Always hunt the burns?

[44hunter45]

I mentioned to a buddy who works for a major corporate timber company that I didn't think hunting burns and timber cuts in Idaho was all that effective. He responded that most corporate timber companies apply herbicide to give their seedlings a head start. This will suppress the forbs, grass, and weed production for a couple of years.

 

[Dsnow9]

Burns are different than timber cuts, both have advantages but burns restart the system. Timber cuts provide open area but lack the diversity of new growth that a burn does.

 

[2rocky]

Standing dead timber in burns gives Elk and deer a false sense of security it seems. Sometimnes they will bed quite visibly to a spotting scope or binocular.

 

[44hunter45]

His point was that the companies treat a burn like a cut. They salvage cut, and they apply herbicide before the replant. Trust me, I have the burn and cut layers on my OnX turned on, but I think sometimes we are creating the impression that all you have to do is find a burn and your tag is punched. That simply ain't true.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Standing dead timber in burns gives Elk and deer a false sense of security it seems. Sometimnes they will bed quite visibly to a spotting scope or binocular.

I was talking the cook for an outfitter who operates in the middle of the Bob some years ago. The White River burned and the first couple of years after the fire, the hunters shot the hell out of the elk in the burned timber.

 

[2rocky]

44..45 you gotta remember North Idaho is a bit of a different kinda place than a lot of other elk and deer areas. It is heavy on cover and light on forage. You are chasing fewer animals with less visibility. The forest is more mature.

The whole area hasn't burned since 1910

 

[44hunter45]

44..45 you gotta remember North Idaho is a bit of a different kinda place than a lot of other elk and deer areas. It is heavy on cover and light on forage. You are chasing fewer animals with less visibility. The forest is more mature.

The whole area hasn't burned since 1910

Thanks for making my point so nicely. If I didn't remember that North Idaho is different, I wouldn't have bothered to create this post (in the IDAHO forum). Do I need to type slower? You are arguing my own point back to me. Burns good, Maybe not so much in Idaho, Timber companies apply herbicide to suppress forbs and grasses. Finding a burn does not mean a punched tag. Did I miss anything?

@JLS - my point is limited to the Corporate owned timber of Idaho, It may apply in the checkboard of other states, but not in federal ground and certainly not wilderness.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Holy cow, go take a Midol. Sorry for posting in your thread.

 

[TheTone]

Lots of corporate timber grounds in Idaho also allow tons of atv traffic. I fully think if people had to walk from gates instead of just going around them you would see much better hunting in timber cuts

 

[buffybr]

Burns are different than timber cuts, both have advantages but burns restart the system. Timber cuts provide open area but lack the diversity of new growth that a burn does.

Wow! My lying eyes have deceived me again. In the 40 years that I worked in timber sales on the Routt NF in Colorado and the Kootenai and Gallatin NFs in Montana, both burns and timber cuts restarted the systems by opening the ground to sunlight, and a few years after the burn or cut, the diversity of new growth was about the same. In the first year after a burn the new vegetation will look greener from the contrast with the black ground and that much of lighter fuels (dead grass, leaves, needles, and small woody material like old brush and limbs) were burned away.

The thick overstory of mature western forests prevent much of the sunlight from reaching the ground which stunts or prevents or limits grass, forbs, and brush -- the food of many game animals -- from growing. Once the timber overstory is removed, by fire or cutting, the system is restarted. Fire will remove the burnable material on the forest floor and logging will disturb the ground and expose the mineral soil. Both will promote new growth, and the first new growth is grass, forbs, and brush. The diversity of the new growth is determined by what plants were already growing in that area.

Deer, elk, moose, bears, birds, and many other animals are attracted to burns and timber cuts because of all of the new growth of plants that they eat.

Over the years I've taken quite a few elk from old Montana burns.

 

[buffybr]

44..45 you gotta remember North Idaho is a bit of a different kinda place than a lot of other elk and deer areas. It is heavy on cover and light on forage. You are chasing fewer animals with less visibility. The forest is more mature.

The whole area hasn't burned since 1910...

... most corporate timber companies apply herbicide to give their seedlings a head start. This will suppress the forbs, grass, and weed production for a couple of years...

I thought we were talking about burns and timber cuts where the heavy cover of the mature forest is gone.

Yes the 1910 fires were very extensive in northern Idaho and Montana, but I believe the fires of 1988, 1994, 1996, and in recent years have surpassed the areas burned in 1910.

Many of the lodgepole pine forests that were burned in '88 have come back so thick in new growth lodgepole pine that the initial growth of grass, forbs, and brush has been choked out, and the only value those forests are to large wildlife now is in thermal and hiding cover.

Timber companies may apply herbicides to their private lands, but not on federal Forest Service lands where they may have harvested timber. The only spraying that I ever saw on Forest Service lands was only minor hand spraying of noxious weeds.

 

[theat]

Wow! My lying eyes have deceived me again. In the 40 years that I worked in timber sales on the Routt NF in Colorado and the Kootenai and Gallatin NFs in Montana, both burns and timber cuts restarted the systems by opening the ground to sunlight, and a few years after the burn or cut, the diversity of new growth was about the same. In the first year after a burn the new vegetation will look greener from the contrast with the black ground and that much of lighter fuels (dead grass, leaves, needles, and small woody material like old brush and limbs) were burned away.

The thick overstory of mature western forests prevent much of the sunlight from reaching the ground which stunts or prevents or limits grass, forbs, and brush -- the food of many game animals -- from growing. Once the timber overstory is removed, by fire or cutting, the system is restarted. Fire will remove the burnable material on the forest floor and logging will disturb the ground and expose the mineral soil. Both will promote new growth, and the first new growth is grass, forbs, and brush. The diversity of the new growth is determined by what plants were already growing in that area.

Deer, elk, moose, bears, birds, and many other animals are attracted to burns and timber cuts because of all of the new growth of plants that they eat.

Over the years I've taken quite a few elk from old Montana burns.

Both burns and timber cuts certainly result in early successional growth that is beneficial to wildlife. Unfortunately here in NW Montana and Northern Idaho, anyplace with roads and logging results in major weed infestations. It is primarily knapweed, but hawkweed, cheatgrass mullein and several others are spreading around here like crazy as well. The minimal amount of weed abatement and control that the forest service requires the logging companies to do seems to have very minimal impact in spreading these weeds everywhere. Knapweed etc are quick to choke out much of the native grasses and forbes that would be beneficial to wildlife.

4-5 years ago we had a bunch of fires close by and salvage logging was done in a handful of locations. Some of the areas that were logged look like plantations for knapweed and mullein weed, whereas the more remote parts of the burns look like elk paradise. I don't know that there is a good solution that wouldn't cost a fortune and make logging uneconomical.

 

[buffybr]

@theat Yes, I lived south of Eureka, near Fortine for 3 years. Anywhere the natural ground cover is disturbed, like from new or re-opened roads or logging activity, many of the noxious weeds are the first plants to come up, and once established, they can be very hard to get rid of.

Not knocking cattle or grazing, but one of the noxious weeds, hounds tongue, is spread to remote areas of the forests by animals, and especially cattle.