MN Pheasant Summit?

[LandDr]

There are areas in ND, SD and MN of vast amounts of undisturbed grassland...and the pheasant numbers are down. Why?

I have extensive winter cover (about 30% of my landscape), extensive food sources (about 25% of my landscape) and the balance in native prairie (not massive acres of undisturbed grassland)...and I have pheasants all over. Why?

Plant all of the grassland you want...hens don't make it through the winter and all it will be is grassland without pheasants. Grassland does not get hens through the winter. Remember...we are in Minnesota.

[brittman]

Agree. Edges and a mix of habitat work best. Most ag land is not purchased and developed for wildlife and most regular farmers push the land to bring the best return possible.

That said, CRP does provide extensive nesting cover and offers hens better/safer nesting cover than ditches. Ditches are narrow and linear and predators are often more successful in finding hens (pheasants, huns, ducks).

CRP is better than endless soybean and corn fields. When the grassland is near neighboring winter cover (woody or real large cattail sloughs) there is a multiplier on the impact of the grassland.

The amount of habitat created by CRP (Ag) programs is huge compared to specific Wildlife lands. It creates a lot of habitat without subtracting from other efforts.

[brittman]

Pheasants need close access to crop land. Those large expanses of grassland in ND, SD and NW MN is grouse and prairie chicken land.

[LandDr]

Large acres of grassland are barely better than cropland...just look at the carrying capacity.

People keep mentioning hens nesting in CRP grassland...what hens? Oh...the very few that make it through the winter?

The fact is that properly designed and implemented woody cover protecting properly designed and implemented food sources is REQUIRED in MN for maximum carrying capacity to get hens through the winter. THEN add the nesting cover. Over the past 10 years or so all I see being pushed by the non-profits and govt agencies is grass, grass, grass...and it is not thick cover, rather it is high diversity grasses and flowers that provide thinner cover in the fall and winter.

Hens are prolific nesters...with or without large undisturbed blocks of grass, they will nest. Whether your wife finds a hospital bed or not...she will have the baby. Please don't use the argument that hens will then nest in hayfields where their heads will get chopped off...yes, some will, but when you have hundreds of hens making it through the winter versus just a handful, I will tolerate some hen loss in the hayfield for the larger hens reproducing population.

I have said it before and I will say it again...large fields of grasslands have also caused substantially increased winter mortalities. Where birds once could come out of the thickets or cattails to crop food immediately adjacent to the cover, now they have to travel long distances to get to the food. DNR RESEARCH proved the farther a pheasant has to go from cover to food, mortality increases exponentially. This is a FACT and it is DNR RESEARCH...so where along the line did the govt and non-profits decide to ignore that research? Is there an agenda they are hiding? Why are govt and non-profits not planting woody cover and food sources on properties that are supposed to be managed for deer and pheasants...why does it look more like "prairie" management and management for buffalo and prairie chickens?

Time to take the dogs out and harvest lunch for anther wonderful Vikings game.

[creepworm]

Large acres of grassland are barely better than cropland...just look at the carrying capacity.

This is a joke, right? Why don't we look at carrying capacity. A 40 acre field of plowed crops has a carrying capacity of roughly 0. A 40 acre CRP field has a carrying capacity of considerably more than 0. Sure, the carrying capacity is not as high as well planned wildlife habitat but it is a heck of a lot better than a cropland and the fact that you even hint at questioning that really makes me wonder where you obtained your knowledge of wildlife and habitat from.

I realize you make your living form habitat development and are trying to sell every person here your services, but you need to start looking at things realistically. The vast majority of pheasants are raised on private land, owned by someone that does not manage for wildlife. These people worry about farming the land to make a living, first and foremost. In order to help the environment and provide habitat programs such as CRP are available. No farmer is in right mind will implement a long term 20-30 year habitat plan in place by planting shrubs and trees and other thermal cover, when their land is under contract to be in this program for 10 years. It simply will not happen. Grass is about the only thing that is reasonable for them to plant because it will allow the ground to be farmed again with minimal effort. Unlike woody plants. Therefore, grass is what we will be stuck with for the most part and is the easiest route to considerably higher pheasant populations. And, despite what Landdr says, it is much better than crop land for the pheasants.

Landdr, I realize what you are saying. However, you have to realize that your scheme of habitat creation is unrealistic on a vast majority of the ground in MN. It is a niche. It would work with people that own land specifically for wildlife and possibly with WMA's. However, a large increase in pheasant numbers will only happen on private ground owned by farmers, and they are not going to put the time and risk into long term habitat solutions.

[brittman]

LandDr:

Pheasants do not stay in snow filled CRP grass, they relocate to woodlots and larger cattail sloughs.

While a 160 acre wildlife sanctuary maybe ideal for a someone owning land for hunting ... it is not practical.

More likely the habitat corridor will be a few square miles or even a township.

The number of duck and pheasant nests counted in large expanses of grassland can be impressive. Nesting success improves too.

CRP is cost effective because the Ag program is paying for it ... it does not come out of the wildlife management budget.

Flipside ... there are many MN WMAs that are all winter habitat. Assume that they are often tax forfeited land turned over to the DNR. If neighbors have crop and grassland nearby ... a nice combination unfolds.

[LandDr]

Go find several 40 acres of cropland areas and walk it to see what you get out for wildlife while the crop is standing.

Go find several 40 acres of high diversity native prairies and walk them to see what you get out of them. (not stands of switch grass as that is not high diversity like they are pushing right now)

My guess is that you will not see much difference when the crop is standing and the high diversity prairie is standing. To be fare, make sure you are not selecting high diversity prairies adjacent to food source just to be fare to not find standing crop next to good winter habitat...if you really want to compare "cropland" to "grassland".

Do the same test in the winter and check both sites...my guess is you won't find much difference again. Per 40 acres, I would guess you would not find more than 5 to 10 birds in either one of them on average.

To compare, find several 40ac properties with 20-30% conifers protecting 20%+- food sources with remaining in grassland...how many birds will you find there in the summer, fall, winter and spring? How many deer, etc.

If you want 5 to 10 pheasants on 40ac of grassland that is subject to Minnesota winters, then be happy with 40ac of grassland. If you want 40 to 50 birds or more per 40ac, then implement PLM's Management by Thirds.

Brittman...

Pheasants "relocate"...why do they need to relocate? Relocation causes higher mortalities and exposure. Why not design the woody cover and food on the same property so they don't have to "relocate"? Why force the mortality issue and increase the chances of mortality?

Why is designing 160ac to PLM's Management by Thirds impractical? I do it all them time working with landowners...it is not impractical at all...actually pretty easy.

Nests in large expanses of grasslands is impressive...unless there are hardly any hens that make it through the winter! We don't shoot hens...so why is SD and MN having pheasant summits? There should be hens all over...but there isn't. I would take more hens with less nesting cover over less hens and more nesting cover. Each hen produces 4 chicks on average that reach the hunting season...on average 50% of them are roosters. My 30 hens on 40ac will produce on average 120 birds to the hunting season of which 60 of them will be roosters. 40ac of solid high diversity prairie will provide maybe 5 hens (maybe more on mild winters) that will produce 20 birds to the nesting season of which 10 will be roosters. If you feel my 30 is too high, reduce it to 20...results in 80 birds of which 40 are roosters. It all has to do with carrying capacity and population dynamics...as well as understanding extremely well the importance of the survival of the hen. I have learned that importance with deer management as well and the results there are also amazing.

Think outside the box

[LandDr]

Creepworm...half my customers are farmers. Almost all farm operations have high risk areas on their farming operations somewhere. I'm not going to get into it all, but if farmers can see the value, either financially or that it works with their operation, they will consider it and often do it.

40ac of plowed crop next to winter cover provides a lot of benefit. 40ac of high diversity prairie next to winter cover provides nothing. 40ac of high diversity prairie next to winter cover and next to food sources provides a lot...but now we are describing PLM's Management by Thirds.

Is that what I am trying to do..."sell" everyone on my services? You don't know me very well if that is what you think of me. Please don't judge my values and I won't judge yours. I learned a long time ago that there are several ways to make a difference working with landowners...either stay in my USDA job with all of the politics and red tape working in one county, or, start a non-profit and struggle, or, go private and work with every landowner I can taking the money I earn and putting it right back into doing more. I chose to work with every landowner I can and put everything right back into doing more. I have been at this for 20+ years and I am VERY well aware of the reality of what is going on and where things are going. I am also very good at what I do and I see the opportunity to get it going in the right direction. Keep saying it can't be done and it won't work...but I will keep doing what I am doing for as long as there are landowners to work with.

Farmers and landowners are the key...I have also expressed that over 90% of the wildlife are born and raised on private land. Give me a fund to develop long term habitat and I will show you farmers that are willing to work with it. It is not as hard as you think...but it requires thinking differently.

[creepworm]

Creepworm...half my customers are farmers.

The farmers that work with you are the farmers that WANT habitat for animals, that is why they call you. The ones we need in order to see any great increase in pheasant numbers are the ones that are indifferent or would rather farm the ground. Farmers own a vast majority of the land that would be available for habitat projects. The fact that only half of your customers are farmers should SCREAM that PLM's projects are not feasible on a majority of acres.

Also, these government programs are about protecting land and water, not pheasant habitat. Habitat is a side benefit. If these programs switch to making habitat a main concern, support will fall drastically and it will be the beginning of the end of these programs. Sorry, but the vast majority of people don't care if there are more pheasants on the landscape for hunters to shoot. They do care if water is clean and if the land is eroding. So, seeing that PLM's management ideals are expensive, time consuming, and take a lot of resources, while adding relatively low value to the environment (not animal habitat, environment) compared to grassland, PLM's management ideals are not realistic in a vast majority of the real world. It's a niche for people that want habitat for pheasants, that is all it is.

[LandDr]

How does 15+ species mixes for programs protect land and water? If the programs are ONLY for protecting land and water (as you say), then why not just plant a solid stand of switch grass or a low diversity native mix at the least?

I disagree with you...programs are designed for wildlife as well...it's just that their design and use of the programs is not benefiting game species as much as it could...in fact, doing more harm than good in many cases.

We can agree to disagree...you keep doing what you are doing and I will keep doing what I am doing.

[CaptainMusky]

I am all for getting new land enrolled into some sort of program because we continue to lose so many acres. But how about address some of the aging WMA's, etc that are public ground and do some management to them? We already have the land, it would be far cheaper to help these lands out then to have to purchase additional land or pay some farmer to enroll his land, etc.

This land we already have and it only makes sense.

I have noticed considerable differences between WMA's that are only a couple miles apart in the number of birds present regardless of time of year. The ones that have the fewer birds are typically full of huge "roosting" trees for hawks, etc and the grasslands are dump grass without any diversity in the variety.

[grousehunter]

LandDr - Do you really think your 30 hens will stay and nest on that 20 acres? Its highly unlikely they will all stay on your property. They will also relocate in the spring from your large woody cover habitat and food plot to seek out nesting habitat. Roosters will relocate to find their own territories as well. Then they will reproduce on those large high diversity sites..raise their broods..and then relocate back to your "winter paradise". It takes the right mix and while you are pretty certain 55% woody cover and food plots are the golden ticket. I really have a hard time buying that. Look at the loss of CRP and compare it to the drop in bird numbers...It follows right in line. That grass must have some impact on pheasants..There is no woody cover and food plots with CRP..just grass and forbs... I think that right there shows you how humorous it is to compare the carrying capacity of cropland and grassland.

Just out of curiosity, what acreage is your property? I'll assume 30% is in woody cover...and 25% is in food plots, but are their multiple woody areas/ food plots and how large are they? What seed mix do you favor for the grassland portion? What portion of surrounding habitat within 5 sq. miles is woody cover/CRP/range/hay and alfalfa/crops? I'm guessing and could be way off that you are providing a mass majority of the cover that would attract pheasants during Oct-March, but maybe not April-Sept.

The point of that would be that you have a much higher carrying capacity for your woody cover and food plots than what your grassland could actually produce in pheasants. On a landscape scale the percentage is probably closer to 90% nesting/brood rearing and 10% woody cover/food plots. Now if you took your large area of winter cover/food plots and split it up into smaller percentages for each nesting/brood rearing area and cut out the need to travel mortality would drop, but if you took 50% of the cover out of each of these nesting/brood rearing areas and turned it into woody cover/food plots..the carrying capacity would drop...winter survival would go up...but nesting success and brood rearing success would drop dramatically.

The population would likely stay a little more stable instead of boom and bust periods, but you never would get those really big boom years that come with mild winters and a lot of nesting habitat available to take advantage of it.

Your PLM by thirds works great because it attracts birds to those landowners property during hunting season and provides winter cover that is otherwise lacking..but over a larger scale it would quickly become apparent that it just isn't the ideal mix.

[LandDr]

C.Musky...I have posted exactly the same thing. WMAs are the low hanging fruit...easy to get. Just as you stated, we already own them and have them to use. I have made that exact point in many other discussions. Sounds easy enough right?

Not so easy. I have tried numerous times to offer a "makeover" of an existing WMA and even more times offer to help with a plan for a newly acquired WMA. Shot down ever time for one excuse or another. This gets back to the "agenda" that the govt and nonprofits have...grass, grass, grass. And not the grass that stays standing in the fall for good hunting cover and not the grass that stays standing through the winter for better winter cover.

Trying to change a WMA design is like moving a semi by hand...but with enough hands putting the pressure on, it will move. Easiest way to put pressure on is to stop supporting them. Talk and citizen input does nothing...stop going to their fundraisers and stop other ways of support...that will get their attention fast.

G.Hunter...I never said the hens would all stay on that property to nest...but they might if that is the best nesting cover. DNR research shows you can have up to 4 or 5 hens per acre on properly designed and manage nesting\brooding habitat. By design and research data, they might stay there...and they might go elsewhere...really doesn't matter to me where they nest...what matters the most IS THAT THE HEN MADE IT THROUGH THE WINTER TO BE ABLE TO NEST. "Dead Hens Don't Lay Eggs"

"relocate in the spring from your large woody cover habitat and food plot"...wait a second, by design the woody cover would only be 8 acres of the 40 and the food source would only be 4-8 acres with feeders incorporated. That leaves and equal or greater share as nesting\brooding cover. Please don't make the 40 acre model as a forest since that is not what it is.

You are starting to think about the numbers. I have three farms and they are very different due to management goals. The best one has approx 30% woody cover with approx 25% food sources (plus 10 feeders strategically placed) and the balance is prairie grass and other grasses. You are pretty close in your estimates. This farm withstands the tough winters and still have fantastic birds...I have had people describe it as a "mini South Dakota" due to bird numbers. Hens can nest up to 6-9 miles from their WCA area...so are all the birds nesting on my 160ac farm...most likely not. But I have HUGE hen numbers and I get most of them through the winter for higher nesting populations. This farm is very close to the middle of PLM's Management by Thirds. This farm also carries about 60+- does and 15+- bucks of which one or two are always in the 170+ range.

My other farm, has been great pheasants and poor pheasants. Yep...it is mostly grass and is subject to MN weather. When we have mile winters, my numbers go up. When we have tough winters, my numbers go down. It does not have PLM's Management by Thirds percentages but I do have cover developing that should get it there in 8 to 10 years.

My other farm has parts of it that are close to PLM's Management by Thirds and other parts of it that are not. Very good bird numbers but the birds are definitely concentrated to the east half that is more in line with Management by Thirds.

Yes my woody cover, food sources and prairie are spread out. On the first farm above, I am actually managing every 15 to 20 acres into PLM's Management by Thirds...really intense management to test what I can do with it and how far I can go with it.

What you need to consider is that I put my bet on more hens with Winter Cover Areas rather than more hens with nesting cover. More hens with nesting cover ONLY happens when you have mild winters. More hens with WCAs happens no matter what. For example...if you have three bad winters in a row, my WCA has more hens than your grassland. If we finally have a mile winter, my WCA has more hens to kick start the "boom" versus your grass has less. Eventually your grass will catch up and maybe ever pass up my WCA...WHAM!...band winter followed by another. Now how we sitting? My WCA is still holding well while your grassland took a beating and you are starting all over again. What I am getting at is that even with less nesting, I have more hens. I will take more hens any day over better nesting cover.

PLM's Management by Thirds attracts birds in the fall hunting season...yes it does! And landowners\hunters love it. Because they love it...they want to do it...and they want to do more of it. Is there any better way to get landowners on board to do more of a good thing than to provide the numbers? There is no better way to get landowners on board then to show them the results.

[creepworm]

Is there any better way to get landowners on board to do more of a good thing than to provide the numbers? There is no better way to get landowners on board then to show them the results.

That is assuming that every landowner cares what the pheasant population does. Most don't.

I think you are thinking of pheasant populations in a micro sense, while I am thinking of pheasant populations in a macro sense. PLM's ideals will increase pheasant populations in small areas. Which is good for those that can use those areas. However, this slow developing, expensive, resource consuming management style will not be able to raise the total pheasant population noticeably at the state level, there is not enough money, resources, and willing participants.

Grassland on the other hand is cheap, easy, and will have many willing participants while in a short term program such as CRP. There will be swings in the pheasant population, but the floor will be higher and the ceiling increased by an exponential amount.

Also, when comparing grassland vs. croplands carrying capacity, you use an undisturbed grassland with no crops around it. That would be like me comparing grassland in SD to management by thirds land in northern Saskatchewan and asking which has more pheasants. Neither would be realistic comparisons. CRP will never create sections upon sections of continuous undisturbed grassland. It creates buffers and small areas of grassland, maybe up to 40 acres or so, that are generally surrounded be crops on all sides. Therefore, your comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

[FowlSki]

Pheasant Summit Prediction: They will come out of it with the conclusion that we need more habitat. They will make some 50 year plan that they do not have the ability to execute. Farmers will continue to burn, tile and mow the habitat and the DNR can't do a darn thing about it because they are an ant in comparison to Big Ag.

Pheasants need close access to crop land. Those large expanses of grassland in ND, SD and NW MN is grouse and prairie chicken land.

Completely false. The areas with the highest concentrations of Pheasants in ND are the areas with the most grassland. These areas are west of corn country so the farmers do not tile, burn and mow every last tree and blade of grass.

[brittman]

Fowlski,

You are wrong or do not understand what I mean by expansive. I am talking multiple sections of grassland. The Sheyenne grasslands in SE ND hold very few pheasants. The Dakota Prairie grasslands in western ND hold very few pheasants unless you work edges along cropland or get down along the Little MO.

The higher concentrations of pheasants in ND are driven more by the warmer / drier climate than where the grass is more prevalent. There is still plenty of crop land in these areas of SC, SW, and NW ND. The land in this part of ND can have poorer soil and the weather arid. CRP is holding on a little better there.

When winter does set into SW ND the pheasants flock to the farm and ranch yards with crop land nearby. Without these working farms (food and shelter) the pheasant population would be much worse off.

[LandDr]

I designed a property south of Steele, ND a few years ago...it was all grass and he had a few birds. "Total Makeover" of the property and now he has more pheasants than he knows what to do with. Also shot a trophy huge whitetail last year and is eyeing up another this year.

Designed a property north of Watertown, SD a few years back...same thing, birds everywhere and the landowner just smiles now. He says the county uses his property every year for their annual conservation tour.

If you want to keep planting grass, then go ahead. That's what they have been doing since 1984 or when ever CRP started. All that grass and yet there is still discussion about what is wrong with the pheasant population. Is there a chance that maybe grass isn't the answer?

My pheasants are doing great and my customers pheasants are doing great, if they implemented the plan. Is it chance that those farms just are isolated small areas...or could it be that the plan actually works?

[creepworm]

Is it chance that those farms just are isolated small areas

[i'majigger]

LandDr, I agree 100% with your idea's, If you can't get the birds through a bad winter or two I don't care how much nesting land you have it will do no good if the hens aren't there, BUT along the way we have to start doing something about the predator population. I am not just talking about the ground predators but also the winged predators. I like to use the example of how twice I have witnessed a large seagull fly up behind a (in this case hen mallard) and in the first case swallow 4 little chicks that were following her, and in the second case swallow 3 little chicks. Now this is just an example but think of how many times this is happening on a daily basis without being seen. You combine this with the nest mortality of the crows and other egg eating birds and animals and the pheasant cannot produce enough hatchlings to stay ahead of the game. I am all for habitat but I think needs to be addressed as well.

[LandDr]

C.worm

I wonder where you get your data from when you say "management by thirds takes a ton of money"?

Have you done Management by Thirds and know the actual cost? Have you worked with me to know the actual cost?

You seem to just throw out opinions without any experience with it or facts. Why?

I have a busy day so I gotta get going...but just in summary, there are many, many, many programs out there of which many of them are up to 90% cost share and some even 100% cost shared as well as good annual incomes to get done what needs to be done. You seem to think the money is not out there...but it is...you just have to know where to go get it.

For an immediate example, I just put a plan together for a landowner near Plankinton, SD. I was not able to get all the trees I wanted, but very close...and the food sources and native prairie will also be very close. I expect there will be around $60,000 plus of minus in projects of which all of it should be covered with the program options I have selected to fit the property and the landowner's objectives. My cost...also payed for in the increased income and increased cost share to cover the "what would have been" out of pocket cost. This is 240 acres...it will be planted this coming spring.

Food plots? Who said it had to all be food plots? Again you are assuming everything while not having the first had experience regarding it.

Also...can you show me exactly where I said "cropland will raise more pheasants than grass"? Pretty sure I didn't say that since all along I have been describing a balance of woody cover, crop and grass.

Change can be done landscape wide...but it requires the people delivering the programs to change also. That isn't happening because the people above are training the people below to push grass. We have had a lot of CRP since 1984 and the pheasant population has ALWAYS been at the mercy of MN weather. CRP could be so different if just the people delivering the programs would understand what it takes to get a hen through the winter in MN. Again...we don't shoot hens so where are they all? On average, 50% of a brood are hens. Therefore we should see exponential growth of our hen population up to the "carrying capacity". Reality is that the carry capacity is so low due to the design that we actually do have all the hens we are going to have...unless there is change.

[LandDr]

Jigger

Yes...I believe the number is something like 35% mortality from predators. I believe I read a study where they had intensive trapping during the nesting season and were able to reduce predation down to something like 15%+-. It was an interesting study.

But trapping is a VERY expensive service during the nesting and brooding season when fur is worth nothing.

Here is something to think about. Predation can go up or down based on the cover as well. Also, there "safety in numbers".

I get the predator question a lot, especially at seminars. Consider this...if you have 20 pheasants and predation takes 35%, you are left with 13 birds of which half are hens...and your nesting population drops.

If you design your property for higher carrying capacity and get to 200 birds on 160 acres...and there is the same predation of 35%...you have 130 birds left of which 65 are hens to produce 4 chicks on average to the hunting season...and you still either a stable population or even slightly growing population. Also consider that predation may actually go down with the thicker cover and associated food sources immediately adjacent.

Don't get me wrong, trapping during the nesting and brooding season can provide great results...I just haven't figured out how to do it cost effectively for landowners. So the second best option is to provide a better design for increased carrying capacity for safety in numbers and reduced predation due to better cover...tougher for them to hunt in and more escape cover.

Good question jigger and thank you for understanding the importance of getting hens through the winter.

[creepworm]

Have you done Management by Thirds and know the actual cost? Have you worked with me to know the actual cost?

I have a busy day so I gotta get going...but just in summary, there are many, many, many programs out there of which many of them are up to 90% cost share and some even 100% cost shared as well as good annual incomes to get done what needs to be done. You seem to think the money is not out there...but it is...you just have to know where to go get it.

I met with you about creating habitat. You mentioned all of these cost share programs that I would be eligible for. After speaking with a family member who is a legitimate expert at these habitat programs, I found out many of these cost share programs were not available.

Also, just because the landowner does not have to pay for the this out of pocket does not mean there is no cost. I noticed you refused to answer my question on cost of management by thirds vs. grass, so I can only assume I was right. So, we can put in a relatively small amount of ground in management by thirds, or a considerably larger area into native prairie. I will take the larger amounts of habitat every time, much much better for the environment as a whole and as a by-product creates habitat for pheasants.

[creepworm]

Again...we don't shoot hens so where are they all?

[brittman]

Compsensatory vs. additive mortality theory.

Compensatory mortality says that hunters take part of the population that would die anyways. The hens die from predators, weather (exposure), hay cutting/ditch mowing, vehicles .... Juvenile animals are especially vulnerable to mortality in their first year. If hunters killed hen pheasants - would it make a difference ? Not so sure. Ruffed grouse, geese, most duck species all have near equal hunter mortality between male and hen. Yet their populations are sustainable where habitat is available to support them.

Ever notice all the hawks in western MN and the Dakotas along the powerlines in the fall ? Vast majority of those birds are juvenile birds that will likely starve and die before reaching the first year of age.

You cannot stockpile upland game birds. In a balanced ecosystem, you cannot stockpile any animal or plant. Sure, populations will ebb and flow (cycle) with their predators and prey and with weather. In cases where the population does explode, disease usually takes over the population plummets and starts over.

Pheasants also disperse and may disperse quite far in the Spring. If the area around a super "preserve" is void ... the birds will move out and disperse during nesting season. It is in their genes to do this ... that is how the population expands. Birds that disperse to areas without suitable habitat will either move on or die.

Predators are the same way. If you have an area that is intensively trapped near areas that are not ... the predators in the higher density areas will naturally move into the voided area.

[LandDr]

"family member who is a legitimate expert"

I have no idea who this is so I will not comment on that person's expertise...and I wouldn't anyway.

I can comment on myself however. I worked for MPCA, DNR, FSA, NRCS and SWCD and am a program specialist. Not many know the programs better then me and how to use them. Not bragging...just giving my "expertise".

What is your name so I can look up your file to refresh my memory? PM it if you would like.

"Where do all the hens go" (referencing 100% hens and no roosters)...13 minutes later..."35% mortality from predators" (roosters and hens AND in grassland, not PLM's Management by Thirds, since the research was done in grassland).

I did not "refuse" to answer anything. You seem to be attacking and also ax grinding. Why?

I referenced a cost for implementation on the project in SD. On average, tree plantings cost $450\ac without fabric and $900\ac with fabric. High diversity native prairie plantings can cost $150-$250\ac depending on what is required of the mix and for what program. I however prefer a good amount of the thicker cover which would cost around $80-$100\ac or less depending on the mix and program.

Congress has already allocated the money for these programs...it will be spent. It can either be spent in NE, IA, OH, etc....or how about in MN to the best design with increased carrying capacity we can get. OR...let it slide with just grass and let some other state use the money congress has ALREADY allocated.

Brittman...Ruffed grouse are native and have their own population cycle that is hard to understand...we discussed this deeply in your wildlife classes...just a different bird. Ducks and geese are migratory and leave during the winter...there are also restrictions on how many hens you can shoot...there is a reason for that...they give you one or two just in case you shoot one or two by accident...but you are encouraged to not shoot hen ducks for a reason. Good points.