Killing the Oak

Has anyone else noticed that the large timber companies in Northern California appear bent on destroying every stand of oak they come across? To the north and east of Redding I am seeing dozens of stands sprayed and then either burned or sold as fuel wood and then replanted with pine or fir. While I am not opposed to landowners using their land as they see fit, I cannot help but wonder what this will do to the deer herds that belong (at least in theory) to every citizen. I am stunned that DFG hasn't taken a greater interest in preventing this loss. Perhaps we sportsmen must be the ones to step up and protect these critical mast areas either by using private funds or by insisting that DFG exercise greater oversight of timber harvest plans. Does anyone know whether this issue has appeared on DFG radar? California Deer Association, etc?

I wonder if what you're seeing is related to Sudden Oak Death? There is a pretty aggressive program in place to try and stop the spread. I see a spot NE of Redding.

http://oakmapper.org/

Guns are like parachutes. If you need one and don't have one you probably will never need one again.

That is possible, although it is my understanding that SODS is limited to damp soils, which I would not expect along the I-5 and 299E corridors. I have not been aware of SODS, except near the coast, but perhaps it has spread further than I knew. Thanks for the heads-up.

What I do not understand is the areas that have been harvested of trees. It looks like the loggers have cleaned up all debris then when plant life started to return round up was sprayed on all growth but the standing trees????

I hunted out of McCloud this year and a large majority of the oak had been sprayed. I don't know the purpose, frustrating to me since they are a true habitat for the deer.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-23-15 AT 06:13PM (MST)[p]you see the trees being sprayed???.....or just dead so you assume they were sprayed???

I did not see the undergrowth being sprayed but everything was dead but the tall trees that were not cut! All shrub's all small trees and bushes were dead! A small amount of grass was showing.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-08-15 AT 11:45PM (MST)[p]I spoke with a forester for SP who said that he was not aware of any SOD problems in the area east and north of I-5 and 299 E. I did not ask him if SP was intentionally eliminated the oak stands, but I do know beyond any doubt that they did helicopter spray the fountain fire burn about five years after planting in order to remove the broadleaf trees (that is, right up to the highway, where the deer now congregate).

I'm no expert, but I do know that timber companies will harvest a tract, burn, replant, and in some cases go back and spray broadleaf killer to give their planted trees a head start. They're in the business of growing and harvesting timber. If they didn't spray, eventually the trees would grow and crowd out the broadleaf, but it would take longer.

To take an original oak forest and try to convert it to growing trees would not be very successful. There is a reason that oaks grow in that soil, but not trees. If that soil grew trees, it would already be growing trees over the eons.

Eel

Guns are like parachutes. If you need one and don't have one you probably will never need one again.

LAST EDITED ON Oct-08-15 AT 11:44PM (MST)[p]It is the first part of your comment that has me wondering... I do understand that timber companies are in the business of selling merchantable timber, not growing deer feed. Nevertheless, it seems that the same sorts of limits that apply to homeowners ought also apply to larger landowners. In my neck of the woods, a landowner cannot build more than one home per 40 acres. Like 'em or not, such laws are intended to protect wildlife habitat, watershed recharge, etc. and perhaps this makes sense given that my actions on my property may upset the property of others downstream or, in the case of wildlife, the property of the rest of the citizens of this state. No doubt most land owners and most industries would rather be left alone to manage their properties, wastes, labor, etc as they see fit, but history shows that excesses are common where they have unlimited power to do so. It seems to me that the oak stands that I have seen destroyed are of exceptional value to wildlife and, given the extent that the State has some control over timber harvest plans, I wonder why they overlook the loss of these areas. In considering the recent CalFire Protection Fees assessed to many California homeowners, I have also to wonder how it worked out that I pay hundreds of dollars every year for fire protection while (correct me if I am wrong), timber companies that own huge acreages compared to my own are assessed nothing, despite the fact that they receive the lion's share of the firefighting effort. Ain't politics a funny thing? I would get a good laugh out of it if the deer in my area were not crashing so hard.