What lived in our forests?...

[snagged in outlet 3]

7 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

I do.  I ain't scared of you and your spinning gear. 😊 

You're gonna look cute as hell in that tutu.  

Still chirpin.  I love it. Bigger they are harder they fall.  I’m gonna throttle ya like my b!cth 

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

Still chirpin.  I love it. Bigger they are harder they fall.  I’m gonna throttle ya like my b!cth 

I kinda hope you can.   I'm overdue for a lesson, and I'll wear that tutu like a badge of honor.  I'll replace my wading belt with it. 

Might even permanently attach it to my outboard cowling.

[ozark trout fisher]

There is very little resemblance between what (most) Ozark forests look like now and what they would have looked like in the 1700s and much of the 1800s. Historically, "wildfire" was a huge part of the ecosystem that drove almost everything else. Wildfire is in quotes, because only rarely was it ignited by a truly natural source; far more often it was started intentionally by Native Americans for the purposes of hunting, agriculture, etc. Most land in the Ozarks was burned between once a year and once every 20 years: on average once every 3-5 years according to most dendrochronological (i.e. tree ring) sources. 

This created very open forests where a lot of light was hitting the ground. This meant that grass, forbs, etc could grow and create almost prairie-esque conditions. This in turn allowed the land to support vast herds of bison, elk, etc that it never could today. And the forests were dominated by a mixture of pines and oak, the latter of which obviously produce acorns, and the open conditions allowed them to produce a lot.

Now for the most part we control fire. So trees that normally would be killed by fire (primarily maple) creep in, and in general the open conditions that allowed for grass and forb understories do not exist, due to much higher density of trees. There are enough oaks in most if the Ozarks that species like deer can still subsist off acorns easily enough most years, but larger animals like elk and bison could not survive in anywhere near their previous numbers even if they were reintroduced and allowed unencumbered population growth. There just isn't enough browse in close canopy forests. 

If you want to see a rough approximation of pre-settlement forest in Missouri, I'd suggest visiting Peck Ranch Conservation Area. The combination of regular prescribed fire at similar intervals to historic fire, and other management practices have restored it to about as close a replica as you can get in many areas. And in a pretty vast scale too,, especially if you consider other surrounding Conservation property surrounding it managed similarly (namely Current River CA). You'll find open woodlands, savanna, tons of browse (yes, there are also the very non-natural food plots everywhere to fill in the gaps, but nothing is perfect.) It's no coincidence that this is also where they reintroduced elk. It is maybe the only forest system in Missouri that could support them without causing problems. It also seems to be excellent black bear habitat. It is the only place in Missouri I've seen bears on multiple occasions, and never once in the last decade have I visited without seeing at the minimum scat or other clear signs of their presence.

[Al Agnew]

6 hours ago, ozark trout fisher said:

There is very little resemblance between what (most) Ozark forests look like now and what they would have looked like in the 1700s and much of the 1800s. Historically, "wildfire" was a huge part of the ecosystem that drove almost everything else. Wildfire is in quotes, because only rarely was it ignited by a truly natural source; far more often it was started intentionally by Native Americans for the purposes of hunting, agriculture, etc. Most land in the Ozarks was burned between once a year and once every 20 years: on average once every 3-5 years according to most dendrochronological (i.e. tree ring) sources. 

This created very open forests where a lot of light was hitting the ground. This meant that grass, forbs, etc could grow and create almost prairie-esque conditions. This in turn allowed the land to support vast herds of bison, elk, etc that it never could today. And the forests were dominated by a mixture of pines and oak, the latter of which obviously produce acorns, and the open conditions allowed them to produce a lot.

Now for the most part we control fire. So trees that normally would be killed by fire (primarily maple) creep in, and in general the open conditions that allowed for grass and forb understories do not exist, due to much higher density of trees. There are enough oaks in most if the Ozarks that species like deer can still subsist off acorns easily enough most years, but larger animals like elk and bison could not survive in anywhere near their previous numbers even if they were reintroduced and allowed unencumbered population growth. There just isn't enough browse in close canopy forests. 

If you want to see a rough approximation of pre-settlement forest in Missouri, I'd suggest visiting Peck Ranch Conservation Area. The combination of regular prescribed fire at similar intervals to historic fire, and other management practices have restored it to about as close a replica as you can get in many areas. And in a pretty vast scale too,, especially if you consider other surrounding Conservation property surrounding it managed similarly (namely Current River CA). You'll find open woodlands, savanna, tons of browse (yes, there are also the very non-natural food plots everywhere to fill in the gaps, but nothing is perfect.) It's no coincidence that this is also where they reintroduced elk. It is maybe the only forest system in Missouri that could support them without causing problems. It also seems to be excellent black bear habitat. It is the only place in Missouri I've seen bears on multiple occasions, and never once in the last decade have I visited without seeing at the minimum scat or other clear signs of their presence.

Great info!  That's one thing few people realize...the Ozark forests of today are vastly different from those the first European settlers found.  I read one study that suggested that typical forests in the Ozarks pre-settlement consisted of large, old growth trees spaced widely apart, like 40-50 feet between trees.  The Native Americans didn't cut down trees very often.  The settlers did.  They burnt every year, too.  And when the massive logging boom happened in the early part of the 20th Century, the hills were denuded, and what grew up to replace the old growth was an extremely dense forest.  You watch the state park people trying to re-create savannas by prescribed burns, and it's actually obvious that it isn't going to work well, because the forests are still way too dense and grass can't thrive beneath the canopy (except river oats, which can produce some dense stands here and there).  I don't know how we'd ever get back to the situation pre-settlement, unless we did a whole lot of thinning of the forests and planting native grasses as well as frequent burning.