What has to be done for ungulates ?

[boxhitch]

So what are the answers to improving habitat ? For ungulates and other wildlife ?
There is no one solution that will work everywhere , but maybe its time to put some effort into changing the way things are done .

In some areas , forests are maturing and taking over open grassland type , so yes controlled burning can be good in some spots but large scale burns for habitat will never happen in a forest companies license area.

In many areas large tracts of mature multi species forests have been replaced by single species plantations , many which are subject to large scale die-offs due to being in unsuitable terrain.

In other areas wholesale pine-beetle wood harvesting has left lunarscapes with no corridors and tiny riparian zones and very little cwd coarse woody debris needed to sustain other wildlife.

CWD is part of the natural process and logging practices may address this and leave some , but other times the floor is swept clean leaving nothing larger than a given dimension sometimes down to 4 ".
And then on a local note , a wood pellet plant is being planned for Lavington and along with the co-generation plant at Armstrong will consume lots of wood material that is normally left on the land , to the detriment of any natural recovery process .

Forestry companies are in a business to make money and seem to have little regard for nature , but must have some direction to help look after wildlife and the natural processes that take place on the lands.

Lots of armchair scientists on here so lets get some armchair solutions tossed out , instead of whining about not finding a 4 point mulie. )

[two-feet]

I think we are into uncharted territory in terms of the beetle kill. Different logging practices coupled with the inherent change to our landscape will, an is, causing unknown consequences. When the beetles really started to take off I was assuming that the change from pine forest to deciduous undergrowth would be hugely benificial for the moose and deer but it looks like I was dead wrong as the moose are disappearing most rapidly where the beetle has hit the hardest. Is that because of the beetles themselves, or lack of wildfire, changing water table, logging practices, increased access, etc etc?
So I dont have any sweet answers or solutions either, hopefully others do because our province is changing before our eyes. And I crave moose ribs so it would be nice to get this shit sorted out.

[adriaticum]

Population reduction.

[Big Lew]

One of the thing I find disturbing is the effects on the water table. Many will recall when the logging companies denuded huge areas between the Fraser River and hwy. 97 from Clinton north with their clear cutting. Prior to that there were innumerable swamps, ponds, shallow lakes and creeks throughout the area. Most of them are gone, and even now after the re-planting and forest re-newal has taken place most of those waters have not come back. I expect the same situation will plague most parts of the Province in the aftermath of the extensive 'beetle kill' logging that's taken place recently. Massive drops in the water table effects not only water fowl, but every other creature as well.

[ru rancher]

the problem is just that. loggers are ouit there to make money and in most cases that come higher on there list of importance then habitat. at least it seams that way. what i have learned through talking to a wood lot owner whos lot is in mule deer wintering classed land. he told me that the goverment now tells him that small open clear cuts is what they now want him to do. so like a circle with a 100 meter diameter for example. he also said the way they want him to log has changed many times in the past 20 years. i think more resently logging has bin looking at the environment of wintering grounds and really looked to keep them healthy. the problem is is that they are only protecting those areas not there summer feeding and rutting areas (if different) i dont think there is one general solution that will fix everything but atleast there is a push in the right direction. they are regulating how they log its just slow reasearch.

[ru rancher]

One of the thing I find disturbing is the effects on the water table. Many will recall when the logging companies denuded huge areas between the Fraser River and hwy. 97 from Clinton north with their clear cutting. Prior to that there were innumerable swamps, ponds, shallow lakes and creeks throughout the area. Most of them are gone, and even now after the re-planting and forest re-newal has taken place most of those waters have not come back. I expect the same situation will plague most parts of the Province in the aftermath of the extensive 'beetle kill' logging that's taken place recently. Massive drops in the water table effects not only water fowl, but every other creature as well.
why do you think they wont come back?

[6616]

A lot of the rise and falls in wildlife populations in BC have been driven by forest management and harvesting activity.

Historically in the East Kootenay the First Nation bands lit fires to maintain wildlife habitat, they knew more than we give them credit for. However they didn't have the ability to contain these fires and they often burned from the Columbia all the way into the USA. In spite of this most of the landscape was covered by mature forests and early explorers like Simon Fraser and fur traders like David Thompson has a hard time finding enough game to feed their crews. Also they were often in the wrong place for the time of year not realizing most of BC's game species were migratory. When the white man took over they built towns and farms and indiscriminate burning was no longer possible and we adopted Smokey the Bear, decided all fires were bad, decided we needed to save the trees, and we put all fires out. So began the forest ingrowth and encroachment that we still have today that is impacting open grassland and open forest habitats at an alarming rate, up to 3000 ha annually.

The consequences of this were avoided up until the '90's to some extent as we witnessed huge increases in wildlife populations during the clear-cut era from the 60s thru the 80's. Nearly every Trench tributary valley was clear-cut, some of them nearly wall to wall. Forest companies were up to 10 years behind in silviculture, cut blocks were burned and then sat dormant for many years but they were in a high state of suitability for those years as wildlife habitat, and huge elk and deer populations was the result. Then came the time when silviculture practices like vegetation management (hack and squirt) were developed, companies caught up on their silviculture responsibilities, and suddenly there wasn't nearly as much high suitability habitat for ungulates and their populations started to decline. This takes us to the present day, and while the sudden appearance of large numbers of wolves has a major impact, the real key goes back to habitat.
Are we ever going to see clear cutting like we did in the 60's, 70's and 80's again, what can we do to mimic this result keeping in mind what boxhitch said about most of this land base being in forest tenures? Well widespread clear cutting may not be needed. We can identify critical habitat areas like winter range, migration routes, etc and concentrate our efforts there. We have the technical expertise in BC to accomplish this, we just don't seem to have the political will to make wildlife a priority. So the first thing we need to do is get active politically and change this situation. The ups and downs of wildlife populations we have witnessed in the EK have been largely habitat related and habitat is the key to restoring stability. Hunting regulations are practically inconsequential in the big picture and it's really depressing to see hunters continuously arguing over regulations instead of tackling the real problems..!

[horshur]

it takes a generation or two to make habitat...what I am saying is that there would be no quik fixes..beetle happened I don't think if the vast stands had of burned instead we would have much a different outcome...what would have been left would also need to start regenerating and that takes years and that is what is going happen even with the logged blocks...a lot of that dog thick pine from past fires was not great habitat either.....the biggest deal with the pine beetle is there will be a lot of same age stands maturing and so I think the worse is yet to come with them but in the mean time things will recover.......

even the wolves.........I sit on the fence with them in my own little area...for in reality they seemed to come at a good time we had had a string a easy winters....deer were living at least part of the winter higher and with pine harvest blocks growing leaps and bounds that part of their range was getting smaller at same time the deer were increasing....anyway the wolves hit hard and so did a big snow year and really the last few winters here have had significant snow so it is almost like the wolves did some cropping bout when it was needed..also along with that we have Hare where there was few before probably because they cropped the coyotes or a least pushed them onto private as well......the bios are right wolves do have a significant role in the ecosystem and some of the benefits might outweigh the negatives....for the most part I feel the wolves are here to stay best figure out how to get along with them.....last two winter the wolves have been more like the past and are not killing as much and seem to have a larger range to me it has balanced out some as the moose range recovers I expect the wolves will spend less time on the deer.....and the moose range is already recovering in places..Blocks will grow in roads will get choked with willow and it will be more normal....but it never is really things is always changing.

[boxhitch]

We have the technical expertise in BC to accomplish this, we just don't seem to have the political will to make wildlife a priority.
Good points Andy
And while reg 8 and 3 also had more historic open grasslands than they do now , much of that potential habitat is also controlled by private landowners who utilize the land as is , and have no incentive to spend $$ on wildlife. To them , effort spent on controlling ingrowth is better spent on rearing calves and lowering the diesel fuel bill.

Further north closer to boreal type practices have changed too . Used to see broadcast herbicide spraying from helicopters in large cuts like the Bowron and Willow , yet critters thrived . pine continues to be planted.

And then we have mla's who suggest removing restrictions on cutting in the few protected parks and preserves and refuges that do exist because the timber supply is dwindling for mills

[Ghengis Khandrey]

Torching all the slash and leftovers in cutblocks would be a start, They used to burn them completely ~20 years ago in my neck of the woods. Two years later it would green up nicely and you would find all kinds of plants and animals in there. Then some politician decided it was "bad for the environment", logging companies said "hey great we don't have to clean up our mess anymore " and now they sit grey full of stumps and garbage for 10 years before you see any real regrowth.

[J_T]

Just to add to 6616's comments. In the 90's hunters started to partner with Gov and each other for carry over counts, thinning, planting and burn management programs. In the EK, we were very aggressive with multiple projects every year.

Everyone felt good about the work, it brought hunting groups together.

Unfortunately, as I've said before, Gov changed the rules and undermined NGO opportunity, things changed and targeted habitat (wildlife) enhancement slowly shifted.

I'd like to see us getting back to not only enhancement but to carry over counts as well. People (hunters) just want to help.

[GoatGuy]

Need:

1) Funding
2) Political will

That will only come when hunters engage their elected officials.

After that it's hard to tell the pepper from the fly shit.

[bighornbob]

One of the thing I find disturbing is the effects on the water table. Many will recall when the logging companies denuded huge areas between the Fraser River and hwy. 97 from Clinton north with their clear cutting. Prior to that there were innumerable swamps, ponds, shallow lakes and creeks throughout the area. Most of them are gone, and even now after the re-planting and forest re-newal has taken place most of those waters have not come back. I expect the same situation will plague most parts of the Province in the aftermath of the extensive 'beetle kill' logging that's taken place recently. Massive drops in the water table effects not only water fowl, but every other creature as well.

This is a common misconception that clear cutting reduces the water supply/table. In fact it actually puts more water onto and into the ground. Think about a untouched forest, you have thousands of trees drinking up tons of water. Plus you have a lot of moisture (snow and rain) intercepted by the trees and held in the branches that evaporates before it ever reaches the ground. Once you clearcut all that water that would have been used or intercepted by the trees is now readily hitting the ground and getting back into the water table and or ponds. Clearcuts may appear dry and they probably are for the first 1 foot of soil as the sun has dried that out but in all reality there is more water in the ground. So clearcutting does not remove water from the groundwater table. You might have some small ponds drying up sooner due to evaporation due to heating caused by the lack of shade, but they would have to be quite small and most likely would dry up anyway later in the year as tree roots suck up all the available water near by.

A more likely cause to the ponds drying up is due to climate change and the planet getting warmer and less precipitation filling up those ponds each year. Happening in places that never had a forest any where near them.

One thing clearcutting does do is speed up the spring freshet. Where trees once stood and provided shade for the snowpack well into May in the highcountry, that snow is melting faster and sooner with no shade from the tree canopy.


BHB

[Sofa King]

too much change has happened for us to see a turn-around in our lifetimes.
the unprecedented beetle-kill and the consequent clear-cutting has been massively detrimental.
and the much-reduced little patches of treed areas they do have to hide in now are easily accessed with all the roads and trails everywhere.
there's things that can be done to try to get their #'s back up, but the effects wouldn't be seen for a long, long time.

[Sofa King]

This is a common misconception that clear cutting reduces the water supply/table. In fact it actually puts more water onto and into the ground. Think about a untouched forest, you have thousands of trees drinking up tons of water. Plus you have a lot of moisture (snow and rain) intercepted by the trees and held in the branches that evaporates before it ever reaches the ground. Once you clearcut all that water that would have been used or intercepted by the trees is now readily hitting the ground and getting back into the water table and or ponds. Clearcuts may appear dry and they probably are for the first 1 foot of soil as the sun has dried that out but in all reality there is more water in the ground. So clearcutting does not remove water from the groundwater table. You might have some small ponds drying up sooner due to evaporation due to heating caused by the lack of shade, but they would have to be quite small and most likely would dry up anyway later in the year as tree roots suck up all the available water near by.

A more likely cause to the ponds drying up is due to climate change and the planet getting warmer and less precipitation filling up those ponds each year. Happening in places that never had a forest any where near them.

One thing clearcutting does do is speed up the spring freshet. Where trees once stood and provided shade for the snowpack well into May in the highcountry, that snow is melting faster and sooner with no shade from the tree canopy.


BHB

that works both ways though.
yes those trees sucked up a lot of the moisture, but, they also provided shade for areas that held water, which now without that, the hot summer days dry those bodies up faster.
it also affects fishing in the small mountain lakes.
many that I go to use to have tons of shade throughout the day, and protection from the winds, because of the forest that came right to the shores.
then, with the beetle-kill, the trees along the edges began to die and eventually many fell into the lakes.
and many have been logged right up to them now.
those lakes temperatures have got to be much higher during the summer than they used to be.
they are much windier and more polluted than before as well.

[bighornbob]

they are much windier and more polluted than before as well.

Those are all factors that affect you not the fish. You call it polluted (I guess too many trees to cast a line from shore or launch your belly boat). The fish call it Large Woody Debris which is integral for certain life stages of fish. I would bet money the fish are thriving better now with trees falling into the lake then from before. Sucks for fishing but the fish love it.

In regards to shade and lakes (especially ones you would be fishing) there is no real impact from shade removal as at the hottest time of the year the sun is directly above. So anything that would be called a fishing lake probably gets 90% of the sun it would get with a full riparian zone.

Shade impacted ponds are usually the ones that are less then say 20m across and have some sort of shade for most of the day.

I was involved in a three year stream temperature study in the Merritt and Elk Heart Lodge areas and there were some interesting finds like a natural pond will heat the stream/creek, up way more then clearcutting right to the edge of the creek for a few kms along the creek. The hottest temperatures were always in ponded/lake waters, regardless of clearcutting or not. Creeks leaving these ponds actually cooled even though they went through kms' of clearcuts. Also most small tributary creeks (where most of the logging occurs right across the channel) were usually dry in the hottest months of the year (even before logging).

BHB

[604redneck]

Population reduction.
this web site needs a like button

[boxhitch]

there's things that can be done to try to get their #'s back up, but the effects wouldn't be seen for a long, long time.Numbers aren't everything , I'd be more interested in a healthy biodiversity that would allow species to prosper to the best of their abilities. I don't think we should try to manage for any one in particular , given the chance Mother Nature will use whats available.
I bet right now some companies have employees questioning the practice of single species tree farming , arguing with those that want to produce aspen and cottonwood for pulp or whatever.
Forest Practices have changed and can change again.

[Sitkaspruce]

Torching all the slash and leftovers in cutblocks would be a start, They used to burn them completely ~20 years ago in my neck of the woods. Two years later it would green up nicely and you would find all kinds of plants and animals in there. Then some politician decided it was "bad for the environment", logging companies said "hey great we don't have to clean up our mess anymore " and now they sit grey full of stumps and garbage for 10 years before you see any real regrowth.

Burning was changed by Foresters, not gov. Studies showed that, for growing trees, slow, rotting wood is better than a burn. A burn supplies nutrients for a short time (up to 20 years), CWD supplies nutrients up to 40 years. Better for growing trees, which is what the gov wants. The other reason is overachieving, which I was part of a few times. It is now known as liability. Burn the forest and you will be held for the cost of suppression.

If people want to make some changes in forestry, get involved!!! Get a hold of the companies and ask for their Forest Stewardship Plan, FSP,. Attend their open house and ask the tough questions, they have to reply to them. Get your local club doing the same thing and get others involved as well.

We can make changes, it will not happen overnight, but it will happen. We just need to DO IT TOGETHER!!!

Cheers

SS

[HarryToolips]

Get your local club doing the same thing and get others involved as well.



SS[/QUOTE]

I think this is the easiest way to start.. I'm gonna try and talk about it at my club's next meetin.. what would be cool I think is if more large patches of old growth forest were left along-side all these huge amounts of clear-cut areas..from my experience I find the ungulates do like the shelter near the good forage of the clear-cuts, in areas with thick brush and lots of blowdown I usually still find lots of tracks, sign, and I get lots of pics of em on my T-cam in these areas..I imagine it would be better refuge from preds in these areas too?? Besides, there's nothin more cool in the bush I find than bushwhackin through areas of old-growth with all the various flora and fauna that have been barely touched by people.. way cooler than some re-planted cutblock with only one species of trees surrounded by bushroads.. ohya, and wouldn't it be cool if the loggin companies were required to de-activate even a third of the roads they make?? I would think that would help the moose and mulies in particular??

[Sitkaspruce]

Get a hold of the district and regional Stewardship Forester any ask about their OGMA's (old growth management area's), get a hold of their plan, ask questions about it, get to know what the how they work and follow the plan.

It's all about getting involved, learning the how, what, why and where of the different plans. That includes deactivation plans.

At the FSP stage is where you can make your comments about access control and deactivation. But remember that deac. costs
$$$, who is going to pay for that. Companies deac for environmental or liability purposes, not for access control.

Cheers

SS

[Walksalot]

All of the logging pans for habitat preservation, timber for the animals to hide in and migration corridors seem to go out the window when the logging companies log an area under the rational of chasing the beetle.

[HarryToolips]

All of the logging pans for habitat preservation, timber for the animals to hide in and migration corridors seem to go out the window when the logging companies log an area under the rational of chasing the beetle.
Ya seems your right about that..and thanks Sitka I'll look into that...

[Walksalot]

Burning was changed by Foresters, not gov. Studies showed that, for growing trees, slow, rotting wood is better than a burn. A burn supplies nutrients for a short time (up to 20 years), CWD supplies nutrients up to 40 years. Better for growing trees, which is what the gov wants. The other reason is overachieving, which I was part of a few times. It is now known as liability. Burn the forest and you will be held for the cost of suppression.

If people want to make some changes in forestry, get involved!!! Get a hold of the companies and ask for their Forest Stewardship Plan, FSP,. Attend their open house and ask the tough questions, they have to reply to them. Get your local club doing the same thing and get others involved as well.

We can make changes, it will not happen overnight, but it will happen. We just need to DO IT TOGETHER!!!

Cheers

SS

Some trees and shrubs need intense heat to germinate the seeds. This is and has been since the origin of the species.The nutrients and micro nutrients created by combustion provide sustenance for plant life and the animals, both predator and prey, reap the rewards. Can Mother Nature be that wrong? There was a forester on the news not all that long ago stating how the public has to be re-educated as to the importance fire plays within the life of a healthy forest. Go into any forest and dig a hole, chances are better than not that a layer or two of ash will be uncovered.
British Columbia will be a well of information as to how a forest regenerates itself because some of the dead forest will burn and some will fall and rot. I suspect many a paper will be written as to which is best. If I understand it correctly other countries look at the way our forests were handled and they are using our forests as an example of what not to do.

[Sitkaspruce]

Yup, there is species that need fire to germinate, but not intense heat, just a good old fire. Too hot and you will "cook" the ground, burning off the duff layer and basically render it ungrowable. Pine and other species that need heat to germinate benefit from slow moving, cooler ground and crown fires. Broadcast burns are not like that, they burn fast, hot and can actually do more damage than good if not done properly. See it with my own eyes.

And we cannot forget a lawyers favorite word...LIABILITY. Not too many insurance companies will insure a company for over achivements.

Cheers

SS

[GoatGuy]

I think SSs point was foresters and forest companies manage for trees not wildlife habitat and vegetation.

So if you want to change things you need to change the way they manage the landscape pre and post harvest.

[Walksalot]

Yup, there is species that need fire to germinate, but not intense heat, just a good old fire. Too hot and you will "cook" the ground, burning off the duff layer and basically render it ungrowable. Pine and other species that need heat to germinate benefit from slow moving, cooler ground and crown fires. Broadcast burns are not like that, they burn fast, hot and can actually do more damage than good if not done properly. See it with my own eyes.

And we cannot forget a lawyers favorite word...LIABILITY. Not too many insurance companies will insure a company for over achivements.

Cheers

SS

I have walked through forests of all species and seen the remnants of a burned forest laying on the ground and other trees burned to stumps. The forest was tall and healthy. You may be correct in a cooler fire in so much as all the seeds of a species not germinating and there is not the dog hair stands which grow up in a pine forest after a hot fire, and I am not talking scorched earth.
As far as liability goes, there can be no liable suit if Mother Nature starts the fires in the stands of dead pines and dead pines and shadows of dead pines as far as the eye could see. Robert Service, please forgive me.

[Keta1969]

I think SSs point was foresters and forest companies manage for trees not wildlife habitat and vegetation.

So if you want to change things you need to change the way they manage the landscape pre and post harvest.

This is so true. I watched in alarm as prime winter habitat was disappearing in an area I liked to hunt. I became so concerned I went to the companies office and spoke to engineers and they assured me they were aware of it and no more logging was slated. They then helicopter logged the last of it before the next hunting season.

[gcreek]

All the habitat restructuring you dream about isn't going to do shit for ungulates at this point unless a few thousand wolves are dealt with and strict limits on all hunting for EVERYONE are applied.

[one-shot-wonder]

Odds are its more feasible to plan and execute a habitat enhancement project than it would be to reduce the wolf population in a said area by 80% in today's day and age......Predator issues shouldn't be ignored but habitat appears to be the 'low hanging fruit' in the current picture.

[Hunting/addict]

The answer is actually relatively simple. Dont worry about summer habitat as there has always beenmore than ungulates can utilize. Increase the winter range value and protect from logging, human subdivision encroachment etc. Dont allow forest companies tochange our valuable fir stands into monoculture pine stands.

The next two things are to reduce predator populations and reduce access.In the past 35 years I have watched access in the area increase to a point where it is virtually impossible to be more than 2km off a road other than the alpine areas. The alpine areas are being subjected to more pressure and access from constructed quad trails. We have 100000 less hunters in the province than in the seventies and eighties.

Reduce predators and access and increase winer range values and the ungulates will increase themselves. And to the people who say there is no problem then you need to talk to people who have been around awhile. My one example of many involves an alpine area where in the early eighties it was not uncommon to see 100 plus deer the majority bucks in a weekend scouting trip in august. My last trip into the same area 3 years ago revealed less than 19 deer inthe same amount of time.

[GoatGuy]

All the habitat restructuring you dream about isn't going to do shit for ungulates at this point unless a few thousand wolves are dealt with and strict limits on all hunting for EVERYONE are applied.

Hahaha, access will control the 'everyone' program.

Predator control obviously works but I will say this: you can go into the middle of northern BC or the YK, in areas where g/os do no predator control/trapping, burn it to the ground and have a ton of moose for the next two decades, or more.

With great phenomenal habitat you can have predators, hunters and lots of game. With marginal habitat at least one of the three or all three are going to take a hit.