Having worked for both the USFS and the SCDNR as a biologist and LE as well I have always followed these agencies management techniques and applications as they relate to key wildlife species. I have also owned my own Wildlife consulting firm for over 10 years now and have learned the hard way as to wildlife in what works and what does not. There are certainly guys out there that know far more than I and indeed those more versed and well spoken but it seems I have just enough time, credentials and the loud mouth needed to occasionally get an agency moved in the right direction or at least to realize the folly in a current technique. There in is what brings me to post this today on Old Gobbler, which I consider to be one fo the best Wildlife Forums on the web hands down. If you care about the Eastern Wild Turkey and its cousins as well as other wildlife then please read along with us on the topic of Spring Season Burns as it relates to the nesting success of the Eastern Wild Turkey.
In the last 10-15 years a devastating move has been made for wildlife of all types that used to thrive in our National Forests around the country. The move has been made by the United States Forest Service in adopting new prescribed burn technology which utilizes the aerial delivery of fire by helicopter versus the much wider known and studied manual applied drip torch burn. The USFS heralds the application as an invaluable tool which allows time savings due to much quicker burn application, decreasing smoke impact as the burn time is cut in half and the reduction of actual personnel needed to set and tend the fire. Sounds pretty great right? Well not really as the new application is used on a much larger scale and with far less attention to detail.
The days of men gathering around, cutting fire lines around sensitive habitats, paying close attention to Quail and Turkey nesting sites and other wildlife are now a thing of the past. The positivism of setting small mosaic drip torch fires which actually creates habitat in our National Forest are now a thing of the past as well.
The aerial helicopter applied Spring Burn has been fully adopted in our National Forest across the nation and especially the SE. This type of burn is an entirely different beast altogether from the smaller block drip torch applied fires.
Lets me try to explain the difference. In an aerial helicopter delivered spring burn thousands of Fire Eggs , a ping pong ball filled with napalm like substance, are dropped at speeds up to 35 mph to set the head fire, the back fire, the flanking fire and then again to set the internal lateral fires. Nothing escapes and everything including young, eggs and etc are burnt before they can blink an eye or utter a peep. Typically there is a burn prescription that is to be followed that should measure what density of fire eggs/ incendiaries are dropped and where but I have it on first hand knowledge that they continually overload the bins and dump the eggs at will in massive concentrations contrary to the prescription. Obviously the more eggs dropped the quicker the fire burns and the crew gets to go home. I have seen first hand the devastation it causes this aerial burn delivery creates. I imagine some of you may have as well as you drove through a National Forest but your brain didn't click on what you were seeing. Mine didn't either at first.
So whats the big deal some may ask? 1. You have now surrounded the area with fire from above and without announcement to alert the animals instinctual systems to take cover and or run. 2. The aerial fire pays no heed to micro habitats within the block being burnt such as hardwood bottom, ridges, or low lying bays which in the past were protected by maintained fire lines. 3. The chemical incendiary used burns through everything including the tree canopies upon which it falls and even areas that previously wouldn't have been burnt. 4. The tracts being burned with this technique are huge, much larger than the burns of past days some documented upto 6000 acres and over* 5. The aerial fire burns incredibly fast and 7. the helicopter is very very expensive and takes away USFS jobs not creates them.
* in my area the Francis Marion National Forest Service the USFS recently burned over 2300 acres in under 5 hours.
Some of you may or may not know this but at present it is highly noted and even titled in a general name throughout the biological community that the Eastern Wild Turkey is indeed in a quick decline across the South East. Some areas have suffered up to a 40% population decrease especially on National Forest Lands. Thus many SE states decreased the bag limits for the 2016 season. Shouldn't the USFS follow suit to protect such a valuable historical and economic species? One would think so but that door is being firmly slammed right on the Turkeys Waddles.
Now it just so happens that the Eastern Wild Turkey (EWT) decline coincides with the introduction and mass adoption of the aerial delivered fire versus the manual drip torch applied fire. In 2000 many NF lands across the SE were burnt with aerial fire and only three years later the steep decline of the EWT showed itself in the National Forests across the SE and even on to private lands.
I am attempting to raise awareness of this parallel and could use all the support, knowledge base and observation i can get. I do a lot regarding state and federal WMA waterfowl management in our state as well and no matter what common sense or science is put in front of them the mass voices of the public are always what drives the change.
The last burn I refereed to in my area took place in an area known as Guillard Lake in the Francis Marion National Forest. This area was a known high density turkey and quail nesting site. It was torched off via aerial delivery in late April. The results were 2,300 acres burnt in under FIVE hours, the fire was hot and in many places nothing was left except raw dirt with a fine white ash upon the surface. Five Hours !!!!!
Please if you are on FB find my page and comment, friend me, or just hit the like button so that we can show we are all watching and aware.
Let me add I am a proponent of the spring burn when delivered in cool drip torch applied mosaics. These massive redundant fires during the rearing, nesting and brooding season however are causing nothing but further decline in not only habitat but also wildlife numbers. The one species that does greatly benefit from these type of burns is the Red Cockaded Woodpecker which just so happens to provide the USFS with millions of annual funding.. You get the point.
Here are some links and I thank all of the OG members that may chime in.
Here is some data that should make you think as well
(http://i.imgur.com/GlgjxLq.jpg?1)
https://www.facebook.com/scnfs/posts/1148571881860313?comment_id=1148584005192434&reply_comment_id=1149487921768709¬if_t=share_comment¬if_id=1463316746092654
and
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1149134111804090&set=a.1149159641801537.1073741826.100001225355509&type=3&theater¬if_t=like¬if_id=1463408397941531
Well written!
QuoteThe fire is much hotter than fires of past as it is chemical induced in mass quantities of dropped fuel and thus often kills not only wildlife but also tree species not adapted to fire.
The chemical that starts the fire will not affect the fire that is burning in any other site than that where the ping pong ball is dropped. The heat of the fire is related to fuel (understory), wind conditions (wind fanned) and rH. I assume you mean because of the rapidity of the burn line/effectiveness at creating a burn, that is where the damage is done. Do they not set those in a pre determined burn line, or is it a blitzkrieg of a mass of acreage (ie all over, rather than along a wind aided burn line). Just ignorance on my part to that type of burning.
Other than that, pretty much everything you said is spot on. My nephew works for the state and he has found a few nests. Always tries to back burn around them if he can, but like you said, on those hot fires, that won't make much difference.
Are there any links or sources of reading on this subject you can point me (us) to? The feds were out burning this year during our season, but they are still using the drip torch in my area. I called up three hens and had a gobbler at 100 yards in an area where the stumps were still smoking. There are still nest losses even with the mosaic/drip burns too right? I would like to learn more.
I assume spring is chosen to reduce the fuel load and avoid killing trees/crowning as the idea burn time. Is that correct as well? My brother teaches burning/ does P burns and has fought wildland all over the US, my nephew works for the State and one of my best friends owns a land management/P burn company. But they don't come from the biology side, they know how to start/extinguish.
Good topic.
I work with the GFC. spring burns are for hardwood control in pine plantations. the hardwoods don't like fire
another reason for april/may burns is the longleaf pine and wiregrass regeneration. the longleaf ecosystem is making a comeback and many are planting longleaf these days. I actually was on a burn 5/9 and it was under mature longleaf for fuel reduction and wiregrass. I cringed at burning that time, but its my job and it was a smaller acreage. that said, I did find an empty turkey egg. not sure if it hatched there or something else found the nest and destroyed it.
that said, I argee 100% with the OP.
GFC?
Any notable decline in other species that experience these burns?
I hunt on Eglin AFB FL. 465000 acres. That's all they do is burn. Once beautiful wood's has turned in to wire grass and longleaf pines. Every time it starts to green up they burn again. Deer and Turkey numbers way down. Seems the only animal benefits is the coyote.
Having been on a USFS burn crew and a biologist, this OP has no understanding of Rx burning and the dynamics of it. The Ping Pong ball ignition is used in remote area where personal are hard pressed to reach remote areas. With short burning weather Windows, and large areas that need rotational burning, they must employ all available techniques to get burns on the ground. Also, the forest service is in the business of forestry. No in the business of wildlife. That is the USFWS. They are burning for forest production. Managing for good timber often contradicts good wildlife management. Just look at timber companies.
Like always, two sides to the coin. Interesting information in this post.
HogBiologist, so the USFS is managing public land for the timber companies benefit and completely ignoring the wishes/needs of the hunting public?
That seems a bit out of whack. It is a National Forest. Not a National Forest Inc., strictly for profit. The should balance ALL aspects of forest management...wildlife included.
Eglin gets a pass in my book. They have the largest contiguous stand of old growth long leaf pine in the WORLD! How ever they need to manage that tract is okay by me. That is a living museum of ancient Florida and valuable for the stand of pine alone. I keep saying I want to go see it and just never do.
As far as the timber value, a lot of remote places exist in the USA thanks to the money that timber brings in to the Federal coffers. It sucks, but forests need to pay their way as well. USFWS does have a say in management, but not the final say. Although some of the management is not ideal for wildlife, it is better than selling it off to actual timber companies that often have never, and will never, set foot on the land-only the timbering crews and the cruisers see them. They clear cut those stands to the absolute inch of legal allowance to the wet weather areas and leave deforested flat land. A once beautiful turkey oak/scrub pine WMA right behind my house (Robert Brent WMA) got sold off to the timber companies and unlike the Forest Service, who cares a little about wildlife, they care not one bit. You are hard pressed to find a turkey track in those woods that were once a great place to hunt. I would rather have the devil I know than the one I don't.
This is a good discussion though. I like hearing other sides on the burn issue as well.
There are still some areas on Eglin that's nice, but the land I've hunted all my life is slowly turning to waste land as far as hunting go's. I'm sure the timber is valuable as they are clear-cutting alot of wood as well. Like someone said above, there should be a balance between the USFS & USFWS. As it stands now, I don't think USFWS has much.
Quote from: g8rvet on May 16, 2016, 08:38:05 PM
Eglin gets a pass in my book. They have the largest contiguous stand of old growth long leaf pine in the WORLD! How ever they need to manage that tract is okay by me. That is a living museum of ancient Florida and valuable for the stand of pine alone. I keep saying I want to go see it and just never do.
As far as the timber value, a lot of remote places exist in the USA thanks to the money that timber brings in to the Federal coffers. It sucks, but forests need to pay their way as well. USFWS does have a say in management, but not the final say. Although some of the management is not ideal for wildlife, it is better than selling it off to actual timber companies that often have never, and will never, set foot on the land-only the timbering crews and the cruisers see them. They clear cut those stands to the absolute inch of legal allowance to the wet weather areas and leave deforested flat land. A once beautiful turkey oak/scrub pine WMA right behind my house (Robert Brent WMA) got sold off to the timber companies and unlike the Forest Service, who cares a little about wildlife, they care not one bit. You are hard pressed to find a turkey track in those woods that were once a great place to hunt. I would rather have the devil I know than the one I don't.
This is a good discussion though. I like hearing other sides on the burn issue as well.
Quote from: Tail Feathers on May 16, 2016, 06:14:58 PM
HogBiologist, so the USFS is managing public land for the timber companies benefit and completely ignoring the wishes/needs of the hunting public?
That seems a bit out of whack. It is a National Forest. Not a National Forest Inc., strictly for profit. The should balance ALL aspects of forest management...wildlife included.
Not "for", but like. They have regulations to protect T&E species. But tree management is their #1 goal.
Hog, step away from your Crystal Ball. You couldn't show yourself to be further off base and without knowledge than you just did in your statements.
I log over 200 days a year in this forest and have since 1988 approximatel. I was a USFS employee and have prescribed burnt 1000s of acres. I was also a biologist for the SCDNR and also a Game Warden for the SCDNR. I currently serve as a Wildlife consultant on many large tracts of land and serve on three different hunting/land conservation boards.
Hog, you and I have spoken before and I believe we had intelligent conversation but it amazes me so how many so scientific ingrained or brainwashed rather individuals can assess an area without ever having laid eyes on it or the way the burn by this group in this forest is applied. When you do this it really shows to your credibility as no true scientist , biologist or otherwise would do anything more than generalize without having seen the particular site in question with their own eyes. I would take that advise to heart if you wish to hold credibility.
But to answer some questions:
NO the aerial burns are NOT just used in remote areas that need burning. IF that was the case I wouldn't be on here. They are used in easy access and I mean as easy acess as you can get as in blocks of woods up to 2500 acres and over which are surrounded by and intercrossed with road systems. AS a matter of fact one of my beefs with this particular office is that there are areas that desperately need to be burned which are not getting lit while areas that were high density turkey nesting sites and of high game species densities are getting torched annually.
I will go ahead and lay out why this is occurring as told to me by a retired prescribed burn manager from the USFS and a hugely respected consultant as to burns and wildlife. He says, affirmative action is to blame. As to fill various quotas of minority hiring there is no longer a physical requirement for tech positions thus the obese, the out of shape, the afraid of snakes, the afraid of bugs crowd has infiltrated into the very reaches of a field that is required to have brawn, courage and strength. Now you certainly can't tell an African American lesbian to get her fat arse out the truck and that its time to hold this line or you will be fired can you? Those were his exact words , well dang near it..
Also there is a burn budget where to receive annual funding the USFS must burn X amount of acreage to substantiate the extreme cost of the Helicopter which I am being told is around 20k per day whether on the ground or in the air. I am doing my best to gain actual numbers.
Moving on...
Yes there is the possibility of nest destruction even in smaller mosaic burns it is just far less and also far less of a threat to other species.
Yes there are many other species in decline that share the same needs and habitats as the Wild Turkey mostly amphibians and low nesting song birds. Wild Quail being the most sportsmen related species. Quail Forever is a huge ally on this topic.
The purpose of the fire being set is always notated as fuel reduction even when the area only has one year of duff build up . You can literally see for 100s of yards in most of the annually burnt blocks.
The fires intensity in low fuel areas is 100 percent in relation to how many incendiaries are dropped. I am not just spouting information but have many friends that still work with the USFS. They tell me the RX is never followed and that the density of fire eggs dropped is usually 3-5 times what the RX call for if not more. That is how an area low in fuels still gets burned severally as does the canopies of the trees. Make sense?
Here is how the application goes. Imagine a square with sides NSEW.. The wind is out of the North. The chopper lays down the North line , head fire, then the S line the backing fire then the flanking fires E and W now the chopper goes back through with flanking strips on the E and W bearing until all is burned.
Once these aerial burned blocks held a myriad of species and now they don't its that really simple. Five years of dense, massive aerial burning an ecosystem at this scale intensity will do that anywhere on any ecosystem. Thats common sense.
Hog, I don't mean to come off strong on you. But I am old enough and well traveled enough to only offer a "intelligent opinion" on something that I have not seen with my own eyes. Especially when the practiced application by team A might be correct whilst Team B with the same equipment completely devastates the entire procedure.
To speak that Timber Harvest by the USFS produces profit is to show ones complete ignorance of accounting at the USFS. Currently this same office is under investigation for a 5 million dollar timber sale loss that no one can explain several employees are under Admin leave and have been terminated. Unfortunately its mostly scrubbed from the web so you would have to ask around and listen well.
Some great questions and I appreciate them.
I am not looking to stop spring burning. I am looking to curtail aerial delivery and to hopefully put a little emphasis on the time at which it occurs. Again its only common sense.
These types of discussions are good,...and they demonstrate the need for sportsmen to be organized and present their concerns about management issues to the agencies that manage our lands. As can be seen from the comments, there are always varying opinions about the application of management strategies for habitat, wildlife, and the inter-relationships of the two. Throw in the human-based elements of economics and politics, and things can get pretty cloudy and complicated awfully fast.
Wildlife professionals and land management agencies are perfectly capable of working together to insure management strategies for both are applied within some reasonable guidelines. Frankly, the idea that they would not be doing so is hard for me to fathom. Surely there has been research on the impacts of prescribed burning on various species of wildlife,...and that the application of whatever techniques are used are tailored to minimize those impacts,...at least on publically-owned lands such as Forest Service, BLM, and state-owned properties.
Regardless, unified voices with the same message are always more effective than random individuals complaining about a perceived problem. There are lots of organizations that represent sportsmen,...the most obvious for turkey hunters being the NWTF. Even if you do not want to join them, these organizations are definitely involved in issues such as this one, and have a wealth of information and resources available to affect needed changes in wildlife management policy,...and/or at least provide educational resources to support or contradict concerns such as whether prescribed burns have significant detrimental effects on wild turkeys.
From a personal perspective, I can tell you that public land management agencies are very in-tune to the public concerns about how they are managing our lands. The organized sportsmen's groups in this area interact with them constantly and they are quick to ask for our input on just about every controversial issue that comes up,...and they listen to what we have to say. That can happen anywhere,...but it is up to sportsmen to organize themselves into an effective lobbying force.
Quote from: Strick9 on May 17, 2016, 09:35:08 AM
Hog, step away from your Crystal Ball. I log over 200 days a year in this forest. I was a USFS employee and have prescribed burnt 1000s of acres. I was also a biologist for the SCDNR and also a Game Warden for the SCDNR. I currently serve as a Wildlife consultant on many large tracts of land and serve on three different hunting/land conservation boards.
HOg, you and I have spoken before but it amazes me how many so scientific ingrained or brainwashed individuals can assess an area without ever having laid eyes on it or the way the burn by this group in this forest is applied. When you do this it really shows to your credibility as no true scientist , biologist or otherwise would do anything more than generalize.
But to answer some questions:
Yes there is the possibility of nest destruction even in smaller mosaic burns it is just far less and also fare less of a threat to other species.
Yes there are many other species in decline that share the same needs and habitats as the Wild Turkey mostly amphibs and low nesting song birds. Wild Quail being the most sportsmen related species. Quail Forever is a huge ally on this topic.
The purpose of the fire being set is always notated at fuel reduction even when the area only has one year of duff build up . You can literally see for 100s of yards in most of the annually burnt blocks.
The fires intensity in low fuel areas is 100 percent in relation to how many incendiaries are dropped. I am not just spouting information but have many friends that still work with the USFS. They tell me the RX is never followed and that the density of fire eggs dropped is usually 3 times the RX if not more. That is how an area low in fuels still gets burned severally as does the canopies of the trees. Make sense?
Once these blocks held a myriad of species , now they don't iits really simple. Five years of dense, massive aerial burning an ecosystem at this scale intensity will do that anywhere on any ecosystem. Thats common sense.
Hog, I don't mean to come off strong on you. But I am old enough and well traveled enough to only offer a "intelligent opinion" on something that I have not seen with my own eyes especially when the practiced application by team A might be correct whilst Team B with the same equipment completely devastates the entire procedure.
To speak that Timber Harvest by the USFS produces profit is to show ones complete ignorance of accouting at the USFS. Currently this same office is under investigation for a 5 million dollar loss that no one can explain several employees are under Admin leave and have been terminated. Unfortunately its mostly scrubbed from the web so you would have to ask around and listen well.
Some great questions and I appreciate them.
I am not looking to stop spring burning. I am looking to curtail aerial delivery and to hopefully put a little emphasis on the time at which it occurs. Again its only common sense.
First: I am not going to sit and type out a long response to a message that is posted. I neither have the time nor want, to do so.
Second: I still disagree with the need to stop aerial ignition. What takes
Place in your area, does not happen in mine. In actuality, our USFS burn rotations need to be much shorter. They do in fact have demo areas that are putting the landscape back into the original conditions (pre English settlement). A short leaf pine-bluestem ecosystem. The rotations for that ecosystem are much shorter. Along the 3-5 year range. Yes, a 5-10 year rotation allows for the buildup of extra fuels. But, any fire will cause "hot burns". The ignition source is not the issue.
Third: I am not a keyboard biologist. I would rather sit in person and have a discussion.
Your 3rd sentence is noted and from whence you should have spoken originally.
My office is in Charleston. I travel to many states however and would like to do the same.
I would not desire however to see our NF returned to the wide open, full canopied, mostly mature Pre English settlement Forest types simply because today we have far less habitat available period and such forests have a lower carrying capacity for wildlife than say the select cut edged forests of today at least when they are managed properly.
Honestly its all about management goals. Timber should never be considered over wildlife but hand in hand with wildlife.
USFS still need to pass a pack test. They may be fat and lazy, but they had to have gotten that way since the last pack test and will need to shape up prior to the next one or they are not fighting fire for the Feds.
I don't understand how you think a ping pong ball (or 10,000 ping pong balls) make a 1000 acre burn hotter. Once they are burned out (not long) the fuel is the fuel and that fuel is the understory.
You make a lot of generalizations about how things are being done in your area and myself and Hog are telling you they are not being done like that in our areas. And we are not saying we think they are not, we KNOW they are not. When you make sweeping statements that are exagerrations, it lessens the effects of the truths you tell. You are a grown man and can do and say as you please of course, but you need to concentrate on what is being done wrong and laud what is being done right. It is still being done right in many places in this big Ole Country of ours.
Around here, the Federal lands are rather obviously managed for woodpeckers. They do indeed burn well into nesting season. And the later burning does seem to have started in the last several years.
My question is how do these fires impact turkeys so strongly when hens tend to nest in habitat that does not burn? I have not seen greened up clear cut or short planted pines burn. Those areas tend to have a fire brake or creek around them. I am not asking be cause I disagree with anything written on this thread. Better understanding this topic allows easier finding of turkeys if they like to nest in habitat I have not yet learned about.
Alligator Doc,
Some of you fellers have heads harder than a heart pine lighter knot lol. No offense meant mine is harder than TSS. I already said I approve of spring burning when applied with drips and attention to detail. I would also not have ever gotten on the soap box if what I am speaking of wasn't happening. IF it wasn't obvious to you that I am speaking directly of the SE and specifically the Francis Marion National Forest then I would say you didn't read thoroughly nor click on the links provided.
No where did I say it was being done like this in your particular area. The NF however has adopted aerial ignition nation wide. All NF have different fire RX and different Fire crews. Some follow and know what they are doing most however....
As to your heat question heat. Add a volatile compound in any amount that burns at a higher temperature than the fuel intended to be burnt and you have done what ???
Many of these areas simply wouldn't burn much at all if they didn't absolutely coat them in fire eggs. Does that make sense?
How else could you create a 15' flame scar in an area that has only one year of duff accumulation and virtually no under story? I have to say that I imagine that if three eggs could have splattered into the tree then lit from the bottom could be the only other solution but I am talking whole runs of trees in blocks with the tops burnt out etc. Lets just say in my neck of the woods aerial ignition has gotten out of hand.
I think the biggest or hardest pill for some of the "burn is good never bad folks" is that they aren't seeing the same thing I am seeing or observing therefore they speak from generalizations. Or maybe since their forestry instructor told them they will always believe it just as professors influence libs. Another reasoning could be that indeed small burns are good so big burns must be more gooder lol.
I agree a Pack test should be absolutely necessary, few folks even know what the means, however due to the liability of such it isn't going to be reinstated from what I am being told, though a guy can hope.
Howl , there are no firebreaks present where I speak that haven't grown over entirely. Imagine 2500 acres in one big block being burnt fully across all at one time. Surprisingly there are hardly any videos out there of aerial burn delivery applications so the best I could come up with is a combination of these two.
First video ...Imagine these being dropped in dense long lines ( this model is actually much smaller than what is used by the USFS) being dropped via helicopter in a circle surrounding 2500 acres and then again being dropped in lines to create more lines of fire in the center.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMxwj21AUk
2nd video , this is a not very good example as this burn is only about 10-15 acres. Imagine 2500 acres and all done at 35mph.. You get the idea I reckon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcLnhs4FXvI
Here is some real world data for you to chew on folks see any corelations? Burned acres vs poult per hen observed.
(http://i.imgur.com/s146AiL.jpg?1)
I know what a pack test means..and have to take one annually. 2 options for us. I do the arduous
QuoteSome of you fellers have heads harder than a heart pine lighter knot lol.
My wife would agree!
QuoteIF it wasn't obvious to you that I am speaking directly of the SE and specifically the Francis Marion National Forest then I would say you didn't read thoroughly nor click on the links provided.
I am in the SE. When I am speaking, I am talking about where I hunt, the Appalachicola National Forest. Burned by USFS. See them all the time. Usually stop and chat with them about where they are burning.
QuoteAs to your heat question heat. Add a volatile compound in any amount that burns at a higher temperature than the fuel intended to be burnt and you have done what ???
In the scope of burning 2500 acres, that would be akin to saying I raised the tide in the gulf when I took a whiz - technically correct, but practically negligible. You are dead right that the method of lighting and the timing affects the flames, also lighting the crown of the fuel, but totally wrong that even 100,000 ping pong balls burning for the initial 30 seconds on 2500 acres makes the overall fire hotter. Maybe you are not saying that, but it sure sounds like you are. Once the fuel is lit, the fuel, the rH and the wind is in control of the heat of the fire (and I agree that if it is all lit at once, all the line is burning evenly and aggressively downwind, it will be hotter, but not because it was started with a chemical - because it was started very efficiently - unlike a ragged drip torch line-which is still started with a chemical).
Quoteit isn't going to be reinstated from what I am being told, though a guy can hope.
Ate dinner with my nephew and will fish tomorrow with my brother. I will ask if they have heard that is no longer a requirement. As of less than a year ago, my nephew had to pass it to get on a crew. You may well be correct, and it is just my ignorance. I talk a lot with them about it, but it is not my vocation, I am just interested. News to me.
Where is that study from? Would love to see it. That does not look good. That is a lot of acres. Would like to read that.
I can see what your saying, as I mentioned I am hardheaded and dense as well. I somehow didn't emphasize that the 2500 acre burn is just one burn. The USFS publicly announced burn budget is 60,000 acres of which they have burnt approximately 25,000 from 3/5 until today in the Francis Marion NF. They have burns scheduled up until June 15 of this year in this NF. There is some confusion as to their wording in the public announcement as it includes two NF the Sumter and the Francis Marion. I am seeking direction as to whether they intend to burn 30, 000 in each or 60,000 in each. I have received no clear answer. It allows them wiggle room and may have been intentionally written for such.
Even if it is 30,000 acres in the Francis Marion which is 235,000 acres that represents only 12% which doesn't seem like a lot and wouldn't raise my hand barring the fact that they keep hitting the same areas of easy access over and over again. And it also so happens that some of these areas before they were targeted held high density Turkey populations and now five years later they are devoid of Turkeys. The only dynamic that has changed is the continuous targeting. I also wouldn't be alarmed if other areas in this forest showed that the Turkeys had simply moved to new blocks. However being that I cover the entire forest regularly on foot and by travel I can say with accuracy that this hasn't been the case.
I was informed about the Pack test by a retired USFS SE regional burn manager now retired. I need to verify that again as it was just one point spoken over briefly in a long communication.
The data was created by using data from the National Interagency Fire Center and the SE regions Natural Resources offices annual Poult counts. I did not create the graph nor assemble the data. The individual that assembled the data for me is currently assembling the same type graph for each state individually.
This below link is an interesting non timber biased study which shows what I am speaking of: Pay close attention when reading to the the rate at which hens nested in recently burnt areas. Now if that area is annually burnt for 3-5 years well you should get the point. If you choose you can scroll down to the discussion area and results but a complete read will certainly get the reader more in tune.
I am certainly not blaming the entire decline on just the aerial burn adoption but would say that it is certainly an area that should be well scrutinized.
http://www.seafwa.org/resource/dynamic/private/PDF/SISSON-134-139.pdf
Hog Biologist nailed it in my opinion. When you look at the decline of the eastern wild turkey particularly in the Southeast the timber harvest is probably the #1 factor.
Care to explain that? Timber harvest or the monoculture farming and harvest of timber? Not sure what you meant but I am a proponent of harvesting timber for the sunlight exposure it provides, meadow creation, edges, new growth etc all of which is great for turkeys.
How bizarre. I know that Plantation well - drive by it quite frequently. It is only a couple of counties over from me.
Couple of thoughts. That study was specific in looking to see if hens used burned areas for brood rearing. I would have been shocked if that had been the case. Every turkey nest I have seen has been in very dense areas - they want cover! Would be more interesting (and quite extensive) to look at the percent of burned cover areas that were burned. In most burn plans, that would be areas with relatively recent plantings where the undergrowth was thick and the pines were not close to mature-the exact places that would want to be avoided for burning due to killing the pines! No sane forester would do that on purpose. If he/she did, they would not have a job for long. I think that is good argument for not using the ping pong balls, but have been told they are amazingly well controlled and after the fire has started, the helo is on spotting duty (to spot breakouts) and even suppression with a bucket should those occur in locations not accessible to fire breaks. I did not know that.
Don't worry about Oldschool. He thinks in simple black and white. Harvest must be either good or bad, fire is either good or bad, decoys, popup blinds, etc etc. Harvesting timber is so much more advanced today than ever, we just need to be sure that biologists, specifically game biologists and turkey experts, have a seat at the burn plan table. That is where the difference is made. Pulp harvest opens woods to become mature stands. Without that, they would be unhuntable and terrible turkey habitat. All timber stands are evolving in their life cycle (other than the Eglin old growth type stand, which are pretty much nowhere). Nothing can be done much about private timber companies, but the Feds should answer to all users of a federal land, period. Can I have a show of hands of who thinks the Wild Turkey should have equal footing (if not more) as the RCW?
I was told today that there are burn plans for each site. They must be followed by the P burn managers. Those plans are made, with input from biologists, not just foresters. I assume these are not public meetings as I have never seen one posted. How does the average turkey hunter get more voice through game management in these plans? I am asking, I do not know the process at all. I have been involved in action plans for invasive plant spraying by the Feds on a local impoundment and that was like fighting a Goliath Grouper with a cane pole.
Sticky ...
I'll say , a proper burn cycle is advantageous , of course ...proper is in the eye of the beholder , my eyes say not to do it anytime near the spring season , and the keep it to segmented tracts , and leave certain areas untouched each year to provide nesting, and areas for quail
The absolute worst burn program is big cypress nwr , they simply don't do anything ,, leting the underbrush to grow out of control until a wildfire burns the whole place down to the ground ..... the administration there is solely responsible for the decline of the whole area, and the loss of thousands of acres of cypress , live oaks and pines .....they are living in some fantasy world and have designated the area a "wilderness " heck even the native Americans deployed control burns , they knew the advantages of it
Oh ...there good at blocking all access to the place , there good at that too , why let the public enjoy it
Pine/Bluestem Renewal
Shortleaf Pine/Bluestem Grass Ecosystem Renewal in the Ouachita Mountains
George A. Bukenhofer
USDA Forest Service
Heavener, Oklahoma
L. D. Hedrick
USDA Forest Service
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Presettlement and Current Ecological Conditions
The 8 million-acre (3,237,600 ha) Ouachita mountain physiographic region is located in west central Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma. The mountains are east to west trending and range in elevation from 500 to 2,700 feet (150-820 in). Travelers in this region prior to European settlement described the landscape as dominated by pine (Pinus echinata), pine-hardwood and mixed-oak (Quercus spp.) forest communities with fire-dependent and floristically rich grass and forb understories (Du Pratz 1774, Nuttal 1821, Featherstonhaugh 1844). Large grazing herbivores including elk (Cervus elaphus), bison (Bison bison) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) found suitable habitat there (Smith and Neal 1991). Fire return intervals averaged less than 10 years for most sites (Masters et al. 1995). Tree densities averaged 170 trees per acre (420/ha), and the mean diameter was 11.4 inches (29 cm) (Kreiter 1995).
Today the Ouachita mountain landscape is still dominated by forests, but the structure and composition of these forests have changed dramatically. The density of trees has increased to 200 to 250 trees per acre (494-618/ha) and the mean diameter is now 9 inches (23 cm) (Kreiter 1995). Understories are now dominated by woody vegetation and certain once-dominant grasses and forbs are uncommon (Fenwood et al. 1984, Masters 1991, Sparks 1996). Elk and bison have been extirpated. Other species, such as Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) and the brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), have been affected negatively by habitat loss (Jackson 1988) and the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) is endangered (Neal and Montague 1991). Average fire return intervals now range from 40 to more than 1,200 years (Masters et al. 1995).
Historical and present-day ecological communities of the 1.7 million-acre (690,000 ha) Ouachita National Forest (ONF) are illustrative of the above descriptions. Present day forests developed largely in response to two factors: commercial exploitation of the original forests and suppression of fires. Large-scale harvest of trees commenced in the 1910s and by 1940 most of the virgin forests had been cut (Smith 1986). With USDA Forest Service (FS) stewardship, the period of forest regeneration that followed was marked by a strict policy of wildfire suppression. That policy has largely remained in effect to the present. The recent use of prescribed fire by managers, averaging 25,000 acres (10,100 ha) annually over the last decade (R. Miller personal communication: 1995), has been insufficient to maintain a woodland (i.e., tree/grass) ecosystem. The result is that such ecosystems have all but disappeared from the Ouachita mountain landscape (Foti and Glenn 1991).
Desired Ecological Condition in the Context of a Contemporary Landscape
National forest lands are now subject to the philosophy of ecosystem management. Ecosystem management has been variously defined, but most definitions have two attributes in common: an overriding goal to protect ecosystem integrity, sometimes called ecosystem health, and an allowance for human uses that do not compromise ecosystem integrity. The following are key elements of a large-scale ecosystem management project on the ONF to restore the shortleaf pine-bluestem grass ecosystem on 155,010 acres (62,730 ha), and in the process provide sufficient habitat for a recovered population of the endangered RCW and a sustainable supply of wood products (FS 1996).
Elements of Ecosystem Management
Increasing the use of prescribed fire and using tree cutting to simulate natural disturbance patterns. Reduction of basal area is accomplished by commercial thinning. Stand regeneration is accomplished by commercial timber sales using irregular seed tree and irregular shelterwood methods. With either regeneration method, some of the seed trees are retained indefinitely. The size of prescribed burning units encompasses landscapes rather than smaller stand-sized blocks. The average size of prescribed burning units has increased from 200 to 600 acres (81-243 ha), with some units as large as 8,000 acres (3,230 ha) (R. Miller personal communication: 1997). In the past, most prescribed burning occurred during the dormant season from October to March. We now include some burning during the growing season to emulate fire patterns described in Foti and Glenn (1991) and Masters et al. (1995).
Using a modified control strategy for wildfires. Traditional FS policy has been to suppress all wildfires and minimize the area burned regardless of whether the fire was beneficial to resources. We found that a modified control strategy for wildfires, which recognizes that some wildfires are beneficial and should be allowed to burn, helps increase the area affected by fire each year. In those instances where wildfires are burning within prescription, occurring in areas determined to be desirable and not threatening human safety or property, willdfires can be allowed to burn to the nearest man-made or natural barrier. This change is an example of "FIRE 2 1," a new effort initiated by FS leadership to embrace the changing responsibilities in wildland fire management in the 21st century (Apicello 1996). Goals for FIRE 21 include contributing to restoring, maintaining and sustaining ecosystem function for healthier forests and rangelands, and integrating wildland fire management concerns and the role of fire into all agency management programs, where appropriate.
Increasing rotation age. The minimum time between regeneration cutting, or rotation age, has been increased from 70 to 120 years for shortleaf pine forest types. This allows for a greater number of acres of older trees and results in increased mast production from hardwoods retained in these pine stands. The older trees are also required for RCW and other cavity-dependent species. Cavity development is associated with a fungal heart rot (Phellinus pinii) infection that usually does not occur in stands less than 70 years of age.
Maintaining mixtures of native pines and hardwoods. An important part of the restoration process is to replace non-native trees when possible and retain mixtures of pines and hardwoods on the landscape both among and within stands. Retention of mast-producing trees has been a significant issue for the ONF
Developing and maintaining forested linkages among mature forest habitats. Minimizing ecotonal differences between contiguous stands and reducing habitat fragmentation is important to many bird species. Each timber harvest proposal is examined for ways to keep forest regeneration localized, which maximizes the size of areas that support mature stands. We have increased the size of regeneration areas from 40 to 80 acres (16-32 ha). Because the total amount of regeneration per year or decade is fixed by the rotation age, achieving it on fewer, larger areas rather than many smaller areas reduces the total edge between dissimilar conditions. This also maximizes the area of contiguous mature habitat.
Recognizing that people are an important part of this ecosystem. Traditional uses of forest, such as timber harvesting, hunting, firewood gathering, bird watching and fishing, continue while we work to restore ecological (historical) conditions. No special limitations are placed on the public while using the area. Project planning incorporates local values through an extensive public involvement program. Information from monitoring the effects of restoration has been gathered through close collaboration with university researchers. Detailed information is used to monitor the effectiveness of our projects and guide the restoration effort.
Assessing Ecological Health
There are three areas by which the ONF can measure success at attaining ecosystem health. Biodiversity, recreation opportunities and timber supplies are used as "yardsticks" because all were significant issues in recent planning efforts.
Biodiversity
Wilson et al. (1995) examined the breeding bird response to this restoration effort. They found that 10 species of ground/shrub-foraging species (yellow-breasted chat [Icteria virens], brown-headed cowbird [Molothrus ater], Carolina wren [Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern cardinal [Cardinal cardinalis], wild turkey [Meleagris gallipavo], indigo bunting [Passerina cyanea], northern bobwhite [Colinus virginianus], chipping sparrow [Spizella passerina]) and shrub nesting species (American goldfinch [Caruelis tristis], prairie warbler [Dendroica discolor]) were favored by thinning and prescribed burning, as compared with controls. Two ground-nesting species, the ovenbird (Seiuris aurocapillus) and black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia), declined in the same restoration areas. Small mammals were found to have increased in numbers and species on the same restored sites (Lochmiller et al. 1993). Sparks (1996) found that prescribed burning produced higher herbaceous species richness and diversity, and forb and legume abundance in the project area.
Recreation Opportunities
Outdoor recreationists, including hunters and bird watching enthusiasts, are attracted to these restored lands. In A Birder's Guide to Arkansas, White (1995) featured the project area as a unique opportunity to view RCW, brown-headed nuthatch and Bachman's sparrow. Discussing the decline of the northern bobwhite, Brennan (1991) provided some evidence that the forest-management techniques used here (reduction of tree basal area, reduction of midstory and prescribed burning every one to three years) resulted in higher bobwhite numbers. Masters et al. (1996) examined whitetailed deer forage production on the project area. They found that restoration efforts increased preferred deer forage sixfold.
Timber Supply
Timber harvesting is an essential part of these restoration efforts. The environmental impact statement for the FS long-term strategy for RCW recovery (USDA 1995) in the Southern Region concluded that this region-wide restoration effort would result in a gradual long-term increase of timber supplies after an initial decline. The ONF implementation of this strategy, because of favorable age class distribution, projected that timber harvest volumes would remain constant in the next two decades, and decline slightly from 29.2 to 27.5 million cubic feet of wood by the fifth decade (Bukenhofer et al. 1994). The decline in long-term sustained yield is largely a function of increasing the rotation age from 70 to 120 years.
Other Considerations
Another measure of ecosystem health is the potential for reintroduction of extirpated species. The elk has been successfully reintroduced to three nearby locales, the Buffalo National River in northern Arkansas, and the Pushmataha and Cookson Hills wildlife management areas in eastern Oklahoma. Earlier attempts at reintroduction failed due to brain worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis) infestation (Carpenter 1973). Recent studies (Raskevitz 199 1) determined that the intermediate hosts for the brain worm were snails (Gastropidae) that were dependent on moist forest conditions where tree densities were high, including a well-developed mid-story. They found that elk preferred habitat that included open, drier forest conditions unfavorable to the snails, and this preference yielded elk with no clinical signs of brain worm infestation. In the future, we expect that the drier forest conditions provided by shortleaf pine/bluestem grass ecosystem renewal will supply a sufficient quantity of suitable habitat capable of supporting a reintroduction of elk in the ONF.
Summary
The most influential laws relating to and governing FS land management activities include the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, Clean Water Act and, to a lesser extent, the Clean Air Act. For many, these laws present conflicting direction and create an insurmountable operational, regulatory and judicial tangle.
All of these laws predate direction issued by FS Chief Dale Robertson to Regional Foresters in June 1992 in which he admonished them to follow a philosophy of ecosystem management in their stewardship of national forest lands. All of these legal mandates remain in full force. Collectively, these laws can be summarized as requiring that national forests be managed to allow for sustainable human uses, both economic and non-economic, without compromising land health. The role of the ecosystem management policy adopted by the FS is to provide a single, all-inclusive philosophical context for management that integrates the spirit and letter of these laws. It puts sustaining land health first. We think this is appropriate, for over the long term, it will be impossible to sustain human uses without first sustaining the health of the land.
Our project is one example of ecosystem management. It embodies elements of landscape ecology, restoration ecology and endangered species recovery. It seeks to restore an entire ecosystem on portions of today's Ouachita mountain landscape. This is not so much because the landscape was prominent in pre-European settlement times, but rather because it had almost disappeared along with its unique flora and fauna. The project is mindful of Aldo Leopold's (1949) famous dictum that saving all parts and pieces of the ecosystem is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. At least in this case, we have demonstrated that managing for ecosystem integrity (health) need not result in significant reductions in timber resources for traditional human uses. This, coupled with the increased recreation opportunities enumerated above, is a "win win" situation.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank W. G. Montague and J. C. Neal for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Link to the Buffalo Road Self Tour.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ouachita/home/?cid=fsm9_039692
Wild Turkey
Wild Turkeys are not as tightly linked to southern pine forests as many of the other species treated here, but wild turkeys ben- e t from lightning-season burning if the burns help to achieve consistent two-to-three-year re frequencies on managed areas. Wild Turkeys prefer to forage in southern pinelands burned within the past two years (Palmer and Hurst 1998, Sisson et al. 1990, Juhan 2003), and maintaining a two-to-three-year re frequency may be easier to accomplish when some acreage is burned in May and early June in addition to the acreage burned earlier in the year.
Lightning-season res applied to areas that have not been burned recently also are not likely to threaten many nests. Sisson et al. (1990) found that 62% of all nests occurred in mature pine forests that had been burned within the past two years. Moore et al. (2005) monitored 22 hens in areas subject- ed to lightning-season res and found only 2 nests destroyed by the burns, and one of these hens re-nested. Similarly, for 64 turkey nests monitored in Mississippi (National Wild Turkey Federation 2006), only four were located in areas sched- uled to be burned and only two nests were actually destroyed by lightning-season res. Allen et al. (1996) also found that areas not burned within the past two years were almost en- tirely avoided by hens.
Lightning-season burns also may improve brood-rearing habitats by diversifying plant growth and seed and insect abundances (Provencher et al. 1998). e average number of insects on sites treated with lightning-season res exhibits a sharp increase in the rst year after burning (Hardy 2003). Jones (2001) suggested the availability of good brood-rearing habitat might limit turkey populations on large, unbroken expanses of mature pine forest, and the grasses and forbs favored by lightning-season burns could lead to higher insect abundances for poults. Native legumes important to Wild Turkey also are promoted by lightning-season burning, and Komarek (1969) noted that Wild Turkeys frequently foraged in areas soon after prescribed burns were conducted. Sisson and Speake (1994), on the other hand, found little bene t in terms of food resources when lightning-season res were ap- plied to small (10-acre) plots.
Potential benefits include (1) improved habitat conditions in subsequent breeding seasons and (2) improved brood-rearing habitat. More research is needed.
The low poult survival in the first 2 weeks was consistent with previous studies (Glidden and Austin 1975, Lehman et al. 2001, Spears et al. 2007). Poult loss after 14 days post-hatch decreased significantly, since after 2 weeks broods could fly and roost in trees (Barwick et al. 1971). Survival within the first 30 days (17%) was greater compared to other studies in coastal plain pine forests (9%, Peoples et al. 1995; 13%, Exum et al. 1987; 10%, Sisson et al. 1991). Poult loss was largely due to predation, with 22% of brood females lost as well; however, 1 brood was lost to a growing-season prescribed fire just after hatch. This is the first documented brood loss attributed to growing-season prescribed fire, and is likely unimportant from a management perspective.
Negative effects of growing-season prescribed fires on wild turkey nest success and poult survival should be considered before their use, as the long-term effects on wild turkey populations are still somewhat uncertain. However, studies have shown that growing-season fires may improve turkey brood-rearing habitat by increasing insect abundance, adding variety to the seed bank, and enhancing plant growth (McGlincy 1985, Landers and Mueller 1986, Exum 1988, Provencher et al. 1998). Therefore, as long as growing-season fires are used in a rotating, small-scale (< 20 ha) application the effects on wild turkey populations will be minimal and the benefits to the entire ecosystem will be great. Mesopredator removal, at least during the wild turkey nesting season, should be considered as a potential management tool as it has been concluded that wild turkey nest success can improve after intensive predator control (Miller and Leopold 1992). Invasive hardwood removal in the longleaf pine ecosystem should also be considered to further reduce nest predator refugia (Atkenson and Hulse 1953, Sanderson 1987, Leberg and Kennedy 1988, Gehrt and Fritzell 1998).
Hog,
It would seem that the Ouachita has a very well managed and applied plan with a specific goal announced as compared to what I am up against at the moment.
Are you currently working directly on that project and if so in what parameter? If you would rather not say publicly feel free to pm me.
I can't disagree with the excerpts you posted except for pointing to my area where the same areas that once held suitable nesting habitat are burned year after year thus not allowing the desired habitat for nesting to ever be utilized by the Turkey, or other ground nesting birds, low brush nesting birds etc.
In other words right about the time the habitat has regenerated for desirable nesting habitat it is burned yet again. If it was a three year rotation I wouldn't even be worried in the slightest, well maybe with the non detailed application as to various rare habitats. We have very little semi mature hardwood stands and bottoms and these are being burned as well at the same rate and cycle in the areas of which I am speaking.
I can get behind the Ouachita plan no doubt as it specifies a goal, includes concern for many species and has an established goal set with described steps. Honestly if that plan is being followed then I say Outstanding.
Its all in the leadership and follow through.
Are there any members that have experience with that area and observations of the plan in action in this area?
Thanks for making this a sticky Shannon. Your Big Cypress point concerning massive fuel loads left un managed which resulting in large scale fire is a key point to the importance of a well planned prescribed burn. Is it classified as a Class 1 Wilderness area by chance as this would explain the lack of prescribed burns?
I want to be perfectly clear on my stance that well prescribed spring burns are an absolutely invaluable tool and beneficial to many species including the Eastern Wild Turkey. However in my area the prescribed burns are of the same size, same intensity or close to that of a true Forest Fire, not so good. I am pooling resources and currently have a soil expert that says he is willing to walk with me through some of these blocks. It is evident that the carbon layer has been burnt to the soil substrate in vast areas within these 2500 acre burns, again not good.
The blocking of the public use is another point as well in that not only birders but also wildflower enthusiasts as well as hunters, hikers and so on are blocked from entering the forest during spring burns which would fall under the multiple use sustained yield act.
At this time I can not stand behind timber sales as being important for generating funding for the USFS. I do still stand behind timbering for the alone reason of creating diverse habitat. The USFS has lost millions in timber sales to the negative. http://www.ti.org/sa23.html This is the earliest link I can find and it dates to 1995 there are a slew of much newer articles that one can easily find. Timber sales from NF do however mean that someone is making money but at the taxpayers expense. I am working on getting the accounting numbers for my areas but I honestly don't see those numbers being released accurately at least.
http://www.academia.edu/505770/Reproduction_in_a_declining_population_of_wild_turkeys_in_Arkansas
http://www.firescience.gov/JFSP_consortia.cfm
Quote from: Strick9 on May 19, 2016, 12:12:31 AM
Hog,
It would seem that the Ouachita has a very well managed and applied plan with a specific goal announced as compared to what I am up against at the moment.
Are you currently working directly on that project and if so in what parameter? If you would rather not say publicly feel free to pm me.
I can't disagree with the excerpts you posted except for pointing to my area where the same areas that once held suitable nesting habitat are burned year after year thus not allowing the desired habitat for nesting to ever be utilized by the Turkey, or other ground nesting birds, low brush nesting birds etc.
No, it is one county north of my area. But I have been on a guided tour of it twice. I was also at a conference just a week or so ago about Rx fire for managing lands. This was one of the field tours.
Great debate and discussion, gentlemen. I think we all would agree that properly timed and implemented prescribed fires are beneficial to wildlife in most cases. It should also be quite obvious that the reverse is true, as well,...poorly timed and improperly staged fires can have significant negative impacts on some species.
What matters here is that there are individuals that care and want to make sure that things are done right,...and are willing to make the effort to be sure that happens, or at a minimum, let those in charge know that they are watching and will question actions that appear to be counterproductive. It is refreshing to see that some folks here are paying attention and are trying to make a positive contribution to the management of our wildlife resources. Kudo's to you guys!
Gobble,
Can you imagine how many dollars would be lost , how much voice would be lost and how much pull the conservation and land habitat movement would loose without the voice of the hunter?
Obviously I am an avid Whitetail, Turkey and Duck hunter. I have been at it for over 40 years and have certainly hit that mark where its not about the kill for me whatsoever.
I hear over and over again how even young hunters are frustrated and hanging up their gear for good due to unsuccessful hunts or even sightings or hearings of their intended species.
Now I know there is a part of me that says good, less pressure and more for me but in age have learned that we as hunters are fighting not only a battle against gun haters but animal lovers.
Each and every hunter that returns to the field represents a part of a motor which in effect protects the land and conservation through his spending and voice more than any other group combined.
Thank you for keeping up to date as well and Hog thanks for the many excerpts the last of which very much strikes home as our coyote population which was non existant in the mid 90s is now way out of control and with no controls offered other than soft verbage.
I am just going to step out on a limb and say that after cruising a tract where a land owner says he wants a consult plan that generates more wild turkeys on his property the very first on the list is predator removal.
And onto another limb, the same should be allowed in our NF, currently in the Francis Marion no trapping is allowed by any private citizen and the only subcontracted removals are of feral swine.
But back to your article if we know that 70% of nest destruction are from predators don't you think we should pay special attention to not burning the remaining 30%?
Quote from: HogBiologist on May 16, 2016, 05:41:58 PM
Having been on a USFS burn crew and a biologist, this OP has no understanding of Rx burning and the dynamics of it. The Ping Pong ball ignition is used in remote area where personal are hard pressed to reach remote areas. With short burning weather Windows, and large areas that need rotational burning, they must employ all available techniques to get burns on the ground. Also, the forest service is in the business of forestry. No in the business of wildlife. That is the USFWS. They are burning for forest production. Managing for good timber often contradicts good wildlife management. Just look at timber companies.
In your post you say the forest service is not in the business of wildlife so why are there wildlife management areas inside the National Forrest?
Quote from: DC1. on May 29, 2016, 05:54:03 PM
Quote from: HogBiologist on May 16, 2016, 05:41:58 PM
Having been on a USFS burn crew and a biologist, this OP has no understanding of Rx burning and the dynamics of it. The Ping Pong ball ignition is used in remote area where personal are hard pressed to reach remote areas. With short burning weather Windows, and large areas that need rotational burning, they must employ all available techniques to get burns on the ground. Also, the forest service is in the business of forestry. No in the business of wildlife. That is the USFWS. They are burning for forest production. Managing for good timber often contradicts good wildlife management. Just look at timber companies.
In your post you say the forest service is not in the business of wildlife so why are there wildlife management areas inside the National Forrest?
The forest service is not in the wildlife business. That is their problem. They have to pander to everybody. Off road atv users, loggers, nature lovers, hikers, hunters, fisherman, wilderness folks, etc.
I worked 5 years on a USFWS prescribed fire crew. I also burn a bunch with friends in the spring. USFWS mission is simple and makes it easy to accomplish that mission. We put alot of fire on the ground.
Helicopters don't use a napalm like substance. The balls are filled with pottasium permaganate and injected with ethylene glycol to set off an exothermic reaction. We used to play hand ball with them on severity assignments. Delay time is the amount of glycol injected. We used the chopper twice. Both times it was unsafe to put people interior so we lit the edges and allowed the helicopter to burn out the interior. One burn was 12k acres and the other 3k.
Kansas is considered a top turkey state correct? A large portion burns every year. This year in a few county are 2.5 million acres were lit. I burn my place every year. Next year will be a burn as late as I can get it into May if I think it will still carry fire. Late growing season burns are the best for killing brush in my experience.
Quote from: nativeks on May 29, 2016, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: DC1. on May 29, 2016, 05:54:03 PM
Quote from: HogBiologist on May 16, 2016, 05:41:58 PM
Having been on a USFS burn crew and a biologist, this OP has no understanding of Rx burning and the dynamics of it. The Ping Pong ball ignition is used in remote area where personal are hard pressed to reach remote areas. With short burning weather Windows, and large areas that need rotational burning, they must employ all available techniques to get burns on the ground. Also, the forest service is in the business of forestry. No in the business of wildlife. That is the USFWS. They are burning for forest production. Managing for good timber often contradicts good wildlife management. Just look at timber companies.
In your post you say the forest service is not in the business of wildlife so why are there wildlife management areas inside the National Forrest?
The forest service is not in the wildlife business. That is their problem. They have to pander to everybody. Off road atv users, loggers, nature lovers, hikers, hunters, fisherman, wilderness folks, etc.
I worked 5 years on a USFWS prescribed fire crew. I also burn a bunch with friends in the spring. USFWS mission is simple and makes it easy to accomplish that mission. We put alot of fire on the ground.
Helicopters don't use a napalm like substance. The balls are filled with pottasium permaganate and injected with ethylene glycol to set off an exothermic reaction. We used to play hand ball with them on severity assignments. Delay time is the amount of glycol injected. We used the chopper twice. Both times it was unsafe to put people interior so we lit the edges and allowed the helicopter to burn out the interior. One burn was 12k acres and the other 3k.
Kansas is considered a top turkey state correct? A large portion burns every year. This year in a few county are 2.5 million acres were lit. I burn my place every year. Next year will be a burn as late as I can get it into May if I think it will still carry fire. Late growing season burns are the best for killing brush in my experience.
They should call them Timber Management Areas then!
Quote from: DC1. on May 29, 2016, 11:55:08 PM
Quote from: nativeks on May 29, 2016, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: DC1. on May 29, 2016, 05:54:03 PM
Quote from: HogBiologist on May 16, 2016, 05:41:58 PM
Having been on a USFS burn crew and a biologist, this OP has no understanding of Rx burning and the dynamics of it. The Ping Pong ball ignition is used in remote area where personal are hard pressed to reach remote areas. With short burning weather Windows, and large areas that need rotational burning, they must employ all available techniques to get burns on the ground. Also, the forest service is in the business of forestry. No in the business of wildlife. That is the USFWS. They are burning for forest production. Managing for good timber often contradicts good wildlife management. Just look at timber companies.
In your post you say the forest service is not in the business of wildlife so why are there wildlife management areas inside the National Forrest?
The forest service is not in the wildlife business. That is their problem. They have to pander to everybody. Off road atv users, loggers, nature lovers, hikers, hunters, fisherman, wilderness folks, etc.
I worked 5 years on a USFWS prescribed fire crew. I also burn a bunch with friends in the spring. USFWS mission is simple and makes it easy to accomplish that mission. We put alot of fire on the ground.
Helicopters don't use a napalm like substance. The balls are filled with pottasium permaganate and injected with ethylene glycol to set off an exothermic reaction. We used to play hand ball with them on severity assignments. Delay time is the amount of glycol injected. We used the chopper twice. Both times it was unsafe to put people interior so we lit the edges and allowed the helicopter to burn out the interior. One burn was 12k acres and the other 3k.
Kansas is considered a top turkey state correct? A large portion burns every year. This year in a few county are 2.5 million acres were lit. I burn my place every year. Next year will be a burn as late as I can get it into May if I think it will still carry fire. Late growing season burns are the best for killing brush in my experience.
They should call them Timber Management Areas then!
It is in the name.
US FOREST Service.
The agency's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. - See more at: http://fs.fed.us/about-agency#sthash.WD5RgT3o.dpuf
Quote from: albrubacker on May 16, 2016, 01:05:02 PM
Well written! Well written but I think turkeys are having a lot of problems now being avid turkey hunter for the past 40 years mainly ( North& Middle ga ) In my oberservations Turkey numbers here in the North Ga area peaked in the mid 90ss. Since then have saw a steady decline in numbers in the farming areas it used to be I would see several flocks in must of the big cattle farms around this area. But with increase in Poultry farms& spreading of chicken litter on the fields for fertilizer I started noticing a decline in the turkey numbers.Also in this area of Northeast ga started seeing a high numbers of predators Coyotes. and a big increase in wild hogs thanks to these rednecks turning them loose all over the state which are also nest predators. Just these past season found evidence of 3 nest destroyed by predators.
I hunt mostly on public lands and places in years gone by on a good morning could hear as high as 4 or 5 toms sounding off your are luckily to hear one same goes on private lands also.On the usfs land for the past few years have been a lack of timber cutting which has hurt a lot of species of game animals as well as non game turkeys & grouse also song birds need some young growth timber areas for nesting and brooding areas. You want have very high nesting success in big mature forests.Plus Ga has been to liberal with its Turkey season and increased the bag limit to 3 birds without any real data to speak of with this new check in system you can see that Turkey numbers are low all across the state. But this is happening all over the Southeast turkey numbers are on the decline. Getting back to the burning I have noticed in this especially on the Lake Russell WMA that USFS seem to be burning the same places instead of changing locations some of these areas have been burned so much that you can see 300 400 yards thru the woods before green up. IN conclusions I will list the problems I am seeing and the decline in turkey numbers. 1Spreading of chicken litter ( which can spread Black head disease to turkeys) 2 lack of habiat diversity on most public lands. 3 In the Southern part of the state were deer baiting is allowed turkeys can contract Aflatoxions from moldy grain research on file to back this up on number 1 2& 3 4 High numbers of predators which when turkey numbers are as low as they are today can have real effectes on the existing Turkey numbers > Our Wildlife agencies should look at the data from Delta waterfowl on nesting areas that are trapped for nest predators they have found they have a 60 to 70 % nesting success compared to 20% on areas not trapped. Doubt seriously that the Turkey nesting success is 15% percent in this area due to high predators numbers. ( Just my observations from rambling the Ga woods
To a certain extent, all reasons for the decline are valid ....However the problem is widespread through out the East and most reasons mentioned do not hold true in all areas of the East.. I do not have an answer, but I know there is a problem...
All i know that in 55 years of turkey hunting I can say ''I've seen them come and I've seen them go''
Quote from: HogBiologist on May 30, 2016, 09:49:23 PM
Quote from: DC1. on May 29, 2016, 11:55:08 PM
Quote from: nativeks on May 29, 2016, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: DC1. on May 29, 2016, 05:54:03 PM
Quote from: HogBiologist on May 16, 2016, 05:41:58 PM
Having been on a USFS burn crew and a biologist, this OP has no understanding of Rx burning and the dynamics of it. The Ping Pong ball ignition is used in remote area where personal are hard pressed to reach remote areas. With short burning weather Windows, and large areas that need rotational burning, they must employ all available techniques to get burns on the ground. Also, the forest service is in the business of forestry. No in the business of wildlife. That is the USFWS. They are burning for forest production. Managing for good timber often contradicts good wildlife management. Just look at timber companies.
In your post you say the forest service is not in the business of wildlife so why are there wildlife management areas inside the National Forrest?
The forest service is not in the wildlife business. That is their problem. They have to pander to everybody. Off road atv users, loggers, nature lovers, hikers, hunters, fisherman, wilderness folks, etc.
I worked 5 years on a USFWS prescribed fire crew. I also burn a bunch with friends in the spring. USFWS mission is simple and makes it easy to accomplish that mission. We put alot of fire on the ground.
Helicopters don't use a napalm like substance. The balls are filled with pottasium permaganate and injected with ethylene glycol to set off an exothermic reaction. We used to play hand ball with them on severity assignments. Delay time is the amount of glycol injected. We used the chopper twice. Both times it was unsafe to put people interior so we lit the edges and allowed the helicopter to burn out the interior. One burn was 12k acres and the other 3k.
Kansas is considered a top turkey state correct? A large portion burns every year. This year in a few county are 2.5 million acres were lit. I burn my place every year. Next year will be a burn as late as I can get it into May if I think it will still carry fire. Late growing season burns are the best for killing brush in my experience.
They should call them Timber Management Areas then!
It is in the name.
US FOREST Service.
The agency's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the 's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. - See more at: http://fs.fed.us/about-agency#sthash.WD5RgT3o.dpuf
I understand the U.S. FORREST SERVICE is in the timber business, so why waist money on signs, printouts,boundary markers and man power promoting a WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA if your not going to take some interest in the WILDLIFE?
Hopefully a steady diet of cicadas will boost the population.
I live in South Carolina and the past few years has been nothing but late burning on the Sumter national forest wma thousands of acres was burned on the enoree river I'm not a rocket scientist but why not schedule the burns earlier in season instead of when hens are nesting , and baby rabbits and deer are on the ground it just seems like there is way to much land being burned to fast at one time to me but maybe in wrong
Quote
I understand the U.S. FORREST SERVICE is in the timber business, so why waist money on signs, printouts,boundary markers and man power promoting a WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA if your not going to take some interest in the WILDLIFE?
PR. It looks good.
Quote
I understand the U.S. FOREST SERVICE is in the timber business, so why waist money on signs, printouts,boundary markers and man power promoting a WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA if your not going to take some interest in the WILDLIFE?
"Forest" and "timber" are not synonymous,...and the presumption that because the Forest Service has "forest" in the name and therefore the agency is all about timber production is misguided. The Forest Service is in the business of managing the publically-owned natural resources that exist within our national forest systems.
The Forest Service is a "multiple-use" agency. Their mission is to manage "our" forests in the best interest of the overall forest ecosystem, while taking into account the desires of the various interest groups that utilize the forest in a variety of different ways. That management is "supposedly" science-based, and every action taken in managing Forest Service lands is presumably properly "vetted", while also balanced, to insure the best possibly outcome within the forest ecosystem. Whether or not that management strategy involves timber harvest, prescribed burning, or any number of other management strategies should be, and probably is for the most part, based on science.
Perhaps federally-managed forests in other parts of the country have timber harvest as a significant tool in that management, but in this region (southwest) it is secondary to most other multiple-use components. It is almost entirely used as a tool for wildfire prevention, as is prescribed burning. In addition, prescribed burns, and when they take place here, are based strictly on very specific forest conditions that occur at very specific times of the year. Those conditions occur pretty rarely in this country, and unfortunately, there are times when those conditions just happen to conflict with things like turkey nesting.
Simply put, when faced with a choice between burning up a few turkey nests and the possibility of a wildfire scorching a few hundred thousand acres of forest habitat, the turkeys are going to lose out every time.
This is not to say that there are not political and economic forces that influence this decision-making process. There are,...and that is why it is so important for all of us to be vigilant about questioning management practices when they appear to be questionable. However, the tendency of some to paint the Forest Service with a broad brush of managing our forest deceitfully, in my opinion and based on my experiences dealing with the agency here, is unwarranted.