DEC Proposes No Grouse/wc/hare Management for Tug Hill WMA -- Hunter Comments Needed by Dec 20!

[mudbat]

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) proposes to manage the Tug Hill Wildlife Management Area for mature, closed-canopy forest (NOT good grouse, hare or other game habitat) unless they receive significant opposition to their plan. DEC is accepting public comment on the draft Tug Hill North Unit Management Plan through this Friday, Dec. 20. The draft plan (http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/regions_pdf/thndrump.pdf) outlines management direction for 8 State Forest parcels totalling about 37,000 ac, and the Tug Hill WMA (5,111 ac).

Most of the Tug Hill WMA (approx. 5,000 acres) was purchased using Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Funds, which are a federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment which were championed by hunters for the purposes of “…restore, enhance, and manage wildlife resources, and to conduct state hunter education programs.” However, NYSDEC proposes only uneven-age forest management for the Tug Hill WMA, which will make the Tug Hill WMA less suitable for grouse, woodcock, hares, deer, and bear, rather than improve it for these species. The draft plan does mention creation of early successional habitat for at least a portion of the state forest parcels (although it's unclear how much, where or when).

Please tell DEC that the Tug Hill Wildlife Management Area should be actively managed using even-age forestry practices to make this WMA the premier destination for upland hunters seeking ruffed grouse, American woodcock, and snowshoe hare in the Tug Hill Plateau of upstate New York.

The DEC is accepting written comments on the draft Tug Hill North Unit Management Plan through this Friday, December 20, 2013, by mail to: Andrea Mercurio at DEC 7327 State Hwy 812, Lowville, New York 13367 or e-mail [email protected] . In your comments you may like to use the following bullets:
• Thank DEC for the opportunity to comment, and for the balanced multi-use proposal for the state forest parcels in the northern part of the Tug Hill North Unit.
• A major portion of the Tug Hill WMA should be managed using even-age forestry practices to improve habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock, snowshoe hare, and other wildlife, and make Tug Hill WMA the premier publicly-owned property in the region for sportsmen and sportswomen seeking these species.

Thank you! – Andrew Weik, Northeast Regional Biologist, Ruffed Grouse Society

[mike rossi]

I support the RGS, however, I am not sure about this one. The idea of managing every acre in the 5,000 acre Tug Hill WMA as young forest will not work with the political climate of NY. This would create 5k acres of small trees and brush, great for the game species listed and a wide diversity of other species, but would require frequent maintenance to keep it all young. If the RGS was partnering with the DEC I would take this more seriously, but a mixed aged forest proposed by the DEC is a very happy compromise which may not be optimum for grouse, it is very good. 

 

If the RGS and other NGOs  and their local chapters partnered ( a common practice) in this with the DEC it would be easier to believe the feasibility of even-aged management on a 5k acre tract, which as the RGS pointed out is a Pitman Robertson property. The draft plan is for one wma and 8 state forests, and It is commendable that the RGS argues or implies that at least the single WMA should be  managed differently than the 8 state forests. The email blast doesn't indicate if the RGS or other NGOs have approached the DEC with any partnership proposal, though they may have.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding them, but the more common practice of managing different age classes of trees in 10 or 20 acre blocks seems more practical than clear cutting 5k acres and then maintaining the entire tract. Another issue is prescribed fire. I believe that the FWS has used it in NY , but I don't think the DEC has a PF crew? That would be one less tool the DEC would have to maintain the habitat in a young, even-aged state...

 

Believe me , I don't agree with the DEC on everything. As a matter of fact, I pestered them about a moist-soil project (wetland) which was pending for 30 years and was working out an adopt a natural resource agreement with them, then somehow in the interim, the project got started and completed. I think NGOs or even a group of sportsmen can partner or partner under a smaller scale known as the adopt a natural resource program ( see the DEC website). And I admit I don't follow the RGS very closely, but this stakeholder input campaign caught me by surprise and personally I don't have enough information to support it...

 

 

[Doewhacker]

I support ANY kind of idea's for Upland habitat, obviously other game animals benefit too. This is the biggest thing Ny lacks unfortunately, instead we do little to nothing. All I needed to do was see NH, VT and Maine to know we are missing the mark for bird habitat. Why do we sink money into Pheasant or Spruce Grouse?, we should be holding on to what we can have and thats Grouse, rabbit, Woodcock ect. Frustrating to say the least.

[mike rossi]

I support ANY kind of idea's for Upland habitat, obviously other game animals benefit too. This is the biggest thing Ny lacks unfortunately, instead we do little to nothing. All I needed to do was see NH, VT and Maine to know we are missing the mark for bird habitat. Why do we sink money into Pheasant or Spruce Grouse?, we should be holding on to what we can have and thats Grouse, rabbit, Woodcock ect. Frustrating to say the least.

 

We talked quite a bit on here about the social benefits of pheasant and the indirect biological benefits to grassland species of conservation concern. Those non game species, like the spruce grouse, are to be allocated money as well. I was in a muffler shop and read the NRA magazine special conservation issue expressively stating that PR Funds are only to be used for game species - I don't believe that is correct and I am sure that there are large sources of funds which are not derived from hunters. I bring this up because it leads into the concept of partnership - not all NGOs are concerned with game species. The RGS may have overlapping goals with other conservation organizations, in order to pool together resources, ie. money, there has to be consistent goals. It is now accepted that it is foolish not to consider broad-based public support for any and all management decisions.

 

In case that doesn't address the part about holding onto "what we can have" species are classified into levels of concern. You apparently don't care about extinction and will likely go on with a right-wing chant and call me a liberal and all that idiotic crap... If you don't think the legal mandates of state and federal wildlife agencies should cover anything but game, go ahead and write them, lol... Go tell them how hunters pay for all of it and all that crap. Post up the reply.

 

Does this OP dude even hunt birds? LMAO, if he thinks grouse habitat is a good place to run a sled or if we are talking commercial timber harvest, he is mistaken, unless you sled through brush... After the first timber harvest, a brush hog and a match is what will keep the trees young and even- they aint going to grow to commercial value under a grouse management regime... Yup, until I see a picture of him with his bird dog and a smoothbore I think this thread is just another right-winger...

[Doewhacker]

Try not to be so negative Mike.

 

I didn't say I didn't care about non-game species or extinction, this is a hunting forum and a thread related to hunting.

 

My idea is that if we focus heavily on game that can and will flurish in this state the others that are struggling will benefit too!

 

 

 

 

[mike rossi]

You have to keep in mind two things operating when you discuss conservation: 1) the level of awareness your audience (readers on this forum for example) 2) misinformation they may have been fed no fault of their own.

 

Back to this recommendations by the Ruffed Grouse Society. They are suggesting a management regime that has been successful in the Michigan aspen barrens - an area basicly a monoculture (one dominant species of tree). That tree is the aspen, which grouse love. It is a shade intolerant and short lived tree - attributes which make it work well with clear cutting. I don't believe tug hill flora is the same. Clear cuts are a loser with hardwoods and saw-toothed conifers, which correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would describe the flora (trees) around tug hill? Another thing, the regime used in Michigan only cleared 40 acre blocks, this email blast implies their suggestion is 5,000 to 5,111 acres all at once?

 

I have defended both biologists, science in general, and NGOs (non government organizations such as the ruffed grouse society) all the time. I also have advocated for more investment in small game and waterfowl. However I don't really see where the RGS biologists are going with this one, I hate to say it but it seems like a publicity stunt. I could be wrong, I am no expert in forest management. Without any knowledge of the RGS making any prior attempts to enter a cooperative agreement with the DEC on managing TH WMA reinforces my doubts. Again, as I said, I don't follow the RGS very closely and I can be wrong about that as well. But from the info given on this e mail blast I am not submitting public comment to the DEC and making the recommendations outlined by the RGS. There is only one day left to comment and I first received the message from the RGS two or three days ago - not enough time or info for me to decide. As much as I trust NGOs I am familiar with, I am not their puppet, you guys should operate the same way with the NRA, the Republican/Conservative party, the NY Conservation Council and all the right wing evangalists you all "subscribe" too...

 

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by mike rossi

[mudbat]

You have to keep in mind two things operating when you discuss conservation: 1) the level of awareness your audience (readers on this forum for example) 2) misinformation they may have been fed no fault of their own.

 

Back to this recommendations by the Ruffed Grouse Society. They are suggesting a management regime that has been successful in the Michigan aspen barrens - an area basicly a monoculture (one dominant species of tree). That tree is the aspen, which grouse love. It is a shade intolerant and short lived tree - attributes which make it work well with clear cutting. I don't believe tug hill flora is the same. Clear cuts are a loser with hardwoods and saw-toothed conifers, which correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would describe the flora (trees) around tug hill? Another thing, the regime used in Michigan only cleared 40 acre blocks, this email blast implies their suggestion is 5,000 to 5,111 acres all at once?

 

I have defended both biologists, science in general, and NGOs (non government organizations such as the ruffed grouse society) all the time. I also have advocated for more investment in small game and waterfowl. However I don't really see where the RGS biologists are going with this one, I hate to say it but it seems like a publicity stunt. I could be wrong, I am no expert in forest management. Without any knowledge of the RGS making any prior attempts to enter a cooperative agreement with the DEC on managing TH WMA reinforces my doubts. Again, as I said, I don't follow the RGS very closely and I can be wrong about that as well. But from the info given on this e mail blast I am not submitting public comment to the DEC and making the recommendations outlined by the RGS. There is only one day left to comment and I first received the message from the RGS two or three days ago - not enough time or info for me to decide. As much as I trust NGOs I am familiar with, I am not their puppet, you guys should operate the same way with the NRA, the Republican/Conservative party, the NY Conservation Council and all the right wing evangalists you all "subscribe" too...

Hi Mr. Rossi,

thanks for your reply to my post. You bring up some points that need clarification, lest readers get the wrong impression.  I see that by providing too little information I was misunderstood.

DEC is accepting public comment on the draft Tug Hill North Unit Management Plan that pertains to 8 State Forest parcels and 1 Wildlife Management Area on the Tug Hill Plateau.  There is much to like about the proposal as it relates to the State Forest parcels, particularly in the northern portion of the unit -- both even-age and uneven-age forest management will be employed on the State Forest properties, and should result in significant habitat benefit to a wide array of species including grouse, woodcock, hare, and deer (and many others).  It's a really balanced approach.

Now let me back up one step, as I used two forestry terms that may need explaining as not everyone is versed in forestry: even-age and uneven-age forest management.

Even-age forest practices are designed to produce a new crop of trees that are all nearly the same age (5 yrs plus or minus) and often results in a fairly dense (10-20,000 stems/acre) stand of saplings that provide excellent escape cover and food for prey species such as grouse, woodcock, rabbits and hares, as well as deer, bear, and moose, and of course a prey base for predators such as  bobcat, goshawk, and Cooper's hawk, and is important habitat for a great many other species of wildlife (see www.youngforest.org for more info); the young, dense stands provide this type of habitat for up to about 20 yrs (depending on the wildlife species of interest), and thereafter the stand becomes more suitable for wildlife that prefer more mature forest such as grey squirrels, flying squirrels, marten, and some songbirds.  Species such as ruffed grouse use all these different age classes of forest, but the young stage (5-20 yrs) is essential. Even-age practices include clear cutting, shelterwood harvests, and seed-tree harvests, all of which remove a substantial proportion of the canopy and allow sunlight to the forest floor to stimulate natural regeneration of trees (from stump and root sprouts as well as from seed).

Uneven-age management is designed to maintain a forest composed of trees of all ages from saplings to very large trees.  Timber harvests are less intense, with small canopy gaps resulting from removing single (single tree selection) or small groups of trees (group selection). Saplings of shade-tolerant trees (e.g. hemlock, beech, sugar maple) will regenerate in these gaps, but the gap size is too small to benefit the majority of the wildlife that require the dense young stands (early successional habitat) mentioned above. This type of management benefits wildlife that prefer or need mature forest. 

 These 2 categories of management are applied at the Forest Stand level (e.g. 5-30 acres) not at the landscape level (e.g. 10,000 acres of single age forest). We can use even-age management of stands to produce a forest of multiple age classes (sapling to sawtimber). The two types of management can complement each other, and a combination of even-age and uneven-age management will conserve the greatest diversity of wildlife relative to all of one type of management or the other.  If only one type of management were practiced, well-planned even-age management would be more beneficial to a greater diversity of species, particularly the species indicated by DEC as being of greatest conservation concern, than would uneven-age management.

In the Tug Hill Unit Management Plan, what is proposed for the northern portion of the unit on state forests seems to be a balanced approach, whereas what is proposed for the Tug Hill Wildlife Management Area in the southern part of the region (uneven-age management) will make the Tug Hill WMA less suitable for grouse, woodcock, hares, and many other species.

Now, back to what RGS is or isn't suggesting in regards to the Tug Hill Wildlife Management Area, which encompasses 5,111 acres in the southern portion of the Tug Hill planning unit: we are proposing that a major portion of this Wildlife Management Area (which was purchased largely using sportsman/woman-generated P-R Wildlife Restoration funds) be managed using even-age forestry practices to improve habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock, snowshoe hare, and other wildlife, and make Tug Hill WMA the premier publicly-owned property in the region for sportsmen and sportswomen seeking these species.

That doesn't seem like too much to ask.

What I did NOT say is that DEC should put in a 5,000 acre clear cut (RGS would oppose that!).  Remember that grouse need all stages of forest growth from brushy & herbaceous openings and dense sapling stands all the way up through mature trees for winter food (e.g. buds of birches, aspen, black cherry), and this bird's homerange is only about 10-40 ac, so it needs these different stages of forest growth all in fairly close proximity -- something that a 5,000 ac clear cut will not provide.   

Let me sketch out a long term plan for grouse/wildlife diversity on a 1,000 ac planning unit of northern hardwood forest (dominated by beech-birch-maple): we'll assume a 100 year rotation (any particular stand will be harvested once every 100 years), with a cutting cycle of 10 years so there's always some 1-10 and 10-20 yr old stands available as essential grouse habitat.  The typical harvest prescription for northern hardwoods would be shelterwood in which the overstory of crop trees would be harvested in 2 (or more) cuttings, the final removal being after sufficient seedlings/saplins have regenerated.  So, every 10 years, 10 acres would be harvested, and the cutting would be planned so that new stands to be cut would be in close proximity to stands cut 10 or 20 years prior (you can imagine how the young forest habitat shifts across the 1,000 ac planning unit over time).  This type of management is self-sustaining in that it generates revenues from timber sales to pay for the management, and also it provides habitat for a broad array of species from young forest specialists to those needing mature forest.

I hope I've cleared things up.

I'd be happy to try to answer any questions about habitat, habitat management, or the birds.

 

Andy

[mike rossi]

Andy,

 

Thanks for explaining that. I was only vaguely familiar with the concepts of even and uneven management and my intuition went astray based on what the terms sound like they mean... Intuition is usually dead wrong and it was... A shelter harvest on the forest - stand level, which you indicated was 5 to 30 acres, would seemingly produce better habitat than single tree selection or group tree selection.

 

I am sure the DEC has its reasons, likely being economics and public relations; but based on what I learned from you I would support the RGS's regime over the DEC's.

 

Although I do not live terribly far from Tug Hill, I never visited the WMA. However, this got me interested and I checked it out on the DEC website. Even with the current management regime it has a lot of attributes of good, productive habitat. I don't want to over emphasize aspen again, and I know that aspen is very common and widely distributed, but knowing the snow fall of the region and seeing all the wetlands, the tract seems like an area that species would thrive. I think I had implied otherwise was the case.

 

Thanks again for the information and educating me , would like to see more of it!

Edited December 20, 2013 by mike rossi