Cutting Trees (untreated) - Shooters good or bad?

C

cyclonenation10

Well-known member
For all of you habitat guys, I want to pose a question. On our property, we have cut several hundred trees the last year or two along fence lines and things at our farm (all bordering CRP). The fence lines were full of 5" - 20" diameter 10'-20' soft maple trees (mostly). We pretty much hinge cut everything a few feet off the ground, and left the down trees. It has created quite a mess, but the birds definitly use it. We experimented by treating some (tordon) and not treating other stumps. There are tons of shooters coming out of many of the stumps we did not treat, but on the surface, I can't think of anything wrong with this.. In my opinion, it provides some pretty dense cover for the pheasants and doesn't really seem to offer much opportunity for avian predators to use (shooters are probably only 1-2" thick.

Am I thinking about this right? What are the negatives of these shooters? I'm assumign eventually they will get tall enough and big enough to once again provide avian predators with perching spots? Am I missing anything here?
 
The only downside that I have noticed is that they are hard to maintain. Warm season grasses are probably better if you are thinking about Phez only, but if you keep it in different stages of growth, I have seen a great uptick in the rabbit and deer populations. I think a healthy ecosystem starts at the bottom. Fallen trees create insects, escape cover, then weeds/forbs and low brows/beading for rabbits and deer. At about 10 feet high they start choking out the weeds and the brush has decomposed. I am not an expert, just a hick who has kicked a lot of brush.
 
Pheasants are the main priority, so I am thinking we should start treating everything..

Agree with your comments, I think the shooters provide decent all around habitat early on but it doesn't take long for them to get out of hand and to the point where they aren't actually helping pheasants.
 
I would caution on using tordon, it does hve the potential to leach out of the root system and could inadvertently kill other vegetation. If using RTU you would probably be ok. You accomplish the same with Roundup RTU. Very effective way to remove trees and sprouts as you have witnessed.
 
I would tordon them, cut them off, not hinge cut. Maples seed out and and it is not a tree that pheasants will benefit much from, kind of like ash trees. Those suckers (shooters) will get thick and hard to get into to cut off again. The downed trees are great places for the birds to roost on to get out of the grass on dewy mornings. Under then will be great protective cover from predators.
 
remy3424 said:
I would tordon them, cut them off, not hinge cut. Maples seed out and and it is not a tree that pheasants will benefit much from, kind of like ash trees. Those suckers (shooters) will get thick and hard to get into to cut off again. The downed trees are great places for the birds to roost on to get out of the grass on dewy mornings. Under then will be great protective cover from predators.
Click to expand...
The more I think about our property, the more I think we really need to tackle the trees. We have put a pretty good dent in them, focusing mostly on fencelines surrounding the "prime" nesting habitat outside of the flood plain. While it seems like the verdict is still out for some on the impacts of trees on birds, it seems like every bit of research I've seen (DNR studies, management plans, etc.) point towards trees almost always having a negative impact on pheasants due to the nesting perchs for avian predators, as well as landmarks/prime hunting areas for land predators (as well as den sites for nest killers, like opposum, coon, skunks). We have more coon on our property than I can believe - and we have trapped a handful of them each fall, but probably nowhere near enough to put a real dent in things however. I think getting rid of as many trees as possible (and probably burning piling and burning the resulting brush) might be more beneficial as a whole for the birds than leaving for winter cover. They've got quite a bit of solid winter cover (plum thickets, young shelter belt, etc.) on our property already. I think the key now might be to deter predators as much as possible.
 
I don't believe predators have as big an impact as folks let on. Back in the glory days in southern Iowa the number of hawks was amazing. It was not uncommon to see 30-50 a day if we spent a lot of time on the road. Coyotes and bobcats were prevalent, yet rabbits, quail and pheasants were thick. When the food source rises so do the predators. Thats the way nature works. I once killed every predator including cats that I ran across. Then I realized I probably killed more birds than any 10 of them. Take that number times good hunters and you realize they take a drop in the bucket. Call me soft, stupid, whatever, but I've come to some conclusions while surviving this long. One is that us humans are an arrogant lot thinking we can always make things better by fighting nature. We forget about the thousands of times we were wrong. Yeah, you might create a few more birds but give some thought about the costs.
















+
 
birddude said:
I don't believe predators have as big an impact as folks let on. Back in the glory days in southern Iowa the number of hawks was amazing. It was not uncommon to see 30-50 a day if we spent a lot of time on the road. Coyotes and bobcats were prevalent, yet rabbits, quail and pheasants were thick. When the food source rises so do the predators. Thats the way nature works. I once killed every predator including cats that I ran across. Then I realized I probably killed more birds than any 10 of them. Take that number times good hunters and you realize they take a drop in the bucket. Call me soft, stupid, whatever, but I've come to some conclusions while surviving this long. One is that us humans are an arrogant lot thinking we can always make things better by fighting nature. We forget about the thousands of times we were wrong. Yeah, you might create a few more birds but give some thought about the costs.
















+
Click to expand...
Costs, as far as environmental/knock-on effects? Or monetary costs?

For me, if I can even make a marginal difference (I am 100% in agreement that birds and predators have coexisted forever) then it is time/money well spent. I have always subsribed to the habitat is king argument, and that the main limiting factor for pheasants virtually everywhere is quality nesting/brood rearing habitat. However, now that we've made that as good as possible at our place, is there are things I can do to even see marginal boosts in numbers (say 10% bump in nesting success, etc.) then IMO it is time-well spent. Worst case, I get a little exercise and the dogs get to run around as well!

I really enjoy being out there cutting trees, messing around, and so do a few buddies of mine. It's really just a good excuse to go play around, and burn up a modest about of gas and chemical in the process. Still relatively cheap compared to alot of other things I could be doing.

The only way I wouldn't want to do any of that is if there were potentially larger environmental impacts that I am overlooking.
 
Costs as in all the other species that will be gone after the trees are gone. Don't get me wrong I'm not a tree hugger. I hope you are successful and would be interested to know how it turns out. I would bet like me that you get tired of cutting saplings all the time. My little place is surrounded by some trees, fallow fields a mix of weeds, warm season grasses, saplings and discing. Quail disappeared two years ago, but still have deer, rabbits and a lot of predators to watch. At the moment there is a couple hoot owls working over the rabbits My hats off to you either way! At least it's not solid row crops. (Biologic wasteland).
 
cyclonenation10 said:
For all of you habitat guys, I want to pose a question. On our property, we have cut several hundred trees the last year or two along fence lines and things at our farm (all bordering CRP). The fence lines were full of 5" - 20" diameter 10'-20' soft maple trees (mostly). We pretty much hinge cut everything a few feet off the ground, and left the down trees. It has created quite a mess, but the birds definitly use it. We experimented by treating some (tordon) and not treating other stumps. There are tons of shooters coming out of many of the stumps we did not treat, but on the surface, I can't think of anything wrong with this.. In my opinion, it provides some pretty dense cover for the pheasants and doesn't really seem to offer much opportunity for avian predators to use (shooters are probably only 1-2" thick.

Am I thinking about this right? What are the negatives of these shooters? I'm assumign eventually they will get tall enough and big enough to once again provide avian predators with perching spots? Am I missing anything here?
Click to expand...
Spray them when you cut them or the root ball keeps growing, then in the future you go to the co-op down the road and tell them you're spraying small trees when you're really trying to kill a mature tree's root system now. Chemical will get increasingly harder to take hold the way you are doing it. If you have cedars, cut them below the first branch and they will die without having to spray the base, cut above that first branch and they'll come back as well, creating same issue stated above.
 
Last edited:
Expanding forestation is one of the biggest threats to grasslands in the United States. Loss of these grasslands accounts for much of the decline in our upland bird populations. Where we can, I always try to favor the grass over the trees. Forestation is probably the biggest cost in my habitat management. The earlier you address the causes, the cheaper and easier your success will be.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
Expanding forestation is one of the biggest threats to grasslands in the United States. Loss of these grasslands accounts for much of the decline in our upland bird populations. Where we can, I always try to favor the grass over the trees. Forestation is probably the biggest cost in my habitat management. The earlier you address the causes, the cheaper and easier your success will be.
Click to expand...
As spring sets in here in Iowa, do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions for killing cut trees as the sap is starting to push out? I've heard Tordon is not nearly as effective this time of year, and don't want to waste efforts.
 
If it's still just a stump base you can use Tordon RTU anytime and it will kill roots on off. If you have sprouts coming out of them you need to wait until later on when you have foliage on the branches so the chemical can uptake through those. Use remedy or regular Tordon, if you have the license, at that point. Tordon and Tordon RTU are different and have different methods of best uptake. But once Tordon is sprayed it will have a residual affect into the following year.
 
GetTothePoint said:
If it's still just a stump base you can use Tordon RTU anytime and it will kill roots on off. If you have sprouts coming out of them you need to wait until later on when you have foliage on the branches so the chemical can uptake through those. Use remedy or regular Tordon, if you have the license, at that point. Tordon and Tordon RTU are different and have different methods of best uptake. But once Tordon is sprayed it will have a residual affect into the following year.
Click to expand...
Point man has it right. However, even Tordon RTU can be taken up by roots and damage or kill trees in close proximity to where you are treating stumps. I have had it stay working in the soil for 3 years, so it is not to be careless with. You might also look at Spike. It is a granular or pellet formulation that is taken up by the roots and all you have to do is sprinkle it around the tree's base within the drip line. With all residual herbicides, you want to read the label and not use them where groundwater or surface water can be contaminated. You usually want a year's growth on suckers before you foliar treat them.
 
As those have mentioned Tordon can leach out of root systems and damage other trees, as to when to apply I would recommend after leaf out. The root system has expended all the store nutrients for leaf emergence, if you cut and spray you will hit the system at its lowest. That being said it is chemical and all you need is fluids moving so when the tree is cut the chemical is absorbed into the the system.
 
Outside of just now wanting chemicals in the ground from an environmental standpoint, is creating a "dead zone" around groves of undesirable silver maples, etc., along fence lines really a bad thing? IMO, it would make eventually clearing out/piling/burning downed trees easier to have less growth around for the time being?

I may be way off base here, however?
 
cyclonenation10 said:
Outside of just now wanting chemicals in the ground from an environmental standpoint, is creating a "dead zone" around groves of undesirable silver maples, etc., along fence lines really a bad thing? IMO, it would make eventually clearing out/piling/burning downed trees easier to have less growth around for the time being?

I may be way off base here, however?
Click to expand...
No one knows your place or ultimate goals so you'll have to decide that one. Tordon is a broadleaf and brushy plant killer, it doesn't kill grass. So if the underbrush you speak of is grass you'll have to throw some glyphosate (roundup) in to get it too. Usually in a clearing situation the equipment will knock that grass down and out of the way pretty quick. Just remember bare ground promotes weed growth so leaving grass where you can is usually beneficial.
 
GetTothePoint said:
No one knows your place or ultimate goals so you'll have to decide that one. Tordon is a broadleaf and brushy plant killer, it doesn't kill grass. So if the underbrush you speak of is grass you'll have to throw some glyphosate (roundup) in to get it too. Usually in a clearing situation the equipment will knock that grass down and out of the way pretty quick. Just remember bare ground promotes weed growth so leaving grass where you can is usually beneficial.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense too me!
 
cyclonenation10 said:
Outside of just now wanting chemicals in the ground from an environmental standpoint, is creating a "dead zone" around groves of undesirable silver maples, etc., along fence lines really a bad thing? IMO, it would make eventually clearing out/piling/burning downed trees easier to have less growth around for the time being?

I may be way off base here, however?
Click to expand...
Nope nothing wrong with that, just wanted to caution that if there was anything you wanted to save it could be killed due to the leaching and absorption thru the neighboring root system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top