MDHA/MN DNR listening sessions

[smsmith]

Sunday? You should send out an invite. But I will be at the Deer Classic this weekend...unless you are having the meeting there?

The meeting is at a member's property. Pretty tough to work on habitat when you're inside

I'd need to spend a LOT of time here before I'd trust anyone enough to invite them. My experience here has not been what I'd term affirming or positive. Seems like most here find a reason to point out all the reasons why something won't work rather than uniting for a common cause. I see very little commonality or "togetherness" here. Just lots of "sniping"

The guys who are getting together have demonstrated a common interest over time...that of being pretty much obsessed with habitat. Even though there are differences among us, the commonality of habitat addiction overrides those differences.

I do not think that would happen for the most part with the folks who I've encountered here

[PurpleFloyd]

Okay, so it would appear that we have at least 2 votes for continuing on our current path of low densities....at least until the habitat is improved. What's your guys' plan for getting that done?

You first- What is your plan for sustaining the population numbers you are lobbying for? You can have your closed circle meetings with a few small land owners and while that may help the habitat for a handful of people in a concentrated area, it does nothing to solve the problem statewide. Just as a small group can improve their own isolated areas they can also have as much control over densities in that same area by managing their own land.

Statewide it is a different animal. You want to increase densities which is fine, but you are also calling for more oversight, several layers of additional accounting and auditing and to get your population goals to where you want them. Have you thrown out any numbers of what it is going to cost to implement all of your ideas statewide? Goals are great but in the end you have to have the cash to really make them work.It may not be what you want to hear but it is reality. You can start by throwing out some numbers ( And Landdr can probably help out here)on how much your group is spending per acre to get the landscape in a suitable condition to support the deer per acre your goals are pegged at. Then multiply that by the number of acres we need to improve to get the habitat at a sustainable level. That will give you an idea of the size and scope of the task at hand. If you crunch those numbers and find the funds to pull the trigger then you have me on board.

As to what I am personally doing? Well, I am helping put together a trap club for our local trap club and I do everything I can to introduce the young kids in the area to hunting and fishing. I will be coaching and mentoring them on handling guns and shooting trap and I have been working on a plan with the other guys in our hunting party to plant some food plots and more conifers, shrubs and thickets to provide cover for the deer and pheasants.

But most importantly we have brought in 5 youth into our party ( Yeah, I know party hunting is a dirty word and we cross tag) and we are doing our best to make it a fun experience, to teach them how to handle the guns, how to look for the spots where the deer hide,to appreciate being out with friends and family and to know that taking a deer is not a right but a privilege and we consider every deer a trophy, not just the big ones. So yeah, you probably don't want to invite someone like me to your playground because we are not the kind to be trusted.

[smsmith]

So yeah, you probably don't want to invite someone like me to your playground because we are not the kind to be trusted.

My thoughts exactly

[PurpleFloyd]

If that is the case itis obvious that what you are preaching isnt your real agenda. You are smoking yourself out. .

[smsmith]

If that is the case itis obvious that what you are preaching isnt your real agenda. You are smoking yourself out. .

Ya sure...OK.

Because I don't trust some guy from an internet forum to be genuine and/or enjoyable to be around I'm "smoking myself out"....that makes sense...sure...

I'll be expecting my invite to your social functions in my p.m. box anytime now

[PurpleFloyd]

Trust to be genuine?

So let me get this straight. First you make a post calling people out for not responding to your topic immediately,then when two people do post on the topic of habitat,you call them out for not wanting to focus on immediately increasing density,which is the subject that brought you to this forum,then you proclaim you won't invite anyone to play in your little sandbox because you don't trust them?

That's interesting. I can see niw how hard you are working to bring all groups together for a common cause

[smsmith]

1. First you make a post calling people out for not responding to your topic immediately,

2. then when two people do post on the topic of habitat,you call them out for not wanting to focus on immediately increasing density,which is the subject that brought you to this forum,

3. then you proclaim you won't invite anyone to play in your little sandbox because you don't trust them?

1. accurate

2. inaccurate, I asked for input/ideas. I did not "call them out". I wanted honest answers

3. nothing to do with 1 and 2. You'll notice I did state that about 30 guys were invited...and its not "my little sandbox"...its another guy's property. I'd sure never invite people who a property owner has never met to visit that guy's property. Call me crazy.

[PurpleFloyd]

Just for the record though, I would certainly invite you to stop by and talk about your habitat ideas with our group any time. And once the trap team format gets figured out I would also invite yourself and Land Dr to talk to the students if that was something you were interested in doing. The fact that you are a hunter, even though we may have differing opinions, is enough for me to strike up a conversation and I am secure enough in my understanding of Biology to carry on a conversation with anyone.

I am especially interested in hearing more from LandDr as it is obvious he has been at this for a while and understands things at a very core level. But for you as well the door is always open.

[LandDr]

Just gave a seminar in Buckman a few months back...Brooks organized it...great turnout and great meeting. Is he part of your Habitat Group?

I wish I could attend Sunday's meeting but I will be at Deer Classic. I don't know my booth number yet...56 I think but not sure. I was supposed to give seminars every day but looks like now it is just Friday. If that is the case, I might try to get my staff to cover the booth on Sunday and maybe I could spin up to your meeting. Text me your cell number to 320-760-9355.

The Legacy Money is probably the biggest pot of money available right now. But you have to be either a govt or non-profit to apply for it...which I see as ridiculous since there are govt and non-profits that sell seed, trees and services that are allowed to apply for this funding yet private businesses are not allowed to apply for the funding...more of the "sleeping together" thing. Also, funding can only be used on easement or public lands. Easement and public lands may mean anyone that has land enrolled in a tree easement or other easement of some kind and all public forests, WMAs, WPAs, etc. Another part of the application is that you HAVE TO have properties already selected with the application...meaning you can't ask for the funds with the intention to go look for lands to work with, you have to have the lands already located. To me that's a real pain and putting the cart before the horse, but that is what it is. But maybe there are enough people on here that have land in easements that would sign up or people on here that would contact their local DNR to get public lands signed up...it would take a group effort. I would be happy to offer the consulting (plan\design) part of the project to increase the carrying capacities.

Cost...these are general numbers...

Food plots - $300 - $500 per acre

Tree plantings - $450 to $1,000 per acre (without and with fabric)

Native Prairie - $95 - $250 per acre depending on site prep needs and diversity of the seed mix.

This is to get the "infrastructure" built and then there are many other smaller projects that can be done such as water sources, minerals, salt, hinge cutting, feeders (pheasants), etc.

[PurpleFloyd]

Cost...these are general numbers...

Food plots - $300 - $500 per acre

Tree plantings - $450 to $1,000 per acre (without and with fabric)

Native Prairie - $95 - $250 per acre depending on site prep needs and diversity of the seed mix.

This is to get the "infrastructure" built and then there are many other smaller projects that can be done such as water sources, minerals, salt, hinge cutting, feeders (pheasants), etc.

Good info.

So if this money is targeted at public land and we know the cost per acre, then we have a good idea of what can be done per year if we can access funding. Is it not possible to start a non profit with the goal of targeting that money and using it to improve targeted public lands? Are any groups out there doing it already? I can see if you have a business offering those same services already that it could appear to be competing with your business but as a non profit dealing with public lands rather than private is it not possible to look at it as a diversification if you were to also be in a non profit focusing on the public aspect? Just throwing a few thoughts out there.

[brittman]

The Legacy Money is probably the biggest pot of money available right now. But you have to be either a govt or non-profit to apply for it...which I see as ridiculous since there are govt and non-profits that sell seed, trees and services that are allowed to apply for this funding yet private businesses are not allowed to apply for the funding...more of the "sleeping together" thing. Also, funding can only be used on easement or public lands. Easement and public lands may mean anyone that has land enrolled in a tree easement or other easement of some kind and all public forests, WMAs, WPAs, etc. Another part of the application is that you HAVE TO have properties already selected with the application...meaning you can't ask for the funds with the intention to go look for lands to work with,

So basically you want the MN State Government (via Legacy Amenment) to be your largest customer for land enhancement on land (not public or in long term easement) that has not even been identified yet ?

[LandDr]

Brittman...I am not following you on your question. Please explain.

Floyd...yes, there are several non-profits and govt on the funding band wagon. I believe they are using it for land acquisition and habitat work...but as I have expressed, the habitat work is all prairie which just decreases the carrying capacity for pheasants and deer. In my opinion, they are doing more harm than good for pheasants and deer...and to hunters that use the land. And this is dedicated funding every year so it is just going to keep on keeping on.

Yes, you can form a non-profit and apply for the funding. I started one a few years back called "Legacy Land Partners" but I have been too busy to get it going or run it...but it is there. I would love to see a proactive habitat group with maximizing carrying capacities in mind and to leave a legacy for future generations.

[PurpleFloyd]

Brittman...I am not following you on your question. Please explain.

Floyd...yes, there are several non-profits and govt on the funding band wagon. I believe they are using it for land acquisition and habitat work...but as I have expressed, the habitat work is all prairie which just decreases the carrying capacity for pheasants and deer. In my opinion, they are doing more harm than good for pheasants and deer...and to hunters that use the land. And this is dedicated funding every year so it is just going to keep on keeping on.

Yes, you can form a non-profit and apply for the funding. I started one a few years back called "Legacy Land Partners" but I have been too busy to get it going or run it...but it is there. I would love to see a proactive habitat group with maximizing carrying capacities in mind and to leave a legacy for future generations.

Is the reason it is all prairie because that is what the non profits choose or is it dictated and mandated in order to receive funding?

[LandDr]

One of the HUGE problems in this state is that habitat is being done poorly, generally speaking. Habitat is being done...but it is being done poorly. Just because you plant native grass and some trees on your property, doesn't necessarily mean it will help.

I don't claim to be the expert, but dang it, I get results...and that is what it is all about...getting results.

Just one example this morning already, I got a seeding plan from a landowner that was put together from Todd County. It consists of 3 "bunch" grasses and absolutely no Switch Grass in the mix. Switch Grass is soooooo good for deer and pheasants...great fall cover and winter cover (not ideal thermal cover but it is good cover especially if protected by ideal spruce thermal cover) and Switch Grass is related to the corn\sorghum family so it is like a millet seed which pheasants and turkey love. I call it a "secondary" food source rather than a "primary" food source as you should not depend on Switch Grass as your primary food source for pheasant and turkey management.

But this is what I am getting at...it is "habitat" going onto the land, but it really isn't going to do anything for increasing the carrying capacity much. And it will be there for the next 10 to 15 years, which is sad to consider that there was the opportunity to REALLY make this property into a GREAT property, but the opportunity may be missed. I will talk to this landowner about all of this and hopefully he will want to turn it around.

That is just one example.

[LandDr]

It is prairie because that is what the govt and non-profits want. They are mostly putting "preservation" and "restoration" plans together rather than maxing out the carrying capacity for deer and pheasants. In my view, they are not designing for deer and pheasants. Or for some reason they forgot how tough MN winters are and thing everything will be fine once spring arrives.

For gosh sake, they are grazing public lands down to NOTHING...but they expect a deer and pheasant to survive the winter on it. Are you kidding? They are going that just for the sake of "managing the prairie like it used to be managed". Hunters don't care how it "used to be managed"...they just want more deer and pheasants!!!

[smsmith]

LandDr., I have very limited knowledge about pheasant cover. Where do groups like PF and NWTF come into the conversation? I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that PF was pretty active in MN. Are they pushing prairie restoration as well?

[LandDr]

These groups are pushing high end prairie. From the properties I have seen purchased and planted, there were no thermal cover areas planted and no food plots...just grass. WMAs are mostly all grass also with a few exceptions. I am bidding on some down by Windom right now for these groups and they are all 30 species grass mixes. They will be really pretty and great for duck nesting, but won't carry a pheasant or deer through the winter.

[PurpleFloyd]

It is prairie because that is what the govt and non-profits want. They are mostly putting "preservation" and "restoration" plans together rather than maxing out the carrying capacity for deer and pheasants. In my view, they are not designing for deer and pheasants. Or for some reason they forgot how tough MN winters are and thing everything will be fine once spring arrives.

For gosh sake, they are grazing public lands down to NOTHING...but they expect a deer and pheasant to survive the winter on it. Are you kidding? They are going that just for the sake of "managing the prairie like it used to be managed". Hunters don't care how it "used to be managed"...they just want more deer and pheasants!!!

Yeah, I agree with you that what is currently being done is not the best for the deer or pheasants. I still didn't get whether this is something that is written into legislation or funding though or rather if it is what is being chosen or pushed by the current groups that are getting the funding.

I would think these last several winters would paint a pretty strong picture that we need to diversify the habitat and that is not just Minnesota but also the Dakota's and Iowa. There were some pretty bleak pictures over the past several winters in ND of dead pheasants scattered over the landscape and dead birds don't lie. This year will will have many deer telling the same tale.

then again as a hunter, we must also understand there are going to be other interest groups who may not see habitat for deer and Pheasants as something that is particularly important, especially Pheasants as they are an introduced species. So maybe one thing to look at is how diversifying the habitat could be beneficial to other groups besides just hunters. Paint a picture with a broader brush and then there will be more support.

[PurpleFloyd]

These groups are pushing high end prairie. From the properties I have seen purchased and planted, there were no thermal cover areas planted and no food plots...just grass. WMAs are mostly all grass also with a few exceptions. I am bidding on some down by Windom right now for these groups and they are all 30 species grass mixes. They will be really pretty and great for duck nesting, but won't carry a pheasant or deer through the winter.

Is some of it economic? From your figures there is a huge difference between low end prairie at 95 dollars and acre and trees at up to 1000 per acre. I would guess a mixture of food plots, trees and some grass is still running in the 500 dollar an acre range depending on the ratio and compared to just grasses I would think the cost would push quite a few people towards grass, especially if they don't hunt.

[LandDr]

When they buy land or it is public land, they put their mix together and there is no changing it. Most of the mixes are 30 species mixes with very little switch grass as they feel switch grass is "invasive". I have never understood that position regarding switch grass since switch grass actually does not like to be burned...the more often you burn, the less switch you have. Pretty easy to keep it under control. Versus Big Bluestem, it loves to be burned. To me, Big Blue seems to be more invasive and actually was a dominant species on the prairie according to early pioneers.

When you are dealing with CRP, you can put seeding mixes together, but there are specs you have to stay within. For example, 0-50% can be Big Blue, 0-50% can be Indian, etc....but usually only 0-5% can be switch grass. That is around a handful or less of switch per football field to put it into perspective.

For the Legacy Funds...there is some ability to design mixes, but remember that those funds are very much in control of the bedroom sleepers. BUT...if you presented the fund application such as that you are specifically trying to increase carrying capacity and why and how...then it will be defined in the application already and then you should have the flexibility in the design of you seeding plans.

Real chess game isn't it. My background is that I was employed previously by MPCA, USDA, NRCS, FSA, SWCD, DNR and USFW...and now am private...so I know how to play chess.

[PurpleFloyd]

Real chess game isn't it. My background is that I was employed previously by MPCA, USDA, NRCS, FSA, SWCD, DNR and USFW...and now am private...so I know how to play chess.

I feel for you. I was a Mayor of our town and a region 9 commissioner for a while and got to deal with most of those agencies when we upgraded our sewer system, built a new fire hall and in other dealings.

[Jameson]

1. accurate

2. inaccurate, I asked for input/ideas. I did not "call them out". I wanted honest answers

3. nothing to do with 1 and 2. You'll notice I did state that about 30 guys were invited...and its not "my little sandbox"...its another guy's property. I'd sure never invite people who a property owner has never met to visit that guy's property. Call me crazy.

Nice to see PurpeTroll back to his same old same old. The world is right again.

[SmellEsox]

I'm not a wildlife biologist, but do you think that you could prevent massive die-offs of pheasants by improving winter/thermal habitat? The fact we are on the northern fringe of pheasant range suggests we will have a boom and bust population. To me it seems like the limiting factor for all birds is good quality grassland where they can nest. We have a lot of ag to feed them. Isn't cattail a good thermal cover? Seems like that's where they are in the winter. Maybe wetland restoration would give us more bang for the buck as far as winter cover. I always thought trees were bad for prairie upland birds, giving predators a place to hunt/live. Seems like where pheasants are most abundant they have wide open grassland/cropland and few trees (ie. SW MN and the Dakotas).

As far as deer habitat. IMVHO, habitat in central MN and along the transition zone is absolutely great as it is. Could it be improved? Yes. But plenty capable in its current state to support more deer and sustain them long into the future. A tough winter like this one is going to kill deer regardless of the thermal habitat present. This is a 1 in 100 winter. You are going to have mortality. The best way to reduce mortality is to have deer out there that will survive. That means not hammering the dump out of adult does every year. As it is, what is left after season? A bunch of fawns that are least capable of surviving a tough winter. In average to even fairly tough winters, we lose very few deer in the transition zone and across central MN. I've said it before, these habitat improvements are nice and great, but would be incredibly expensive on a large scale. A state agency can't afford that. If landowners want to, great. What smsmith is trying to do is rally hunters for a cause to raise deer population levels. It can be done under current habitat conditions. On needs to only look to the early 2000's to see that it can be done.

[LandDr]

Esox

Those are all good questions and I am glad you asked them.

Question...since we don't hunt hens, why don't we have hens all over the place? Shouldn't there be amazing populations of hens?

The answer is that we don't have the hen population we should have. Why? They are not making it through the winter. Why don't they make it through the winter? Because there isn't the thermal cover-food source relationship consistently across the landscape. As food sources run out or are farther away, the birds have to travel farther and farther to find the food...which increases their exposure to avian and ground predators as well as inclement weather.

Imagine your wife and you in your house and the fridge is empty...but across the road are some hamburgers...however there is a sniper in the tree ready to pick you off. But you gotta eat. You run across to get a hamburger and your wife gets taken out. What does that do to the population? Morbid example...but that is the reality of what is going on.

Properly designed thermal cover with adjacent food sources will allow birds to survive further north into the northern parts of the pheasant range or farther.

Grass WILL NOT get hens through the winter...so what good is nesting cover when there are no hens? "Dead hens don't lay eggs!"

Cattails are good winter cover if you have a mild winter. If you have a winter with blowing snow, which we usually do, then cattails become death traps. They get caught under the hard snow and can't get out or they get completely buried. There are many examples of rotting pheasants in the spring that were dead in cattails. Cattails that are protected by a well designed thermal woody cover planting are great...but cattails on their own can be death traps.

Trees are bad for birds if they are tall deciduous trees that provide perches for predators...such as maple, elm, cottonwood, etc. Spruce trees don't provide much for a perch. I hear that argument about trees all the time...but I have around 300 birds in my spruce planting right now? They are there because it protects them year after year after year...and I have food all around and within the spruce trees consisting of of food plots and feeders.

I don't agree that thermal cover with associated food sources won't reduce winter mortality of deer. Provide them thermal cover and food...they will survive...and actually often have higher body weights which provides many benefits. I have around 150 deer out at my place right now and they are all fat n fuzzy...I don't expect to see any dead deer.

Increasing deer populations and then hope for mild winters. If you get typical MN winters, then we can talk about carrying capacity again. You can look for your short term fix, but the long term fix is what takes care of the big problem that will continue to haunt us.

[PurpleFloyd]

Nice to see PurpeTroll back to his same old same old. The world is right again.

Go lay by your dish son. Unless you have something of substance to add.