| Author |
Message |
turkeypicker
| | Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 2:49 pm: | |
Guys: I live on the southern tip of the Appalachians in the middle of hundreds of thousands of acres of National Forest, and I am concerned about the future of turkey populations....Why?
The Forest Service in NC and SC has essentially been "shut down" from conducting active timber management by preservation groups that want the entire national forest to be wilderness. Now this may not sound so bad to some -- on the surface, but I think it's bad for the turkeys.
Turkeys need early successional habitat for nesting. Also, as oaks get older and the canopy gets tighter (climax forest) the oaks bare less fruit than they do in woodland habitats where the canopy is not closed.
Scientists have proven from soil testing (charcoal layers) that the Indians burned the woods regularly to keep fields cleared (they didn't have bush hogs), not to mention uncontrolled wildfires from lightning strikes. These "natural" occurrences afforded our Appalachian forests a diverse make-up of habitat like: old growth, meadows, natural fields (savanas), woodlands (early growth), etc., which I think was/is perfect for turkey, deer, and bears. When early explorers (bartram, de soto) came through they described a very different "wilderness" than what the preservationists envision today (all big trees). The early explorers talk of open meadows and they could ride their horses for miles and miles through the appalachians without getting down.
Sportsmen and wildlife agencies have brought the turkeys back, but will we sit by and let the radical preservation agenda trump modern wildlife (habitat) conservation and active management? Timber harvest, yes especially including clear-cuts, mimic natural disturbances (fire) that has been removed (wildfire suppression).
The preservation agenda's law-suit shut-down all wildlife food-plot planting on a number of national forests a couple years back. They've already essentially shut-down timber management in the s. Apps. in SC,NC, and GA. The preservationists argue that old-growth and wilderness is "natural" and they pick any critter that needs "old-growth" as their poster child (now it's songbirds). It was black bears until studies demonstrated that bear need early succession too for soft mass (especially females and cubs). The problem is, wilderness (leaving things alone) nowadays creates a very different habitat than it did in the 16 and 1700's when fire was in the picture.
Wow...that's enough....let me stumble off my soapbox....my question is do you guys think we need active forestry management (timber harvest, control burning) on our forests, or do you prefer everything to be locked up in wilderness even if it means poorer habitat and fewer turkeys? I think you know my answer. |
Rick Layser
| | Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 8:37 pm: | |
I am in favor of forest management as long as--
1. Clearcutting is done in relatively small blocks (less than 1/4 mile wide or long relatively narrow strips (less than 400 yards wide,
2. Do not replace hardwoods with monoculture pines,
3. Stay 400 yards from streams, and
4. Not log on steep erodable mountainsides.
I have seen all these abuses in the past. |
turkeypicker
| | Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 9:09 pm: | |
Rick, Most forest service management plans have a maximum of 50 acres for a clear-cut. I agree with your comments about monoculture pines. The forest service shot themselves in the foot doing that. 400 yards is an excessive buffer zone though. If they need more than a 100 foot buffer zone it's too steep to be logging. I personally would prefer to see selective logging followed by control burning to create a mosaic of woodland habitat, with some clear cutting on dry ridges, replanted with native pine species at wide spacing 12x12 or greater to allow oak regeneration (mixed stand). |
GN
| | Posted on Monday, March 18, 2002 - 9:27 am: | |
Since we are pondering what-ifs, I would simply comment that the forest service is apparently really not in the wildlife business anymore. I do not want to get too cranked up on the NWTF ,(and I respect those of you who spend a lot of time and energy on its fundraising and other projects) but you wonder what would happen if the money that all of the appalahian states send to national nwtf each year was kept in the state and used for 100% habitat re-creation...alternatively, why are there no individual state foundations for turkey habitat money within a n individual state , with all proceeds designed to enhance publuic land habitat?There is an enormous amount of habitat captial that would be avialble but instead goes out of these states and does not come back, much, it seems to me. I would love to have seen the appalachian coal fields today, if we had used sawtooth oak or other acorn bearing species in the reclamation of surface mined areas , instead of fescue. You also wonder why it cannot be used in the areas that are currently being devastated by the pine bark beetle...2 cents. |
|