Destruction of Habitat on WPAs

[B. Amish]

Quote:

B Amish, if you reread my post I'm looking for someone - anyone - to show me some research from a reputable source that avian predators are a serious threat to pheasants and ducks. I've never seen any published research on it but thats what they use to justify their habitat destruction.

I understand that these WPA's were bought for ducks but in this day and age when hunters are looking for hunting spots, the public areas that we do have should be managed with all wildlife in mind. Take a drive on the opening of deer hunting or muzzleloading. I did exactly that a couple years ago over in Swift county. A couple big WMA's with trees on them were packed with hunters, a vehicle at every approach. On the way home I drove by a couple of the WPA's that the F&WS had made into grassy wastelands and there was hardly a vehicle. What does that tell you?

from BioOne.org...

Quote:

North American grasslands continue to decline in quantity and quality. In the northern mixed-grass prairie, potential edge and fragmentation effects on grassland birds are poorly understood and conclusions are based largely on data from outside the region. Lands in and adjacent to J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge in north-central North Dakota comprise one of the largest contiguous patches of northern mixed-grass prairie remaining in North America. However, within the region, aspen (Populus tremuloides), willow (Salix spp.), and other woody species have increased, such that continued existence of grasslands is threatened. We examined how breeding grassland birds responded to habitat that has been variably fragmented by encroaching woody vegetation. The probability of occurrence decreased markedly for 11 of 15 bird species (including 3 endemic to the northern Great Plains) as percent woodland, tall shrub, or brush cover increased. Bird species were increasingly affected as the height of woody plants increased from brush to tall shrubs to trees. Grasslands became largely unsuitable for 9 species as woodland cover exceeded 25%. Derived models can be used by land managers to predict the outcome of management actions that alter plant community succession or that restore grasslands degraded by woody invasion.

Do we really need to show that hawks and owls can and will predate on ground nesting birds that evolved to nest on wide open grasslands void of trees and thus unfamiliar predator species? Species that depend on the prairie have a hard enough time the way it is, why should we choose to make it harder by keeping the trees and adding more predators to the mix? Less that 1% of the native tall grass prairie is still around in Minnesota. Is it too much to ask to restore what we can?

We can't manage for all wildlife in the prairie. You can't have it all. Deer and pheasants are not going to suffer population decreases because of removing trees. Give the pheasants grass and cattails and they will be fine. Deer will thrive just about anywhere.

Keeping wetlands drained so they have more cattails in them and are more attractive to pheasants is borderline insane. You insist that all the FWS cares about is ducks. All you care about is pheasants with comments like this.

Maybe the threat isn't all avian predators, but I can guarantee you that trees taking over what little prairie habitat we have is a HUGE THREAT to all of the grassland dependent birds in this state and elsewhere.

[reddog]

They cut down all the trees on a large parcel here in Iowa, and then installed a peregrine nesting pole. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

[BLACKJACK]

Sounds to me like your main beef is that what you're seeing doesn't appeal to the creatures you would rather keep around.

Bob

Bob, last time I had bobolink pie it didn't taste very good, must be something they eat!!!

What can I say, I love to hunt pheasants. Its easy for you guys to stand off from afar and say 'its good to have more prairie' but I'm looking at spots that I'd hunt, you know that little 1/2 acre to 2 acres spots that ALWAYS had a pheasant or two, or you'd jump a deer - and now they're gone. And in the area I live, there are a lot of WPA's but come fall, if they don't have crop land (or cover) nearby, its a waste of time to go thru their hunting. With a little bit of ecosystem management, meaning leave or plant a shelterbelt and plant a food plot, we'd have twice as many pheasants. Hunters foot most of the bill, why not help them out? We've all experienced the opening day red army on opening of deer hunting, but these grassy deserts have no hunters in them, why? Because all the cover has been cut down. We're losing hunters, why? Because they can't find good places to hunt.

I guess I need to just grab my binoculars in June, go out and see the prairie birds on these areas, enjoy the wildflowers, and forget about hunting.

[BLACKJACK]

Maybe the threat isn't all avian predators, but I can guarantee you that trees taking over what little prairie habitat we have is a HUGE THREAT to all of the grassland dependent birds in this state and elsewhere.

You made my point for me, the research you dug up didn't say anything about avian predators.

[BLACKJACK]

Keeping wetlands drained so they have more cattails in them and are more attractive to pheasants is borderline insane. You insist that all the FWS cares about is ducks. All you care about is pheasants with comments like this.

I'm going to get blasted for saying this but ducks are done. I have six ponds on my place and there are very few nesting ducks, very few broods produced. My 30+ wood duck houses don't come close to filling up anymore, we're shooting too many wood ducks. If you have lots of grapes, make wine. If you have habitat thats better for pheasants and deer, then encourage them, don't beat a dead horse.

[B. Amish]

Originally Posted By: B. Amish

Maybe the threat isn't all avian predators, but I can guarantee you that trees taking over what little prairie habitat we have is a HUGE THREAT to all of the grassland dependent birds in this state and elsewhere.

You made my point for me, the research you dug up didn't say anything about avian predators.

trees are the disease, avian predators are a symptom. cure the disease and the symptom goes away.

[B. Amish]

Originally Posted By: B. Amish

Keeping wetlands drained so they have more cattails in them and are more attractive to pheasants is borderline insane. You insist that all the FWS cares about is ducks. All you care about is pheasants with comments like this.

I'm going to get blasted for saying this but ducks are done. I have six ponds on my place and there are very few nesting ducks, very few broods produced. My 30+ wood duck houses don't come close to filling up anymore, we're shooting too many wood ducks. If you have lots of grapes, make wine. If you have habitat thats better for pheasants and deer, then encourage them, don't beat a dead horse.

maybe you have a predator problem...

[First Ice-Mike]

You are talking about a completely different set of circumstances. These are not cases of trees spreading and taking over prarie. They are cutting down established trees that have been around for nearly a century and are serving a purpose. They established the grassland around the trees!! Why can't we help all wildlife??? Is there something wrong with that??

FI

[B. Amish]

Trees make seeds don't they? Trees taking over prairie is exactly what is happening. The prairie was treeless because of fire and bison. We don't have bison anymore and we can only replicate fire occasionally. Trees grow rapidly if not kept in check. Removing the seed source along with the physical obstruction that deters many grassland birds is the goal.

If you're anywhere in western MN the only trees that were there before settlement were in creek and river bottoms.

I ask you this. Show me some research that removing these trees is detrimental to pheasants and deer. In fact, it probably helps the pheasants more than it hurts them. Give deer cover of any kind and they'll be fine.

[chub]

Don't know if this has been posted already.....but here is some info.

Tree Removal and Grassland Birds

Waterfowl Production Areas (WPA's) in the prairie pothole region of Minnesota frequently have a significant woody component that is incompatible with the purposes of conserving habitat for grassland birds. Woody vegetation not only uses up space that could otherwise be grass cover, but many grassland bird species need grass in patches many times larger than their territory size or they will simply refuse to use the area for nesting, in addition, woody vegetation attracts avian and mammalian predators that may significantly reduce nesting success.

To improve habitat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been actively removing trees to:

reduce the amount of acreage taken up by incompatible habitat

to increase the effective field size of adjacent grasslands

to reduce the amount of habitat attractive to avian and mammalian predators that may decrease nesting success for grassland birds.

When woody vegetation is removed, it is expected that the numbers of grassland nesting birds will increase. USFWS personnel in the Litchfield and Morris Wetland Management Districts have teamed with HAPET to monitor the response of grassland birds to tree removal. Six WPA's have been targeted for tree removal while six similar WPA's will be left as controls to measure natural annual variability in bird numbers. Birds will be counted before and after tree removal to measure their response to the increased habitat availability and larger open spaces.

For an overview and annotated bibliography on the effects of woody vegetation on grassland birds click here.

For additional information on tree removal and grassland birds contact:

Diane Granfors, PhD

Habitat and Population Evaluation Team

US Fish and Wildlife Service

18965 County Hwy. 82 S

Fergus Falls, Minnesota 56537

phone: 218-739-2291

email: [email protected]

Edited to say, I don't know how old that info is. I couldn't find a real date on it. I think I've seen somewhat more than 6 WPA's that have been cut though. Looked like a few had been done over this past winter to me.

[chub]

Here is a link(if it works here), that you can find all kinds of info.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/FergusFallsWetland/grassland.html

[kobear]

Chub's right on it. You want data?

HERE

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/hapet/Documents/treebiliog.pdf

or

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v090n01/p0124-p0131.pdf

or

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3808909

Yes it proves fewer trees equal more pheasants, more ducks, etc.

Every released pheasants before? We used to check survival by checking how many the owls picked off the roost sites. Released birds are pretty dumb roosting on logs and the like often 10 of the 40 were confirmed avian kills (feathers and remains under perch branches) in the first week. Eventually we quit, there was no correlation between bird levels in fall and released birds #'s in spring.

[First Ice-Mike]

I ask you this. Show me some research that removing these trees is detrimental to pheasants

I can show you the dead, frozen birds my dog has been bringing in the yard the past two weeks from the cattail slough by my house that is not protected by trees. Pheasants can't use the grassland to nest if they get killed by winter storms. The grassland is WORTHLESS if the birds aren't kept alive to breed and nest. The places they removed trees were all level full of snow this winter - not good for ducks or pheasants.

[chub]

From one of kobear's links....

Ring-necked Pheasant nests placed within shelterbelts had higher levels of predation than those located in other habitats. While one study found that dense shelterbelts increased survival of pheasants during severe winters, a second one found decreased use of winter food plots associated with increased tree cover. Artificial duck nests had higher predation rates near edges and within American Crow home ranges.

As for snow filled cattail sloughs not being good for ducks....,

[First Ice-Mike]

I just meant grasslands aren't good for anything in the winter. My main point is - what good is nesting habitat if the birds cannot survive the winter??

FI

[chub]

From the quote above one could in turn ask, what good is wintering habitat if the birds have low nesting success???

Pheasants seem to survive in NE SD with minimal tree cover. As for here in MN, western MN seems to thrive with less tree cover than here in Kandiyohi county.

Just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. If there's alot of snow and it's a tough winter, birds are going to die. I hardly think the tree's in WPA's are going to influence that outcome.

[tybo]

I don't think this is a big deal either. Here's my reasoning. I hunted a WPA quite a bit this year toward the end of the season. It's a pretty good size property, 400+ acres, of restored prairie with almost no trees or brush. It was a purchase and restoration by many groups including PF. I hunted that prairie grass the last few weekends of the season. I was there first thing in the morning. It was loaded with pheasants in the minimal areas I hunted, maybe 1/4 of it. The last few weekends weren't the best of hunting conditions. Bitter cold and wind. Those birds were roosting in that cover at night. You could see their tracks in the snow and could see where they would eat seed from the grasses. You could see their roosts in the base of the big bluestem and other bunch grasses bases.

The birds would fly right to a house where there was some tree cover but they'd go right back in the grass to roost at night. It took me a few trips to catch on to their game. The only reason they'd fly to the house was because they knew they were safe there. They would roost and feed in the WPA. I even kicked up some deer there a few times. They were bedded in the grasses. I'm no wildlife biologist but seeing the things I saw and the observations I made at that WPA convinced me of the importance of the grasslands. Those birds gave me the slip this year but I'll be back there next year and will be prepared for the game.

I also hunted in Montana where the winters are tougher or equal to what we get here and there is very little tree cover for those prairie birds. For those of you that haven't hunted MT yet there are birds everywhere. We hunted BMA land, private land opened to the public, and saw birds at every piece we hunted. We would hunt a 4,000 acre piece of land and get up sharptails, pheasants and huns and there isn't a tree on any of it.

I know some people are suspect of the various wildlife agencies but at some point I think you have to trust them.

[BLACKJACK]

Interesting reading!! A couple of lines that I copy/pasted in here. I'm still not convinced. Face it, the big patches of prairie are gone. If I really want to see dickcissles and Savannah sparrows, I can travel to the Dakotas. I think the F&WS could do more on their lands to promote all species, with some shelterbelts and food plots, we'd have twice as many pheasants. All they care about is the tweetty birds.

Did I mention that I'm planting 750 trees this spring??!

"The authors speculated that these wooded roadsides and fences provide cover for mammalian predators and elevated perches for avian predators."

"The authors concluded that cattail wetlands, grassland habitat, and food plots are crucial for winter survival of pheasants. During severe winters (1 every 10-15 years), dense woody habitat may prevent near or total pheasant loss."

[B. Amish]

Interesting reading!! A couple of lines that I copy/pasted in here. I'm still not convinced. Face it, the big patches of prairie are gone. If I really want to see dickcissles and Savannah sparrows, I can travel to the Dakotas. I think the F&WS could do more on their lands to promote all species, with some shelterbelts and food plots, we'd have twice as many pheasants. All they care about is the tweetty birds.

Did I mention that I'm planting 750 trees this spring??!

"The authors speculated that these wooded roadsides and fences provide cover for mammalian predators and elevated perches for avian predators."

"The authors concluded that cattail wetlands, grassland habitat, and food plots are crucial for winter survival of pheasants. During severe winters (1 every 10-15 years), dense woody habitat may prevent near or total pheasant loss."

Sorry, but the bolded words can go both ways.

"The authors concluded that cattail wetlands, grassland habitat, and food plots are crucial for winter survival of pheasants. During severe winters (1 every 10-15 years), dense woody habitat may prevent near or total pheasant loss."

[creepworm]

Perhaps everyone is overlooking one fact on this one. It is a WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREA. Not a pheasant overwinter area or a place to jump a deer area. You say that all they care about is ducks which is absolutely true. IT IS RIGHT IN THE NAME!

[candiru]

Purchased with duck stamp dollars.

[Jameson]

don't like it, quit buying the stamps

[BobT]

I agree with you but I think I also understand where Mike is trying to go with this, albeit maybe a bit overboard.

If I understand what he's been saying, he's been asking the question, "Shouldn't we be doing a better job of managing our public lands toward a more well-rounded application rather than just gearing them toward a particular species or group of species?" WPA's are not DU property but federal property and for this reason I think he's raising this question. I suspect he wouldn't be asking if it was purely DU property.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike.

[First Ice-Mike]

If I understand what he's been saying, he's been asking the question, "Shouldn't we be doing a better job of managing our public lands toward a more well-rounded application rather than just gearing them toward a particular species or group of species?" WPA's are not DU property but federal property and for this reason I think he's raising this question. I suspect he wouldn't be asking if it was purely DU property.

YES!!!!

[WaveWacker]

Yes, ducks populations in general aren't what they use to be in MN Does that mean that in time (and needed money or a change in the structuring of the farm program) that it can't come back? We all know what has gotten us to this point...the loss of wetlands and associated upland grasses so no I can't agree with keeping wetland area's drained so that they are just choked out cattail areas because as sportsmen/women I think that we all need to be proponents of restoring wetlands and grasslands.

I also agree to the cutting of tall hardwoods as I've witnessed pheasants clustered in some small bushes that wrapped a tall tree and a hawk was sitting on top. Not sayiing that the pheasants were there for that reason (but I like to give them credit for being smart birds) but what do you think would/did happen when one of those pheasants got brave enough break out of the shrubby cover? I don't think there needs to be in depth research to say that hawks, owls, etc. perch in trees (yes highline wires/poles as well but we all know those aren't going to come down so lets not even be sarcastic about that) and wait to drop down on prey so lets eliminate that problem.

I will say however that I would like to see the brushy component left purely for a pheasant standpoint but understand that it doesn't go along with duck production.

On a kind of different note...if one is planting some woody cover for wildlife I would definately leave out the tall hardwood component as stated in the DNR publication called "Winterizing MN's Landscapes for Wildlife" (pg. 7 to be exact) that switches to a shrub/evergreen planting for wildlife and a shrub/tall hardwood/evergreen for farmstead windbreaks.