# Great news for central Mi property owners.



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

This from my Timber tax preparer. 

The year 2015 was a very eventful year for Metcalfe Forestry and the timber industry in general. In

summary, we have hired some addition employees, a new pulp mill announced that they will open in Grayling

Michigan, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has signed the Good Neighbor Policy with

the U.S. Forest Service.

A New Mill:

We are proud to say that we have played a role in helping Arauco North America decide to build a brand new $325,000,000 pulp mill in our home base of Grayling Michigan! In the spring of 2013, Arauco contracted Metcalfe Forestry to complete a feasibility study to assess availability and sustainability of supplying 1.2 million green tons of pulpwood using a 25/75 mixture of hardwoods and conifers. Our report concluded that the Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) contains an abundance of hardwood and conifer pulp and that the mill could be sustainably supplied with little competition from existing markets. We recommended 4-Mile Road in Grayling as the best site in the NLP due to its close proximity to the jack pine forests and because of the good infrastructure.
In terms of supplying the mill, the biggest problem that we think Arauco will face is a shortage of loggers. 
They will have to pay enough money for people to want to become loggers! Arauco spent over a year looking at about ten possible mill locations throughout North America. We were told by their vice president that government and industry representatives in Michigan were by far the most helpful and accommodating, which speaks a lot about the people in our state! Arauco plans to open their mill in late 2018 and they will be manufacturing laminated particle board. The mill will directly employ 250 people and indirectly create numerous other jobs. This is very good news for our landowner clients in the NLP. First of all, this is going to create a market for all of the poor quality, unhealthy and defective timber (also known as pulpwood) on their property.

Pulpwood has been in low demand locally since Menasha, Georgia Pacific and SAPPI closed their mills during the recession. Since then it has been very difficult, often impossible, for landowners in the NLP to have a timber harvest that is mostly composed of hardwood and conifer pulp. We can’t practice good forestry if we don’t have the ability to harvest the harvest the unhealthy trees and retain the best ones.

Second, the value of hardwood and conifer pulpwood is going to increase! A typical landowner may see their timber value increase by $150 per acre.

Third, it will become economically feasible to do smaller timber harvests again. Landowners with forests with less than 30 acres currently have a hard time selling their timber because the moving costs for logging equipment doesn’t justify the amount of time they will spend on the job. It will also become possible to harvest stands of poor quality conifers such as scotch pine, conifer swamps, spruce plantations, overgrown X- Mas tree plantations, poor quality jack pine, etc. Many landowners fall into these categories and these are the people who benefit most from the new mill.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

It depends a study was done the absence of snowshoe hare its conclusion with no brush piles, because the use of chippers to make pulp. Has decimated food, and cover, it also raises questions on the effect on bird populations, turkey, grouse, woodcock. Brush piles not only offer escape from predators but rotting wood and leaves (natures natural compost pile) produce insects,vertabraes, and in the final compost worms, all of which are needed by birds, especially young chicks and poults which require a 80 to 90 percent diet to get the high protein needed at that young age.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Hunters Edge said:


> It depends a study was done the absence of snowshoe hare its conclusion with no brush piles, because the use of chippers to make pulp. Has decimated food, and cover, it also raises questions on the effect on bird populations, turkey, grouse, woodcock. Brush piles not only offer escape from predators but rotting wood and leaves (natures natural compost pile) produce insects,vertabraes, and in the final compost worms, all of which are needed by birds, especially young chicks and poults which require a 80 to 90 percent diet to get the high protein needed at that young age.


Not sure what you are getting at but your process is wrong. First off "chippers" do not "make pulp". Chippers which use tree tops and dead or fallen trees to make chips [Biomass] that go to making pellets for wood stoves and some industrial size pellets...but more commonly go for power generation.

I would like to add very few loggers in our state use chippers to harvest biomass. Also your assumption that dead and harvested mass needs to be left on the ground for re-growth and soil benefits is been proven wrong many times over. Everyone seems to forget about the stump in the ground and the mass associated with that. I just would add that clumps of debris will add some VERY SHORT term cover before compaction and rotting takes place. It is NOT a substitute for good permanent habitat cover.

Also small finds never get collected by a chipping crew and the forest mat although gets disturbed in logging never gets removed. so all of your "little insect" finds have plenty of happy places to do their thing........


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

There are 4 wood chip power house within a short drive of Grayling. Hopefully this boom in chips will help the powerhouses continue operation. Lincoln, McBain, Hilman and Grayling each has one that went on line in the late 80s, Grayling came along a few years later. They sure beat those eyesores (windmills) that are popping up everywhere.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

I wish a couple more were built. This article is about 2 years old:

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/FMAC-presentation_456781_7.pdf

L & O


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

The problem right now is Biomass power is dead......As my contract this fall was completing, no new contracts were going to be signed by my logger. Natural Gas has dropped so low that Biomass cannot be harvested at a profit right now. MANY plants are turning their NG lines on, and NG units back on. But this will change at some point.......The price for Propane is also surreal right now.......


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

First off I never said the brush was needed for re-growth. I said the study showed loss of the snowshoe hare in the lower and upper do to the loss of cover from predator and food. Which is directly attributed to logging practice changing and eliminating brush piles (chippers) . What I did mention is how this will effect bird populations with the loss of these piles are yet to be seen or studied for they are used by them as well for cover and the use of bugs, vertebrae's and worms all used as a food source especially for the young. The cover you mention may not be used for pulp but when an area is logged for pulp it is common practice to chip for the almighty buck they get for it. Who suffers is the wildlife and those who appreciate the wildlife, rather than a few extra bucks. I would have to say most landowners knowing the facts and how this practice has practically eliminated the snowshoe hare in northern lower and eastern up, would not allow it on their property. Especially if they knew the impact would also affect birds in the area or the loss of them.

I disagree with you a healthy woods needs diversity, which you eliminate by the use of chippers vs brush piles.
I think all forest need to be managed, unfortunately those wood piles are a great natural diversity which is needed to hold populations of small game while the trees or woods is growing. Yes they do not last long but they do last long enough for the trees to grow enough for cover from avian predators. They also continue for many years provide food for birds by making bugs, vertebrae's, and worms. Again I disagree with your post and I find it very upsetting you would write something I never wrote.

I would appreciate it very much if you would not post something I did not write. Where did I say brush piles are needed for regrowth.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Hunters Edge said:


> First off I never said the brush was needed for re-growth. I said the study showed loss of the snowshoe hare in the lower and upper do to the loss of cover from predator and food. Which is directly attributed to logging practice changing and eliminating brush piles (chippers) . What I did mention is how this will effect bird populations with the loss of these piles are yet to be seen or studied for they are used by them as well for cover and the use of bugs, vertebrae's and worms all used as a food source especially for the young. The cover you mention may not be used for pulp but when an area is logged for pulp it is common practice to chip for the almighty buck they get for it. Who suffers is the wildlife and those who appreciate the wildlife, rather than a few extra bucks. I would have to say most landowners knowing the facts and how this practice has practically eliminated the snowshoe hare in northern lower and eastern up, would not allow it on their property. Especially if they knew the impact would also affect birds in the area or the loss of them.
> 
> I disagree with you a healthy woods needs diversity, which you eliminate by the use of chippers vs brush piles.
> I think all forest need to be managed, unfortunately those wood piles are a great natural diversity which is needed to hold populations of small game while the trees or woods is growing. Yes they do not last long but they do last long enough for the trees to grow enough for cover from avian predators. They also continue for many years provide food for birds by making bugs, vertebrae's, and worms. Again I disagree with your post and I find it very upsetting you would write something I never wrote.
> ...


Do you have a link to the study?


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Hunters Edge said:


> First off I never said the brush was needed for re-growth. I said the study showed loss of the snowshoe hare in the lower and upper do to the loss of cover from predator and food. Which is directly attributed to logging practice changing and eliminating brush piles (chippers) . What I did mention is how this will effect bird populations with the loss of these piles are yet to be seen or studied for they are used by them as well for cover and the use of bugs, vertebrae's and worms all used as a food source especially for the young. The cover you mention may not be used for pulp but when an area is logged for pulp it is common practice to chip for the almighty buck they get for it. Who suffers is the wildlife and those who appreciate the wildlife, rather than a few extra bucks. I would have to say most landowners knowing the facts and how this practice has practically eliminated the snowshoe hare in northern lower and eastern up, would not allow it on their property. Especially if they knew the impact would also affect birds in the area or the loss of them.I disagree with you a healthy woods needs diversity, which you eliminate by the use of chippers vs brush piles.
> I think all forest need to be managed, unfortunately those wood piles are a great natural diversity which is needed to hold populations of small game while the trees or woods is growing. Yes they do not last long but they do last long enough for the trees to grow enough for cover from avian predators. They also continue for many years provide food for birds by making bugs, vertebrae's, and worms. Again I disagree with your post and I find it very upsetting you would write something I never wrote.
> 
> I would appreciate it very much if you would not post something I did not write. Where did I say brush piles are needed for regrowth.


Ok boss....jumped the gun on re-growth. However I think you have misconceptions on current forest management.
You want to see birds of prey hunt......put them in a mature forest......they are flucked in re-growth from 2yrs to 20 years old. There is nothing that is going to feed off that brush pile after 3 months. I would like to see your studies too.......
Do you know when the first chipper was even used in the UP? I can tell you in 1994 there was some of the first full scale processor operations on 120 acres of land to the north of me......brush piles everywhere....it is devoid of snowshoes now as it was in 1994........ 
I just got done removing 30% dead loss of spruce from spruce bud worm. Who would suffer if there was a forest fire? I do not think you have a concept of how much is actually left on the ground after a chipper operation. Even at that, there are different levels of clean-up.....a whole tree harvest to a landing and processing at a landing followed by chipping is the best at cleaning out the woods........ any other type of chipping harvest will leave more in the woods. I will say this LOUDER...BRUSH PILES ARE NO REPLACEMENT FOR GOOD HABITAT..........


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

I see you like changing subject so lets get back you posted of a new pulp mill and logging in the area to fill its quota. I basically wrote to what cost to our wildlife. I read the study if memory serves me right last year in an article written by NMTF. I believe the study was done by Michigan State University. 

I hate to disagree with you but have actually witnessed the advantages of brush piles for several years. With the family cutting 20 acres every year. Of course they were not to cut any conifer and leave 8 oak or beechnut trees to the acre and also leave the cuttings (tops limbs). We use to rabbit hunt as kids and the brush piles held rabbits and hares were their was none before. I believe the lack of brush piles have seem to be one of the reason for the decline in woodcock. I do not believe in coincidences and coincidently the decline seems to be around the same time frame chippers became used. As a kid we moved wood and logs to get worms to go down to the creek. 

I see and know the advantage of cuttings, but only if the brush piles stay for the wildlife. just a note on the property next to us they utilized the chipper not sure if it had anything to it but the quarter mile of property line not only having a wire separating the property and the way the forest was cleared but also the take over of autumn olive on one side and on ours none.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Hunters Edge said:


> I see you like changing subject so lets get back you posted of a new pulp mill and logging in the area to fill its quota. I basically wrote to what cost to our wildlife. I read the study if memory serves me right last year in an article written by NMTF. I believe the study was done by Michigan State University.
> 
> I hate to disagree with you but have actually witnessed the advantages of brush piles for several years. With the family cutting 20 acres every year. Of course they were not to cut any conifer and leave 8 oak or beechnut trees to the acre and also leave the cuttings (tops limbs). We use to rabbit hunt as kids and the brush piles held rabbits and hares were their was none before. I believe the lack of brush piles have seem to be one of the reason for the decline in woodcock. I do not believe in coincidences and coincidently the decline seems to be around the same time frame chippers became used. As a kid we moved wood and logs to get worms to go down to the creek.
> 
> I see and know the advantage of cuttings, but only if the brush piles stay for the wildlife. just a note on the property next to us they utilized the chipper not sure if it had anything to it but the quarter mile of property line not only having a wire separating the property and the way the forest was cleared but also the take over of autumn olive on one side and on ours none.


Data and articles kind sir.............


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Their are several can not find one I read but just google or use any search engine and look up (study in northern Michigan of the decline of snowshoe hare population) I would look at all articles from MSU studies

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2014/m...higans-snowshoe-hare-population-dropping-off/

in this particular study links it to climate change but if that is so why then do they recommend a simple solution I quote below.

'One solution to the population decline may lie in subtle changes to forest management.

The study found that snowshoe hares prefer high-density stands with lots of vegetation cover, particularly conifers, for protection from predators. It also found that they will use cover created by blown-over trees or trees that are purposely knocked over. To improve habitat, foresters could leave or encourage a conifer component in harvested stands and, in areas without conifers, create cover by piling downed trees and tree tops.'

If you read the article it is quite alarming seeing the areas studied not only showed a steady decline but the complete elimination of the species in that area.

What I understand is simple logic and reason for every action there is an equal reaction. 

This small practice change I believe would not only help the snowshoe hare but birds and other animals as well. It would not hurt the forest but actually help it and be a more natural way of rejuvenation a forest and ecosystems within it.

.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

A big decline in small game can be tracked to the number of canine and avian predators their are today compared to years past. All have made a huge come back in both peninsulas.


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

True story

Two years ago in April with full snow cover I watched an Ermine chase a cottontail for about 20 minutes until the rabbit ditched it.......The very next morning I looked up the drive and saw a large bird. Grabbed the binoculars and it was a hawk sitting on something, got in the truck and YUP there was that cottontail dead as a door nail........

So where are the rabbits going?


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Most species including ourselves need, no require 3 important items for survival, food, water, and shelter. These three things are not met when cuttings do not leave tops and limbs in brush piles. The industry does not care for conservation but the most money they can make and let's face facts tops and limbs shredded is money. There lies the problem instead of making money off the timber itself, greed steps in and let's make more money from tops and limbs as well. Our devastation in certain species being threatened and some illuminated is a practiced derived from greed, how can you or me stop that, greed?


----------



## Midalake (Dec 7, 2009)

Hunters Edge said:


> Most species including ourselves need, no require 3 important items for survival, food, water, and shelter. These three things are not met when cuttings do not leave tops and limbs in brush piles. The industry does not care for conservation but the most money they can make and let's face facts tops and limbs shredded is money. There lies the problem instead of making money off the timber itself, greed steps in and let's make more money from tops and limbs as well. Our devastation in certain species being threatened and some illuminated is a practiced derived from greed, how can you or me stop that, greed?


Again kind sir.......Data and articles ?


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

That was a personal opinion of a lifetime of my observation on what I have seen practiced in Michigan sir. You seem to believe articles, just because it is written, yet someone's observation is not.

Logging in Michigan has seen many changes in its history. If you believe logging has never had a negative impact on wildlife, water, soil and air, or implying it, one has to wonder where grayling went in Michigan. The decline in snowshoe hare and I believe the decline in woodcock is a direct link to logging practice change of not leaving tops and limbs in brushpiles. 

I do not need an article to see what has happened.


----------



## Wolverick (Dec 11, 2008)

Hunters Edge said:


> That was a personal opinion of a lifetime of my observation on what I have seen practiced in Michigan sir. You seem to believe articles, just because it is written, yet someone's observation is not.
> 
> Logging in Michigan has seen many changes in its history. If you believe logging has never had a negative impact on wildlife, water, soil and air, or implying it, one has to wonder where grayling went in Michigan. The decline in snowshoe hare and I believe the decline in woodcock is a direct link to logging practice change of not leaving tops and limbs in brushpiles.
> 
> I do not need an article to see what has happened.


I have to agree. I have has my place harvested three times and each time the o m operators, despite my repeated requests, drove my tips into the dirt. After each harvest a few rabbits would show up then disappear again as soon as the little debris left rotted down. I an currently hinging some balsam in an effort to draw some rabbits back just two years after the last cut.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

This is awesome news. Will hopefully increase property values and encourage harvest of the mature sterile forests we have. I cut my property 4 years ago and still can't believe the explosion in wildlife diversity since the cut. 

And I would have to agree lack of brush piles probably doesn't help the rabbit population. That being said coyote and birds of pray are the real enemy.


----------



## smith34 (Feb 2, 2009)

Lumberman said:


> And I would have to agree lack of brush piles probably doesn't help the rabbit population. That being said coyote and birds of pray are the real enemy.


The brush piles are one safe haven from both predators, which is why they are so important.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

Most all resident small game has a very limited home range so wouldn't it stand to reason that if there was only one simple solution to a lack of certain species some areas would be overrun with bunnies or grouse or........(?) and other areas devoid of these species? I have not really found this to be the case. Some areas with brush piles are sometimes mediocre places to hunt and some area without are great hunting.

Let's muddy the water a bit with this article. It is about New Hampshire but could easily apply to the UP or the rest of Michigan. FM

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20160313/NEWHAMPSHIRE0305/160319791


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

No that article represents cutting mature forest to create new growth which needs to be done. It does not address leaving brush from the tops and limbs which without has caused the illumination of snowshoe hare in Michigan. It also does not address the national decline of woodcock in United States which I believe is a direct link to the practice of not leaving tops and limbs in brush piles. You know pheasant forever is all about habitat, the same is needed for animals in the forest. Have you ever looked at a fresh cut clearcut? You might as well look at a desert, and described as waste land, it is almost void of wildlife. It takes several years even if weather is favorable and no droughts to produce cover sufficient for cover/habitat, brush piles left is habitat/cover that animals use as a transition tell the forest grows enough to protect them from predators. It also provides a deverse growth of organisms that continue to be used as food by young birds even after the regrowth of forest is complete from the decaying material. If brush piles are not left you are eliminating not only cover but food as well.

So your not muddying the water, your just diverting the topic. No one including myself do not see a need for cutting a mature forest. The practice of shredding tops and limbs eliminating brush piles is deterrent to cut for conservation because certain animals are declining and in some areas gone because of this practice.


----------



## michgundog (Feb 22, 2008)

I noticed recently several large ash trees that are showing disease. Can these trees still be sold by a timber buyer? I need the woods selective cut to have them removed not clear cut.


----------



## smith34 (Feb 2, 2009)

michgundog said:


> I noticed recently several large ash trees that are showing disease. Can these trees still be sold by a timber buyer? I need the woods selective cut to have them removed not clear cut.


The ash market is over saturated due to the ash borer, so, your ash is worth more as firewood than timber currently. Yours are likely dying from the bug, not a disease.


----------



## michgundog (Feb 22, 2008)

smith34 said:


> The ash market is over saturated due to the ash borer, so, your ash is worth more as firewood than timber currently. Yours are likely dying from the bug, not a disease.


Yeah, that's what meant by disease was the emarld ash borer. Does anyone cut ash for firewood in large quantities that you know of?


----------



## smith34 (Feb 2, 2009)

Not sure of your area, but check out some of the local firewood suppliers to see what kind of price they can get you.


----------



## Martin Looker (Jul 16, 2015)

So what does arguing about brush piles have to do with weather or not there is a new market for my timber?


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Martin Looker said:


> So what does arguing about brush piles have to do with weather or not there is a new market for my timber?


If you have others harvest your timber ,their process affects the resulting effect on habitat structure.
One outfit may chip all limbs and brush ,and another leave tops .
Your input before they operate in your holdings is a determining factor in the results.
Because methods vary ,your profit may be affected multiple ways if trying to change their standard procedures ,and what value you place on small game , how you manage your holdings for other wildlife , and how the timber harvest fits into your plans .

An outfit coming in to cut with no other requirements than to cut and then hand you a check ,no problem.
Custom work, or deviation from the norm can be expected to affect your profit.
An outfit that chips is fine by one owner and not another.
A clear deck may please one landowner and dismay another.
So the argument.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

The difference is species being eliminated in areas once abundant. And a steady decline in other species which could be attributed to the difference of the practice which is mostly used because of the financial difference which was explained above.

The difference do we continue to cut for monetary value alone or will our wildlife be around for future generations?


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

I hate half truths and self serving ignorance.

Chipping floods watersheds with nutrient surges that effect water quality. So, sometimes brush is better. Sometimes sapling success is low due to browsing. Brush protects the fresh growth for a time. You can manipulate target species success for future harvests.
Sometimes all the nutrients are tied up in the old timber, so, chipping returns needed material to quickly cover ground, disperse browsing wildlife, and slow erosion problems. Re establishing a nutrient mat at ground level. Instead of locked up in the trees.
And you can talk over, and specify what you want with your forester.
If you feel out gunned, the state can advise you, and/or you can hire a consultant.
All of which is forestry 101.

A park like understory is an environmental disaster, even if adjacent property owners don't think so. 

This isn't Australia, we won't be end loading rabbits into landfills anytime soon. They are doing fine.
Most small mammal have explosive reproductive rates to adapt to resource changes. The critters that feed on them lag a bit, but raise healthier broods when the food supply is surging, causing a decline next year. And round and round it goes.
If a person wants more rabbits, stack some junk pallets along property lines, and call it good. You'll get plenty in short order. An then all the critters you hate will show up to eat them.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Gamekeeper said:


> This isn't Australia, we won't be end loading rabbits into landfills anytime soon. They are doing fine.


That's not true, if so they would not be doing research on the decline of snowshoe hare in LP and eastern UP. The study also showed just by leaving conifer and brush piles could stop the decline. In core areas that studies were done not only the decline but complete absence of the hare were evident, while doing the study.


Gamekeeper said:


> If a person wants more rabbits, stack some junk pallets along property lines, and call it good. You'll get plenty in short order. An then all the critters you hate will show up to eat them


Brush piles is not just about rabbits, but cover for birds, and chicks. It also provides food, by having its own ecosystem providing bugs, vertebrae's and such for chicks as the brush rots. It also is about providing matting and compost to allow worms within reach of a 2 to 3 inch probe for woodcock. As far as predators we already have them, the cover is habitat allowing an opportunity to escape from the already existing predators. The escape is not just rabbits but chicks who cannot fly yet and need cover to conceal as well as to escape predation.


----------



## May-39 (Jan 14, 2005)

H.E. is not blowing smoke.
MDNR is ( I know as of last year) is or was supporting hinge cutting balsam and spruce/firs in snowshoe habitats to provide horizontal cover. Which a brush pile would also provide.
I don't recall if I read that in the up north paper or Woods N Water. The article had a pics of volunteers doing that very work.
Ann Jandernoa of North Wind Enterprises (Wisconsin) is a former forester herself. Now runs a grouse hunting operation. She also provides one day grouse hunting and habitat clinics throughout ruffed grouse country.
According to Ann (which makes sense to me too) Brushpiles provide excellent drumming locations, they provide an elevated drumming area (much preferred) and retreat/security for the grouse announcing his presence to all predators and pals. A stump with some cover or hinge cut balsam would also provide similar resources (in my mind).

I am not a biologist or grouse or snowshoe expert. However, I had witnessed what HE is speaking of advocated by those considered knowledgeable in the rabbit and grouse.

Do I want to see the north and U.P clear cut except for deer yards and riparian corridors? HECK YES
I thanked the guy driving that shear tractor thing across what was a grouse spot I hunted years past. This wood demand and pending cut of the north has me thrilled.


----------



## jdcherry (May 31, 2012)

I expect that a good portion of the wood for that mill will be coming from state and federal forests (the federal forest cuts being prepped by the state under good neighbor authority). The state regularly includes habitat specs for grouse and bunnies in their sales, requiring tree tops and drumming logs to be left. They are not on all cuts, but they do it where it makes sense for the habitat goals they are trying to achieve. This mill will be nothing but beneficial for small game in the area it is pulling its feedstock from.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Say that to the depleted and non existent snowshoe hares from the same practice used then as now.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Better yet ask the state why the depleted small game licenses and the reasoning to add the license on as a base license. 
Then ask the mom and pop stores, restaurant owners, small town motels, gas stations, sporting good stores that rely on snowshoe hunters between January thru March. Even better if you could ask those who closed their doors after many years in business because of the loss of revenue during this time frame to help get them through tell spring.
The biggest concern should be the total loss of a specie, along with declining numbers of not only the same specie but others as well. The concern of declining woodcock populations even with record clearcutting not just in Michigan but other states along with Canada. Just FYI was told to me Canada started the use of shredding to increase income for foresters prior to it becoming poplar or practiced in Michigan. The timeline for declining woodcock populations seem to have the same as industries practice of shredding for increased revenue for foresters. Not saying this is the reason but most likely is and should be looked into extensively with research. Or just stop the practice of shredding to leave brush piles for snowshoe hares and see if woodcock numbers increase as well as the snowshoe hares.


----------



## jdcherry (May 31, 2012)

Sure. I would tell anyone of those people that that mill will mean nothing but good for the local economy and habitat for small game. I will tell the bunnies I see whenever I am hunting my grouse and woodcock coverts that they have mills to thank for their habitat. Here is the reality: 57% of Michigan forests are owned by individuals, often called "family forests", 8% is owned by industry, 14% is owned by the feds, and 21% is owned by the state. The industrial lands are cut regularly, but are less managed for habitat than the state lands, still better than no cutting. The fed lands are rarely harvested (although that should change with good neighbor authority). But the individually owned forest lands are the bulk of the forest in Michigan and is generally not managed for young successional forests (there are some people who manage their lands very well for young successional forests, but very far from a majority). The DNR cannot create all the habitat the state needs for abundant small game on its lands alone. Its just not possible. Take a look at the change in young successional forest over the entire landscape (not just state lands) over thirty years: http://timberdoodle.org/population That is the main culprit. the timeline, as you refer to it, has everything to do with the natural change of early successional forest to mid or late successional forest. The Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine has been managed specifically for woodcock habitat for almost 80 years and has had numerous scientific studies that point to what needs to be done for woodcock abundance. Its all about early successional forests. The vast majority of our forests are managed (or not managed) in a way that directly contradicts the most basic guidelines for improving habitat for species such as woodcock and grouse.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

jdcherry said:


> Sure. I would tell anyone of those people that that mill will mean nothing but good for the local economy and habitat for small game. I will tell the bunnies I see whenever I am hunting my grouse and woodcock coverts that they have mills to thank for their habitat. Here is the reality: 57% of Michigan forests are owned by individuals, often called "family forests", 8% is owned by industry, 14% is owned by the feds, and 21% is owned by the state. The industrial lands are cut regularly, but are less managed for habitat than the state lands, still better than no cutting. The fed lands are rarely harvested (although that should change with good neighbor authority). But the individually owned forest lands are the bulk of the forest in Michigan and is generally not managed for young successional forests (there are some people who manage their lands very well for young successional forests, but very far from a majority). The DNR cannot create all the habitat the state needs for abundant small game on its lands alone. Its just not possible. Take a look at the change in young successional forest over the entire landscape (not just state lands) over thirty years: http://timberdoodle.org/population That is the main culprit. the timeline, as you refer to it, has everything to do with the natural change of early successional forest to mid or late successional forest. The Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine has been managed specifically for woodcock habitat for almost 80 years and has had numerous scientific studies that point to what needs to be done for woodcock abundance. Its all about early successional forests. The vast majority of our forests are managed (or not managed) in a way that directly contradicts the most basic guidelines for improving habitat for species such as woodcock and grouse.


It still does not stop the destruction of species relied on brush piles. We are not specifying state vs private vs fed land we are discussing the practice that has eliminated snowshoe hare in northern lower and eastern UP. I believe it is also the culprit of the downhill populations of woodcock even with the slashings you mentioned in your post. They are not immune to lower woodcock populations.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

jdcherry said:


> Sure. I would tell anyone of those people that that mill will mean nothing but good for the local economy and habitat for small game. I will tell the bunnies I see whenever I am hunting my grouse and woodcock coverts that they have mills to thank for their habitat. Here is the reality: 57% of Michigan forests are owned by individuals, often called "family forests", 8% is owned by industry, 14% is owned by the feds, and 21% is owned by the state. The industrial lands are cut regularly, but are less managed for habitat than the state lands, still better than no cutting. The fed lands are rarely harvested (although that should change with good neighbor authority). But the individually owned forest lands are the bulk of the forest in Michigan and is generally not managed for young successional forests (there are some people who manage their lands very well for young successional forests, but very far from a majority). The DNR cannot create all the habitat the state needs for abundant small game on its lands alone. Its just not possible. Take a look at the change in young successional forest over the entire landscape (not just state lands) over thirty years: http://timberdoodle.org/population That is the main culprit. the timeline, as you refer to it, has everything to do with the natural change of early successional forest to mid or late successional forest. The Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine has been managed specifically for woodcock habitat for almost 80 years and has had numerous scientific studies that point to what needs to be done for woodcock abundance. Its all about early successional forests. The vast majority of our forests are managed (or not managed) in a way that directly contradicts the most basic guidelines for improving habitat for species such as woodcock and grouse.


Thats the issue, you say your going to ask the rabbits you see when your hunting your grouse and woodcock coverts. How are you going to ask snowshoe hare when their are none? Please tell me how your going to magically produce animals that while being researched not only populations reduced in but gone, none existing in the area anymore.


----------

