HUNTING SEASON Fall 2023 Healthy Forests Benefit Game and Sport
Fall 2023 Volume LXXIX, Number 4 Magazine Editorial Committee Anne Beals (Chairman), Spotsylvania David E. Anderton Jr., Richmond Justin Barnes, Shipman Carolyn Copenheaver, Blacksburg Matt Dowdy, Louisa Glenda Parrish, Edenton, NC Fred Schatzki, Troy Luke Shenk, Powhatan Corydon Swift-Turner, Charlottesville Anitra Webster, Lynchburg Lesha L. Berkel Editor Advertising and Design Marcia Bakst Advertising Sales Hiakato Draconas Design & Layout For advertising opportunities contact LLM Publications at 503-445-2231 or marcia@llmpubs.com. A unifying voice for Virginia’s forestry community. 3808 AUGUSTA AVENUE RICHMOND, VA 23230 (804) 278-8733 vfa@vaforestry.org VISIT US ONLINE www.vaforestry.org Virginia Forests 8 Maintaining the Traditions of Deer Hunting in Virginia’s Changing Forests: What Does the Future Hold? by Jim Parkhurst 12 Virginia’s Forgotten Gamebird by Mike Dye 15 Land Use & Management Planning: Hunt Leases for Forest Landowners by James Stacia 17 A Partnership Built in the Pines by Robin Clark CONTENTS ON THE COVER: Presenting North America’s grandest mating display, an Eastern Wild Turkey struts his stuff in Louisa County. (PHOTO BY FRED SCHATZKI) Virginia Forests magazine is published quarterly by the Virginia Forestry Association, 3808 Augusta Avenue, Richmond, VA 23230-3910. Subscription is by membership in the Association with annual dues ranging upward from a minimum of $65 for individuals. Extra copies at $3.00. Advertising rates upon request. The sole criterion for publication in Virginia Forests is that material be sound and informative. All opinions expressed are those of the individual authors and not necessarily those of Virginia Forests or the Virginia Forestry Association. The Association does not pay for materials used. A cumulative index of Virginia Forests is maintained at VFA headquarters. Copyright © 2023 by the Virginia Forestry Association. ISSN 0740-011X. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S UPDATE Livin’ on the Edge, by Corey Connors................ 3 PRESIDENT’S COLUMN As Times Change, We Can Prepare and Adapt, by Dan Hockenberger............ 7 VIRGINIA CHAPTER, ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING FORESTERS Hunting What It’s All About .. . 21 BOOK REVIEW The Age of Wood: Our Most Useful Material and the Construction of Civilization, by Roland Ennos, reviewed by Anitra Webster .....22 THE LOGROLL Sustainability of Virginia’s Logging Businesses, by Scott Barrett..... 23 VIRGINIA FORESTRY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION UPDATE Through My Eyes—Cultivating Tomorrow’s Forestry Leaders and the Vital Role of the Virginia Forestry Educational Foundation, by Paul Winistorfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 TAILGATE TALK Forest Memories, by Matt Dowdy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 DEPARTMENTS In 2005, Virginia Wheelin’ Sportsmen had its first spring gobbler hunt and continues to provide people with disabilities opportunities to enjoy the great outdoors through hunting, fishing, and shooting. HUNTING SEASON Fall 2023 Healthy Forests Benefit Game and Sport
2 VIRGINIA FORESTS
Fall 2023 3 Last year, despite my failure to adequately protect myself against numerous bloodthirsty ticks, I enjoyed spending a day working with VFA-member landowners Bill and Stephanie Osl. After that successful endeavor, I decided to again offer a day of work at the 2023 Forestry Summit silent auction. Clearly, my prowess with a chainsaw has become more widely known as bidding for my services was furious out of the gate. In the end, I was pleased that the winning bid not only surpassed the price of every inanimate silent auction item, but also that I would spend a day with VFA President Dan Hockenberger and his crew at Virginia Forest Resources LLC (VFR) on an active logging job. Make no mistake, loggers are the backbone of the forestry supply chain. Nothing—not forest management, not processing, not the transportation of logs or chips, not the implementation of best management practices-— happens without this critical segment. Virginia’s loggers provide both the muscle and literal movement of Virginia’s $23 billion forestry industry, supporting the livelihood of 108,500 employees throughout our community. VFA is incredibly proud to serve more than 50 companies engaged in our harvesting and transportation segment. Nevertheless, today, Virginia’s loggers are very much operating on the edge. Job-to-job, day-to-day, tree- to-tree, on the brink. We settled on an October Monday for work, with Dan noting that Mondays typically present more challenges than other days of the week. I arrived at VFR’s job in Quinton, a mixed stand clearcut on 43 acres adjacent to a residential farm property, just before 8:00 a.m. The full crew had already been hard at work for an hour or so upon my arrival. Shortly after greeting me, we spotted a gigantic 10+ point buck galloping along the edge of the soy field next to the job site. Dan looked on, helplessly, with neither bow nor arrow. After joking that he likely would not have been able to tag the buck by bow, and Dan immediately producing photographic evidence suggesting otherwise, we resolved to press onward towards the tasks at hand. We stood on a jigsaw puzzle of carefully placed logging mats protecting the dirt road as Dan explained the process by which he won the bid for this work, the objectives of the landowner as expressed through their consulting forester, and the different markets to which they would deliver that day. As he was describing this last part, he received a text notification from a procurement forester that one of VFR’s primary market outlets would not be accepting anything for the entire week. As we stood 50 yards from the chipper actively loading a trailer, the potential destination of this material had changed in an instant. It would now go to the only market within a reasonable travel radius, one that every other logging company within the same radius would also need to utilize in the coming week until it too was full. This elicited little more than a slight shrug of Dan’s shoulders and his assurance that over the last decade, this had become the industry’s standard operating procedure. Next, Dan talked through the logistics of the day with his crew foreman, Chris, a 31-year-old who had been with VFR for nine years. It was easy to see why Dan would tab Chris as a leader. Chris ran through what everyone on the property was working on and where they were located. His description seemed more symphonic than I would have imagined. Each employee and each machine were working in harmony with one another to create an efficient operation. Dan suggested we go check things out, so off we went in hard hats and highlighter-yellow shirts. Our work on this glorious October Monday would be to hand-fell some large-diameter trees that were marked for harvest and standing adjacent to a Livin’ on the Edge FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UPDATE Corey Connors Dan Hockenberger
4 VIRGINIA FORESTS streamside management zone (SMZ) on the other side of the property. As his business has expanded, Dan has had less time to self-inspect markings or to perform consulting work himself. In turn, he is more reliant on the work of the foresters with whom he is partnering. Not surprisingly, relationships continue to matter a great deal in a relationship-based business. We walked past a John Deere skidder pulling logs towards the loading deck as Dan told me that his newest hire, 18-year-old Shawn, was operating the machine. After getting hung up for a second, and some gesticulating by Dan, Shawn worked free and was on his way back to the front of the property. Further along, Dan asked Ben, a feller-buncher operator, to assist us with the day’s work. Ben would operate the Tigercat skidder equipped with a cable, winch, and log chokers, and Dan would also use this opportunity to teach Shawn about cabling a tree. Having reached the end of the property, we stood at the edge of a steep slope while Dan pointed out the trees that had been marked for harvest. I looked up (and up) at them. Then looked back at Dan. Then back to those gargantuan red oak and poplar trees. Then back to Dan’s smiling face. I asked, innocently: “With a chainsaw?” “Yep,” answered Dan. Dan explained that using harvesting machines on such a slope could be dangerous. Further, a machine cut might damage high value sawtimber, significantly reducing its value. “If these trees were high-valued white oak or other high-grade species,” Dan said, “the difference caused by that damage may be the difference between receiving $2,000 for a tree and $1,000 for a tree.” There is science in hand-felling a large-diameter tree. I soon discovered that this work is as much art as science. The precision “hinge-cut” that Dan used, learned through Forestry Mutual training and SHARP Logger classes, was described as the safest way to hand-fell a tree. At each tree, Dan would: predict the likeliest path towards which a tree might fall; make the hinge cut; locate the exact pressure points for me to drive felling wedges; determine a path to safety once the tree started falling; then, make the final trigger cut. It is an art, and Dan is a master artisan. After the first felled red oak, Dan shared that Ben was the only other individual on either of his crews that was comfortable hand-felling trees. He suggested that the practice is becoming less common among less-experienced crews. I can certainly understand why. My previous chainsaw experience in no way compares with this. This was dangerous work requiring both great skill and training. As we moved to the next tree, Dan continued emphasizing the importance of safety. “The livelihoods of my team depend on me making it home at night.” The second tree would need to fall down the slope to avoid damaging other trees or creating a potential safety issue. Though Dan performed another meticulous cut and drove the felling wedges deeper than I had, the massive poplar did not fall. Ben was called in to provide mechanical assistance. With a couple of love taps from the boom, the tree fell into the valley towards the stream as intended. Unfortunately, karma remembered it was Monday, and Ben’s machine was off for repairs as the boom was leaking oil. Again, Dan calmly rolled with the punches. As Shawn arrived in his skidder, Dan jumped into the operator station for a quick refresher on the winch. I caught up with Shawn about his experience. He had worked in marine construction prior to working with VFR. Shawn told me that he was enjoying the new work but recognized that most people his age may not. “How long will it be,” he asked rhetorically, “before you won’t be allowed to do hard work like this anymore?” Deep perspective from a young man just out of high school. Dan jumped down and instructed Shawn on the winch before leading me down the hill to demonstrate how to secure the cable around the tree. With the cable secured and the winch set, Shawn began slowly dragging the tree up the slope until he could reach it with the grapple, then safely moved the tree to level ground. Dan and I cleared branches from the stream bed. We approached a third tree that had been marked for harvesting. Upon examination, Dan questioned cutting the tree. The ground surrounding the tree was very uneven. Apparent decay may have made cutting more difficult, making it less certain as to where the tree might fall. I watched as Dan performed calculus on harvesting the tree, eventually deciding that the risk was not worth the reward.
Fall 2023 5 “This is an easy one,” Dan shared as we walked towards the fourth tree. He was confident that this one would be straightforward and would not require wedges. After another very precise hinge cut, and before cutting the trigger, Dan pointed up a small hill to establish our path to safety when the tree started falling. I acknowledged him, he made the trigger cut, and as I turned to jog briskly up the hill… FACEPLANT! In moments of true peril, it is said that some see their life flashing before their eyes. As I lay prone, struggling mightily to quickly get back to my feet, there was not sufficient time to enjoy a replay of life’s great adventures. All I could muster: “I hope like hell that thing is falling in the other direction.” As Dan had predicted and engineered, it did. After a series of accurate assessments throughout the day, Dan correctly surmised the remainder of my workday might be better spent “educating” than “doing.” Over lunch we discussed how a logger might transition away from their business. Beyond selling any equipment that the company might own, unlike other business types, loggers do not usually sell their “brand” or an established book of business. We talked about how loggers will strive to ensure that the property will “cut out,” meaning that they will receive value for the timber harvested more than what they bid for the work. It is incredibly speculative. That a property will cut out is never guaranteed. We visited other logging jobs that VFR had performed in the area, and Dan demonstrated the practical differences between the landowners’ objectives at each site. Near the end of the day, Dan introduced me to Weasel, who operates an independent trucking company that hauls wood. We discussed the challenges, large and small, that the industry faces with transportation. All told, VFR produced three loads of logs, four loads of pulpwood, and three loads of chips on that October Monday. After Dan shared that information with me, it got me thinking about statistics. Specifically, the recent survey conducted by Virginia Tech on the sustainability of Virginia’s logging businesses. There are very real-world challenges and consequences portrayed as data in the survey’s findings. It should not be ignored. But when loggers discuss the need for new markets, workforce challenges, growing regulatory burdens, deficiencies within our transportation infrastructure, or rapidly growing costs of equipment purchase and maintenance, understand that all those sentiments are coming from the same place. Actual, honest-to-God, real-life experience. And remember that we cannot do this without them.
6 VIRGINIA FORESTS
It is a beautiful early fall morning. We had a day of rain that lasted through the night with the clouds clearing and a nice cool breeze coming from the north. All I have on my mind is deer hunting right now, but I feel compelled to write my column for this issue of Virginia Forests. This is my favorite time of year, and I hope I can reflect these feelings in what I write. But I cannot lie, my mind is on getting into my tree stand this afternoon with hopes of putting a tag on a nice eight-pointer I have seen on camera on my property in King and Queen County. How times have changed. When I first started hunting 40-some years ago, we did not have cameras to see what was out in the woods. We relied primarily on signs, such as deer rubs and scrapes, to make a guess as to how big that buck was or how long ago he had come through that area. Back then I could not wait for the next issues of Sports Afield or Outdoor Life to come out to read the stories and adventures that their writers had to share with us. Much of what I read seemed like adventures in far off places that I only hoped to experience. Now all we need to do is go online to find the latest YouTube video that someone just like me has put out. Things don’t seem as exotic and out of reach anymore. I grew up in the Adirondack Mountains of northern New York. We had the great fortune of having an abundance of public land to hunt. If you really wanted to, you could find a spot to hunt miles from anywhere without seeing a soul. Of course, it is a huge challenge to get your deer out of those locations. But some hardcore hunters like those in Sports Afield magazine would do it. Back in those days we did not see many posted signs on property lines. I could leave my house to grouse hunt all the way to my buddy Marky’s house, crossing several local landowners’ properties without realizing it. If I saw Henry Coolidge as I crossed his lot, he would just ask me if I have seen any birds and then tell me where he saw them “budding” in the maples up the hill the evening before. I would see our neighbor, Ann Straight on what I thought was a large property at that time: 20-some acres we called Straight’s Hill. She would greet me and ask how my mom was and what we had “put-up” from the garden so far. Things certainly have changed. Now, when I go back home, there are abundant posted signs on boundaries I did not know existed back then. Homes have been built on most of the lots that I would cross on my two-mile walk to Marky’s house. Nowadays you won’t see any kids walking up the dirt road with a double-barrel shotgun, hunting grouse as they go to meet their buddy halfway. Rather than getting the latest intel on the grouse population, you might get a visit from the local sheriff’s deputy. As Times Change, We Can Prepare and Adapt Dan Hockenberger PRESIDENT’S COLUMN 3808 Augusta Avenue Richmond, VA 23230-3910 Phone: 804-278-8733 • Fax: 804-278-8774 vfa@vaforestry.org • www.vaforestry.org OFFICERS (2023–2024) President Dan Hockenberger Virginia Forest Resources, LLC West Point Vice President and President Elect Chris Harris Pinecrest Timber Co. Prince George Treasurer Christina Hager Dominion Energy Richmond Past President Stephanie Grubb International Paper Pawleys Island Executive Director Corey Connors Richmond EX-OFFICIO OFFICERS Paul Winistorfer Virginia Tech—CNRE Blacksburg Rob Farrell Va. Dept. of Forestry Charlottesville DIRECTORS Term Expiring 2024 Lavan Daubermann Colonial Farm Credit Mechanicsville Michael Harold Speyside Bourbon Cooperage, Inc. Harrisonburg John E. Jones III Central VA Land & Timber Montpelior Term Expiring 2025 Ben Cole Cole Timberland Management LLC Appomattox Laurie Wright Wright Forestry LLC Blackridge Jay Phaup Greif Packaging LLC Amherst Term Expiring 2026 Scott Barrett Virginia Tech Blacksburg John Reid Forest Resources Mgmt. Aylett Brian Irvine Roseburg Roanoke Rapids, NC Eric Goodman WestRock Clarksville STAFF Corey Connors, Executive Director Sonnia Montemayor, Deputy Executive Director Chris Frost, Operations Assistant The Virginia Forestry Association, chartered in 1943, is a notfor-profit, non-governmental, privately-supported association of forest landowners, wood product industries and businesses, loggers, foresters, forest use groups, and conservation-minded citizens. New board members are elected annually by mail ballot to all VFA members. Any VFA member may be a candidate for the board. —continued on page 28 Fall 2023 7
8 VIRGINIA FORESTS Virginia has an abundance of forest cover (currently approximately 16 million acres). That was not always the case. Indigenous inhabitants often used fire to maintain openings in the forest and to promote patches of early succession habitats. By the mid-1800s, clearing for agriculture and harvests conducted to meet the need for timber, charcoal, and other wood products had removed significant portions of the remaining forest cover from large swaths of the Virginia landscape (Fig. 1). Contiguous blocks of forest largely existed only on steep slopes or wet sites—terrain deemed unsafe to allow harvest or unsuitable for conversion to agricultural uses. With the rise of industrial and commercial expansion and the abandonment of unprofitable farms, natural succession and the purposeful replanting of tree seedlings (often using Civilian Conservation Corps crews) initiated the conversion of previously cleared lands back to woody growth. The return of forest cover was a slow, but continuous, process and reached a peak in the 1970s, when forested lands covered approximately 68 percent of Virginia. Virginia’s Forests Today Although the current amount of land area in Virginia dominated by forest has remained stable for several decades at nearly 60 percent, the age and composition of this forest continue to change. Today, 81 percent of Virginia’s timberland forest is classified as either pole timber- (36%) or saw timber-sized (45%) growth. More importantly, approximately 75 percent of current hardwood stands and 50 percent of softwood stands fall into the larger (and hence older) saw timbersized category; whereas, the acreage in younger, small diameter stands continues to decline. Despite the fact that large swaths of forest in Virginia are set aside as either national or state forests, over 80 percent of today’s forestland lies in private ownership and, within that ownership group, most of those holdings (88%) are less than 50 acres in size. About half of these forest landowners have never harvested timber, and fewer than five percent express plans to do so in the near future. Of further concern, the percentage of forest landowners who possess a written forest management plan has dropped from 17 percent to about four percent since 1994—but a fact to consider: possession does not equate to implementation. For a variety of reasons (e.g., lack of time, money, equipment, know how), many such plans simply gather dust, and implementation of recommended management actions never occurs. Thus, it appears that current trends in forest structure on privately held forestland Figure 1. View of the mid-1800 deforested landscape of the Appalachian Mountain region. (PHOTO FROM US FOREST SERVICE, GREENBRIER RANGER DISTRICT) Maintaining the Traditions of Deer Hunting in Virginia’s Changing Forests WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD? Photo by Fred Schatzki By Jim Parkhurst
Fall 2023 9 likely will not be changing dramatically in the coming years. The situation on many public lands also is not encouraging. Due to the thinner, poorer soils characteristic to the Blue Ridge and areas west, hardwood stands on the ridges and slopes in the National Forest overall are not as productive as stands found on the better soils down in the valleys and especially to the east in the Piedmont region. Additionally, efforts by managers of these lands to conduct stand improvements, manage dead and downed debris, and enhance habitat diversity have declined noticeably in recent decades as societal views on forest management have changed. The amount of timbering conducted on the National Forest for forest management and habitat improvement purposes today is but a fraction of past levels. Although timber harvests and salvage operations on small tracts still occur, forest management objectives to promote earlier stages of growth largely are being met using prescribed fire. In the meantime, large portions of the public forest continue to age and, due to declining habitat diversity, are no longer supporting the wealth of wildlife observed previously. These facts obviously pose a number of concerns about the future health and condition of the forests as well as the sustainability of values tied to different stages of growth in the forest. Our forests clearly are aging, as large-diameter, high-volume (in cubic board feet) trees assume greater dominance. Among the hardwoods, oak-hickory stands currently predominate over all other species in terms of stand coverage, although red maple [Acer rubrum] and yellow poplar [Liriodendron tulipifera] dominate in terms of the number of individual trees (Fig. 2). Wildlife Impacts Older and larger hardwoods frequently produce substantial quantities of hard mast (i.e., acorns and other nuts). This production provides a highly desired food resource for many species of wildlife but also represents the seedbank necessary to perpetuate the future forest. However, the closed canopies created by these large trees often impede the regeneration of younger individuals of the same species. Many of these important commercial hardwoods are shadeintolerant and need substantial sun exposure to properly germinate and grow, especially in their early years. Instead, large sections of hardwood forests now display a sparse understory composed primarily of shadetolerant species of lower quality in terms of future commercial value or marketability and relative habitat condition for wildlife. As Virginia’s forests continue to age and the understory thins out or disappears altogether, less food is available under the closed canopy of a mature forest. Further, as the amount of acreage under active timber management declines and harvesting timber does not appear high on the list of landowners’ objectives, Virginia’s forests seem destined to continue aging, stand composition likely will favor shade-tolerant species, and habitat conditions for many wildlife species dependent on a well- developed understory likely will deteriorate as well. Hunting in Our Changing Forests To browsing species like the whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana), much of what constitutes potential forage in a mature forest with a sparse understory grows out of reach up in the canopy, except when hard mast falls to the forest floor. This changing habitat condition is not a problem only for deer. Approximately 60 percent of Virginia’s native songbird populations nest or forage within the understory—the zone extending from the forest floor to a height of about 20 feet. As the understory changes, so too will the diversity of wildlife species that need that cover type. Further complicating problems associated with the loss of the understory due to forest aging processes, deer themselves inflict additional Figure 2. Current composition of Virginia’s forest cover. (FROM VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY) Virginia’s Forest Types USDA Forest Service, FIA Program Miles 200 150 100 0 25 50 N Forest Type Groups Elm/Ash/Cottonwood Group Loblolly/Shortleaf Pine Group Longleaf/Slash Pine Group Maple/Beech/Birch Group Oak/Gum/Cypress Group Oak/Hickory Group Oak/Pine Group Virginia State Boundary Legend
10 VIRGINIA FORESTS pressure on the future forest. As deer pass through the forest, they browse selectively on whatever new regeneration manages to emerge within their reach. Because of that selectivity, they preferentially remove the most palatable foods first (e.g., oaks), leaving behind plants they find less palatable. Often, this means species deemed of less commercial worth (e.g., red maple), those viewed as non-native or invasive (e.g., privet [Ligustrum sp.]), or those that provide less habitat value for wildlife eventually begin to assume dominance in the sparse understory. So what does this all mean for deer and the traditions of hunting? Virginia’s deer herd overall is healthy, with a current population estimated at just under 1 million animals statewide. However, deer are not dispersed evenly across the state, due in part to habitat factors touched on earlier, but also on aspects related to land ownership and the effects of population management. In general, deer are less numerous on public lands, especially in the western mountains, where habitat quality is lower and exploitation of the herd tends to be more intense. Deer numbers on private lands are noticeably higher, particularly so near suburbanizing environments, where numerous sanctuary-like conditions exist for deer (i.e., abundant food, few predators, often restricted or no hunting allowed). In its statewide 10-year Deer Management Plan, the Department of Wildlife Resources’ (DWR) population management goals seek to balance deer numbers with regional (i.e., county) societal desires, doing so by adjusting regulatory policies to reduce, stabilize, or increase deer population size in accordance with the established goals for an area (Fig.3). The intent is to achieve a state where deer are plentiful enough to assure longterm sustainability of the species and meet demands from hunters, wildlife watchers, and others who appreciate deer, while minimizing the negative effects of too many deer, such as deervehicle collisions, damage to agriculture and home landscaping, and threats of disease. In addition to the array of habitatrelated issues complicating deer management, the DWR also faces some serious demographic challenges. For decades, the agency has relied upon licensed hunters to accomplish what is needed to meet established deer population goals, and, overall, they largely have been successful. On average, hunters successfully crop about 25 to 35 percent of the deer population annually. However, ongoing changes in societal interests and perspectives now are changing that outlook. The number of hunters in Virginia continues a long-running decline and participants also are aging; today, less than three percent of the human population participates in big game hunting in Virginia (Table 1). Although recruitment among youth and especially among women has increased, it is not sufficient to counter the larger attrition occurring in the hunting population. Fortunately, the remaining hunters continue to take a sufficient number of deer to approach meeting most population objectives set by DWR, as hunters harvested nearly 185,000 deer during 2022–2023 season. However, concern is rising over whether enough hunters will be available in coming years to harvest enough deer to meet desired population goals statewide. Addressing Issues for Health, Safety, and Management Other demographic changes further complicate the management picture for DWR. As confirmed presence of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has spread into new reaches of the state, some hunters have given up or questioned whether to continue hunting deer due to personal health/safety concerns. Despite encouragement to keep hunting and assurances that consumption of deer that test negative and are properly prepared are safe, there is hesitancy in the hunting community where CWD now has been confirmed, which may lead to fewer deer being harvested. Still, it is important to recognize that, in theoretic terms, the deer population has the capacity to double every year, given that most female deer produce two to three offspring each year. This reality carries consequences. With a large percentage of Virginia’s land area currently in private ownership and owned by those who either do not hunt or do not allow hunting, the ability of hunters to access a considerable proportion of the deer population is a growing concern. Also, a substantial acreage of non-hunted habitat exists today in the ever-growing suburbanizing landscape, which acts as safe “refugia” for deer where traditional hunting methods cannot occur due to regulatory constraints or safety Figure 3. Stated population management objectives for deer on private lands. (FROM VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES 2015–2024 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN) Increase Stabilize Reduce
Fall 2023 11 concerns. Deer that occupy these refugia during the regulated hunting season are free to disperse into and repopulate adjacent zones when the hunting season closes. It becomes harder to meet population goals when this population reservoir quickly counters efforts to reduce or stabilize the population of an area. The growing number of deer in these suburban residential neighborhoods where it is not safe to use traditional hunting present a serious challenge: How do you meet population goals where the most reliable and cost-effective method is not available? New and innovative alternative strategies, such as managed hunts on large acreage tracts, encouraged use of urban archery, and special tactical population reductions, provide options to address these growing populations, but they often require special authorization and are much more costly to implement than reliance on the tradition of using regulated hunting. Outlooks for Hunting Despite the litany of concerns expressed, for those with interest in hunting deer there is no shortage of opportunity to do so in many areas of the state. Deer populations remain strong and overall herd health is good. Although there may be local impediments in some regions, most hunters should be able to gain access to viable hunting lands. That said, unless current trends in both human demographics and landscape characteristics of our forests change for the better, hunting success as was experienced in the 1980s through the early 2000s very likely will not be seen again in some parts of the Commonwealth in the near future. Jim Parkhurst is Associate Professor of Wildlife Science and Extension Wildlife Specialist in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation at Virginia Tech. Table 1. Declining trend among Virginians claiming to participate in deer hunting. (FROM DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES 2015-2024 DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN) YEAR Virginia Population Licensed Deer Hunters % of Population 1995 6,618,358 289,838 4.4% 2000 7,079,030 267,067 3.8% 2005 7,540,027 253,399 3.4% 2010 8,001,024 231,037 2.9% 2013 8,260,405 225,574 2.7%
12 VIRGINIA FORESTS In the early 20th century, ruffed grouse were the second most commonly hunted species here in Virginia, only falling behind wild turkey. The reason was simple—they were widespread and very common. That is not to diminish the value of grouse as table fare or their sporting challenge (exquisite in both regards), but a simple fact of abundance. The industrial logging boom of the early 20th century was very harmful to many species of wildlife. The land was cleared and recut over the course of several decades to provide charcoal for iron furnaces and other assorted uses. As if this wasn’t enough, the emergence of chestnut blight also changed the landscape, resulting in the further setbacks of the regenerating forest landscape. Many wildlife species struggled to overcome these setbacks, but grouse were able to take this in stride and even increase in number and spread across the landscape. You see, grouse are a species of disturbance. They thrive in young, regenerating forests, preferring forest land that is eight to twenty years old. As if the boom in habitat of the early 20th century wasn’t enough, human catastrophes that we collectively call the Great Depression and the Great War further cemented the status of this iconic bird. As farms began to fail and families were forced to find other means of support, these abandoned farms and orchards made prime habitats for ruffed grouse. Soldiers returning from the war were quick to move their families to cities and take advantage of the new modern booming economy. Again, these farms were gradually left to wither and eventually fall into disrepair, becoming just the places where grouse were able to thrive. These trends kept grouse populations booming well into the 1970s. Signs of Decline In the early 1980s, biologists and some hunters began to see changing trends. Discussions about potential grouse population declines began rather quietly. Grouse populations often fluctuate and tend to be somewhat cyclical so many were quick to brush off the declines as natural variations and fluctuations of a population. However, some biologists and hunters noted that this cycle wasn’t responding the way it usually had in the past. The discussions over declines were largely cast aside, as there were plenty of grouse to be found. Forest management on Virginia’s National Forest was hitting its peak in the mid-1980s with new grouse habitat being added in the core of Virginia’s grouse range. Meanwhile, grouse populations in the Piedmont began to shrink as the habitat changed. You see, many Virginians began to see logging as detrimental to wildlife. Many thought that simply letting the forests grow was the best thing that they could do for wildlife. They slowed the pace of logging on their private lands, and when they did log an area it was quicky replanted in pine seedlings, which are of little value to a ruffed grouse. Entering the 1990s, another bird in the western United States would also largely dominate the discussions over forest management, particularly on public lands—the spotted owl. Virginia’s Forgotten Gamebird By Mike Dye
Fall 2023 13 The spotted owl does not exist in the eastern U.S., instead being a species that lives in old growth forests in the western states. However, the ripple effects from lawsuits filed against the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for their management strategies would forever change the landscape for our iconic gamebird. Lawsuits were successfully levied in the western states against the USFS for failing to protect old growth forest. These environmental groups were so effective in their push for old growth forests that the movement spread across the country eventually reaching Virginia. Greater scrutiny and eventually lawsuits were being levied on the USFS for logging operations on public lands, causing logging operations on Virginia’s National Forests to be quickly curtailed. However, in the western portion of Virginia environmental disaster loomed once again to cause yet another gasp for our beloved gamebird. The Insect Connection In the late 1980s and early 1990s a little bug made a big stir. The arrival of the spongy moth (lymantria dispar), formerly known as Gypsy moth, was noted by widespread defoliations in the western mountains. Large areas of defoliation became common and the resulting panic about the future of our oak forests was palpable. However, true to form, the grouse responded to the environmental changes. As would be expected from a bird that makes it’s living in disturbed spaces, the ruffed grouse was able to take advantage of those areas where natural plant succession was unfolding under the defoliated canopy. The grouse hunters were once again happy, living large on the excesses of the resulting landscape changes (although few understood why they were seeing the changes). Like all things, the highs must have a low. Starting around 2002 hunters began to sound the alarm bells. Something had changed, the grouse that had been there were now gone. The reports came trickling in, then pouring in over the proceeding years. Grouse just weren’t in the spots they used to be. What happened? In most cases of species declines, there isn’t just one thing that changed. In the case of ruffed grouse this is certainly the case. The decade-long battle for the soul of our forest land had taken its toll. The timber harvests of the 1980s were aging out, and grouse were not finding new areas of succession to move into. New logging had been drastically curtailed, both on public and private lands. Those pockets of open canopy created by the spongy moth reached canopy closure and the resulting benefits began to diminish. To top it off a new bug had arrived. This time, though, the grouse would lose the battle. We began to hear the reports of dead crows and blue jays in the northeastern U.S. It quickly became clear that a new virus had found its way onto our shores. West Nile Virus is spread by mosquitos in the Culex genus, primarily Culex pipiens. While the mosquito has been in North America for some time, the new strain of the virus arrived in New York in 1999 and quickly began to take its toll on our bird species. As birds migrated, they spread the virus to new areas through the bites of the mosquito. It took some time for biologists to pinpoint West Young forests with open canopy provide habitat for ruffed grouse. The flush rate (flushes per hour) for Virginia Grouse hunting cooperators since 1973.
14 VIRGINIA FORESTS Nile as a likely culprit for declines in grouse, and new research is still emerging on this threat. The research into how West Nile Virus is impacting our grouse population is still in its infancy. What we know so far is that birds in a good habitat that provides better nutrition, better escape cover, etc., are more likely to survive while those in marginal habitats are more likely to die off. Unfortunately, as our forests have aged, more and more of our grouse range has become marginal for grouse productivity due to the lack of diverse stand age structure, lack of appropriate brood range, infiltration of invasive species, and other significant challenges. Here in Virginia, our grouse population has been hit hard by the one-two punch of habitat change and West Nile Virus. Since 2001, Virginia has lost in the neighborhood of 74 percent of our grouse hunters, while the harvest by those hunters has dropped a staggering 84 percent. Our few remaining hunters are hunting longer hours and finding fewer birds. Finding Hope and a Home for Grouse One of our better metrics to measure the long-term health of the population is data provided from grouse hunters. We ask them to provide us data on their hunts so we can see over their shoulders. In 2002, our grouse hunters averaged finding 1.11 grouse per hour of hunting. During the 2022 season, hunters reported finding just 0.36 grouse per hour of hunting. To put that into perspective, in a typical threehour hunt in 2002, a hunter would encounter just over three birds. In 2022, a hunter would have to hunt well over nine hours to find the same number of grouse. While it is easy to be defeated by these bleak numbers, there is a lot of hope on the horizon for ruffed grouse. We have a great blueprint for how to bring these birds back if we are willing to listen to their recent history. While previous highs may not be feasible in the face of West Nile Virus impacts, we can improve their numbers with some strategic landscape-level work. The outbreak of spongy moths and previous timber management work in the National Forest set our grouse up for great success through the 1980s and 1990s. While it is clear spongy moths are not something we desire to ever see return, we can mimic their impacts on the forest by opening canopy gaps strategically to promote increased diversity within our forests. There are a lot of benefits we can obtain through this work for a multitude of wildlife species (grouse are not the only animal that likes young forest), not to mention the benefits that will be observed by our iconic gamebird. The great news is that this work is directly in line with other initiatives that are gaining traction in our Appalachian Mountain region. Between the work of the Virginia Department of Forestry in their Hardwood Initiative, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Working Lands for Wildlife efforts, The Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture, and a myriad of other conservation groups working to promote forest diversity on public and private lands, we see many opportunities to join in on a common mission. The road ahead for ruffed grouse population recovery is not an easy one. Promoting active forest management is a fundamental key strategy to maintaining grouse populations here in Virginia. Active forest management and disturbance to our tree canopy is going to be the only thing that will keep this iconic bird drumming in our forests. As we relearn how to appropriately manage the flawed landscape we’ve inherited, we must consider the needs of all species. Our forests were once dynamic mosaics of age and structure, and we must regain that if we hope to restore our landscape to ecological functionality. While the drumbeats of the ruffed grouse may be fading, we can once again bring them back if we are willing to rethink our forest management decisions. Mike Dye is a Forest Gamebird Biologist with the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources.
Fall 2023 15 Landowners can extract several types of revenue from their tracts, from solar contracts to agricultural leases and, of course, timber production. Some are more complementary than others. Solar, for example, is a “one-way door” that completely alters the landscape for decades—making it difficult and costly for a landowner to revert the land to timber production at the end of the solar contract. For landowners who are looking for revenue opportunities with little to no adverse impact on the forest, hunt leases and recreational use licenses naturally fit within the overall scheme of forest management. The Hunt Lease Hunt leases are agreements between a landowner and an individual or group that allows access to property for the purpose of hunting in return for a lease fee paid to the landowner. Whoever purchases the lease has exclusive rights for hunting subject to the lease duration and terms. There are many ways to put a hunt lease together. Historically, the most common has been annual lease for all hunting rights across all hunting seasons. While hunting seasons vary greatly across counties in Virginia, the vast majority of the hunting seasons occur September through mid-May. Thus, these are the months you could expect to see hunters on your tract. The most popular type of hunting is deer hunting, which provides forest landowners a nice market to offer their property for lease. Sometimes a landowner may desire to offer separate leases by game species (deer, turkey, or waterfowl) if they themselves want the option to hunt or use their property for another purpose during a particular season. Alternatively, they may only want to offer a lease based on calendar dates (October to November for example). It’s important to note, the more conditions or restrictions placed on the lease, the fewer hunters will be interested and the lower the rates and revenues. Hunters by nature tend to be very independent and appreciate options to hunt whenever and however hunting regulations allow, and they will pay for that flexibility. Hunt-Ready Land So, what drives the hunt lease value of a tract? Simply put, one that is accessible, has habitat diversity, holds game species or where game frequently traverses, and offers the hunter a buffer from surrounding activities that could adversely impact their hunt. Accessibility: Within an hour or so of home translates to less commute time and more time to hunt. It also means ways to navigate to a hunting location on the tract (trails or open woodlands), and open enough to observe game. Consider two extremes: a five-year-old pine plantation (“jungle”) as compared to 100-year-old hardwood forest that is open and easy to walk through. Habitat: Wildlife gravitate to areas that have food sources, water, cover/ bedding/resting areas. Yours doesn’t have to have it all, but those attributes should be nearby. Holds Game: Even if a tract checks all the habitat boxes, sometimes game just isn’t there to the extent you might think. It’s a bit like people and neighborhoods—different people are drawn to different areas. If there are many disruptive activities on a tract, they can push game to areas where the game feels safe. Buffer Area: An archery deer hunter could have great success on a five-acre tract in a quiet urban setting. At the same time, a 50-acre tract of mature forest surrounded by a clearcut tract likely won’t hold many deer until the surrounding clearcut grows to include food, water, and cover habitat. Also, if your neighbor lets his dogs run free, that creates a disruptive environment. There likely won’t be much game around an area with roaming dogs! To Lease or Not Aside of being a complementary activity to production forestry, hunt leases provide landowners opportunities for: • revenue • property “policing” through lessee presence—dissuading trespassers, dumping, illegal uses of property • property posting and trail/property maintenance if written into lease terms • help with wildlife management and mitigation of crop damage—vehicle collisions to tree/crop damage • sharing a limited, private resource with those who truly appreciate the exclusive use of the property Leases and Licenses. Hunters generally refer to an agreement that allows them to hunt property as a “lease.” Others view these agreements in strict legal terms as “licenses.” We’ll use these terms interchangeably in the article. When considering charging others to hunt or use your property for recreation, we suggest working with legal counsel to craft an agreement that meets your needs and protects your interests. Hunt Leases FOR FOREST LANDOWNERS By James Stacia LAND USE & MANAGEMENT PLANNING
16 VIRGINIA FORESTS For private landowners, often sharing with others who do not own property is a component of the decision to offer hunt leases. Yes, there are still plenty of good people out there! To be clear, hunt lease and recreational use license sale revenue pale in comparison to any timber harvest. That said, recreational use licenses can provide a steady and reliable income stream to help pay for operational and maintenance expenses, including land taxes. And frequently, trying to completely offset or somewhat offset taxes is a common landowner goal when selling hunt leases and recreational use licenses. While it is difficult to determine exactly how much revenue can be generated on your land from a hunt lease, there is a common value driver, and it’s the same one frequently circulated in the real estate market: Location, Location, Location. The closer you are to the demand originating from large metro areas (think Northern Virginia, Richmond, and Tidewater), the more you may expect to get. Dollars per acre per year is the benchmark value in the hunt lease world. Within 60–90 minutes of one of those large metro areas, a 100-acre tract with “average” features as described above should net you $19–$28/acre or $1,900–$2,800 per year. It all depends on what you have to offer. James Stacia is President of Outdoor Access, Inc. Working with landowners, he consults on how to achieve landowner lease revenue and management goals against a backdrop of what sells in the market. A lifelong outdoorsman and managing principal of a Tree Farm in Fluvanna County, James has overseen pine thinning, hardwood clearcuts, and a selective helicopter harvest in sensitive river bottomland. He is a retired USMC Colonel with service around the globe, and 23-year Board Member of Virginia Property Insurance Association. James holds a BS in Economics from VCU, and MBA from William and Mary. He can be reached at james.stacia@ outdooraccess.com or 804-338-2108. Finding a place to hunt becomes more difficult every year. The “over programmed” world we live in has shaped and changed how and when people are able to get outside. Land ownership patterns also have changed, resulting in more diversified ownership and smaller rural land blocks. The internet has brought transformation and opportunity to opaque markets. The hunt licensing or “hunt leasing” market is no different. Landowners remain necessarily concerned about potential liability from recreational licensing against a backdrop of the ever-increasing costs of holding onto land. These dynamics and others both challenge traditional land access methods and create opportunities to come up with better ways, both for landowners and hunters. Outdoor Access Inc., a Virginia-based company, offers an innovative alternative to the traditional hunt lease methodology: an online hunt lease marketplace that can help address these hunt access dynamics. For landowners, the company provides recreational value and licensing expertise, insurance to mitigate risk, user background checks, payment processing, and customer service. For hunt license purchasers Outdoor Access provides a transparent look at properties where landowners allow access and everything that a hunter needs to make a purchase decision. Compared to traditional access methods, this model can make it easier for landowners by providing them the services and flexibility they require that includes scheduling, payment, insurance, and more. There are also advantages and benefits for hunters and outdoor enthusiasts. They can make reservations quickly and easily for a variety of hunting and outdoor experiences, from urban archery to river float-in camping and paddle sports. For those without a local network, like military members, they can quickly find available opportunities to join hunts. In addition to serving individual landowners and hunters, the company also partners with the Virgina DWR by providing the DWR Hunter Mentor network exclusive access to private property. Additional large organizations using the online system to manage access and licensing of their properties include North Carolina State University, The Conservation Fund, and the Shanandoah Council of BSA. Online tools can give landowners a new way to monetize the recreational value of their land assets. These tools allow landowners the flexibility, control, and confidence to offer their land for recreational use however they choose. This, in turn, offers hunters and outdoor enthusiasts new ways to find and access private property for compelling recreational experiences. For more information about using the Outdoor Access platform, visit www.outdooraccess.com. Hunting Airbnb Style for Landowners and Hunters NON-TRADITIONAL HUNT LEASES AND RECREATIONAL USE LICENSES KEY PRODUCT ACTIVITIES BY COMPANY (0A) LANDOWNER (L) AND USER (U) OA Markets, acquires and vets properties and users U Pays user and admin fees; undergoes background check L Maintains property, sets property rules, conditions, pricing, and availability (no up front costs to landowners) OA, L Builds compelling listings with attribute, location, and wildlife photos OA, L Activates and maintains listing on website OA Promotes listing U Makes reservations and pays fees to OA OA Sends booking notification and user contact info to landowner; sends permission slip and parking pass to user; provides digital check-in and check-out OA Maintains $4 million insurance for landowners as named insured U Enjoys exclusive access to property for rental term; writes listing reviews OA Pays landowner monthly reservation income sum net OA fee of 15%
www.vaforestry.orgRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==