| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BWA Newsletter - April 2006A Bluffland Whitetails Association quarterly publication for
2006 MN Deer & Turkey Expoby Jim Vagts The first Minnesota Deer & Turkey Expo held at the Four Seasons Centre at the Steele County Fairgrounds in Owatonna was a huge success. BWA has sponsored a one-day expo for the past three years in Rochester. After the last Expo in January 2005, the BWA board of directors met with Glenn Helgeland of Target Communications. Glenn’s business has put on very successful sport shows for many years in several Midwestern states. BWA entered into a minor partnership with Target Communications, and together we put on the 2006 show. Glenn is a true professional, and it was a great learning experience to work with him. The show is booked next year for the same time and place, and I am confidant it will be bigger and better. It was great to have Gary Clancy, southeast Minnesota outdoor writer extraordinaire, back doing his interesting and educational seminars on out-smarting the whitetail buck. Gary has dealt with some health issues this past year but is rebounding nicely. I had a great time visiting with him and his family at the show. Gordon Whittington traveled from Marrietta, Georgia to give in-depth seminars on deer hunting for the expo visitors. Gordon was long-time editor of North American Whitetail magazine and now is working with the North American Whitetail TV series, which appears on the Outdoor Channel. When Gordon wasn’t doing seminars, he spent time in the BWA booth sharing his experiences with our booth visitors. Our BWA booth workers had a great experience spending time with such a whitetail hunting legend. The BWA booth had a great whitetail head display that demonstrated how much a deer’s horns change from year to year as it matures. This display was designed by BWA board member Allen Iverson and stimulated a lot of interest and discussion by our booth visitors during the three-day show. All in all, it was a great hunting show with excellent seminar speakers, lots of deer head entries, and a wide variety of excellent show exhibitors. Remember to reserve early March of 2007 for the 2nd annual Minnesota Deer & Turkey Expo!
A message from BWA's president...
After spending some time browsing through this booklet, I was quickly reminded of why I became involved in BWA. We all know that Minnesota, especially southeast Minnesota, has the potential to produce quality deer. By reading through the data listed below, you can see the top six states in the United States for Pope & Young entries for typical whitetail deer. Although Minnesota is listed as number five in number of entries (should or could be higher), the trend of the number of entries for other states has been increasing much faster than in Minnesota.
In 1989, Minnesota had 29 percent and 63 percent as many entries as Wisconsin and Iowa respectively. In 2004, Minnesota had 20 percent and 44 percent as many entries as Wisconsin and Iowa respectively. Given Minnesota’s abundant habitat, I believe Minnesota should have as many or more entries than any of the states listed. Not only does Minnesota have lower entries, but the trend is going the wrong way—DOWN! I realize enjoyment of deer hunting does not require getting a deer entered into the record book. The list of benefits and joys of deer hunting is long and varies between people, but I have yet to meet a deer hunter who doesn’t occasionally dream of the one “wall hanger” crossing his path. This dream offers a whole additional dimension to the sport of deer hunting. Most of us know that we will never harvest a high-scoring buck, but just knowing it could happen is enough to keep us happy and dreaming of “next time or next year!” The deer herd populations in the listed states have all increased in the past decade. More people are entering their deer in record books than in the past. More landowners and hunters are protecting young bucks. These are a few of the reasons why there are so many more deer entered today than in the past. However, these factors apply to all of the six states, and for some reason, Minnesota is not following the same trend. I am a landowner and deer hunter who happens to live in Minnesota. My state has all of the necessary ingredients to have a deer herd similar to these other five states. I decided not to wait for things to improve on their own. I got involved with BWA to join forces with other interested sportspeople to try and make a difference in the future of southeast Minnesota deer hunting.
—Jim Vagts, president
Board member profile
I grew up in the small Fillmore County town of Wykoff. While we never went to Disneyland, the Grand Canyon or anything “touristy” like that, my dad took my brother and me out hunting or fishing almost every weekend. To this day, my dad and brother are yet my favored hunting companions. While I grew up hunting every critter southeastern Minnesota calls home, my passion has always been deer. In the last four or five years, this passion has turned into nothing short of an addiction. As my thirst for knowledge in deer biology, management and habitat increases every year, so does it become obvious there is so much I really don’t know. I’ve been working for the Natural Resources Conservation Service for over 14 years now and just simply love going to work every day. Much of what I do includes visiting with landowners on habitat improvement projects, designing and helping install and construct these practices, and helping these landowners navigate through the maze of federally funded cost-share and incentive programs. In the past four or five years, I’ve been fortunate enough to find a niche as a writer in several hunting and fishing magazines. I currently write for such magazines as North American Whitetail, Fur-Fish-Game, Bowhunter, Midwest Outdoors and frequent articles in Minnesota Outdoor News, to name a few. Over this time, I’ve discovered how lucky I am to live in southeastern Minnesota. This part of the state is littered with top-notch outdoorsmen and women. If the articles I have written were based solely on my knowledge and experience; well, I would have only been able to publish one very lengthy piece on how to do everything wrong. I first began my connection with BWA a couple of years ago when I began writing articles now and again for this newsletter. As a member, I began learning more about what makes BWA tick and just recently joined the ranks as a board member. Since its inception, BWA members and directors have worked hard toward meeting the goals for a quality herd. I believe the DNR is doing a respectful job in managing our deer herd and regard the partnership already established by previous BWA boards, of utmost importance. I have approached deer hunting in a variety of ways; from the enthusiastic youngster thinking the success of the hunt is measured by the number of bucks we put down, to now finding pride in filling my doe tags, chasing that “ghost-buck” and creating a better habitat on our small farm for my daughters to enjoy. While I feel the deer hunting in Minnesota is now as good as it’s ever been, it can be better. That “better” is what I’m hoping for, and that is why I became a board member with BWA.
Rochester BWA banquet a great successOn February 25, 2006, the 2nd annual BWA membership banquet was held at the downtown Radisson Hotel in Rochester. Although the banquet was held on short notice, it ended up a great success, thanks to committee members Todd Grimes, Jeff Therring, and Marty Stubstad. Over 150 people purchased tickets. More than $20,000 worth of prizes were given away including more than 30 guns, and Mathews Switchback XT, Hoyt Trykon, Martin Saber, and Mathews Outback bows. Dean Tlougan won the evening’s grand prize worth over $1,500; a Browning Safe and the Browning SP 10 Gold Shotgun. The BWA committee would like to say a huge thank you to everyone that came out and supported the banquet, and a special thanks to all the manufacturers that stepped up with their donations. Your continued support is greatly appreciated.
Archery in physical education class
Scott Kobs Grab your bows and walk to the shooting line. Check your stance and nock your arrows. Look at your bow hand and use the proper fingers. Okay kids, draw your bows, aim, release, and follow through. The students in St. Charles will be familiar with these commands thanks to the National Archery in the Schools Program (NASP) and a supportive school administration. The NASP program was applied for by the Physical Education Department, and we were awarded a DNR grant to help fund the program. Along with matching local funds, the state-of-the-art archery unit will be in full “fling” this spring. The package for the schools includes 11 Genesis compound bows, 60 aluminum arrows, five block targets, bow racks, backstop, training, and a curriculum to teach from. Just yesterday all the equipment arrived at school. No more red plastic recurve bows that slap arms and wooden beat up arrows. Grades 5-10 will have a shot at the archery unit this spring. I can see the archery shops smiling already. We like so many things about our physical education curriculum. We think we offer quite a variety of activities ranging from sport, recreational, fitness, and lifelong activities. A big philosophy of our department is exposure to activity. Whatever activity our students end up choosing later in their lives makes little difference to us, but we hope they will find something they like and pursue it. Some kids just don’t get the chance to give archery a try. Through the NASP program, we will bring archery to the students and give everyone the opportunity to give it a shot. We are looking forward to it. I enjoy shooting my bow at the St. Charles archery range, and I think my wife would confirm that I am addicted to bow hunting. I still have some dates with her, but come fall I know I have a few days to share with a favorite oak tree. My hope is to turn some kids on to archery and maybe they will experience some of the same joys most of us have. BWA has helped youth opportunities and getting the kids involved is important. Starting them out with a positive experience is essential. We hope to make this a fun experience that will get the kids excited about shooting arrows. Maybe this archery unit will spark an interest in some and they will expand on it. I guess that is the hope in teaching, and we may not always see the fast results in what a student has learned or what really interests them, but the opportunity was given, and the time spent with kids is worth the investment. Should anyone reading this want to learn more about this school program, they should contact Ryan Bronson at the DNR.
Minnesota—not just your average deer stateby Scot Bjornson About half a million deer hunters go afield each year in Minnesota. Deer hunters take lots of pictures too and for good reason. People take pictures so they can look back and remember important things in their lives. Deer hunting is no exception. A trip down memory lane brings back the many deer and the deer hunting memories you’ve enjoyed in your lifetime. Without whitetails, you wouldn’t be able to do that. Deer hunters return to the woods year after year for many different reasons but through it all there is “one” very important common thread that all of us share....the actual deer herd. And no one could put a price tag on “our” deer herd. This fact alone demonstrates the absolute value of the deer herd, regardless of your hunting style. It stands to reason then that the whitetail deer herd, and its well being, should be of high importance to every single deer hunter who takes from that deer herd. “If we get that much out of it, then we should also look after it as well.” This is the very reason Bluffland Whitetails exists. Well then, is our Minnesota deer herd headed in the right direction? Let’s take a serious look at that question. It is well known that during the mid 80s, Minnesota had it all. We had the premium genetics, premium habitat, premier ranking in the outdoor magazines and were even No.1 in the record books. Consider this: Most of the 50 states will never have what it takes to make even the “top ten,” yet Minnesota was at the top of the “best of the best” list. Wow! It takes a very unique deer resource to do that. That’s how superb Minnesota’s whitetail potential is. I love my home state, and I’ll be the first to say that Minnesota still has great genetics and habitat. And we still have some decent deer hunting here. But, over the last 20 years I’ve watched as Minnesota has slowly and continually fallen from grace on the “best of” deer state list. And today, on the national level, Minnesota is not even mentioned with the likes of Iowa, Illinois or Kansas; and worse yet, Minnesota is rarely even mentioned on the top ten list anymore. We’ve gone from “top dog” to middle of the road, plain and simple. And I’ve yet to see an example in my lifetime where going from great to mediocre was a good thing. Quite frankly, making the actual list is not important to me. But, having deer hunting that does justice to Minnesota’s “enormous” potential is very important to all of us. Our deer herd has what it takes to be the “best of the best,” but we’ve continually drifted away from that lofty status. And for me there is little doubt that this has been the result of 30 years of an unchanged peak rut hunting strategy. Increasingly, Minnesotan’s are recognizing that today’s deer herd is much different from 30 years ago. We have plenty of deer now, so we no longer need to grow the herd. Yet, almost unbelievably, Minnesota still uses the 1970’s peak rut hunting framework which was designed to both grow the herd, and maximize the buck kill...neither of which is needed today. It’s a classic example of “overkill,” and our fall from grace proves it. Let’s try to look at this from a farm management perspective. What would happen if you took the best chunk of fertile cropland in the world and maximized an intense, unchanged harvest of the same crop over and over without rotating management, or harvest practice, for 30 years with no “rest” or rejuvenation for that resource? While under such harsh management practices, our premium piece of land may never slide to the bottom of the list so to speak, but it will go downhill and lose its rank as the best of the best. And it will continue to go downhill as long as that type of “harsh” management continues. It is unwise to manage any prime resource in such a manner. In a sense, the above example resembles Minnesota’s comparatively “harsh” deer management scheme of 30 straight years of concentrated removal of bucks under a peak rut firearms season. Under this “harsh” long-term plan of large-scale buck removal, the dominant, aggressive bucks have been continually hit very hard during each peak rut firearms season. These are the same animals which are also highly likely to be the ones carrying the highest quality, “biologically” important genes for durable, bigger, stronger bodies. These traits should be aggressively passed on, not aggressively culled. Think about that. Minnesota’s “world class” deer resource was well served back when most of these animals “used” to survive for at least a year or two. But during the last 30 years, peak rut hunting has systematically removed huge numbers of dominant, aggressive bucks before they ever reach three years of age. Do the math once at about 120,000 or so antlered bucks taken each year for just the last 10 years or so. Yep—more than a million. And most less than three years old. That’s a very large scale removal of bucks which are trying to do what nature intended them to do. I don’t even want to think about what the total for the last 30 years would be. If all of this is not enough to raise at least a few concerns, I think things can be summed up rather convincingly by saying, “Today in Minnesota we have more deer than ever, yet mature bucks (3.5 yrs. old) are rare, and bucks in their ‘prime’ (5.5-8.5 years old) are almost nonexistent.” Something is definitely wrong here. And that “something” is long-term rut hunting. Minnesota deer hunters have benefited greatly from all the enjoyment and life memories that this “one-of-a-kind” whitetail resource has given us. Therefore, we should be the first group to rise up and demand change from anything which continually degrades our deer resource. I’m not saying it’s doomsday in Minnesota; and yes, deer hunting in Minnesota is still better than some other places. But does that make it OK for us as deer hunters to ignore, or dismiss, the fact that we are slowly losing something magnificent and premium because of an unchanging, intense buck harvest strategy? My answer would be no, it’s not OK to continue using a strategy which will continue to pull our “one-of-a-kind” resource into mediocrity. So, it seems fair to ask...Why is Minnesota still using a peak rut management strategy which strains buck potential and expands the population when we don’t really need either one of those things? Bluffland Whitetails has been asking that question from the beginning. There is hope. Minnesota has recently acquired some new wildlife managers, who have taken a refreshingly objective approach to re-assessing Minnesota's premium deer resource. In summary, Minnesota deer managers and deer hunters would do well to recognize what a unique, “one of a kind” whitetail resource we really have here in Minnesota. We are not just your average deer state. And something that good should be managed in a way that does it justice. And certainly not in a manner which slowly reduces Minnesota’s awesome whitetail resource to that of mediocrity, as three decades of peak rut hunting seems to have done. We “deer hunters” should not stand by idly and watch as Minnesota slips toward mediocre status. I, for one, will not.
What influences buck harvests?Editor's note: BWA has long maintained that rut hunting adversely affects the age structure of the buck population and that the firearm deer season should be moved out of the peak of the rut. As hunters, we see how the rut alters buck behavior and long to be in a tree stand when the bucks start running. Wildlife managers in at least two states have expressed to us that they have similar feelings about season timing, but they have been unable to provide hard data to back up their assertion. Minnesota wildlife professionals, as well as some prominent whitetail experts, have stated that other factors, such as hunter density, exert a greater influence on buck survival than season timing. Thus, in areas of high hunter density, the impact of rut hunting would be lessened because of the number of hunters in the woods. Previously, they too have been unable to provide data to back their claim. Here, Dr. Marrett Grund, Farmland Deer Biologist for the Minnesota DNR compares several variables from six midwestern states and uses some simple statistical calculations to explain his position. A very common question that I get from Minnesota deer hunters is “Why do we hunt deer during the rut?” Hunters are occasionally concerned that bucks are more vulnerable to being harvested during the rut because they are most active at that time. Research studies have shown that daily and seasonal movement patterns of bucks will be the greatest at this time of year, so these hunters are correct. However, most deer biologists will say that season timing has relatively little to do with buck harvests. Most deer biologists will say that hunter pressure and deer density are the two main factors that determine how many bucks are killed. I decided to briefly look into this by obtaining data from Midwestern deer hunting states and performing some simple analyses.
DataThe most current data that was readily available to me was from: 1) 2003 deer hunting seasons, 2) a report made available in 2001 from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that estimated hunter numbers, and 3) U.S. Census data that provided land sizes for each state. I used land size data from each Midwestern state to convert total numbers to densities, so the values could be compared from state to state (Table 1).
Table 1
AnalysesI used a simple statistical procedure called “regression” to analyze these data. This procedure determines how well one set of data “relates” to another set of data. If there is a good relationship between datasets, the regression procedure will produce a high R-square value. At the same time, a regression line is produced. There is a positive relationship between the datasets if the regression line is slanted upward and to the right. Basically, this means that the values of one dataset increased in a similar manner as the other dataset. Conversely, a regression line that is slanted downward and to the right indicates that there is an inverse relationship; this would suggest that one value was decreasing as the other value was increasing. A line that is not slanted at all indicates that there is no relationship between the two datasets.
Season start datesThe first analysis I performed was regressing buck harvest densities from each state against the deer hunting season start dates. Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the two datasets. The regression line is sloping downward and to the right. That would suggest that the later the season start date is, the lower the buck harvest density will be. However, notice the R-square is 0.08 and how far the actual data points in Figure 1 are away from the regression line. Basically, this suggests that the relationship, even though it is declining, is very weak. In statistical terms, the relationship is insignificant.
Deer population densityOK, now I performed the exact same analysis as I did for season start dates, but I regressed deer population densities against buck harvest densities from each state. Figure 2 depicts the relationship between the two datasets. The regression line slopes upward and to the right. This suggests that the higher the deer density, the higher the buck harvest density will be. The R-square value is 0.87, and the data points are very near the regression line. This suggests that the relationship between the two data sets is strong. In statistical terms, the relationship is significant.
Hunter pressureFinally, the same analysis as the prior two paragraphs, except this time I regressed buck harvest densities against hunter densities from each state. Figure 3 depicts the relationship between the two datasets. Similar to the prior deer population density graph (Figure 2), the regression line slopes upward and to the right. This suggests that the higher the hunter density, the higher the buck harvest density will be. The R-square is not as high as in Figure 2, but the relationship is still statistically significant.
ConclusionsI will be the first one to say that this is not a perfect study design to look at what influences buck harvest densities. A better approach would be to take several study areas, alter each variable and examine what effect manipulating those variables had with buck harvest densities. However, this general approach does provide results that are logical. In order for buck harvests to occur, the bucks first have to be produced. Therefore, we should expect a relationship between deer densities and buck harvest densities. Using similar logic, for buck harvests to occur, the bucks have to be killed by hunters. Therefore, if deer densities are high and there are hunters willing to kill deer, we should also expect a relationship between hunter densities and buck harvest densities. Buck harvest densities were not really affected by season timing. What these analyses suggest is that Iowa, for example, had the latest start date, but it also had the lowest hunter density and lowest deer density. Illinois had the lowest buck harvest density out of all the Midwestern states. One would assume that the season start date was sometime in December, after Iowa’s start date, if there was a relationship between buck harvests and season timing. If Iowa contacted me and asked me to help them change their buck harvest density, I would tell them to first look at changing their deer and hunter densities. I would not tell them to alter the season timing because there does not appear to be significant relationship between season timing and buck harvest densities in Midwestern deer herds.
—Marrett Grund
BWA Winter Get-Together heldBWA sponsored a social event on February 4, 2006 at Jo’s Long Branch in Granger, Minnesota to recruit new members. There was a great crowd with over sixty new members and many more renewing their membership. Craig Mensink served his famous pork loin, and Jo added the rest to provide a fabulous meal. The following is a list of the sponsors who donated the money for the $2500 of door prizes given to people in attendance.
Dave Hanson, “Hanson Tire” A survey was conducted at the get-together, and the results are as follows:
The survey results clearly show strong support for deer season changes to improve our zone 3 deer hunting. A sincere thank you to all of the BWA members that made this evening a great success!
Bovine tuberculosis information
Lou Cornicelli As most people know by now, bovine tuberculosis (TB) was discovered in five beef cattle herds in northwest Minnesota last summer. Bovine TB is a bacterial disease that, like human TB, primarily affects the respiratory system and can lead to long term sickness for the infected animal. As a result of the cattle discovery, the Minnesota DNR undertook a surveillance program to find out if the disease was also present in deer. In total, 473 samples were taken during the opening weekend of the firearm season, and one deer tested positive. The next course of action was to determine where the disease came from and to what level it might exist in the deer population. Genetic analysis has determined that both the cattle and deer carried the same strain of bacteria, which is known to occur in Mexico. The Board of Animal Health (the agency that regulates cattle health) believes the disease was imported into the area from livestock and has spilled into deer at some low level. After looking at the information, the DNR agrees with the assessment from the veterinarians. After we found the positive deer, the DNR authorized shooting permits on properties that had infected cattle or are adjacent to infected cattle farms. As of this writing, 65 deer have been killed and one more is positive. So, we can say that while bovine TB exists in some deer in the northwest, I’m fairly confident that not many deer are infected. Since we’ve tested over 540 deer to date and only found two positives, I just don’t think there are a lot of positive deer out there. So what does this all mean? Recently, Minnesota lost its Accredited Tuberculosis Free status, which has had a significant economic impact on the cattle industry. There are testing and identification requirements for cattle leaving a Modified Accredited Advanced state that weren’t required when the state was free of the disease. In addition, some states have imposed more strict regulations for importing cattle into their state from Minnesota. Regaining Minnesota’s bovine TB-free status is imperative for cattle producers and the industry as soon as possible. Consequently, the DNR will continue to do what is necessary from the deer testing and management perspective. It’s simply the right thing to do. On the other hand, bovine TB should have very little long-term affect on Minnesota’s deer populations. The disease is slow growing and very difficult to transmit so a small percentage of a deer population might actually become infected and die from the disease. To date, only two infected deer have been found in northwest Minnesota and both were located in close proximity to an infected cattle herd. Also, Minnesota has very high hunting pressure, so few deer would actually live long enough to succumb to the symptoms of bovine TB. Because bovine TB can be transmitted between deer and cattle, the DNR’s concern is that the disease does not become established in deer, triggering a risk of re-infection back to cattle. To prevent this, the DNR is working closely with disease experts at the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, Department of Agriculture, USDA, and the University of Minnesota. We are confident that together we will regain our bovine TB-free state status. Understandably, a few cattle ranchers and deer hunters are very upset with the current situation. It is my hope that people can look outside their areas of interest. For example, I would ask a cattle rancher to see this from the perspective of the deer hunter, some of whom would contend this is a cattle issue and that no deer should be killed. Conversely, I ask deer hunters to look at this from the perspective of the person who makes their living with cattle, is on the verge of losing their livelihood, and might want every deer killed. The course of action developed by the DNR in consultation with our colleagues at the Minnesota Board of Animal Health will include testing large numbers of deer in select areas during the deer season and also will include removing and testing deer within the vicinity of infected cattle herds. To the deer hunters, I would point out that we will not be decimating deer numbers to eliminate bovine TB. To the cattle operators I would point out that the DNR will be conducting ongoing testing and removing deer from infected farms, and will ensure that the DNR meets its commitment to help the livestock industry regain its TB-free status in the shortest time possible.
Protect your investmentby Colin Williams As I stood slumped and sweating over my tree planting spade, I was only half done; 1200 trees didn’t seem like all that much during the planning phase, but it sure seemed like a lot now. This was four years ago, and the block planting of spruce and 50-some crabapples is now beginning to show some semblance of the habitat area it was designed to be. Prior to that tree planting; I had planted oak, pine, walnut, crabapples, apple trees, some dogwood and other fruit-bearing type shrubs. All of these trees were spaced out in random pattern throughout an old pasture and a few spots here and there about the farm. I flagged everything so I knew where they were and walked away thinking I had just accomplished something that would certainly change the face of our small piece of Fillmore County hunting ground. Whether or not the deer would have found those trees without the flagging, I’m not sure, but every one of those trees I planted years ago didn’t make it, and most of the loss was certainly due to deer damage. During the planning phase of most habitat improvement projects, tree plantings, of some kind, are usually part of that plan. It is of utmost importance to look beyond the idea of a few trees, but why are you planting them, what trees are you going to use and what steps do you need to take to anticipate a successful planting?
Spruce and cedar are two good planting options if you are looking to provide thermal bedding areas or screening and hiding cover. The only deer damage I have seen in these plantings has been bucks rubbing on some of the trees. Sure, deer forage on them some, but typically not enough to set back any growth. Some good tree specie choices here may be white, Norway and Black Hills spruce and red cedar. I realize red cedar can be a four-letter word to many livestock producers, as cedar can overtake a pasture in short order, but it can be a good tree to plant for habitat. White cedar is not a good option for deer habitat plantings, at least in the southeastern part of the state, as deer like chewing on the soft needles and rarely can a white cedar make it through a few winters. If deer do not winter on your farm, you may have a chance of getting white cedar to establish; but if they do, white cedar is not a good choice. Another common choice tree used for habitat planting improvements is pine. Pine tree plantings can take it in the chin pretty hard from deer forage damage. Extra efforts with bud capping or chemical deterrents will likely be necessary for these trees to grow to a height where deer can’t reach the terminal leader and bud of the tree. Bud caps are simply pieces of paper wrapped and stapled around the terminal leader and bud of the tree. This protects the terminal bud from deer, yet allows the tree to grow up through the paper during the next growing season. Browsing of lateral (side) branches and buds is usually not detrimental to the health and survival of young white pine. You may find it necessary to bud cap each fall until the tree is over four or five feet high, or out of reach of browsing damage. Pine does respond well in most soils and grows rather quickly. If deer don’t winter on your farm, you may find some good results.
Planting oak, apples trees, crabapples, hawthorns or any other fruit or mast bearing trees can be, and certainly are, hindered by deer browsing as well as rabbit damage. One of the best methods for protecting your mast or fruit tree investment are tree shelters. Tree shelters range from three to eight inches in diameter, and range anywhere from two feet up to about six. If browse damage is not a problem, two foot shelters should work in protecting the tree from rabbits, unless we actually get a Minnesota winter with considerable snow, then they may not. If your tree failures can be attributed to deer browse and damage, the four to six foot shelters would be the way to go. Trees grow rather rapidly in these shelters. Relative humidity and higher air temperatures throughout the growing season in the shelter, along with higher levels of carbon dioxide, improve plant growth. Tree shelters work well if you intend on planting 25 oak or crabapple each year, but they aren’t exactly cheap. At about four or five dollars a piece, they can get expensive, but are certainly the way to go for smaller plantings. Good tree plantings entail much more than buying a few trees and planting them around here and there. What trees will work well on your farm, where to plant them and why should all be part of your pre-plant planning. A DNR Forester, like Jim Edgar, or a DNR Wildlife Specialist, like Don Ramsden, would be a good first call to make when considering any tree planting. The expertise they bring with them can curtail any failures you may experience trying to tackle any major plantings on your own.
Change
Jim Edgar, John Kelly The word CHANGE takes up quite a few lines in Webster’s Dictionary. The word can be used as a noun or a verb and has several meanings. Our world is constantly subject to change. My wife says I don’t take well to change, and she is correct, as usual. Our awareness of change varies. Forests change, but often the change falls into the category of gradual, un-noticed change. We all notice when a forest blows over in a windstorm or dies from an insect infestation. When a favorite hunting spot becomes a new home site or is part of a timber harvest, we immediately notice the change. Are changes going on in the woods that are gradual and un-noticed by most people, but still happening? The answer is yes. Foresters classify trees according to their ‘tolerance’ for shade. This means that a very tolerant tree can sprout, grow and mature in the shade of other trees. A very intolerant tree is unable to grow in shade and will die if not given full sunlight. In some species, the tolerance for shade varies with age. Oak trees are fairly intolerant of shade, particularly when compared to sugar maple, basswood, elm and ironwood. When acorns germinate under the tree they fall from, they seldom grow into large trees. The acorns sprout and survive for several years and then die. The more shade-tolerant seedlings grow slowly and wait for an opening in the canopy from wind, logging or pest attack. When that opening occurs, they grow rapidly and fill the opening. Young stands of elm, basswood, sugar maple and ironwood are much more common in our area than a young stand of red oak. How many healthy young oak trees do you see in the woods where you hunt? A quick look may show oaks growing along the edge of the woods and next to the roads and trails in the forest. Look beyond those edges. Are there any young oaks in the interior of the forest? You are not likely to find many. The edges and roads offer more sunlight so oak seedlings are more able to compete with other vegetation along roads and fields. The forests of southeastern Minnesota are changing with the death or removal of the large oak trees to a more mixed forest of oak, sugar maple and basswood. This is change that is happening and has happened over many years. Personally, I hate to think of the future with fewer thick stands of oak making up the woods. I am accustomed to the oak forest and as my wife knows, I don’t like change. I am pointing this out not as an alarm but to show that a resource that is as enduring and constant as a forest does change. The change happens over time by natural processes that can be influenced by what people do or don’t do in the woods.
Agreement on conservation funding may come at a priceby Chris Kolbert The scene reminded me of the television show, “The West Wing.” Funding was desperately needed, but legislators on one side of the aisle refused to support the bill unless concessions were made. Veiled accusations were made and fingers were pointed, forcing the process to a grinding halt. Unfortunately, this wasn’t make-believe. The characters were our state legislators and the issue was the so-called 3/16s bill, which was submitted originally during the 2001 legislative session to place on the ballot an amendment to the state constitution that would dedicate for conservation purposes 3/16 of 1 percent of state sales tax income. This scenario was not played out at the Capitol. Rather, about 40 legislators, DNR officials, conservation leaders, and media representatives were invited to the lunch meeting, held by Governor Tim Pawlenty at his residence, to discuss the bill and other options for providing dedicated funding to natural resources programs in the state. But what became clear was the lack of cooperation between those elected to represent the people of Minnesota. Originally modeled after laws in Missouri and Arkansas, which dedicate annually 1/8 of 1 percent of sales tax revenue to natural resource programs, the idea began as a badly needed source of funding for our ailing state. But five years later, two bills that were submitted have still not passed, and several different versions are currently being debated. Ironically, legislators of all persuasions seem to support dedicated funding, at least in theory. But they can’t seem to agree on the exact nature of the funding. Key sticking points include whether this funding should come from existing sales tax or a tax increase, the final amount that will be dedicated, and the exact beneficiaries of the funding—essentially, all of the important parts. Indeed, the GOP has maintained that this bill will not pass if it seeks to increase the existing sales tax. DFL legislators have sought to make the funding available to other worthy, but completely unrelated causes, such as art-related programs and state zoos. Talk about complicating the issue. The arts and state zoos are important aspects of our society. But many outdoorsmen and women feel that supporters of these programs should start their own initiative. The idea for dedicated conservation funding was initiated by, fought for, and will be maintained by, the outdoorsmen and women of Minnesota. The discord was not lost on the conservation leaders in the room. In the words of John Schroers, president of the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance, dedicated conservation funding has become a political football for partisan politics. Amen. At a time when wildlife habitat is being depleted at a rapid pace, wetlands are being lost or are seriously impaired, and public recreational land is overcrowded; our elected officials have not yet been able to come to an agreement on something that would benefit not only our fish and wildlife, but the people who live, work, and play in our great state. Within weeks of the gathering at the governor’s residence, yet another bill outlining a funding proposal was submitted and then approved by the Senate Environmental and Natural Resources Committee. Although this bill still includes funding for arts, sources claim that it would raise about $245 million in 2008, which might go a long way even if it was split among the special interests. As Governor Pawlenty recently stated, “It is better to have half a loaf of bread than none at all.” With this in mind, perhaps it is time to look at the big picture and work together in the best interest of the state.
In the spotlight...
You would think a kid who grew up in Minneapolis might have culture shock moving down here to the southeast away from the faster-paced city life to rural Minnesota. But actually, while growing up in Minneapolis, I was probably more exposed to outdoor life than most other kids my age. Both my parents loved the outdoors and owned about ½ mile of shoreline along the Elk River, between the towns of Big Lake and Elk River, Minnesota, just northwest of the Cities. Most weekends we ventured out of the big city and headed up to the lot to camp. It was here my dad taught me how to hunt rabbits, ducks, and squirrels. All my siblings and myself learned to swim like fish, and brother Ralph and I would fish most every day we were there. Later, my dad built a cabin, and each summer during summer vacation, we would raise several hundred pheasants that we slaughtered for him to sell locally. This love for the outdoors, infused in me from my parents, landed me in college earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management at the U of M farm campus. Upon completion, I worked many part-time jobs in the DNR to get my foot in the door to a permanent position. Finally, after three years of temporary employment banding waterfowl around the state, creating wildlife openings in the Grand Rapids area for white-tailed deer, conducting moose registration, and ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse research, I landed a permanent job (1976) at Red Lake WMA located near Warroad, MN. It was here, and at a subsequent position at Thief River Falls, that most of my work related to improving deer and moose habitat. Since 1984, I have been the area wildlife manager at Whitewater WMA, and just recently, our office has been “co-located” with Winona Wildlife office and thus work in Houston, Fillmore and Winona counties as well. My wife Kathy and I have been married for 33 years, and it is great my grown son, Mac, and daughter Kelly each like to get out fishing or hunting with their dad now and then. Mac has been showing me up lately bagging his deer with a bow usually earlier in the season than I. Obviously, patience isn’t his virtue. Some of the most rewarding work I continue to do involves working with sportsmen’s groups who share common goals to preserve and improve the natural resources we have in this state. Bluffland Whitetails initiative to establish our Youth Deer Hunt in the Whitewater State Game Refuge is but one example. Going on our fourth season, many young hunters are getting their first opportunity to hunt deer with their parents or other mentors, and the banquet the group puts on opening day really crowns the event.
Bluffland News / Bluffland Events / Contact Bluffland | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BWA held its February board meeting at Pope & Young’s Headquarters and Museum in Chatfield, Minnesota. This facility has a terrific museum, and the conference room made a great place for our meeting. After the meeting, Glenn Hisey, Record Committee Chairman for the Pope & Young Club, handed out a booklet entitled “24th Recording Period Statistical Summary.” This booklet provides data on the Pope & Young records for the past sixteen years.
Colin Williams
When you buy tree tubes, they come complete with a mesh "sock" to slide over the top that you should not forget to use. I have found it best to staple the mesh to the tube; otherwise they simply don’t stay on long. This mesh should prevent birds from nesting in the tubes, but I have also noticed that wasps love to nest in the tubes. You will have to walk the tubes a couple times a year and knock the nests out of a few of them.
Jon Cole