DEER ACCOUNT FOR ALMOST HALF OF LONG-TERM FOREST CHANGE, STUDY FINDS
MADISON - A study released this week has linked at least 40 percent of species changes in the forests of northern Wisconsin and Michigan over the past 60 years to the eating habits of white-tailed deer.
A research group led by Donald Waller, a professor of botany at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, used a pair of strategies to look at the ecological impact of deer. First, they resurveyed 62 sites across northern Wisconsin and Michigan in 2000-01 that were first studied by former UW- Madison Professor John Curtis and his students in the 1950s. "This showed us just how the forest has changed during a time when deer were becoming much more common, but it did not pinpoint the deer themselves as the cause of the changes," Waller says.
Waller's group later examined plant communities inside and outside 17 fenced "exclosures" built to keep out deer but not smaller mammals. The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE.
Waller - together with Katie Frerker, a former graduate student in his lab who earned her master's degree here and is now working for the U.S. Forest Service in Duluth, Minnesota; and Autumn Sabo, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology - discovered that many of the plants commonly seen in the early surveys now mostly occur inside the protective exclosures.
Where deer have been common, ferns and grasses - as well as several nonnative plants - have become more abundant. Deer greatly reduced regeneration of native trees, the growth of shrubs, the height of forest understory plants, and the abundance of flowering plants that are neither woody nor grassy.
The two lines of evidence converge on the same general conclusion, Waller says: Deer account for at least 40 percent of the change seen in the forests over the past half-century or so. "The study links microcosm to macrocosm. We have exclosures in the same region where we have documented long-term changes in the plant community over the past 50 years. These are giving us the same message."
The study may actually underestimate the impact of deer, Waller suggests, citing their attraction to the Canada yew, a shrubby evergreen that has been eliminated across most of the north woods. Thus, yew is no longer counted as a baseline species, even though its disappearance likely reflects deer browsing.
Furthermore, deer were already quite common when the exclosures were installed 15 or 20 years ago. "By that point, deer may have already eliminated some species that have not recolonized since. So this type of study would miss these losses," says Waller.
Some plants eliminated by deer need decades to recover, Waller says. "If a species is slow growing, or has seeds that are not dispersed readily by birds or as stick-tight burrs, it needs more time to reappear."
The exclosures, he says, "serve as controlled experiments once they are run for 15 or 20 years, as these were."
Waller says attributing at least 40 percent of the change in forest structure to white-tailed deer was surprising even to somebody like him who has studied deer for more than two decades. "It's rare in ecology to find one factor that accounts for so much change," he says.
Deer hunting is a political subject in Wisconsin, and while Waller would like to see greater harvests, especially of does, he also favors gaining a better picture of deer's impact.
"I'd like to see more citizen science, with hunters and high school classes paying more attention to (the effects of) deer," he says. "These groups could build exclosures or plant seedlings and then track what gets eaten. This would be very straightforward. It would not cost much, and would produce valuable data to inform hunters, professional managers and the public about whether deer density is too high or too low." ###
Did anyone really think that a Professor in botany at a State University who got a bunch of funding to do this study would come up with a result that said deer had no/minimal impact?
They had a limited actual study yet draw conclusions over a half century of time?
Where is the mention of changing forestry management practices (ie not near as much old growth forests being cut over as there used to be, and the contribution there to plant changes?
Where is the mention of the decline in deer populations in the north and what should be an almost instantly noticeable improvement in plant life and diversity as a result of there being less deer on the landscape?
Do I and others think that deer can, in certain circumstances, have impact on plant life? Of course. I just get tired of the rhetoric by some tree farmers and scholars that deer are decimating northwoods plant life.
Stopped reading there.
Geitz, doubt you stopped reading. And while all of us would like to see more about the "other 60 percent" that isn't mentioned much here (other than in passing that deer may have been responsible for even more than 40 percent), what the researchers and students found is really no different than what was seen in state parks in the past 20-30 years, including Door County where all four mainland state parks have exclosures.
Next problem.?? How ugh tax money was wasted on this block buster study?? When all they had to do was feed the deer in the same areas for a few years... easily could identify why areas get stripped
Yeah RC, the guys at Whitetails Unlimited who funded/helped set the exclosures aren't hunters, either. Neither is long-time CC chair and large-tract landowner Dick Baudhuin (though you wouldn't know it by looking at the mounts in his house), one of the voices behind the recommendation to reduce deer in Door County. Turkeyhunter isn't a hunter either, and the damage to his trees and lack of regeneration is likely caused by wolves, not deer.
Once again you jump to conclusions about the reasons behind the post. It's news. It's likely you'll be seeing and hearing a lot about it in the days to come. And, if you have a good memory, you'll know I've already posted here, many times, to the effect that I doubt any hunters (myself included) will ever accept/want deer densities low enough to not negatively impact forest regeneration — about one per 40.
"The study may actually underestimate the impact of deer … citing their attraction to the Canada yew ... that has been eliminated across most of the north woods ... Thus, yew is no longer counted as a baseline species, even though its disappearance likely reflects deer browsing … Furthermore, deer were already quite common when the exclosures were installed 15 or 20 years ago. By that point, deer may have already eliminated some species that have not recolonized since. So this type of study would miss these losses …"
The 40 is a minimum. Kind of like 660 wolves is a minimum, and we know how that goes!
I do see vast areas of overbrowsing. Interestingly, an area I was concerned about started to correct once wolves moved the deer out.
It is long-term overbrowsing (recent deer population levels like 90's-2010) that were so severe, local plant populations were being affected negatively.
We cannot kid ourselves, mankind has created an uneven deer population. Those areas with a lot of deer is what everybody wants, but, for the most part, only happens on private property with sound management practices. Artificially high deer populations are not sustainable...exactly what the exclosure study demonstrated. Something has to give to sustain high deer density, unfortunately, forest regeneration and diversity is one of them. The damage is not measured in year to year observations...but decades, again, solid foundation in the study.
I would love to see 1 deer in 40 acres,Thats 16 per sq.mile. No way are there that many deer up north,anyway not where I go. I have been hunting up North for 61 years and seen the great times and yes the trees were affected. Not anymore or in the foreseeable future. ITs bad real bad
Worded in another manner - If wolves were killing 40% of the deer and they were the top percentage, then it would make sense to focus on the top % versus other areas of less impact.
I would like to see a larger northern deer herd but not to the extent it was. And, my guess is with the wolves, not much hunting will be needed to control the northern herd. One good thing about wolves, they know no boundaries, simply go where the deer are. When prey numbers get low, they move on to public or private land wherever there is food, pretty efficient compared to human hunters. No wonder many game managers prefer wolves to human hunters.
Geitz's Link
Lol. This study has more holes than swiss cheese. I've posted the study for anyone interested in a nap. Ironically, I didn't see 40% in it nor an explaination of the other 60%.
"Similar efforts elsewhere will eventually allow managers to recognize thresholds at which deer populations still allow plant populations and communities to retain their resiliency and ability to recover."
Yep, as this study did not.
What was the deer population at each site? Was the exclosure in a wintering area? Was hunting allowed in these areas?
Again, a study proving deer eat trees and plants...brilliant!
Geitz's Link
"An investigation by the Natural Resources Council of Maine, using Maine’s Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), found that in 2006 Plum Creek was charged a $57,000 fine—the largest fine ever assessed in history for breaking Maine’s timber harvesting laws. Other documents reveal that Plum Creek has destroyed wildlife habitat across lands it owns in Maine that state biologists identified as priority areas for deer to survive Maine’s harsh winters. State documents also show that Plum Creek has polluted streams and developed land without a permit."
I guess Plum Creek Timber Co is 100% responsible for regeneration and tree/plant growth in Maine;)
Dog urine was the primary killer of non-evasive species, weed killer applied all but two years eliminated evasive species and browse was seen weekly outside of the protected area.
My Summary: Stop mowing, use more weed killer, get rid of my dogs and give a big hug to my trees.
Now that's "solid foundation in a study"
Second, other than to visit his test enclosures how many hours has he spent in a blind physically recording what deer are eating. He mentions nothing about rabbits, and I can show you photographic evidence that in my 3 acres rabbits do far more damage than deer on young growth.
Third, does he provide either photographic or video evidence of his claim. Show me the video! I guarantee this guy has not spent one minute in a blind observing and recording anything.
Fourth, someone check his connection to the previous head of the DNR. There is a skunk in the wood pile!
Fifth, from where I stand this guy sounds like what we call a "barstool expert". He can tell you everything that you need to know about the floral fauna of Wisconsin yet, he hasn't seen the inside of an observation blind in maybe ever!
Sixth, this guy and other people like him are the most dangerous because so many people will look at his credentials and not his actual work. It's no different then the problems major corporations have in this country, you have a Masters Degree, automatically you are the expert. More like educated idiot!
Naz, where the science proving this?
Don't waste your time, there isn't.
A botanist lead the study looking a plant diversity and how the plant diversity was changing.
Plants are inclusive to forest health and plant life is the canary in the mine so to speak.
Deer browsing on seedlings does affect regeneration without a doubt, but again, the mean effects are years in the making. What the study was trying to show is the shift in plant diversity. The most palatable species of plants are first to be affected. The plant communities have symbiotic relationships in many cases, so when one is affected, so are the others.
The study is pretty much a no brainer result...plant life is affected by many factors, but herbivores such as deer have large impact on the community when their populations are high. Post-European settlement has favored large deer populations due to logging operations.
The economic losses are not measured. The intrinsic loss due to plant diversity happens at a snails pace and it is because of exclosures and studies like this, you have a snapshot of the same area side by side showing many years of changes. Most people cannot see any difference due to the extinction of a plant species from an area, but there are others that realize it is a canary in the mine.
I don't see this as a slam on deer numbers or a hidden agenda.
Put more deer in these parts and get logging these lands to open them up to sunlight .. blaming deer seems pretty stupid seeing there isn't many..
Thanks November. It's all about balance.
A year and a half ago 20 deer were found starved to death outside of Forestville in southern Door. That's unprecedented in farmland habitat and evidence enough that the population is out of whack.
We've killed 22 deer in the past five years alone and haven't made any progress.
If we could get the baiting and feeding off the landscape many of us (at least those that spoke at the CDAC meeting last month) believe we could do a far more efficient job of it.
Anyway, I snapped this photo to illustrate why woodland owners are passionate about balanced deer management.
When my wife and I purchased this it was a corn field. It took a significant investment of time and money to get it to where it is now - close to a pre-commercial thinning.
I expect losses from animals, bugs, disease and natural disaster.
Having said that - with deer numbers at their current levels there is absolutely no natural regeneration of oak, cedar or maple. Anyone who tries to plant those species may as well drive down the road and throw fistfuls of hundred dollar bills out the window.
Truth be told over the last ten years a couple of wolves have been killed not far from our place by coyote hunters.
Southern Door. Naz knows the back story on that.
Unfortunately, buckthorn, honeysuckle, barberry, and oriental bittersweet are going to be a bigger threat to our forest ecosystems in the next decade than deer.
Could not agree more. One thing that is starting to run rampant (at least at my place)is Virginia Creeper (AKA Woodbine). Every one that I find gets a cut with the loppers and a dose of a Garlon 4/diesel. Spent most of the day cutting buckthorn, honeysuckle, prickly ash and dead elms yesterday. The Garlon/diesel mix has worked well for my use...another reason not to eat the yellow snow! Most landowners have a lot of time and cash invested in their place and to suggest that they look for guys to hunt the thing is kinda silly. There was a post about a guy that was hunting a place that the landowner did not want a couple of larger bucks shot. There were quite a few posts that sorta said..No one is going to tell me what to shoot. A lot of complaining goes on about public land...How about a draw to get permission every other year and a fee to hunt the thing? This would cut the pressure by half. I remember having to get (pay for) a sticker to hunt some public land in Montana a long time ago. If you do not invest in a some land of your own it would be tough to get hunting for the whoppers. I would like to see the whole "group bagging" thing gone too. Just my $.02...LC
The recreational feeders want to watch deer, and do not allow hunting..... The large property owners with good food plots, are very selective on what they shoot, and shoot very little.......
He is glad it is just a side buisness, for xmas trees, because otherwise he would be broke.......
Over the last couple of decades and in the course of a typical year there have been five to ten non-relatives that hunted turkey, pheasant, ducks, woodcock and or deer on our property.
As a consequence three youngsters have been introduced to hunting with another probably this year.
Made some lasting friendships too. Luke 6:38
(The non-related part is easy as my daughter and her family live in another part of the country.)
Yes, he sure does.... but when people like him, November and outdoor writers, like Durkin, come out and preach/complain about over population/regeneration issues, his right is lost. There are over 600K+ opportunities to resolve their problems, they choose not to. In fact, they could ask for assistance from the DNR to drop a dumptruckloadofcorn and get sharpshooters to help, but not.
They are part of the problem and not solution. It's perfectly fine for them to believe and support herd reduction as long as it's not on their land. If they truly believe what they are preaching, they would not have a problem.
But we're supposed to listen to how bad things are while they refuse to address their problem and spout off their good fortune.
lol. Practice what you preach.
"Over grazing, and over browsing, favors most invasive species!" +1
From a study in another state (one of many that more or less say the same thing):
"As an overt factor, it is hard to overstate the impact of deer browse on flora. Many plant communities have been reduced to almost exclusively deer-resistant species. Where deer-resistant species (especially non-native plants) have not colonized, large areas of bare soil are extant.
The presence of a large, successful herbivore reproducing without the ecological constraints of its wild predators is driving a dynamic leading to local extirpation of many plant species.
Deer overpopulation is degrading the forest system's ability to provide structure, shelter, and food for wildlife as well as cycle nutrients and maintain soil health. Deer overabundance is a region-wide crisis and land managers have been in the forefront of pioneering effective deer management strategies. That the problem is not yet solved by their efforts does not diminish the soundness of those approaches. Nor are the comments above meant to imply that no progress has been made. Vast areas dominated by spicebush have returned essential structure and foraging habitat for songbirds, while competing effectively with non-native species."
By all accounts, these have regenerated subsequent to deer management. Flowering, fruiting, and regeneration of significant native woodland species such as maple leaf viburnum, oaks, black cohosh, and others were observed at a variety of survey locations.
These positive signs towards recovery are encouraging but are inherently limited if adjacent landowners, farmers, land managers and residents are unable or unwilling to conduct adequate deer management. Indeed, deer overpopulation is a statewide and regional crisis that cannot be solved solely through local management efforts, no matter how efficacious.
Invasive plant species can be understood as symptomatic of the various disturbances and degrading factors at work in the modern landscape. They respond to open land made available by degradation of pre-existing native communities, and are highly effective at colonizing land altered by anthropogenic disturbances.
"They are part of the problem and not solution. It's perfectly fine for them to believe and support herd reduction as long as it's not on their land" 350 plus doe in 11 years is not herd reduction?
"spout off their good fortune." Yep, 40 years of busting habitat tail planting trees is just pure luck. The Dnr would love for every property to be managed this way, its called Dmap.
So the one landowner...i.e. turkeyhunter, Nov and others...just toss up their hands and do nothing while preaching to everyone else to "When in doubt, keep on shooting"?
Your study means "jack" as it is an article stating a conclusion without documentation. It is an opinion as a result. It would be interesting to see what the evasive species have done to affect the regeneration process. Did they magically appear because deer eat trees and plants? Heck, maybe whitetail deer have the ability to morf digested trillium into these evasive species.
I'd contact your source supplying this dribble and request something of substance.
Wolves work public and private land, they know no boundaries. They go where the deer are, they move on to better hunting grounds when deer numbers decrease...and return when deer numbers increase. From a purely deer management standpoint, difficult to argue with this " wolf logic "..... and the game managers who subscribe.
Geitz, my source was a simple online search. You can do it yourself with the right keywords — deer, overbrowsing and invasive species. Pretty simple!
I believe your missing the point. Each has their "right" but in turn posting pics of severe overbrowse situations or make statements like can't plant a popple w/o being caged. That's more than commentary.
And you guessed wrong about land. In fact, we have absolutely no problem with regen and have a sifficient amount of deer to hunt. Can do better with higher populations and we're trying to rebuild after years of "believing" and our poor forest management.
What everyone fails to acknowledge, is there is a happy balance in all of this. No science supports 16 DSPM but we are led to believe it so by the post of Naz and others.
Most forests, other than farmland or mix, probably cannot hold 40 DPSM without alternate food sources and not have regen problems. Yet, there is absolutely no sound science proving sub 20 DPSM hampers it. Hopefully as hunter, most understand this. Yet, we have the other side pushing for more reductions.
It's the old school mid=level biologist still in existance in the Dept which are still pushing this agenda....apparently led by the outdoor media. Good thing discrediting Waller's dribble is already in motion.
Hunters have moved....much like the acceptance of bringing back the wolves. Now, we are moving down the same road with deer management. We give a little, they take more....
Can't wait to read the damning diatribe!
Strong words to me and November about "doing nothing". I think we can both document a good job of killing deer. I cannot speak for November but I happen to think that 22 deer in the last five years off of our 80 acres is decent work.
The trouble is that our actions end at the property line. If I have a baiter on either side of me that makes my work more difficult.
If one or both are old school, big buck hunters and turn-up their noses at does it becomes more difficult.
If another neighbor likes to feed deer year-round to watch them in her yard it becomes even more difficult.
I think you get the picture.
I'm sure RC (or one of his other multiple handles) will chime-in but Ron (IMHO) has zero credibility.
Who you gonna believe? Someone that invests time, effort and their hard-earned brass on wildlife habitat. Or someone that poaches a hapless spike off of of a corn pile with a center fire rifle?
Take your pick.
3, 2, 1....
Naz 's Link
RC said: "This guy is not a sportsman and his only interest if "sensitive plant communities". The guy has a bias and a narrative to meet. He needs to be a typical academic doom and gloomer to keep his funding stream flowing."
Apparently Don Waller is not only a sportsman, but a bow deer hunter. Looks like he shoots a Parker.
Again, I'm not stating you are doing nothing but you are stating you have a problem which could be addressed by bringing in more hunters. You stated you brought in a few but obviously you still have a problem. I'm quite sure it would not take long to find other people to take a few more doe off your property if your really concerned about the health of your forest.
Each year I hunt WY, we stop to pick up our stamp and an extra antlerless tag. Each year, rancher post name and numbers on the wall for hunter to come out and shoot a doe. They may drive the hunters out to the edge of the fields to shoot them but at least they acknowledge the problem and are doing something about it.
On the other hand, your property might be a wintering hotspot. Whether there are 10 or 20 deer that winter there, you will always be doomed for overbrowse. These hotspots have been addressed by the MI DNR and acknowledged they will always exist. They also understand these spots do not speak for regeneration in the entire unit. This point is lost by certain biologist in WI and is the problem with past deer management. They could kill all but the last 20 deer in your square mile and they still might be in your hotspot leaving you with a overbrowse issue. So a survey of your property would lead a biologist to believe more reduction is needed as the rest of the square mile suffers with additional harvests.
"Strong words to me and November about "doing nothing"."
Not strong words just observations. Nov talks about all the deer they see and huge bucks harvested each year. how he manages his land for this. You, to a lessor degree, are always posting a bunch of pictures. This is all fine and dandy, heck I and others on Bowsite envy your situation. But it is salt in some of our wounds when you speak out of the other side of mouth and support further deer reductions.
Is over browse a serious issue? yes. Is it and should it be dealt with in localized areas? yes. But it doesn't speak for a square mile, unit, county or the state as a whole.
Not sure how baiting gets injected into every thread on here but I doubt 14 lbs of corn on each side of your property removes all the deer from your property. Waller stated a 100 lbs deer eats 5-8 lbs in a day. So they are feeding two deer a day.
"Apparently Don Waller is not only a sportsman, but a bow deer hunter. Looks like he shoots a Parker."
I wonder how many bow hunters lean up against their treestand. Poor attempt to make him "hunter friendly".
Don't know, but maybe those who reluctantly pose for a visiting photographer for an image to accompany a story? I'll ask him.
It's not going to work. I am not letting you get under my skin. Grow up and move on with your life!
This is the the canary that we see visibly. What the bulk of the population doesn't see is the subtle degradation of marginal and poor habitats. People write off the poorer habitats as normal. In many cases, the poor habitats have slowly degraded due to deer browsing. The deer eat until there is nothing more palatable then move into properties that are a buffet like new plantations. Don't kid yourself that deer don't alter habitats by browsing. Seeing damaging browsing in a new plantation is an overall indicator that understory regeneration is ceasing.
Actually Treefarm, your entire post is a generalization. You could have saved a bunch of time just posting, "deer eat trees and plants".
I have yet to see anyone post a scientific study showing what is the maximum population which allows for little to no regeneration issues.
Well, unless one single plant nibbled is one too many;)
The people who frown on deer being browsed by wolves must understand...less wolves means more deer, contrary, less deer mean more regeneration of plants. You can show both sides of the coin.
In the end, logging is needed to take browsing pressure off of lands that are prime in a deer oasis.
Other than your comments on wolves, I completely agree. We have way too many landowners and public land which are not managed properly. Problem is, people like big trees but big trees create canopies which kill undergrowth. Even UW biologists I have spoken with agree deer browse typically is secondary to the mature forests as it pertains to regeneration.
Waller's point would be taken much better if he would discuss forest management rather than killing deer. He wishes to educate landowners but it would be much more productive explaining how landowners must manage their forest better.
He comes across wanting to blame deer when a properly manage forest can hold or could hold more deer without having regeneration issues he is so concerned about. His science and attitude in presenting it will never help his cause. Maybe he wishes to have big trees.
This is why it is important for landowners to work with foresters, maybe DMAP and other resources to manage their property properly and to their goals.
But doing studies and making generalizations that deer are killing forests without addressing deer density or proper managed forest, is completely on one side of the fence and will always be a weak argument.
I would be happy with high deer populations IF every forested parcel was managed for wildlife. As it stands today, the carrying capacity diminishes further every year as forested areas mature. We have wooded areas devoid of deer simply because there is little food for them...Chequamegon-Nicolet is a poster child.
Ag areas, once harvested, put pressure on prime woodlands during the winter, so high deer populations of deer in Ag areas are tough on managed woods (what little there is) .
This is why your movement is an epic failure. Very few landowners will ever buy into the "killing deer" emphasis. For too many years, hunters have been treated as tools. They are the ones who agreed on wolf recovery, they are also the only who are calling b.s. on guys like Waller now. Hunters have moved(both on wolves and deer), the plant communitee refuses to budge, even with the lack of science supporting them.
Why would any deer hunter/landowner believe he/she should shoot more deer because of forests if it is coming from a tree hugger when they are not seeing deer anyway? It is their land and if they want to take a trimmer to trillium, it's their right.
Maybe it's time for the tree/plant people to move to the center line....otherwise the epic failure of lack of science will continue to doom what they hold so precious
Do you? If you read Waller's study you'd understand the variables left out. A study is only good as the conditions put in place. Exactly, what did 10 years of study prove? Deer eat plants and trees.
I want to prove the Packer are the best team in the world. My study parameters will be watching them play against St Mary's grade school for nuns. I bet I prove my point. Parameters are: packers play football and play against a team.
Waller is an epic waste of time and money.
Turkeyhunter's Link
That would be because there is no hard and fast number.
Cattle husbandry 101 (works the same for cervids):
Biologists define carrying capacity as the maximum population of a given species that can survive indefinitely in a given environment.
It was originally applied to relatively simple population-environments such as the number of sheep or cattle that could be maintained on grazing land without degrading the land so that it could no longer support the animals.
It depends on the conditions and resources available in the specific area, and the consumption habits of the species considered.
Because both what is available in the area, and the consumption habits of the species change over time, carrying capacity is always changing. Carrying capacity is a measure of sustainability within these changing conditions.
As for deer causing damage to the herbivory that is already settled science.
Read the Kroll report from June of 2012. Multiple studies documenting forest damage are all nicely detailed there. Starts around page 59.
You can go to the link and enjoy the entire 143 pages. It begins as follows:
"Forests cover 16.8 million acres or 48% of Wisconsin and support the largest forest products industry in the United States with an annual value of $17 billion and secondary impacts of $10 billion. Forest based recreation adds an additional $5.5 billion annually.
It is well-documented over-browsing by deer can negatively impact song birds and other small animals (deCelesta 1994, Jacobson and Kroll 1994). Further, deer can have significant impacts on forest productivity and reproduction (Rawinski 2008), as well as herbaceous plants (Augustine and Frelich 1998) such as those used by Native Americans as medicinal plants (Fig. 20)."
Turkey, sometimes you have to stick it up there and see for yourself. lol
"It is well-documented over-browsing by deer can negatively impact song birds and other small animals"
Scientists making these statements are making things "doom and gloom". It definitely adds fuel to the fire and supports herd reduction.
But, if you actually read deCelesta's study, deer density had no effect on ground and upper canopy nesting birds. At 38 DPSM there was a reduction "species richness" of mid range canopy nesting birds.
What seemed like such a terrible situation, by adding a number, it just doesn't seem as bad. I'm fairly certain most bowsiters would enjoy 38 DPSM as a goal.
"That would be because there is no hard and fast number."
There are very few studies that incorporate deer density and regeneration. The one which does, indicates 30 DPSM in a forest region with no other food supply allows for little to no regeneration issues.
There is a serious lack of studies which include deer density and regeneration. Even in the few completed, the forest composition in other areas of the country/state are different so browse may affect them differently.
Waller, along with most studies, remove density from the equation. By doing so, they prove what everyone knows....deer eat trees and plants. Our deer management has previously been injected with this science or lack there of.
This is why localizing deer management is important.
Deer management has been on hiatus for four years already. Nevertheless, I'm a patient sort so I'll try that on for size.
County committee voted unanimously to reduce the herd and end baiting and feeding.
Two part question.
1. Tell me what you think will happen?
2. Why will it succeed?
The question was for Geitz. Not you. As a willful poacher you have no standing to comment.
I'm quite familiar with the legislative angle. Now go away and stroke your ego and let Geitz address my questions.
What I think will happen? They can give out unlimited tags if they want, but even limited tags weren't gobbled up this past season so it won't matter much. The no-hunt refuges ("we like to see deer, not shoot them") and the hot spots where folks are still living in the dark ages ("we don't shoot does") will continue to have too many deer, and the areas with adequate hunting pressure and hunters who know there are plenty of whitetails will continue to shoot what they think their hunt area can handle. Some will try to shoot more, but pressured whitetails learn quickly. Even in DC, there are blocks of timber a mile wide with little access where few venture (but deer within range bury themselves come the gun pressure). Bonus buck? Never liked it. But could get a few more hunters killing a few more baldies. (Nub bucks should not count).
I will answer your questions(which already have been answered) but then lets get back on topic.
First, deer management has not been on a 4 year hiatus. The new management plan started in 2014.
Second, the county committees are new to everyone. They lacked structure and an understanding of their importance and duties as seen in some of their reports. i.e. "car/deer collisions- reduce....why: less deer, less collision". This already has been noted and being address.
Personally, I would favor requiring a report like the MI DNR unit worksheets.
Your CDAC wasted time on baiting. As RC stated, it is a Legislative issue.
"will it succeed?"- not sure if your referring to a baiting ban, if so, never. If your talking about the committees, I believe so.
Past deer management created a disconnect between hunter/landowners and the DNR. We were treated as a tool(even reference as a tool). We were lied to many times. Studies like Waller were treated like the word of God even though they lacked evidence. We managed to a specific number based on a manipulated SAK. We were told the deer were out there, we believed and used tags but when we didn't see them, we were blamed for not hunting hard enough, sitting too long, not sitting long enough...weather, corn, deer drives/no deer drives...etc.....
Landowners/hunter complained about not being involved, well, now they are. Hopefully, in time, this disconnect will be gone.
"First, deer management has not been on a 4 year hiatus"
Deer are starving in southern Door because the politicians rolled-back the tools necessary to kill them. Four years of doing nothing but hiring consultants is a hiatus.
"Your CDAC wasted time on baiting"
Probably 15 minutes. Everyone got over it as everyone knows it will go nowhere. It was a symbolic vote. Power to the people.
"Landowners/hunter complained about not being involved, well, now they are. Hopefully, in time, this disconnect will be gone."
So far it sounds like the CDACs aren't going to be able to impact deer management at all. They can submit recommendations that fall on the deaf hears of the legislature. Serious, what's the point then?
You appear to be a reasonable fella Geitz. I have one more question.
If someone shoots a hapless deer munching-away at a corn pile with a centerfire rifle; which is more sporting - a scope or iron sights?
I'm not insinuating you would do it - just wondering if you have an opinion on the the matter.
Let's chat more tomorrow.
Loggers on jobs right now up north report seeing a dozen or more deer right from their rigs. Survivors, yes, of both hunters, winters and wolves. Is it what it once was? No, how could it be after years of overharvest, lots of predation and the very late spring of '13 and severe winter of '13-'14. It'll bounce back with mild winters and more buck-only units, and yes, I'd also advocate for buck-only meaning just that — except for those serving our country on leave. Let 'em shoot what they want!
Was there a gun or bow ban in S.Door? I don't know of any "tool" necessary to kill deer, except a hunter, a weapon and a tag. Populations are controlled by antlerless tags, I'm fairly certain the DNR didn't stop printing them. Oh, you're talking about EAB, I bet. The politician remove that tool because EAB/OCt T-zone was hated by a large majority of the public, hated enough that bus loads came to the capital.
"Probably 15 minutes. Everyone got over it as everyone knows it will go nowhere. It was a symbolic vote. Power to the people."
Must have been a feel good moment.
Considering 42% of Door is agricultural which is down about 25-30% from 7-8 years ago and the island doesn't have nearly the amount southern Door does, I would find a 2 gallon pile of corn as beneficial as it is in the southern farmland zone.....A wasted effort to haul it in.
"If someone shoots a hapless deer munching-away at a corn pile with a centerfire rifle; which is more sporting - a scope or iron sights?"
What about a peep sight?
Do you have anything of value to add to the topic of this thread? Or are you hell bent on stomping your feet about baiting, politicians and your lost love of what used to be deer management in WI?
Geitz's Link
I did post it on Jerryspringersite.com forums so the feet stompers can flail their arms in the air there.
"BOOM!"
Don't you mean, Boomer1? ;)
We get them periodically – they disperse from locations west of Green Bay and cross the ice from the UP .
“Was there a gun or bow ban in S.Door?”
Of course not. That’s silly. A baiting and feeding ban would do wonders for those of us who actually ‘hunt’ deer.
“Populations are controlled by antlerless tags, I'm fairly certain the DNR didn't stop printing them.”
Of course not. That’s even sillier. I might be mistaken but Door might have unused antlerless tags. Like I said (above) it’s hard to shoot deer that are feeding at neighboring corn piles and feeders. Deer are not stupid. Nobody liked EAB including me. But it was exceedingly effective in reducing the doe population and we grew some monster bucks as a consequence.
“What about a peep sight?”
Thanks, I forgot about that. Between you and me I think iron sights increase the level of difficulty. Nevertheless, hauling a pail of corn within a football throw of your stand is probably more challenging than actually picking-off the hapless deer.
“Totally serious not trying to be a smart alec ,but i had no idea that Door county had so many deer i would be interested in leasing for bow only if anyone knows anyone PM me ,interested for spring turkey also. Thanks”
Done. Big property across the road from us has awesome cover and only a few guys hunt it during the gun season. Never have seen anyone hunt it during the bow season. Good luck Pineriver.
So Geitz – isn’t it ironic. Hunters in some parts of the state are frustrated as all get-out because of the predators, lack of logging and winter severity. Hunters in other areas are frustrated because as soon as the bait piles come out it’s like someone flipped a switch. With the exception of the rut – very little daylight deer movement. And some hunters live and/or hunt in areas where deer numbers are too high. I’m a reasonable guy but I’m doubtful the CDAC concept is going to accomplish much of anything if nobody is going to allow them to do anything about it.
In recent years Waupaca, Shawano and Marquette averaged about 5-6 bucks shot per square mile of total area.
Buffalo, Clark, Richland, Oconto (ag portion), Marinette (ag portion) and Jackson (ag portion) are all around 4 bucks/sq. range.
About two dozen others are the 3s, including Door, Kewaunee and many central and southwest counties.
Eleven far south and southeast counties along the Illinois border and far metro Lake Michigan are at or even below most northern counties. Milwaukee is the worst (about one buck per 10 square miles), Iron second worst (about one buck per two square miles) and Racine and Kenosha almost as bad, followed by Rock and Walworth and Ashland, all around just one buck per sq. harvested.
Thirteen counties prior to the hunt in 2013 had estimated fall population densities of 40-64 deer per square mile total area, all from west central to east central with the exception of Richland in southwest and Marinette (ag portion) in Northeast. Waupaca, Shawano, Marquette, Oconto ag, Marinette ag, Buffalo, Trempealeau,Richland, Jackson, Adams and Green Lake all had more deer per sq. mile than Door, which was tied with Juneau for 13th at 40/sq. total area. A dozen others were in the 30s per sq. of total land area. Milwaukee had the lowest (6), followed by Iron (9) and Racine (12) and Kenosha (13).
My friends kids all go to Florence HS. They each get a doe tag till their 17, with their youth license....
A couple told me, they did not fill them. They have shot alot of deer, since they were 12, and this year passed....
I can see a first time hunter, but not a tag every year...... I might be wrong
However private land owners want doe tags in the north and I fear, they might get them, in 2015
Northern white cedar on the right hand side of the trail has been browsed almost in its entirety to the height of my shoulder.
Make no mistake - those trees will survive. But after they've been stripped bare of what the deer can reach what next?
No natural regeneration any longer of ceder and other species that are on the whitetail preferred list. The understory is pretty much picked clean.
Like most of your posts on this thread? lol
Tell your "girls" to stop chewing on the trees as there is no evidence of heavy deer traffic any where in that picture. Actually, just dog tracks.
Multiple handles and self-aggrandizing behavior from an adult. Even has a rap sheet.
Rather pathetic if you ask me.
Picture taken today.
Looks like herd of deer recently moved thru here. Cedars are stripped nice and clean.
I was out this afternoon moving trail cameras around and picked a couple of well-worn trails just to see who's traveling them.
Now that the season is closed and the bait piles are off the landscape there is a ton of daylight movement.
If you go to the Horns Are Dropping thread I posted a couple of pictures of a pair of bucks - one with a half rack.
They were following the four deer in this photo and the one that follows. A six-pack of whitetails over a couple of minutes.
Gonna leave the cameras alone for a spell and will post any decent pics when I swap-out the SD cards next.
Consequences of a deer herd that is pushing the edge of habitat carrying capacity.
In this part of the county there is no longer any natural regeneration of cedar, oak, hemlock, white pine, etc. None. The understory is barren – having picked clean and new growth halted in its tracks (no pun intended). The cedars in the attached picture have been hammered by browsing deer. They’ll survive in their stunted condition but as a food source they’re done-for. Nothing left and it’s only the beginning of February.
Some of you will be dismissive but be mindful that Wisconsin's forest products industries contribute significantly to the economy - amounting to 12% of the value of shipments and of all capital expenditures in the manufacturing sector.
Caging thousands of trees isn't realistic.
I wouldn't say that, but perhaps some of us wonder why you constantly complain about too many deer on your property while at the same time you plant food plots/etc to attract more deer to your property. Just a thought, but maybe if you harvested more doe and even welcomed other hunters to your property to help you reduce this "crazy-wild-deer-are-nothing-but-vermin" problem you seem to keep complaining about year after year you'd be in better shape? Give the DNR a call, possibly they have some tips to help you keep deer away from your land and maybe they'd even send some sharp-shooters your way to help out.
But yeah, deer eat stuff.
and;
When you plant food plots/etc to attract deer to your property, well, deer might come to your property.
and;
constant complaining on the internet won't help you with your problem.
and;
thank gosh all of wisconsin doesn't have the same problem you have. In fact, I would venture a guess that the majority of Wisconsin (especially the CWD areas in the south that have been over-harvested for too many years now along with the north where the DNR has let the wolf population get out of control)has the opposite problem you have, these areas would benefit from a much larger deer population.
If caging the trees isn't realistic then try killing thousands of deer. One of them will work.
Not for lack of allowing others access to hunt.
It's he$$ of a problem for sure.
Good to see you under another identity Ron.
I have my share of Bonsai trees due to deer. It has nothing to do with how many deer you kill. It has everything to do with the number of deer others shoot. The private lands are overpopulated until spring dispersal. Having good habitat can be a curse.
Don't let others get under your skin. Some of it is naiveness, some is childish. They will try to blame you for whatever reason. The constant chest-thumping gets old...just ignore it.
I admire your hard work in establishing a forest. Just think, the Scandinavians who busted the stumps out for agriculture are turning over in their grave knowing you planted trees. Establishing a forest from an even-aged stand is hard to do at today's deer density. You make habitat, and deer exploit it.
What you visually see is happening all over WI where deer density is high. The shift in plant specie is population is happening, but many turn a blind eye, and many are naive. In the end, do what you can to better your land, Aldo would be happy.
Conducting a timber harvest elsewhere on your property can create a distraction from your oaks as well.
Unless farmers have regeneration issue with their corn every year;)
You may have a browsing issue, most likely because you have a winter hotspot. More than likely because you planted a bunch of yummy young trees.
I'm not sure what is your point. Are you claiming all of WI has this serious issue? Is it because you dislike a pile of corn? The DTR? Group bagging?
As many have advised on here, open your land to more hunters or contact the WDNR to dump a truckload of corn and shoot them at night.
None of this is getting under my skin at all (but I appreciate the vote of confidence). As a matter of fact what I have learned is that for some people they’re just plain lazy. Probably cheap too. Prone to shortcuts and poor decision-making.
Think about the logic of it. Why spend decades and all kinds of money and effort planting, tending and nurturing a healthy forest and wildlife habitat when all you have to do is tote a pail of corn, dump it out and settle-into your comfy condo stand so you can pick-off a hapless deer contentedly munching-away at your corn pile. I heard of a guy that boasted of his hunting prowess and ridiculed plenty of others all over the interweb. And then he got busted for poaching a spike buck with a high powered center fire rifle off of an exceedingly challenging corn pile.
That is really a proud distinction. He has such a high opinion of himself that he probably still considers this one of the crowning achievements of his life. Mighty hunter he is. But I digress.
Spent some time today freezing my a$$ performing corrective pruning. The girls didn’t find any sheds. But it’s all good. Beats sitting in front of the warming glow of a computer monitor feeding a festering personality disorder.
Just say’n…
We’ve used bud caps for two to three years– particularly on the soft maple. Our results were not very good. Tree tubes worked reasonably well but the deer nipped the terminal leader as soon as it emerged from the tube. Purchasing and installing thousands of tubes (especially the tall ones above the height of a deer) is impractical. We’re rotating about a hundred tubes on selected specimens instead.
We did perform a TSI on aspen the winter of 98/99. Good point about doing another. We’re also getting close to a pre-commercial thinning of our first planting. It’s on this year’s list to discuss with our consulting forester.
Unless farmers have regeneration issue with their corn every year;)
You may have a browsing issue, most likely because you have a winter hotspot. More than likely because you planted a bunch of yummy young trees.
I'm not sure what is your point. Are you claiming all of WI has this serious issue? Is it because you dislike a pile of corn? The DTR? Group bagging?
As many have advised on here, open you land to more hunters or contact the WDNR to dump a truckload of corn and shoot them at night.”
If you’re the Jeff Geitner that is also the WBH Legislative Director your disdain for a private forest owner surprises me. If you are a different Jeff Geitner then you have my most profound and sincere apologies in-advance.
Presuming you are speaking for WBH is it the policy of WBH and its Directors to be publicly scornful and condescendingly dismissive of the families that own and care for 56% of Wisconsin’s forest land?
Or are you speaking for yourself?
Tell everyone which hat you are wearing and for whom you speak.
One additional piece of advice. Everyone reading this would take you seriously if you replied in an adult fashion. My four year-old grandson has better manners than you have.
Hunter R, no deer in the cwd zone? From what I see there is no shortage of whitetails north and west of Madison.
There are plenty of private landowners who are managing their lands well enough to have plenty of deer and absolutely no problem with the forest. Our family land has a good amount of deer, thick with popples, small 1' high oaks and white pine, etc...
My family is not alone, a majority do not have the problems you are having.
As said before....you might be an unfortunate landowner who has a "winter hotspot". There might not be anything you can do to stop it. You plant and they eat. This winter has not been severe enough to cause the much of a browse issue in your area.
In a post immediately after my post you went back in to the bait pile thing. Door Cty is a majority(especially southern Door) Ag land. A 40 acre lot with 2 bait stations of 2 gallons of corn is not your problem. I would imagine S. Door has a good amount of standing corn, apples, etc... for deer feed.
So I still don't understand you reviving a 2 month old thread of a problem you might be having but not a significant issue with the other 90% of the state. Everyone on here feel bad you have too many deer and your trees are suffering but there is still only one solution....shoot more deer.
Unless you are just trying to stur more turds about how much you dislike the past and current deer management programs
And I'm sure your 4 yr old grandson wouldn't put up a hissy fit like your last post.
"Comment removed by me as it does nothing to the thread"
Yep, those who read it understand.
Remember Bowsiters.... if someone disagrees or challenges your post, your comeback options are:
1. baiting 2. Walker 3. RC 4. WBH
So let get back on Bowsite topics.....politics, trapping, baiting, RC and making snowshoes.
"If you are a different Jeff Geitner then you have my most profound and sincere apologies in-advance."
Don't you know? I am Ron Kulas. Our name is Legion, for we are many.
Grow up, take two Gas-X and let your girls out in the morning;)
I’ve got no explanation for what might pass on its best day as an incoherent word salad - but I suppose that’s what WBH has come to.
Former Legislative Liaison resigns after a poaching violation and his replacement has issues not only with all of the little grammar stuff like present tense, past and future tense - contractions and spelling. Biggest challenge is articulating a single coherent thought.
Try again in the morning.
And BTW - as the public face for the Wisconsin Bowhunter Association you need to step it up. And mind your manners. Appearances are everything.
Adlibs are for amateurs…
Razor I agree.
Young forests support healthy deer populations. Predator control too.
Young forests with excess deer population as a consequence of diddling politicians is nothing but trouble.
After four years of diddling themselves by the Walker administration has there been a concerted effort to ramp-up forest regeneration? I see some progress on the predator front but virtually nothing with regard to sustainable forest management.
Let's not forget searching for your personal email and state that he'll "presume" when I speak publically, I speak on behalf of the WBH. I guess Bowsite PM's are not sufficient.
