Beetle Kill Impact on Wildlife

[js80138]

Our local Fox affiliate posted findings from a study examining the impact on Bark Beetle and Wildlife. The results were interesting as it was determined that the areas most impacted had a positive effect on several species including Elk and Mule Deer. I have posted a link to the news clip as well as a link to the actual study.

https://kdvr.com/2019/04/30/study-shows ... -colorado/

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley ... /ecs2.2369

I found this very interesting in relation to where I hunt and how I may need to change my approach. I have heard many times that the units I hunt do not hold the same population of game that it once did. That may be completely accurate yet the guesstimate numbers provided by CPW indicate the numbers are healthy enough for me to harvest. This reminds me of something I have said to my children when they would complain about not liking a meal on their plate. My response has always been, "Your not hungry enough". It turns out I am a bit hypocritical as I avoid the gnarly, beetle kill areas for more convenient hunting. Looks like I am now the one who needs to change and if I don't "I am not hungry enough."

[Swede]

I have not viewed the videos, but am familiar with beetle kill Lodgepole pine areas. When the trees are dead there is an increase of sunlight on the ground and it improves the forage until the younger Lodgepole comes back and carpets the area. Fire killed forest is also a good place for quality forage, but getting close to the deer or elk is often a tough proposition.

[RAMMONT]

I don't understand the theory that beetle kill improves the new growth, I'm not seeing this opening of the canopy that the experts claim happens when beetles invade.

Every place where we have beetle kill we have so many dead trees on the ground that there is no place for new growth, just rotting trees that impede the escape routes of the larger ungulates. Here in SW Montana (Helena Natl. Forest) the canopy doesn't seem to be all that open, the trees are dead but they are still standing almost a decade after our beetle kill event. If you climb a high peak you can easily see that well over 50% (and the Forest Service estimates more like 80%) of the forest is dead with still standing gray wood. So we have a lot of dead trees still standing, in a very tightly spaced configuration, which doesn't thin the canopy at all, and in the places where the trees have fallen, there is no new growth of grasses or saplings at all because there is no place on the ground for new growth to take seed and the canopy hasn't really opened. Anecdotally, I have seen more animals in the burned areas than the dead-fall areas, and yes, I go in to the dead-fall areas to hunt. When I do find elk and deer amongst the dead falls it's in small, open parks with open canopy and new grass.

I do agree that opening the canopy and new growth will attract the ungulates but I just don't see the canopy being opened by the beetle kill around here. That's why I am very happy to see the Forest Service reopening the harvesting of beetle killed trees in our area, the canopy is being opened and I'm expecting to see vastly improved hunting in a couple of years.

[Swede]

The results were interesting as it was determined that the areas most impacted had a positive effect on several species including Elk and Mule Deer.

Normally the positive effect is increased forage and improved quality of forage. There are adverse affects also. The one that comes to mind first is increased fire danger. A burn will improve forage also, but it also stimulates the return of the Lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine cones love fire so they will open up and the seeds will germinate. The Serotinous cones will stay in the duff and litter on the ground for many years, even after the LPP trees are gone, then after a wildfire you will have a new crop of LPP.

[RAMMONT]

I'm underwhelmed by the lack of interest in this topic, I suspect that when someone's observation doesn't fit the preferred narrative it's just ignored.

[js80138]

I also was hoping for more feedback from the group as well but maybe I've overwhelmed everyone by offering a scientific study. lol.

Colorado has over 4 million acres that are suffering from the bark beetle kill. I know in the northwest quadrant of the state where I hunt it is a terrible sight to look out at a forest only to view grey and orange pines. This alone has impacted where I hunt simply because I have been weary to hunt an area with not only wind blown trees scattering the floor but the idea of another one falling while I am hunting is not something I seek out. Maybe my past back issues have contributed to this but I have put my time in the gnarly areas and simply haven't had success or enjoyment. I also do not see open areas within the beetle kill. Usually the edges of the forest are harvested first for beetle killed trees due to the accessibility.

My take on the study is that I need to scout the areas adjacent to the dense beetle kill areas more looking for game trails, water sources and feeding areas that are more difficult to recognize compared to a healthy forest. It makes sense to me that bedding areas would be where I have not been willing to go. I know that is not a new concept and that it has been said by contributors in the past as I have read those exact words on WT but I never considered beetle kill areas a primary area of focus.

I am committing to apply this information in my hunt this year.

[Swede]

What you are likely to see if you check closely is that the beetle killed timber is fairly uniform in age (Approximately 80 years old). It all came in after a wild fire back in the early part of the 1900s. I have never seen the forest there, but that is pretty typical. This is the life cycle of LPP. What allows for better growth of the grasses is the small limbs and needles have fallen off when the trees die. More sunlight gets to the ground. This increases both the amount of grass and the nutritional value of it.