know it as the
Kirtland’s Warbler.
This small blue and yellow songbird was first identified in 1852 by
Dr. Jarad P. Kirtland, a doctor and naturalist of Lakewood, Ohio,
who found one of the warblers on his farm. It remained an oddity for
a half century until 1902 when two anglers fishing on the Au Sable
found the birds there and reported it to the University of Michigan.
Investigation showed this rare warbler to be a native of Michigan’s
Au Sable watershed.
Their nick-name is for the fact that the small warbler only breeds
and hatches out in the watershed of the Au Sable River, nesting on
the ground under groves of Jack pine (Pinus banksiana) ranging in
height from 5 to 18 feet. They also seek out areas with ground cover
composed of blueberries, bearberry, or sweet fern.
Wildfires that swept over the postlogging area kept Jack pine
habitat at a useful habitat size for the warbler. But with the
imposition of fire control programs, the advancing age of the Jack
pine habitat took it out of use to the bird, beginning a decline in
their numbers.
This combination of Jack pine forest and the sandy soil found in the
Au Sable river watershed provides the Kirtland’s warbler with all it
needs for nesting, and it is the only place where the small songbird
is found in colonized numbers. The “Grayling sand” soil type is also
important because the small warblers nest on the ground, and their
nests would be flooded if rain water didn’t drain through the porous
sandy soil.
The Kirtland’s Warbler has received much attention over the last 25
years because of its rarity and need for a very specific Jack pine
habitat. Natural forest fires were the original providers of such
habitat, but the advance of white settlers resulted in the clearing
of much of Michigan’s natural forests.
At first, the warbler benefited from such clearing; however, so did
the Brown-Headed Cowbird, which moved in as land opened up following
fires and farming, hence the control efforts to rid nesting areas of
the cowbirds.
Once Jack pines reach more than 18 feet in height, its usefulness to
warblers is nil, so foresters remove these older trees and provide
for new and younger Jack pines to replace them. This is done through
clear cutting, and planting of new Jack pine. These are planted as
two-year-old stock from the US Forest Service nursery in Watersmeet
in the Upper Peninsula. The Michigan DNR does similar clear cutting
and planting on state forest lands in the warbler’s Au Sable home
place.
“The Forest Service treats 1700 acres a year for warbler habitat,”
said Phil Huber of the Huron National Forest. “The DNR treats 2000
acres a year. This is necessary because the trees over 18 feet no
longer have lower limbs covering the nesting areas and no longer
serve the needs of the warbler. So we interrupt the growth and see
to new growth on a rotating cycle. That way, the warblers always
have a place to nest and bring on a new generation.”
Some people in the region, not understanding the need for these
clear cut areas, complain about such management efforts. But as far
as the small, native warblers with the sweet spring song who nest in
it are concerned, “it’s just fine and thank you very much!”
|
2009 PESTS
As in all years, the growing season brings forth all sorts of
insects and diseases that feed upon the tissues of forest trees.
The vast majority of these “pest” species are normal functions
within a forest and an important component of the ecological
dynamics of forest systems. Many of them are fascinating. The same
is largely true for residential trees and urban forests.
Every year, MSU Extension, Conservation Districts, and other service
organizations receive calls about “what’s bugging my tree?”. If you
call, try to describe the tree species, the portion of the tree
affected, specifics about the symptoms, and which part of the
season. If it’s an insect, note the size, color, shape, and other
identification features. Don’t be too surprised if the “expert”
cannot immediately identify one of the hundreds of possibilities.
This year, reports about common pests have arrived. Maple petiole
borers have been dropping green maple leaves. The cool, moist spring
allowed various Anthracnose fungi to discolor more than the normal
number of leaves. Oak scales (insects) have bloomed on oaks in the
northern Lower Peninsula. Cankerworms, forest tent caterpillars,
eastern tent caterpillars, sawfly larvae, and various budworms have
been active.
These are normal happenings within the living system of a forest.
While most trees can normally host such pests, the string of dry
years and old age have caused mortality in some areas. It’s not
quite fair to blame the death of a tree on a showy caterpillar, when
the tree is already highly stressed by unseen affects of drought and
advanced root fungi.
A common question is; “What can I spray?” Usually, the answer is;
“Nothing”. By the time most folks notice an infestation or
infection, the life cycle of the pest is nearly over and the damage
already done. Furthermore, the damage is usually within acceptable
margins for tree health. Too often, spraying or treatment is for the
benefit of the tree owner, rather the trees. Sometimes, appeasing
the anxiety of the person through unnecessary treatments can
actually have negative effects on tree health.
All this is the normal state of forest affairs. Not everything is
normal, however. There are a number of rather nasty exceptions to
the regular suite of friendly forest pests.
Nearly everyone has heard about gypsy moth, Dutch elm disease, beech
bark disease, white pine blister rust, oak wilt, and emerald ash
borer. And, the list will grow. These are exotic species that have
had, and are having, tremendous impact on our native forests. An
Internet search will yield lots of information. It’s good to know
what some of these bad boys look like. Chances are, if it’s not one
of them, then whatever else it might be is OK.
Sometimes, the impacts of exotic pests can be minimized through
forest management or with chemical treatment. Some pests become
“naturalized” when they become vulnerable to native predators and
parasites. Gypsy moth is like this in many areas. Unfortunately,
there are too many examples of loss and carnage. Michigan has lost
most of its chestnuts and elms. Ashes and beech are on their way
out. Oaks are under siege.
The DNR website (find the forest health section) has current
information about forest health, including a highlights report from
2008. You can also find bulletins, handouts, images, and other
on-line information from MSU Extension, Conservation Districts, U.S.
Forest Service Forest Threat Center, and other sources.
Lastly, keep in mind that Michigan’s budget cutbacks have resulted
in the reduction, suspension, or cancellation of some forest health
efforts and, in some cases, loss of personnel
|
|
Publications
