Bob Peters
Well-known member
I've read several times now that the flint hills are the largest remaining piece of tall grass prairie left. I'd like to get down to see it someday for that reason alone.
Flinty Hills
- Thread starter Bob Peters
- Start date
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
There is tall prairie grass in the flint hills? Looks like nothing but overgrazed pasture land now, which helped produce the cedar invasion. In the mid 80's, that prairie grass started disappearing, and along with it went the prairie chicken. Traveling from Wichita to Severy in the 70's and 80's, the sky would be black at sunset with prairie chickens. It was unreal how many flocks you would see in flight. Just one after another.
Not many manage well imo. Overgraze to the dirt and burn
to the horizon every single year.Bob Peters
Well-known member
I thought the burning was good? I suppose every year is not. I think a burn every 3 years is a better deal.Not many manage well imo. Overgraze to the dirt and burn
I just saw a few old videos on the flint hills and they interviewed some ranchers who spoke highly of their stewardship of the land. In the videos it didn't really look like the grass was that tall, but could have been time of year or lack of rain. I also read there's a big prairie reserve in the Osage hills of Oklahoma.
I'm sure not all do - but the large ones you see along I70 and along the Turnpike from Topeka to Wichita (I burn that pavement up pretty regular) is pretty depressing. Looks more like short grass prairie minus the yucca and plum thickets. All about how many cattle they can graze.
You should visit in March/April when they start burning and see what they do.
These guys are as good of stewards as the ones pumping every last drop out of the Ogallallah in western KS, Snake Creek Basin, around Quivira etc. It's quite disturbing the short sightedness -- no one seems to think and look at these things in terms of several lifetimes not just their short one -- that's my .02 anyways.
I don't .... DO NOT like government interference at all -- but to an extent basic land management should be left to actual biologists to help recommend the incentives to stimulate such management practices - vs the highest bidder (Monsanto, Bayer AG, or whatever seed, chemical or big ag company) pays the most to set policy and force everyone else to tow the line - the path we're on there will be large environmental disasters and only then will anyone pay attention (think something akin to the dust bowl). No one else seems to care or notice.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
I highly doubt 200 plus years ago that the prairie burned every 3 years. Some estimates say every 5-20 years the prairie burned from lightening strikes. But it was a healthy ecosystem back then free of man, cattle, chemicals, irrigation pipe, and barb wire. Man, and his ideas and management of the ecosystem, is a disaster.
Whether it's "good" or "bad" is all about your objective. The ranchers' very understandable objective is max weight gains on their herds. With that as an objective, annual burning and early intensive grazing is a pretty good system. I'm not informed enough to know whether it's "best" for weight gain. It probably also helps set back natural succession and keep woody plants suppressed. The cedars start to take over when there is no burning, but it doesn't need to be anything close to annual to keep them at bay.
It's not "good" at all for prairie chickens, as others have mentioned.
Drive the Kansas Turnpike (I-35/I-335) from Wichita to Topeka just after dark in late March through mid April. Regardless of what you think of those fires from a wildlife/ecological perspective, that's a pretty cool thing to see.