We are seeing way more grey squirrels where I used to see red squirrels.

Home safe and that is a good thing. Time to turn on the football game.

Bryce

Thats interesting.

How has the habitat and environment change?


Go Pack Go

I stated in a post I would offer my thoughts on some species changes I have seen over the last 35 years or so. I did not want to put this in the WI deer hunt thread as this is not directly aligned with that thread.
We hunt in north central Taylor Co, WI we are at about 45 degrees and 25 minutes north and almost exactly 90 degrees west.

I stated I see far more grey squirrels then I used to. Below are other things I see as well.
1. There are far fewer spruce and other conifers growing in the clear cut areas then in the past. Spruce in this area have been hit with spruce worm and other issues. Spruce can take wide ranges in temps but maybe the worms can survive better as winters warm more.
2. The clear cuts are mostly aspen and in the higher ground we get lots of hardwoods, mostly maples, ironwood etc. Not much understory there so less grouse, deer, all squirrels as maples are poor trees for food for almost anything.
3. Where the spruce are and hemlocks is the lower areas that are harder to log if at all. I do see and hear some red squirrels in those areas and some hare tracks. I actually saw two or three cottontails this trip.
4. Logging operations use totally different methods today and there are not the trails or temporary roads to move logs out and that means there are less edge areas also. I had two groups of grouse roosting near me Saturday and they were all in the trees along the edge as in most of the clear cuts there are not any roosting trees left until they grow back.
5. I see decent amounts of deer sign in the usual places but fewer deer are seen. I believe the deer over the last 30 years have developed a more nocturnal life style. I feel that this is due to More wolves, bear, bobcats and the persistent yotes, but also when you have hounds running through the woods for 3-4 months of the year in this area the deer change their patterns a lot . Not against hound hunting at all but the area we hunt is about the furthest south with about 200 square miles or more that hounds can run on so it gets a lot of hound usage.
6. Summer temperatures during the day time are as high or higher than where I live 180 miles as the crow flies southeast, but nights are always cooler. Winters are just plain warmer in WI than 30 years ago and to me that does not impact the vegetation or the mammals in the area but it could easily impact the diseases, parasites, etc.
7. The grey squirrels are an indication that there are oaks nearby which is a good sign as there will be deer there also and with less logging there are more acorns from older oaks then years ago.

As stated above these are just some thoughts that I have noticed over time.

Bryce

Very good post Bryce. Talking to several foresters, it seems that maples are taking over the entire state. Not good for the wildlife at all.

You must hunt somewhere west of the Mondeau Flowage and somewhat north of Perkinstown. Have always thought that was nice country. Interesting observations Bryce, have noticed similar changes over the years in different areas I've hunted as well. The aggressive maple succession is bothersome. The "maple deserts" as we call them, offer no whitetail habitat, just a place to walk through.
I think the predation by bears, coyotes and wolves has more impact than many believe.

We spend most of our time east of the Mondeaux deer hunting. I have hiked the Ice Age Trail 3 times from Wood Lake about 12 miles east of Rib Lake to hwy 64 about 15-20 miles west of Medford. The only times I go into the big Kidrik Swamp is with snowshoes and snow so I can find my way out! When grouse hunting one can go way back as grouse don't weigh much. With deer now at my age I stay within 1/2 mile of some road.
I used to hunt a lot in September for grouse but now I don't really go up much until the 2nd week of October as when I grouse hunt early it seems one is always running into a bear bait, a hunter or the dogs. Sort of takes away the semi wilderness experience with all the noise, and tech stuff all around one.

Bryce

Bryce,
It definitely seems that there has been an unbalance of needed habitats over the years. I hunt private land just NW of you - we manage that property for young forest development, in addition to your nocturnal hypothesis (which I support), I wonder if these private tracts of land are holding more deer because less pressure and better habitat?

A lot of private land does act like a refuge as some LO's don't hunt, or hunt very little. Some do TSI and some don't do any, or very little. Definitely a mixed bag. Habitat is critical for whitetails, grouse, etc. WI has an abundance of resources and information available to people if they are interested.

Here in the Adirondacks and the Tug Hill Plateau of NY, deer browse heavily on maple seedlings and saplings. Also, grouse roost and eat the buds of soft/red maples, and many other critters benefit from maple seeds. I do agree a mono culture forest is not good for all wildlife.

As a geographer who has studied U.S. land cover and land use for 20 years, I've read a broad spectrum of scientific articles and reports about historical and contemporary forest composition. Th northern eastern temperate forest has probably undergone some of the most noticeable changes over the past nearly 200 years, much of it still echos from earlier widespread disturbance and some of it more recently from changing biophysical conditions. What is ironic is that the settler "primeval" forests of the 1600s through the early 1800s, at least further east, may have been a reflection of century old "forest flush" response to a great diminishing of Native Americans during the 1500s as English fish drying camps were common along at least the New England shoreline and European diseases were transmitted--remember John Cabot explored the Gulf of the St. Lawrence less than a decade after Columbus set foot in the Caribbean. So what snapshot in time is the most correct "natural forest" is sort of up to the beholder.

General observations from my readings is that beech and hemlock are on a general decline where as maples, especially reds, are on a substantial ascent.

Aspen was only a minor component of the white pine dominated pre-cut northern forest of WI and MN but took off considerably in the secondary forest era. Aspen forestry didn't really take off until WWII era when they found that it could be made into pretty good paper and later in the late 1970s when OSB boards took off.

Changing environments, as well as increased global trade, has encouraged and/or introduced more diseases and pests, then what was seen in the past. As with critters, generalist tree species have done better than more niche species or species that ended up in the cross-hairs of a specific disease or pest vectors- chestnuts and now ash are big examples of that situation.

It makes sense that more active forest management that is tailored or ends up being good game habitat attracts or produces more of these desired critters. In less managed tracts of forest, you end up generally getting what is trending. Landscapes are dynamic and can reflect multiple temporal scales at once. Good luck on keeping the game species you all want, I hope the W. Great Lakes states get real wolf seasons soon. The return and spread of the wolf is too big of a factor in deer management to ignore...

One big influence in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan (U.P. & Lower MI) is the heavy logging of these states, beginning in the 1880's through 1920 or so.

Thank you all for adding good rationale, information and data to my original post. As stated my observations are limited by my experience and smaller geographic range. I was hoping to illicit good responses and that it is doing.
My ecology background makes me believe how interrelated everything is and I am glad to see posts that also show some science that helps add to those thoughts.

Happy Thanksgiving to all and thank you again for relating your thoughts and experiences.

Bryce

https://mywisconsinwoods.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Early-Vegetation-of-Wisconsin.pdf

If you agree with this map all of Taylor County was predominantly Maple/Basswood/Elm

After a second look I think it was Maple/Hemlock/Yellow Birch, I might be color blind

Yes that area may be reverting back to some of it's original pre-colonization vegetation. The first logging was mid 1800s and the 2nd major logging was about WW1 era so yes we are now getting to about 80-100 years since the last major clear cutting on a broad scale. There were never many deer in the north prior to logging and maybe there won't be habitat for many as the forest matures.

Bryce

Interesting thread.

Bryce, having just returned from Wisconsin deer hunting, I noticed my friends managed woodlot starting to suffer from a loss of biodiversity. His woodlot is northern hardwoods cut on a 15 year rotation, he has had to accelerate his next harvesting cycle in order to remove all the ash trees because of the coming emerald ash borer. What really struck me this trip was the heavy over browsing by the deer, almost no new under growth, and the lack of tree species diversity in the stand. The area was heavily harvest for white pine at the start of the 1900 hundreds. Starting with the loss of the america chestnut in the 1800 hundreds, dutch elm disease wiping out the elm, the forest of today is rabidly changing and this must have an effect on animals.
Add in how man is farming bigger and bigger fields with equipment it has to be changing things.
Jim

I have added several browse plots, food plots and Aspen clear cuts that have enhanced out habitat, if I had to point to one single management technique that has seemingly changed our land for the better it would be- Tag Alder shearing. If speckled alder limbs have more than 10% of mature growth growing horizontally within 24" of the soil surface, little value is being derived from these Alder stands. I see a lot of mature tag alders on public land with growth diameters over 4". I try to connect as many upland areas to adjacent alder wetlands as possible, softening the edges has really helped with our deer and grouse populations.

Interesting observations, thanks for sharing.
On my farm, I've been slowly adding "greenways" by planting trees and WL shrubs, such as ninebark and highbush cranberry. Slow, but sure.

Interesting here in hardwood forest rolling bluffs country I’m seeing red squirrels we didn’t have when I was a kid along with bobcat and fisher becoming common. We used to have a lot of gray fox know I would wager we have way more cats and fisher and no grays. Our otter population has went from none to very common in last twenty five years as well

Ecosystems have a tendency to always try to return to what is the most natural or native to the region based on climate, soil, moisture etc. etc. Soil types also are a reflection of bed rock, or sedimentary material and then organic input from decaying vegetation. Human activity and and does change the ecology and in most cases much more quickly than nature would. We have a tendency to want to put down fauna species we prefer to have and many times we have not changed or altered the flora species that may best suit those species. Logging northern WI was an obvious boom for whitetails and grouse along with other lesser valued species We know seem to be in a real state of general mid-transition back to more mature vegetation which still maintains a deer herd but is less desirable. Black bear are benefiting by this transition and the increased human activity in camping, vacationers etc.
To me bear are now the whitetail of the late 1900s. There is more interest, funds and more money spent in many ways going after 4,000 bear then 50,000 deer. That is not all bad but I believe we just need to understand that is what is happening and it may well be by design for economic reasons. With 100-200,000 bow and crossbow licenses per year and rising we don't see many of those hunters taking 3-7 days off to travel far to hunt, but rifle hunters do and that is dwindling each year. Our hunting practices, methods etc. seem to mirror the way our society is trending. Just a whole lot less about community and a whole lot more about individuals.

Bryce

Good information! I would disagree on several small points (aspen shows up with regularity in bearing tree data pre-1900 in MN) but generally I think you are spot on. The impact that Native Americans had was substantial and what European settlers saw was a result of the forest recovering for 100-200 years after Native populations had crashed and their influence was greatly diminished.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the restoration of processes in the forest. The big one in North America, both east and west, is fire. Oak is a unique hardwood because it can handle light fires and grows well on those sites that favor an occasional fire. Maple, elm, basswood, birches and beech don’t tolerate fire so the successional change to those species across much of the northeast should be expected when we decide to repress fire for 100+ years.

Clark