Ironwood varies from 1" to 8" with most 3"-4". I'm talkin' I have a LOT of
this in the mid-story. Basal area averages 9.5 sq/ft per acre.

Just a curiousity; are you a forester or an engineer, or other, what is it you
do (or did?) for a living? - reason that I ask is that you state "9.5 ft2 ",
which is an unusual term for a forester to use, generally. I would, however
expect an engineer to use this terminology.

I would expect a forester to talk about trees/acre when considering
unmerchantable poles, and by the way, 10 square feet is not unusual for ironwood
in a stand in the Lake states. High, but not unusual, particularly if it has
been high-graded. That stuff loves to occupy big canopy gaps if it has the
chance, which is why we spec. (put a specification in a timber sale contract) it
out down to 2" on our sales around here. If we don't want to spec. it out, then
we always mark the crap heavily unless there is a straggler or two in the middle
of an area that will not be opened up too much, or it's in a prime wildlife food
area (like a dry, south facing slope mixed in with red oaks, beech, etc.).
There is some benefit to leaving small amounts of ironwood for wildlife, as it
has been documented as a secondary mast staple (especially for ruffed grouse -
1/2-2% of diet). It all depends on the experience at hand.

I mentioned
this to our county extension forester and he says "we don't include trees 4"
or smaller in our point samples".

Probably because they're using a 10 factor prism, which doesn't give accurate
values of relative density when you get 4" or below (under figures the density
of small poles) in most
cases.

Well I did when I cruised the property
and I think statistics and point sampling work and represent what is there.

Maybe, but there are some tricky mathematical functions of point sampling, and
it takes a lot of experience to come to an understanding of what works best for
a specific situation. One thing that must be considered right away is the
variation of a woods - that of which often has uneven distributions. Theory and
practice are two wholly different matters concerning sampling techniques of
trees.

When you say "chip up" do you mean deformed over-mature maples or ironwood?

Depending how crappy the maples are and what the rest of the understory looks
like, maybe I'd
get both chipped up to a pulp mill or energy plant or other chip buyer. It
depends on the stand condition,
structure, and overall make-up of the stand, but in general, take out your
crappiest formed trees first, regardless of species or merchantability. Any
other method will leave you in the same prediciment.

I don't expect any return from the present. I do take the long view and
whoever buys this land or inherits it from me will get the value. I just
like being outside and doing the right thing for the long-haul.

Cool. Me too. It's all I do.

Speaking of deer-yes, they are a problem. There are too many deer in
Wisconsin due to the management techniques over the past 40 years. The DNR
wants license money from all the Illinois hunters. So now we have CWD.
These excessive deer make it tough on maple and oak seedlings in shady or
sunny areas respectively.

Yeah buddy. We have the same problem to differing extents all over the state of
MI.
The only difference is that we get primarily the Ohio folks up here (and many
from IN,
and lower MI). Oh, and no reported CWD yet - the UP is looking out for that one
big time!

But to anyone else reading, I'd sure love to learn their thoughts on my
question: "What are your thoughts on stiffness of Garlon4 mix
versus successful kill of Ostrya? Will I probably see good effect in a
month or two?"

Here's how I answer that question: Forget about using herbicides. They're a
waste
of money and time in N. hardwood stands, and won't do anything but screw up the
possibilities of getting quality regen in there for about 6 months. I don't use
them on
any of the jobs I do, and try my best to discourage anyone from using them,
because
100% of the time there are better ways to manage forests than applying
chemicals.

Unfortunately, some people continue to be hard-headed and because of not taking
sound advice from someone who does have the understanding, end up screwing
things
up and ruining their woods. Ahh... to err is to be human... Don't confuse
excitement
and enthusiasm for expertise. This is not rocket science - it's much more
complex.
But hey, it only takes 2 decades to get a pole sugar maple, so what's 6 months
of frusturation
when compared to that?

Now, if they just had a chemical that could selectively do away with CWD and all
deer that munch
sugar maple and red oak seedlings, I would be giving different advice!

warm regards,

Geoff Kegerreis
State of Michigan registered + practicing forester (e.g., I AM a professional)
Michigan