Meadows or Oak Forests?

Question

I remember mention of the north-east native Americans setting fires deliberately to increase hunting grounds. At the time, either the prof or I assumed this was to increase meadows. Reading today's paper, I was struck by the practices of the forestry Department, which is setting fires to increase oaks, while decreasing maples in the woods of the same area.

Does anyone know which the Native-Americans were going for? Was it open areas, or were they trying for oak dominated woodlands? Either way would increase the deer population, but which is it?

Answer 1

Think floral successions. Burning out dead grass & underbrush also provides fuel to take out seedlings of up to a year's growth of other competing tree species and shrubs as well. Oaks grow slowly, are hardwoods.

California indians did this every year before the acorns fell (I think I remember that right) making them easier to gather. Acorns on the ground also attract browsing deer so there's easy meat hunting. Darn some of those hunter-gatherer practices get harder to recall.

Answer 2

A question for the Indians. I think it was to create open space to live. We could do with oak Forrest's though.

Answer 3

By burning the underbrush, you have a lot of new growth which the deer can feed on.  The fires if set often, don't normally kill the large trees and are actually good for a forest and they are also good for promoting meadows.