MN Pheasant Summit?

[creepworm]

One simple yet complex solution would be to campaign for no-till or strip-till among farmers. I used to deer hunt in Jackson county. At that time already, they were farming ditch to ditch. We saw tons of birds when we were deer hunting. I'm talking so many that you quit turning your head.

Minimizing tillage isn't an easy conversation though. It takes an open mind and some adventure on the part of a farmer. It still required some habitat outside the farmed fields, but I was blown away at the numbers.

No-till doesn't work on every soil, but strip till is looking promising to not only help birds, but maintain soil structure, improve water filtration, improve carbon and oxygen, and relieve conventional tillage compaction. With the right machine, you can even cut back your inputs and band your P and K inputs deeper in the soil.

I wish everyone in the world would strip-till and use cover crops in the fall. Very easy solutions to environmental problems caused by fertilizers, besides being good for wildlife.

You are right though, it is a hard sell with farmers. I work with farmers daily, it literally is my job. Getting farmers sold on cover crops is difficult, but it can be done. Usually if you can get them to try it on one field, the rest will be done the following year. Getting them to try it on the first field can be like pulling teeth, they don't want to be planting "weeds" out in their fields.

Strip-till is even tougher to sell. There is plenty of interest, but not much implementation because of the cost of equipment. I am trying to get enough growers interested in the area I work so I can talk the co-op into purchasing a strip-till rig and offering it as a custom service. It is a challenge, but I am making headway little by little.

The farmers in the area I work are generally small and very stuck in their ways. They keep doing things the way they are doing them because that is the way they have always done them. In areas with more progressive farmers it may be an easier sell. Strip-till would not work for potato or sugar beet farmers though.

[IceAge@work]

There is really no way to fix this without subsidies and I am not a supporter of asking non hunters to chip in just so I can have a better chance at shooting my limit.

Except that all of us (non-hunters included) would benefit greatly from better bio-diversity, cleaner water, reduced flooding and better soil conservation.

The problem is as hunters we focus too much (and talk too much) about the specific impacts of conservation programs on specific species populations. What we should be preaching is the conservation of a diverse ecosystem that does not flush pollutants, excess water or soil down stream for someone else to deal with. A properly diverse upland/lowland ecosystem that properly filters & controls storm water run-off will benefit all wildlife and all humans. It may not make for soil bank era pheasant populations but it will keep plenty of them around for future generations to come.

I do believe hunters should be financially responsible for our own private land access programs. We need to be willing to pay our own freight when it comes to open fields and walk-in type programs. Non-hunters should not have to foot the bill for us to take advantage of this privilege.

As a society we are too deep into the current system to get out without some form of federal program(s) that will incent and/or penalize landowners to implement better long-term land stewardship. We will have to be prepared to compensate farmers to "do the right thing" and if they choose not to participate then we will need to find some way to hold them financially accountable for the costs they are passing on to others with the current farming practices.

For the record I come from a farming family and am not looking to require something of others that I would not expect my own family to participate in as well.

[Bureaucrat]

A lot of our problems with run off and pollution will eventually work themselves out with market forces, better equipment, and the need to reverse the soil trend on poorly managed ground. Now that crop prices have plummeted in the short run, everybody is going to have to take a second look at how they apply and use nutrients and chemicals. The economics will drag the stubborn forward, or they'll be doomed to go bust.

You can have compaction, erosion, and expensive weed treatments when soybeans are $14 and corn is $6+. When it gets low like it is today, a person really has to take their hat off and scratch their dome to figure out how to prevent those problems to keep the operation in the black.

I agree sportsmen should fund their own programs. I wish everyone else felt that way when it came to other public toys, but such isn't the case.

[IceAge@work]

A lot of our problems with run off and pollution will eventually work themselves out with market forces, better equipment, and the need to reverse the soil trend on poorly managed ground. Now that crop prices have plummeted in the short run, everybody is going to have to take a second look at how they apply and use nutrients and chemicals. The economics will drag the stubborn forward, or they'll be doomed to go bust.

You can have compaction, erosion, and expensive weed treatments when soybeans are $14 and corn is $6+. When it gets low like it is today, a person really has to take their hat off and scratch their dome to figure out how to prevent those problems to keep the operation in the black.

I agree sportsmen should fund their own programs. I wish everyone else felt that way when it came to other public toys, but such isn't the case.

I appreciate your optimism that the problems will work themselves out but in my opinion the Ag economy is anything but a fully functioning market. We have upwards of 50-years of bad history indicating that the Big Ag Lobby and their friends in Congress will find a way to over rev the market yet again and get the majority of individual farmers to go all in on production. Conservation programs (and other forms of subsidy) can be a Band-Aid during the crashes but the boom & bust cycles seem to get shorter and shorter and the strong trend is that every time we come out of one there is less diversity, more impacts and more marginal cropland in long-term production.

[LandDr]

Harvey Lee...these groups need to stop planting grass on everything they buy or come in contact with. Pheasants ARE NOT a by-product of grass...buffalo, prairie chickens, bob-o-links and butterflies thrive with grass.

If you were to develop a thermal cover area (shrub\spruce) in every section along with sufficient food sources, you would probably see our pheasant population double or triple once the cover got mature enough. And the nice thing is that it is the insurance against bad winters.

There is a lot of nesting cover out there...some areas more than others. Could we use more in some areas...yes. But I will use eastern Pope County as an example...there is a lot of nesting cover, large blocks of it, but the pheasant roadside counts are low. With all of that nesting cover (grass), why don't we have pheasants everywhere?

Why? Because pheasants don't survive winters in GRASS. "DEAD HENS DON'T LAY EGGS!"

Strip till, no-till, fall cover crops, etc are all great...but those practices will ONLY help during mild winters. Severe winters and you are right back to ground zero and starting all over again. Combine those practices with "Winter Core Areas" and now you have something. But trying to get farmers to do that on a large scale would take a lot of work and a lot of time...both of which we don't have enough of. It is A LOT easier to start putting better plans together..."good" habitat versus "bad" habitat...so far I see a lot of bad habitat going in. Here we have the opportunity to put "good" habitat in, but instead "bad" habitat goes in. Why does bad habitat go in? Because the groups have "prairie preservation" agendas. If you don't think they do, then just take a look at the public land being grazed, the high diversity prairie mixes being required for programs (these mixes just fall and do not hold up in the fall or winter) and the lack of thermal cover development (heck, they are cutting trees down...even the cedar and other conifers).

Take a real close look at what you are supporting.

[candiru]

One thing that scares me about the grazing is that after a few years it becomes an entitlement for the farmer and you will never get rid of it.

[PurpleFloyd]

I appreciate your optimism that the problems will work themselves out but in my opinion the Ag economy is anything but a fully functioning market. We have upwards of 50-years of bad history indicating that the Big Ag Lobby and their friends in Congress will find a way to over rev the market yet again and get the majority of individual farmers to go all in on production. Conservation programs (and other forms of subsidy) can be a Band-Aid during the crashes but the boom & bust cycles seem to get shorter and shorter and the strong trend is that every time we come out of one there is less diversity, more impacts and more marginal cropland in long-term production.

I see it this way as well. Farm corporations are only going to get bigger and the bigger they get, the more the land just becomes a number and any notion that it will be managed to accommodate anything except maximum return on investment is just fantasy.

What will happen in certain parts where the land is unproductive is that the corporations may build the habitat to facilitate hunting opportunities for those with the wealth to afford to hunt there much like the hunt clubs we already have. But as far as individuals making decisions to make their land more friendly to wildlife, those days are dead and gone.

[carpshooterdeluxe]

USFWS does very little management on WPA land for pheasants. Those acres are primarily managed for waterfowl. Hence the name "waterfowl production area." That's why the trees are removed. to discourage avian predators from hunting vulnerable nesting ducks. Grazing is used on WPA's because of the bureaucracy of getting prescribed burns done. I can't speak for the MN DNR's goals when it comes to grazing WMA's, although there are a lot of days I look at WMA's near where I grew up and I'm pretty sure the management plan for the property is something scribbled on a napkin and handed to an intern to carry out.

LandDr is right in his assertion that "winter" cover is needed equally if not more than grassland for encouraging winter survival of the hens. Planting trees and shrubs isn't sexy though in terms of immediate returns. It's a long term investment. We put in a 6 row, 1/2 mile long shelterbelt nearly 15 years ago, and it's just now mature enough to both hold snow back and provide shelter. Maybe with additional watering and less drought summers the maturity could have been sped up, but I doubt the DNR will ever get in the business of watering shelter belts.

There are some promising ag practices that are on the horizon; whether it's better varieties of cereals crops, or cellulose (switchgrass) ethanol. Farmers are in the business of raising crops. Not wildlife. Forcing them to do anything will cause backlash. There are willing land owners out there wishing to participate in current programs, but due to red tape, back log, whatever, they cannot get their acres enrolled in the programs we already have. Streamline the process for existing programs before wasting a bunch of time and resources on new problems.

[BLACKJACK]

USFWS does very little management on WPA land for pheasants. Those acres are primarily managed for waterfowl. Hence the name "waterfowl production area." That's why the trees are removed.

BUT a lot of those WPA's were bought by dollars from a multitude of sportsmens groups, PF, deer hunters, etc. yet all they do is think about prairie and don't throw any of the other groups a bone by developing any habitat for pheasants or deer.

[BLACKJACK]

My letter to the governor concerning his pheasant summit would be something like this (I wish I would have thought of it before he went to Worthington for the pheasant opener):

Governor:

As you drive by any of our public hunting lands, ask yourself, Where is the winter cover for pheasants?? Where is the winter food for pheasants?? Ask that question to the local wildlife managers, hold their feet to the fire and get some answers. Ask the top officials from PF why they're not insisting on winter cover and food for pheasants on lands that they've helped purchase. Solve that problem and we could have twice as many pheasants on the landscape, we have tens of thousands of acres of state and federal hunting land in central and southern Minnesota that provide nesting cover but no winter food and cover.

------------

I need to flesh it out but its a crying shame when you drive by all that grassland and see no winter cover or food. I can see cutting down the invasive trees like cedar, ash, and box elder but replace them with a grove of spruces, they don't spread.

I don't know why Pheasants Forever is in bed with the DNR and F&W service, why they don't insist on winter cover and food. My theory is that they think grassland is still better than seeing the land go under the plow.

Another big problem is farmers farming the farm program, taking marginal land out of production, and then getting paid for when they have a crop failure. Thats a travesty.

I'm heading for SoDak on Sat and the place where we go SW of Aberdeen, in 10 years they've went from cattle ranchers to crop farmers, ten years ago you couldn't find a cornfield, now there are sections of it. They're pulling fences and picking rock by the semi-load. Some of it is very marginal land, 6 inch soybeans and 4 foot high corn, but they're not losing money, they have the farm program.

[carpshooterdeluxe]

BUT a lot of those WPA's were bought by dollars from a multitude of sportsmens groups, PF, deer hunters, etc. yet all they do is think about prairie and don't throw any of the other groups a bone by developing any habitat for pheasants or deer.

Wrong; most USFWS waterfowl production areas were/are purchased with Federal duct stamp revenues.

[LandDr]

Blackjack...exactly.

You might want to add the fact that we don't shoot hens...so why are there not hens flying EVERYWHERE! Ask the Gov if he shoots hens...answer is "no"...so where are they all since no one shoots hens? Where are they...DEAD! DOA! GONE! Didn't survive the winter! Won't be writing the relatives back home! Won't be making the family reunion! And definitely won't be making the spring nesting season! PLM's saying "DEAD HENS DON'T LAY EGGS!"

The fact that there are very few hens is proof that their management doesn't work and proof that they have the wrong agenda.

What's the fastest way to get your message across on what YOU want? Stop supporting them. Chapters ban together and say enough is enough. Don't go to the banquets, etc. DEMAND that winter cover and food sources be designed into management plans at a rate of 20-30% woody cover protecting 20% food sources per every 40 acres of land plus or minus (PLM'd Management by Thirds" concept). Implement that and I assure you that our kids will have lots and lots of pheasants.

Land Dr

[LandDr]

Most WPAs of yesteryear were purchased with federal duck stamp money...but many today are purchased with various wildlife dollars including legacy money. We may not have a say on the old WPAs, but we certainly can have a say on the new ones.

Recent example...a property was just purchased near Starbuck MN and put into a WPA from what I heard. There was a 10 or 20 acre crop field in the middle of it...guess what they did with the crop field? Yep...you got it...planted to high diversity prairie...for the buffalo, prairie chickens, bob-o-links and butterflies. What was a fridge full of food is now an empty fridge of prairie grass. Good luck to the pheasants out there. And the unit was dedicated in the name of the founder of PF.

When is enough enough?

[BLACKJACK]

The buzz word nowadays is 'pollinators'. Land is getting bought and turned over to the F&WS, and they're reworking them, and planting 'pollinator' mixes. Thats fine, those old brome fields don't provide much cover, but if they have 200-600 acre patch, couldn't 20 acres of it be winter cover and food for pheasants? And don't give me that carp about 'it provides habitat for predators'. Goto one of these areas, goto the top of a big hill at night and start counting houses and farmsteds, if you count less than 10 I'll eat my shorts, one more conifer planting won't increase the predator population but it WILL provide some winter cover for pheasants!!!

Why is it that all the new lands are getting turned over to the F&WS and not the MN DNR??

When I see the F&WS taking over another piece of land I say 'the good news is that it not going under the plow the bad news is that there will be less pheasants'.

[LandDr]

I have heard 20+ years of the excuses for not doing this and not doing that. I am so tired of it...but "they" also don't like me shedding the light on this. Believe me, it has not helped my business to go against these groups. LOL...they wouldn't even let me be at PFest...kicked me out. Roll over and play their game of "kill the hen" so it's better for business...or stand up for what is right? I'm not a politician so I am going to carry a big stick and stand up for what is right.

Time to get your big stick out and stop supporting them until you get what you want.

I gotta get out and harvest some seed before the wind blows it all away.

[CaptainMusky]

Landr will you be invited to the pheasant summit?

[LandDr]

I can almost assure you that I will not be invited. I have sent in a request to the Gov's office...but I doubt it.

Unless there was a whole bunch of people that would also write in that recommend me.

Some of you may have heard about the annual "stakeholders meeting" that the DNR puts on. A few years ago I asked for an invite to that and what a commotion that made. The top guys in the DNR did not like that, many are not there now, but the one head guy for fisheries really like what I was doing and actually took the time to come out and see what I was doing...fisheries head but loves pheasants and ducks. He pushed hard to get me at this Stakeholder meeting. Really why shouldn't I? We were working with landowners all across the state, planting over 10,000 acre of native grass annually, over 200,000 tree a year, laying enough tree fabric to go from Glenwood to St. Cloud, etc....I would say we were a pretty big stakeholder. I got invited for a couple of years...one private guy amongst all of the govt and non-profits. But...when that fisheries guy retired, that was the end of my invites and I haven't been invited since.

Just like sitting on the DNR Pheasant Oversight committee for two terms...they don't want to hear from you or me. Citizen input meetings? I've seen enough over the past 20 years to know that talk and meetings doesn't do it. You gotta hit them where it hurts...the pocket book. Stop going to the banquets and fundraisers...they will get the message really fast. Start out own "private lands organization" as a non-profit and lets start applying for the money and do it like it should be done. I have a LLC started..."Legacy Land Partners, LLC"...now we just need a board of serious people that want to "leave a legacy for future generations" to assures we will have hunting opportunities...not just grass lands...but lands property designed to assure high carrying capacities of game species. Yes, there will be some pollinator plantings for the bob-o-links, butterflies and bees as well, but it is also going to maxed out for deer, ducks and pheasants, etc.

Good things to think about...but action is louder than words.

[CaptainMusky]

I sent an email to the governor's office asking how to get invited to the Pheasant Summit. We will see what they come back with. I would like to attend, but surely you have far more experience in this than I do, but I have hunted pheasants religiously for 30 years and have definitely seen the things that work in various hunting lands I have been to. Big differences in birds in areas that are just a few miles from each other just because of the habitat in each one.

[grousehunter]

Blackjack...exactly.

You might want to add the fact that we don't shoot hens...so why are there not hens flying EVERYWHERE! Ask the Gov if he shoots hens...answer is "no"...so where are they all since no one shoots hens? Where are they...DEAD! DOA! GONE! Didn't survive the winter! Won't be writing the relatives back home! Won't be making the family reunion! And definitely won't be making the spring nesting season! PLM's saying "DEAD HENS DON'T LAY EGGS!"

The fact that there are very few hens is proof that their management doesn't work and proof that they have the wrong agenda.

What's the fastest way to get your message across on what YOU want? Stop supporting them. Chapters ban together and say enough is enough. Don't go to the banquets, etc. DEMAND that winter cover and food sources be designed into management plans at a rate of 20-30% woody cover protecting 20% food sources per every 40 acres of land plus or minus (PLM'd Management by Thirds" concept). Implement that and I assure you that our kids will have lots and lots of pheasants.

Land Dr

So you want to have 8-12 acres of winter habitat protecting 8 acres of a food plot per 40 acres of grass on the landscape? 20 acres winter cover/food per 20 acres nesting/brood rearing. That doesn't add up to me... starting with winter cover which a high quality 3 or so acre planting can support hundreds of pheasants with thermal cover...and typically a bushel of corn can easily support a pheasant even on a long harsh winter. On even marginal land in MN I'm sure its easily 150-200 bushels of corn produced per acre...so 150 pheasants an acre...so even a 2 acre plot should support 150-200 pheasants over the winter...so lets say 5 acres of cover/food per 100 pheasants.

Now to nesting and brood rearing cover. typically a hen requires at least 3 acres of personal nesting habitat, which often is not very good habitat for both nesting and brood rearing...but lets pretend nesting and brood rearing is fulfilled on the same acreage. so with the 20 acres per 40 you left for nesting/brood rearing that leaves space for around 7 hens. On average in high quality nesting/brood rearing habitat..on the high side maybe 5 chicks will be raised to adults...so now were at 42 birds raised on the 20 acres..plus lets say 18 roosters were carried over and are using the habitat as well... 60 pheasants...now add in hunting, predation, disease and numerous other causes of mortality over the fall leading into the winter. we are likely down to 40 or so pheasants on the very high side.

Do we really need enough food to support 1500 pheasants per 20 acres of grassland? (maybe 40 carry over bird) or 10 acres of woody cover, when there is likely other switchgrass, milo food plots etc. that will suffice in over half the winters...

Also a lot of that grassland habitat is going to need some kind of disturbance at least every 5 years to be worth anything for pheasant production....so now your taking even more of the limited nesting/brood rearing habitat away. The great thing about pheasants and other upland game birds is that they can quickly repopulate if a harsh winter takes its toll....but woody cover and food plots are not going to help there.

I think WCA's are really important and well placed food plots, but I would say closer to 10% vs. 50% should be dedicated to them.

The hens...well without adequate nesting cover they seek out hay and alfalfa fields..wheat fields etc, and end up being killed by farm machinery. but I will agree that with a good WCA and adjacent food plot a lot more birds would survive the winter vs. being killed by predator in search of food, or the harsh weather, which would equate to higher numbers of birds to nest..but without sufficient nesting habitat they will crowd each other..be a lot more suseptable to predation and likely lay fewer eggs from stress and have less resources to raise their broods.

[PurpleFloyd]

So you want to have 8-12 acres of winter habitat protecting 8 acres of a food plot per 40 acres of grass on the landscape? 20 acres winter cover/food per 20 acres nesting/brood rearing. That doesn't add up to me... starting with winter cover which a high quality 3 or so acre planting can support hundreds of pheasants with thermal cover...and typically a bushel of corn can easily support a pheasant even on a long harsh winter. On even marginal land in MN I'm sure its easily 150-200 bushels of corn produced per acre...so 150 pheasants an acre...so even a 2 acre plot should support 150-200 pheasants over the winter...so lets say 5 acres of cover/food per 100 pheasants.

Just curious how you are getting your figures and whether you allow for other species feeding from the same plate so to speak. Meaning Pheasants are not the only thing eating that corn. Deer, Raccoons and other forms of wildlife also eat there so it might take more to keep them fed. Not sure how much and I am not saying you are wrong as you make good points.

[grousehunter]

PurpleFloyd - I did not specifically account for other wildlife feeding on the same resources and I don't know as many specifics on deer, raccoons etc. for how much of the resource they typically will consume. Obviously a lot of wildlife will use waste grain as well besides food plots developed for them. I did attempt equate for their use by underestimating typical farm ground bushels/acre in MN and even at 200 bushel/acre at two acres would be 400 bushels...aka 400 pheasants vs. 100 I used in the example...leaving a spare 300 bushels...I also left quite a bit of wiggle room in the bushel/pheasant comparison. I don't have specific links for my figures at this time...just wrote it off the top of my head, but went to school for wildlife and have focused on upland birds...currently working in Nebraska as a wildlife biologist. I'm sure the figures I gave would have quite a large range depending on region, and source.

Also I should add that the food plots do provide great brood rearing habitat if left fallow allowing weeds, foxtail etc. to take over...so a bigger food plot on rotation for harvest/planting/left fallow could be quite beneficial.

Looking at MN harvest corn bushel/acre I realized I overestimated...an average of closer to 150 in the norm in MN.....

[IceAge@work]

PurpleFloyd - I did not specifically account for other wildlife feeding on the same resources and I don't know as many specifics on deer, raccoons etc. for how much of the resource they typically will consume. Obviously a lot of wildlife will use waste grain as well besides food plots developed for them. I did attempt equate for their use by underestimating typical farm ground bushels/acre in MN and even at 200 bushel/acre at two acres would be 400 bushels...aka 400 pheasants vs. 100 I used in the example...leaving a spare 300 bushels...I also left quite a bit of wiggle room in the bushel/pheasant comparison. I don't have specific links for my figures at this time...just wrote it off the top of my head, but went to school for wildlife and have focused on upland birds...currently working in Nebraska as a wildlife biologist. I'm sure the figures I gave would have quite a large range depending on region, and source.

Also I should add that the food plots do provide great brood rearing habitat if left fallow allowing weeds, foxtail etc. to take over...so a bigger food plot on rotation for harvest/planting/left fallow could be quite beneficial.

Looking at MN harvest corn bushel/acre I realized I overestimated...an average of closer to 150 in the norm in MN.....

Been in similar discussions on here before and ultimately just became a couple of guys trying to shout me down by repeating the dead hens can't produce broods argument.

Biggest issue in MN is the pheasant range has a little less than 6% of the total landscape in undisturbed grassland. About 15% of the landscape in the pheasant range is disturbed grassland (pasture, hay, small grains etc.)but most of that is involved in grazing for Dairy production or alfalfa which contributes very little to successful pheasant brood production.

What information I can gather on the subject is that the carrying capacity of the available winter cover and the available food sources is much higher than the current (or recent) population. Certainly there are isolated or individual situations where this isn't the case but in the macro sense of the whole pheasant range this seems to be true.

As you suggest increasing the % of undisturbed grassland (for agricultural purposes not wildlife management purposes) would be the primary key to a big change in pheasant populations and harvest results. Certainly addressing winter cover & food sources in specific situations would be important but that alone is not going to get an average harvest up over 500,000 roosters annually. To get there I think we are talking undisturbed grass percentages that approach 10% of the landscape.

[creepworm]

There are some promising ag practices that are on the horizon; whether it's better varieties of cereals crops, or cellulose (switchgrass) ethanol. Farmers are in the business of raising crops. Not wildlife. Forcing them to do anything will cause backlash. There are willing land owners out there wishing to participate in current programs, but due to red tape, back log, whatever, they cannot get their acres enrolled in the programs we already have. Streamline the process for existing programs before wasting a bunch of time and resources on new problems.

This is a great paragraph. Sums up the situation perfectly.

All the big players in Ag are spending many millions of dollars boosting their research and breeding programs of small grains, specifically, wheat. Wheat makes fantastic nesting habitat for upland nesting birds. According to some studies I have read, Winter Wheat provides for more successful broods than any other kind of cover. Ducks Unlimited has realized this and had research agronomists on staff doing studies trying to increase wheat yields for many years.

I work in the Ag industry and at just about every "training" I go to, they have a talk about wheat. I am convinced that big, big changes are coming as far as that is concerned. In the next 10-15 years, I see wheat being a viable third crop in a rotation, even throughout southern MN.

One of the biggest things people wanting habitat can do is contact legislators to raise funding for conservation programs to the levels they were prior to this new farm bill. People blame farmers for taking ground out of CRP, even though they can not re-enroll their land into CRP. The funding is maxed out, there is not enough money to pay the farmers to keep their land idle. In farm country of southern MN you can not get land enrolled in CRP even if funding is available, unless it is a special circumstance such as highly erodible land or a buffer along a ditch, and even that is iffy. Funding needs to be increased for this program if you want to see more pheasants.

Cue Landdr with the "DEAD HENS DON'T LAY EGGS" and thermal cover talk.

[IceAge@work]

This is a great paragraph. Sums up the situation perfectly.

All the big players in Ag are spending many millions of dollars boosting their research and breeding programs of small grains, specifically, wheat. Wheat makes fantastic nesting habitat for upland nesting birds. According to some studies I have read, Winter Wheat provides for more successful broods than any other kind of cover. Ducks Unlimited has realized this and had research agronomists on staff doing studies trying to increase wheat yields for many years.

I work in the Ag industry and at just about every "training" I go to, they have a talk about wheat. I am convinced that big, big changes are coming as far as that is concerned. In the next 10-15 years, I see wheat being a viable third crop in a rotation, even throughout southern MN.

One of the biggest things people wanting habitat can do is contact legislators to raise funding for conservation programs to the levels they were prior to this new farm bill. People blame farmers for taking ground out of CRP, even though they can not re-enroll their land into CRP. The funding is maxed out, there is not enough money to pay the farmers to keep their land idle. In farm country of southern MN you can not get land enrolled in CRP even if funding is available, unless it is a special circumstance such as highly erodible land or a buffer along a ditch, and even that is iffy. Funding needs to be increased for this program if you want to see more pheasants.

Cue Landdr with the "DEAD HENS DON'T LAY EGGS" and thermal cover talk.

From what information I can gather winter wheat is second only to diverse CRP type grasslands when it comes to hen usage for nesting and brood rearing cover. General comments indicate perfectly acceptable nest success rates in winter wheat as well but I have not been able to find a definitive nest success % that has been published in any study. Most information suggests pheasants need a 42% nest success rate to maintain stable populations and anything over that will allow for population growth. The only problem with winter wheat is you need early season nesting success and in some years (like this one) when the weather doesn't cooperate the winter wheat won't contribute much towards successful re-nesting efforts.

What is the Ag market situation for wheat? Is there enough stable long-term demand to keep prices at a point where farmers would continue to use it in consistent crop rotation? It would be great if that were the case because I could see winter wheat helping to fill the gap left by all of the large block CRP that is exiting the program.

Agree 100% that as a society we need to fund conservation programs that incent producers to protect sensitive areas and also incent them to set aside a % of the marginally productive areas in the interest of diversity. What could work in my opinion is a combination of long-term programs like CREP, WRP etc. for the sensitive areas and then short-term (5-year?) CRP contracts where the less sensitive but marginally productive areas are rotated in and out of crop production.

To me the big key here is that it needs to be designed as a multi-purpose conservation plan that benefits all wildlife and all conservation needs (clean water, soil conservation etc.) and then sold to the general public as a benefit to all stakeholders. Making an effort like this solely about pheasants, ducks, hunting etc. will just alienate people who don't share those interests but whose tax dollars will be needed to fund the programs.

[LandDr]

P.Floyd...correct...PLM's Management by Thirds accommodates many species feeding from the same plate and staying in the same house.

It's a design and concept for maximum carrying capacity for game species, of which nongame species will be present as well.

If you design with 10-15%, you will still see an increase, but not reach maximum carrying capacity. I have had this in test for almost 20 years now and that is just how it works out.

There are also weather factors. Many conservation lands are on very marginal soils, therefore don't expect the high yields in your food sources. There are also smaller yields just because you are typically not putting as much into it as you would production ag. Numbers and expectations have to be adjusted as such. Again, I have tested this for nearly 20 years and that is just how it works out. There is science behind it, but then there is also the actuality of what really happens.