bluebird2

The solution to the regeneration problems is not reducing the herd to ridiculous low densities. The answer is to simply cut trees at 2 ft. above ground level instead of at ground level,which is the current practice. That would insure that the stump sprouts would be beyond the reach of the deer in just one growing season, providing all cuts were made between the end of the growing season in the fall and the beginning of the growing season in the spring.

livbucks

Cut them even higher then, with that mentality.
Why not go three feet?
Stump regrowth works best when clearcutting is employed.

Cornelius08

Seems to me, if you went 3 feet, you'd be losing some major board feet when calculated for the entire cut! Could even argue that for 2 feet, but if it meant much better regeneration, you'd think it would be worth it in the name of our WILDLIFE and HABITAT and not just the almighty dollar! Which long term, such a practice could conceivably end up being short term loss for long term financial gain?

gnhuntn

Just so I understand this suggestion correctly.....you're saying that all timber harvests should be completed in a time frame somewhere between Nov. and April?

bluebird2

Only those cuts where regeneration was expected to be a problem should be restricted to the dormant period.

livbucks

Why? The cut tops would provide browse. That would give the shoots some relief, and give a head start.
I don' think your suggestion holds water, really.

DougE

I asked a forester about this last year when you brought it up.I forget all the details but he said it's been tried andwouldn't work.Besides,regeneration alsocomes from sources other than stump sprouts.

bluebird2

To foresters the only thing that works is fencing and killing off the deer. You don't need regeneration from other sources if all the trees that are cut replace themselves with stump sprouts.

R.S.B.

The tried cutting the stumps high (two to three feet above ground) on the game lands up here and it didn’t work, the deer still eat the stump spouts all off every year until the stump died.

Then they tried to cut part way through the tree and bend the saplings over, like a hinge, thinking they could grow a horizontal forest, but that didn’t work either. The deer just ate everything off that was within their reach until the tree either sent up a shout that turned into a new trunk, out of their reach, or the whole tree died.

Then they tried bulldozing the trees over so the root ball was still attached to the tree, as they still tried to grow a horizontal forest. That didn’t work either for the same reasons the cut and bend method didn’t work.

You can still see the remnants of all of those attempts in many place on both the State Game Lands and National Forest of this area and all were failures.

Besides professional loggers are not going to leave two feet of the butt end of the log standing in the woods, that would often mean the difference between having a high value veneer log and a lesser grade saw log. That difference can amount to several hundred dollars, per log, so they either aren‘t going to do it or they aren’t going to bid much for timber where they would be forced to do it.

The forest resources lab has also evaluated the regeneration affects based on the cutting time periods and schedules and find little to no difference in the amount of regeneration based on the time of the year it was cut. The difference in regeneration is based on the amount of advanced regeneration prior to the cut not the time of year in which it was cut.

R.S. Bodenhorn

BTBowhunter

Wrong again sport!

It's been tried, documented, and tried again. Didn't have an effect.

Beside the fact that you havevery little clue as to forestry practices, who do you expect will give up all those board feet? How are you going to tell the private owners of the 80% of this state where to cut on their tree?

Your problem is that you have blinders on to all else but the mass production of whitetail deer. You obviouslydon't give a rip about any other wildlife species, game or otherwise. You also don't seem to care about the landowners interests. In your eyes,the landowners of this states should simply lethunters dictate deer numbers and if regeneration is not what they prefer that's just too bad because you want to see 50-60 deer per day.

If you want deer to be the dominant crop you produce to the exclusion of all other life, both plant and animal, buy some gound, fence it and have at it. Otherwise, you need to acknowledge that other wildlife, the forest and yes, the peoplewho own the land and the trees and pay taxes on themhave an interest in this too.