I found out some Shocking info about where Californias Deer Population may have gone

[Hackleback]

This has been a common practice for decades. Get rid of the hardwoods to "release" the conifers.

 

[Jimbob]

Lots of spraying up here in Canada. Some people are starting to blame the moose decline on this. Where I grew up moose hunting they sprayed all the time and the moose have always been around. I don't like the idea of the spraying but it has been going on for a long time. My experience has shown that it has no effect on wildlife. Also when I was a kid there were no deer in the area then 20 years later we were shooting deer every season.

 

[ceng]

Herbicides has been used for decades. Just because people are starting to realize it now doesn't mean it's bad. Correlation is not causation. I hunt every year for blacktails in some of the most heavily managed tree farms, and not a year goes by that a deer tag doesn't get filled. I find it quite amusing that whenever people aren't seeing animals they have to find someone or something to blame other than their skills as a hunter. I hear it every year, " I didn't see a deer all season" " numbers aren't what they use to be" " damn all the predators". In forestry less round up is applied to a drive way by a homeowner than on one acre of timberland. Also it has no downstream effects. It is applied during dry weather and binds to the soil. It attacks a protein that is responsible for the photosynthesis process. A protein animals don't carry. Please stop spreading the this misinformation because you just now became aware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop using non sequitur arguments. I'm not just arguing from a "correlation" perspective. It seems crazy to me that you can diminish a food source so drastically and not impact a population. I believe that's just a good understanding of how nature works. I understand that it's a multi factorial thing, but the fact of the matter is if you take all the logging activity and remove any nutritional value for deer you are going to drastically impact the herd. I've heard the arguments about glyphosphate going away etc. You say "Loggers create habitat," but perhaps you should say "Loggers used to create habitat" because with these forestry management practices none of what they are doing produces anything useful for deer or other wildlife. I'm pro logging, I always have been. I just don't appreciate how its still being sold as "creating habitat" when it clearly isn't. I did see several deer, just almost entirely in the wilderness areas. The lack of deer sign is ridiculous in the "timber managed areas" especially where there are large swaths of private timber. I think predators have taken a bit too much blame, how are deer to reproduce and survive if the food source isn't there? It's crazy and seems like a damaging and dishonest forest practice. So yeah I'm upset, and yeah I just found out, but I don't think that makes it missinformation to say it's impacting the deer population.

 

[MattB]

Do they do this in OR? How is the deer population doing in comparison?

I doubt this is a significant factor in the CA deer decline as populations in areas without timber harvest are likewise any down over the past ~25 years, but it is interesting to note.

 

[541hunter]

Herbicides have been used since at least the 60's in forestry all over the West coast and Canada. There have been boom and bust cycles of deer populations the entire time. Also they are very expensive to use and standard practice is only for the first 3 growing seasons. Just long enough for the trees to get established above competing vegetation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[541hunter]

Do they do this in OR? How is the deer population doing in comparison?

I doubt this is a significant factor in the CA deer decline as populations in areas without timber harvest are likewise any down over the past ~25 years, but it is interesting to note.

Yes I don't know of a timber company on the west coast that doesn't use them at some point in time when trying to establish a stand. Deer populations in my area of southern Oregon are stable. Odfw actually thinks the largest threat to blacktail deer populations in Oregon are bobcats. Which is something I didn't think of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Foresters don't give a sh&% about deer populations. Just making timber.

Much of the wildlife habitat that this country had after the industrial revolution was created by Forest management. As a Forester, the most requested objective I get from landowners is improving habitat quality.





Coniferous trees require a head start to out compete natural succession. Herbicide may be used initially and in the first few growing seasons but it isn't long term. Thinning follows, then harvest. Replant and repeat. It creates a monoculture environment within those harvest areas and will indeed affect carrying capacity forest wide once the deer remove the surrounding natural browse. I seriously doubt that is being done on public lands to any extent.


Your issuei s with company boards members and investment funds

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Yes I don't know of a timber company on the west coast that doesn't use them at some point in time when trying to establish a stand. Deer populations in my area of southern Oregon are stable. Odfw actually thinks the largest threat to blacktail deer populations in Oregon are bobcats. Which is something I didn't think of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same here. In the dead of winter in our mountains, wildlife studies have shown deep snow depredation of deer is led by bobcats. When the snow gets a couple feet or deeper, the deer don't stand a chance.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

There is no spraying within 50 miles of me....and the blacktail population has dwindled dramatically over the last 30 years.....

Before you start ringing your hands over the loggers.....I can tell you its ALWAYS a multi faceted answer. Very rarely its one thing.

Interesting corollary....as the mtn lion population has gone up [since the hunting ban on lions] the deer population has declined. It is a fact that deer are a mtn lions #1 food source afterall. Seems to indicate a relationship, eh?

Predators have overall exploded in CA....don't you think THAT would have a significant impact?


In my east bay area....you see very few deer out in the hills [ like zero-hills that i hike multiple times a week] but then when you get back into the areas around homes and such....bingo- the deer. So why do you think that is? Well of course the deer are seeking refuge and protection from predators......

Before you start blaming loggers which actually create habitat for deer by logging.........you might want to look at these liberal anti hunting groups and politicians....just a thought.

(Insert the sound of a mic dropping)









Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, i know. I should've read the posts before posting mine.

 

[outdoor_matt]

It seems like the monocultures being created are more the problem than the actual herbicide, and that makes total sense.
I patrol powerlines here in Alberta, and we use herbicides all the time to kill trees under the line right-of-ways. It's generally a foiliar spray that is applied when dry out, and the potency of it is so low that it doesnt even matter if cattle are grazing right around it. Far different than herbiciding vast tracts of clear cuts, though. We stay away from streams and riparian areas obviously, but the half life on the products we use is quite short, even if it gets in water.

 

[Huntindog45]

Herbicides has been used for decades. Just because people are starting to realize it now doesn't mean it's bad. Correlation is not causation. I hunt every year for blacktails in some of the most heavily managed tree farms, and not a year goes by that a deer tag doesn't get filled. I find it quite amusing that whenever people aren't seeing animals they have to find someone or something to blame other than their skills as a hunter. I hear it every year, " I didn't see a deer all season" " numbers aren't what they use to be" " damn all the predators". In forestry less round up is applied to a drive way by a homeowner than on one acre of timberland. Also it has no downstream effects. It is applied during dry weather and binds to the soil. It attacks a protein that is responsible for the photosynthesis process. A protein animals don't carry. Please stop spreading the this misinformation because you just now became aware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This has to be the most out of touch post in this thread. No one is saying the herbicides effect the deer directly as a poison. The herbicides applied, in mass, by a small army of migrant workers wearing tyvek, resprirators and back back pumps, kills off the young growth in a forest. It effects the foots source. so nice attempt to argue a point by pointing out information completely unrelated to the argument. as for you your comment that more glyphosate is applied to the average drive way is just ludicrous. you should see them when they are applying this stuff. A huge tank will be stationed near the unit. The small army of men described above loads up their backpack pumps and proceeds to kill everything in their path. That is how it is done on nearly every single cut on SPI land. That is not even up for debate. they will tell you as much. accept for a few areas they have to avoid they pretty much hit every square inch of any shrub that is starting to grow.

 

[Huntindog45]

(Insert the sound of a mic dropping)









Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, i know. I should've read the posts before posting mine.

yah except he is talking about very different deer herds. The deer in the east bay are largely non migratory herds that rely on large tracts of land to live out most of their life. Those tracts of land are decreasing in size and are largely being hit by a butt load of different factors from predators, to increased human use, more roads, more vehicle interactions etc. The highly migratory deer herds in the north state are being effected by many of the same factors but they are also losing winter range and seasonal food sources, which is where the spraying of herbicides comes in. Again, logging is a great tool for big game management. The current practices of killing off the vegetation goes against that idea though. It is greed pure and simple and frankly as long as the private land holding use this practice their argument that they are managing land in an ecologically sound manner is lost.

 

[541hunter]

You do realize what they are applying is mostly water with very little chemical in it. That is a very expensive way apply it. I'm glad I am not a forester in California. You don't have to believe me. You can make all the assumptions you want based on what you see. I mean I am only stating what I know because this is part of my job and my education. It's much easier to spread fear based on assumptions than is to educate.

Forest and wildlife managers in the
Pacifi c Northwest have long been interested
in relationships between commercial forestry
practices and deer and elk populations. For
example, information on interactions between
contemporary stand regeneration practices
and deer and elk population dynamics, habitat
preferences and diet can be used to calculate
landscape carrying capacity and set harvest
quotas. Generally, Douglas firr plantations are
planted with high densities of seedling nursery
stock (~400-450 trees per acre) and herbicide treatments are applied during the first two years after planting to reduce competition between conifer seedlings and grasses, forbs and shrubs. Even in the absence of forage, deer and elk frequently utilize commercial tree plantations and browse planted seedlings and saplings. Intense and prolonged browsing by deer and elk may impact economic viability of commercial tree plantations by suppressing growth and reducing wood quality.
One attempt to examine herbicide efects on the quality of ungulate forage is a retrospective study in the Mt. St. Helens area of Washington. Researchers from the University of Alberta and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) sampled inside and outside of ungulate exclosures to evaluate potential impacts of herbivory on plant community composition in both herbicide-treated and untreated regenerating harvest units. In regenerating units (1-13 years old), 65 percent of the plant biomass outside the exclosures was composed of plant species that were unpalatable forage to elk. Average shrub height was reduced but total shrub biomass was not in sample plots outside the exclosures. Overall, herbicide applications reduced both total and palatable biomass in 1- and 2-year-old units and, while biomass of unpalatable species remained suppressed after 10 years, biomass of palatable species was no different from that found in untreated stands. Also in this study, forage biomass in treated regenerating stands was compared to that in mature (>60 years old) forest stands: results indicated that young treated stands contained,
on average, twice as much biomass as mature stands, and in some cases biomass of palatable species was six times higher. These results suggest that current commercial forestry practices are compatible with maintenance of ungulate forage species.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

Next we will be banning the planting of Coastal Bermuda on private property

 

[541hunter]

This has to be the most out of touch post in this thread. No one is saying the herbicides effect the deer directly as a poison. The herbicides applied, in mass, by a small army of migrant workers wearing tyvek, resprirators and back back pumps, kills off the young growth in a forest. It effects the foots source. so nice attempt to argue a point by pointing out information completely unrelated to the argument. as for you your comment that more glyphosate is applied to the average drive way is just ludicrous. you should see them when they are applying this stuff. A huge tank will be stationed near the unit. The small army of men described above loads up their backpack pumps and proceeds to kill everything in their path. That is how it is done on nearly every single cut on SPI land. That is not even up for debate. they will tell you as much. accept for a few areas they have to avoid they pretty much hit every square inch of any shrub that is starting to grow.

Also if you want to read more about forestry and ungulates please follow the link below:

https://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2017-05/OFRI managed forests elk deer_for_web.pdf


Here is some information about herbicide use:
https://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/OFRI_Herbicides-sheet_PRINT.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whisky]

Obviously this ins't an argument against herbicides (at least I hope not). You don't blame the disc for the thousands of lost CRP acres in the Dakotas right? I see this as a habitat vs industry argument. Whether it's forests in CA, coal mines in WY or ag fields in the Dakotas it really doesn't matter the industry or location. The fact is there is becoming less and less habitat for wildlife. There are more mouths to feed and houses to build then ever before. Sucks, but it is what it is. Also puts more pressure on the state Game and Fish departments to manage the herds the best they can, with the cards they are dealt. I've seen first hand what a combo of drastic habitat loss, harsh winters, increase in predators, and mismanagement of deer tags can do to a population. Record high deer tags one year, cut by more then 50% the following year. You want to talk about pissed off sportsmen?!

Even though I do think it's the most important factor, you solve the habitat problem, you're only part way there.......

 

[Huntindog45]

Also if you want to read more about forestry and ungulates please follow the link below:

https://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2017-05/OFRI managed forests elk deer_for_web.pdf


Here is some information about herbicide use:
https://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/OFRI_Herbicides-sheet_PRINT.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

all this is awesome. It is too bad Sierra Pacific Industries does not follow the same strict guidelines and protocols here in California. Oregon has done a far better job at regulating the private forest management. Which is why so many of us go to Oregon to hunt now, they have far better deer herds. California (the subject of this thread) has not, which is largely why there is only a small percentage of the migratory deer population as there once was. As far as i am concerned SPI (the largest land owner in all California) is the devil. It is crazy that the one state that over regulates everything has largely left this unregulated. I have a cabin in the mountains here surrounded by SPI land. The cuts we see are nuked almost immediately after cutting and they grow nothing for a long time, You NEVER see the sprouting deciduous shrubs, ever. Usually a few years after the cut the rows of single species evergreen forests take over and soon you have a single species homogeneous row crop forest. I would love it if they applied the sound principals of forest management described in these websites. the fact is they don't.

 

[541hunter]

all this is awesome. It is too bad Sierra Pacific Industries does not follow the same strict guidelines and protocols here in California. Oregon has done a far better job at regulating the private forest management. Which is why so many of us go to Oregon to hunt now, they have far better deer herds. California (the subject of this thread) has not, which is largely why there is only a small percentage of the migratory deer population as there once was. As far as i am concerned SPI (the largest land owner in all California) is the devil. It is crazy that the one state that over regulates everything has largely left this unregulated. I have a cabin in the mountains here surrounded by SPI land. The cuts we see are nuked almost immediately after cutting and they grow nothing for a long time, You NEVER see the sprouting deciduous shrubs, ever. Usually a few years after the cut the rows of single species evergreen forests take over and soon you have a single species homogeneous row crop forest. I would love it if they applied the sound principals of forest management described in these websites. the fact is they don't.

Given I don't work for SPI. But I do know California is one of the hardest states to operate in the forest Industry, due to very strict regulations. I hope you kind find factual information on their processes. As I think someone mentioned before, Cal Fire would be a good place to start. I ask that while you search for information that you keep an open mind and not to jump to conclusions. A foresters job is hard enough with out having battle misinformation. Every forester I personally know is an avid hunter and conservationist.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Azone]

Poaching and predation are doing way more damage to deer herds than glyphosphate. I'm not saying I agree with the use of glyphosphate in the mountains but I really dont believe it is the main reason behind our deer herds disappearing.
Where I hunt, only maybe 2 to 3 out of 10 does had fawns with them this year. This was my season average gustimation. Where as 5 to 6 years ago that average would have been flipped the other way.

What has changed you ask? We just came out of a unprecedented drought, coyote numbers are up with a vengeance (ranchers bitch about all the coyotes but wont give permission to go hunt or shoot them, it's a screwed situation). Black bears are on the rise and there is no hunting of them in my area (central coast) and the fan favorite in these parts MOUNTAIN LIONS! Due to prop 117 being passed in 1990 all legal hunting of mountain lions was banned. For 28 years lions have been left largely un checked in this state. Anyone saying predators are not having a negative effect around here is living under a rock or has some private ranch honey hole were predators are dealt with aggressively.

Poaching has been getting worse every year and I'm starting to get the sense that DFW really doesn't care unless they catch them red handed. Or if its something to do with one of those stupid condors that are nothing more than a glorified buzzard in my book. Then you will see DFW personnel popping out of squirrel holes to save those stupid things. Then factor in the marijuana grows and all the herbicide and pesticide they pack into the mountains and poison the hell out of everything that's not a pot plant. Then factor in how much deer get slaughtered in vineyards or lettuce fields by farmers with or without depredation permits and it just amazes me that there is still a big enough population to hunt. In my area vineyards have had the worst effect besides lions but no one associates there glass of wine with the death of hundreds of living things. The outlook is really grim and I dont see anything turning it around anytime soon unless there is major predator control implemented in the next few years.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

yah except he is talking about very different deer herds. The deer in the east bay are largely non migratory herds that rely on large tracts of land to live out most of their life. Those tracts of land are decreasing in size and are largely being hit by a butt load of different factors from predators, to increased human use, more roads, more vehicle interactions etc. The highly migratory deer herds in the north state are being effected by many of the same factors but they are also losing winter range and seasonal food sources, which is where the spraying of herbicides comes in. Again, logging is a great tool for big game management. The current practices of killing off the vegetation goes against that idea though. It is greed pure and simple and frankly as long as the private land holding use this practice their argument that they are managing land in an ecologically sound manner is lost.

I don’t live there. I do however make a living managing timber lands for higher production. As well as private land for wildlife habitat. What I know is there are so many facets that you just named, that are going to affect the deer here much more negatively then the browse they loose out on due to spraying.


To clarify, you must include the total acres of habitat, and the age of stands within that habitat, to make the claims you are. In order to be taken seriously with your argument. You can’t realistically throw darts at a board and paint the problem as forest practices driven by greed. It totally exposes your lack of knowledge and, your personal bias against corporate.




You named every Reason Beendare was wrong concerning Northern California, then included those problems as contributing factors to Northern California’s deer problem. You simply are wanting to argue and place blame where it doesn’t belong.



Northern California has a predator problem. Not a forest management problem. Deer are adaptive. They don’t need huge wilderness areas to survive. Quite the opposite really. They require less maintenance then you imply. Yes, habitat loss is a concern. But, foresters understand that threatens their livelihood as well. Hard to manage a forest if none exists.



I get it. You don't like industry. Your prejudice has been made obvious on every topic that allows you to share it. But, the blame lies where it dies. Blame the antis that don’t like any man influenced forest. Blame the residents that protected the leading killer of deer. Blame liberal politics. But, don’t scale goat based on personal politics. It’s important for the deer herd to get this right.