(Lake Martin Specific)
111,174 messages
Updated 6/1/2024 11:59:20 AM
Lakes Online Forum
83,645 messages
Updated 5/30/2024 11:45:00 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,195 messages
Updated 5/31/2024 4:36:53 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,171 messages
Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
?? for tree huggers.,
|
|
Date:
|
3/7/2008 9:16:33 PM
|
Now here is question for all the tree huggers. I have 3 one thousand acre tracts of land. One I am leaving as virgin forest. One I am clear cutting for timber. One I am developing into a subdivision full of mini mansions, starter castles, and plush landscaping. The wildlife population was counted prior to any cutting and clearing. Now it is five years later. Cathrine likes deer so lets concentrate on them. What happened to the deer population on each tract?
I will check back tomorrow and see who dares to venture into this little puzzle.
|
| Name: |
tomcat
-
|
|
| Subject: |
?? for tree huggers.,
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 9:51:03 AM
|
obviously, there will be more white tail in the subdivision than you can shake your timber at...the real question for catherine is whether she wants to stay in the woods and enjoy watching the meek or go ahead and venture into the competitive new found white tail population...
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
?? for tree huggers.,
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 10:28:22 AM
|
Obvious to you and me maybe, but MOST folks think the s/d would run off the population. In fact they couldn't be more wrong. The new s/d offers them protection ( not many hunters in s/d's) and a great source of food. All that beautiful landscaping is nothing more than pretty meals for them. And try to plant a garden and see what happens. Urban sprawl increases the deer population. And no, I am NOT going to cite the source, as it was a college proffesor from way back when, but I have read the same thing several times since then. Google it yourself, I don't need convincing.
Now what about the clear cut?
The virgin forest?
|
| Name: |
Psycho
-
|
|
| Subject: |
?? for tree huggers.,
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 11:06:50 AM
|
I'm not a tree hugger, but I will give a answer because tree huggers will not know the answer. The clear cut will support the most deer. While the old growth forest is important to them too, deer would starve to death in less than a year without clear cuts and fields. The 3 plots would provide a perfect haven for deer. Year round grass in all those pretty yards, old growth timber for acorns, and the thickets of briars and bushes where the clearcut took place for protection and food.
If anyone dont think animals love the clearcuts that are overgrown in briars, Try this. Spend one afternoon sitting in a pretty open forest.
Then spend the next pretty afternoon sitting next to a thicket that looks like crap to us, and is too thick to walk into....The thicket will be full
of deer, birds, rabbits, mice, bugs, fox, snakes.
Soo...in the long run, there would be more deer , and all other wildlife after the timber cutting and development.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Psycho, maybe.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 12:04:00 PM
|
... but you get the GOLD STAR. For both knowing the truth and knowing that the 'tree huggers' would NEVER recognize these FACTS. A clear after 2-4 years will be the most populated area around. It has an abundance of undergrowth that provides excellent cover and plenty of food. Try walking through a 'cutover' after a couple of years. You will struggle to get thruogh while the deer will jump up and run away with out ever being seen.
Another little factiod: A desert supports a broader range of life forms than the floor of a pine forest!
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Key point:
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 12:17:46 PM
|
A key point, which is often ignored by partisans on BOTH sides: "The 3 plots would provide a perfect haven for deer."
Meaning, the fact that there is a VARIETY of nearby habitat is ideal for the deer population. The fact that a new development helps meet SOME of the deer needs is true; but get rid of the shelter afforded by the nearby forest, and the deer will NOT hang around, no matter how tasty the fancy new landscaping is.
Furthermore, a development does not cause a boom in the deer population; it causes a boom in the opportunity to see them. Yes, they will take advantage of the feeding opportunities afforded them by new development in old habitat, but the fact that they are now being seen does not mean that they weren't there before.
The key to a healthy population of almost anything is PROPER MANAGEMENT. Rampant clear-cutting is not proper management, any more than allowing unchecked growth is. It requires BALANCE, and perspective as to the proper balance is sorely missing in most groups, and that includes developers AND tree-huggers. (Full disclosure: if I have to choose sides, I choose the side that the tree-huggers take, because the wrong that they are doing is easily fixed with some simple land-management plans. But rampant irresponsible development can take centuries to overcome.)
And to put an end to the next argument before it even starts: before man started interfering, nature was in charge of keeping the balance, and did quite well. Clear-cutting was done with forest fires, underbrush control was done with smaller fires that never developed into full-on forest fires, and so on.
|
You make good points Myth, but I disagree with one. The studies I saw way back when were done by professional foresters and researchers. They did not depend anecdotal evidence. There are methods in place to count wildlife. It depends a lot on statistical extrapilation, but has been proven accurate for decades. So the argument that the deer are just more visible doesn't hold water.
Actually 2 reasons were cited for the increase. One was an abundance of new food sources and most likely a decrease in hunting where new s/d were concerned. But another reason is a geneitic response. The animals view the encroachment of man as a 'threat', therefore they are driven by genetic code to produce more offspring. Case in point: deer usaully have twins with the first birth, but only have single fawns in the subsequent years. After encroachment many have been seen to produce twins again. It must be a genetic response since I don't think the deer have been reading the study's...lol.
I no longer hunt for health reasons, but spent most of my youth in the woods. I am not a tree hugger, but I am also not in favor of raping all the land. I understand the forces of nature and know that Mother Nature will correct most of mans wrongs. But I am also a capitalist and understand that if it is NOT my land, I have NO right to tell anyone else what to do with it. I guess you would call me a 'compassionate conservationist'...lol. Clear cuts are essential for good land management. My Father retired from Kimberly-Clark. He told me many times grwing up that when they built the C'burg plant he was pessimistic about the forest of the area and was afraid that "in 10 years there want be a pine tree within 100 miles". He was young and naive at that time. In his later years he could see there were more pine trees than ever, after 40 years of the paper mill operating. Proper land management was the key, and that includes clear cutting.
|
| Name: |
farmboy
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Psycho, maybe.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 1:15:50 PM
|
Maybe they should start asking forestry questions at trivia nite. Give me something I can use dawg!!!
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Key point:
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 6:16:13 PM
|
LTL, I am very familiar with similar studies (one in particular) that have been done in the past couple of years, and the data you provide still holds up. However, it is also agreed that the word "healthy," when used in the term "healthy deer populations" means more than pure numbers. (There was a time when all that mattered was the number.) It is common sense, AND a scientific fact (which are not always mutually exclusive :-) ) that "too many deer" equals "an unhealthy population." More new food sources is a good thing, but if that source is needed for a now larger population, then it might not be enough food. It's another one of those paradoxes that can drive people nuts: just like forest fires are needed for the maintenance of a healthy forest, some culling is often needed for the maintenance of a deer population. More deer + more food doesn't always come out in favor of the deer; loss of space can be an added hindrance.
And, one of the things that works in favor f the deer when talking about the effects of development is the addition of "border lands" or "edge habitat;" this is that area of cleared land alongside the forest. There is usually good food in abundance in these areas, as well as good habitat for living. However (more common sense here) you can't have good habitat edging the forest unless you have the forest. Too often, we see these forested areas lost to over-development. If it was an occasional thing, it might be OK; but, it's a trend, and it's a trend that has been increasing.
|
I agree with everything you said here. Especially that a large population is not always a healthy one. That is the very reason we have hunting seasons, to thin out populations. Population count is also the major determining factor in 'doe days'. I am sure whatever data you are relying on is much more current than mine. As I said, I first learned of this paradox back in college, but have also read a couple of articles on the same subject in subsequent years. The genetic response (twins) was really fascinating. Just goes to show Mother Nature will always find a way to balance out.
|
| Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
| Subject: |
O.K. yall
|
|
Date:
|
3/8/2008 9:31:10 PM
|
I have a close friend (Shoefly) and he works at "Buckmasters" magazine. Just listen out for the telemarketing call, and I will pay for both of your yearly subscriptions. Maybe he will be nice, and send you both a copy of "Rack" magazine as well. lmao.
|
I hope it is NOT deer racks....lol.
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
