Ideas to get more habitat

I do like the Idea of that shrub thing or cedars pluss a few feet of switch on fencelines, help wind erosion as well. There are millions of miles of fence that are never going to be pasture. Many are 10-12 feet wide now with broam. A row of nice winter cover and 5 feet of switch on each side would be great. Many people have done it and the birds thrive in it. But talking farmers in to doing it is hard, some kind of incentive would be nice. That would help allot. They would not have to deal with tree branches either with a row or Lilac, honneysuckle or cedar ect. Would also make for some awsome hunting for a twosome and a dog.
 
FC, from the research I've read, you need a minimum of 30 feet in the switch to prevent it from being easily hunted by predators. The federal standards for filter strips are in increments of 30 from 30 to 120 feet in width. The wider the better.
 
If you saw the bird #'s in NC IA, and the dredge ditches, small groves and fenclines being the only cover they have it would blow your mind. That therory would not hold up. That is some wide open flat dirt with the above cover is all, and believe it or not there has been pheasant hunting there compairing to the Dakotas. The fenceline improvements would do a tremendous amt of help in these areas.Pheasant chicks hatch and then have all the crop fields for cover to roam till they are bold and can avoid those proweling critters. I am not thinking a national level, just areas I am familiar with. So Sth MN and Nth central IA this would be great.
 
FCSpringer said:
Pheasant chicks hatch and then have all the crop fields for cover to roam till they are bold and can avoid those proweling critters.
Click to expand...

In my neck of the woods more pheasants are probably hatched in alfalfa fields then any were else. I hate to think how many a run over every spring.
 
FC, it was a theory BEFORE the research. The findings of the research have proven it to be fact. You finding them using this narrow habitat doesn't mean that their survival there is adequate.
 
I run my dog In my 12acres of hay in spring and summer to keep the pheasant out. Sad when you cut it and see all the nest and birds killed. We use to have a few people leave grass 10- 20 feet from fence. Looked like they had pretty good pheasant hacthes lots of birds on the roads in aug. by them. Thats not a bad idea predators are going to get theres no matter what size you leave.
 
I believe that if you really want to help wildlife, we need to eliminate farm subsidies, especially for ethanol. It doesn't make any sense that government mandates ethanol use, subsidizes most crops and dairy, and then other parts of government lobby for more wildlife area. The feds are bidding up the cost of farm land that they in turn have to rent back in the form of CRP.

CRP is also only temorary, so it will be a constant battle to maintain.

The other problem is all of the drain tiling that is done, especially in MN and areas of the Dakotas. I understand the argument that it is private property, but when you tile you pass untreated water to the folks downstream. Why do you think the Red River floods in Fargo so bad? It always has flooded, but the problem is made worse by all of the drains rushing into the river during spring melt. In the past, that water was naturally stored in small sloughs all over the area and slowly trickled into the river.

When these floods happen, we all have to foot the bill to the tune of BILLIONS when a disaster area is declared. All this for a net gain of maybe a few percentage points in tillable acreage?
 
Prairie Drifter said:
FC, it was a theory BEFORE the research. The findings of the research have proven it to be fact. You finding them using this narrow habitat doesn't mean that their survival there is adequate.
Click to expand...


I dont get it, are you saying these min, are for any program qualification, or other reasons. Because cover is cover any way you look at it, the more the better. Weather its long and narrow wide or short it's still cover. But if its a Q thing then I get it.
 
FC, I am saying that the research found that strips narrower than 30 feet had a negative impact on the population. It increased predator success, decreased nest success, and ultimately decreased the population. So the question is: why develop any habitat if it is going to do exactly the opposite of your intentions. Developing a habitat that you know will provide you the opportunity to kill a bird at the expense of many more birds makes no sense.
 
PD I was with you that wider is better. But, I am having a hard time buying that less than 30ft has a negative impact overall on populations. Could you steer me towards the source/name of this research.
 
I would sure go with a larger square type patch. A narrow strip makes it easy for a hunting animal such as a coyote to cover in say one pass. He does this once a day or every other day, this type habitat ain't going to a do the pheasants much good. Same for avian predation but not as bad.
 
MMD, Dr. Wes Burger from Mississippi State was presenting the research at the Kansas state Pheasants Forever meeting a week ago Saturday. The study was done by MSU. It was a comparative trial with controls comparing nesting success on the various widths.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
FC, it was a theory BEFORE the research. The findings of the research have proven it to be fact. You finding them using this narrow habitat doesn't mean that their survival there is adequate.
Click to expand...

PD, shouldn't we be careful with research and studies? Applying factual data to the wrong situation, state, climate or objective can be as dangerous as a predator in a thin strip of cover.

I'm very interested in the research but don't have time to search for it. I found it ironic that study was done by state that does not have a single pheasant in it.

Most would agree that blocks vs. narrow is preferred but narrow vs. none?
 
It was done on quail. Predators don't care. Also, everyone wants to believe that a study would change markedly if done in another place. Most studies are applicable across a species range. Why would it be strange where one cover layout benefits the prey and another benefits the predator? Makes sense to me without the study.
 
Wider is better for sure. But narrow is still better than none. This is what Dr. Wes Burger said.

â??Narrow field borders are certainly
a large improvement over non
bordered field margins. However,
this research also delineated the
substantial advancements possible
with increased widths,â?� Burger says.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
It was done on quail. Predators don't care. Also, everyone wants to believe that a study would change markedly if done in another place. Most studies are applicable across a species range. Why would it be strange where one cover layout benefits the prey and another benefits the predator? Makes sense to me without the study.
Click to expand...

We don't have quail.

The cover where I am talking about, the quiet population of birds, which I don't care to disclose, is nothing more then Dredge ditches and fence lines. Small farm groves and a few widely scattered crp patches, yet is just polluted with pheasants. The fence line projects would do wonders there. Being that there is no real predator threat to these birds other then a few hawks and a coyote or two, which are chased by locals all winter, that does not seem to be an issue there. No trees for other denning critters. I think these studies are if fact as you say species and location related. It is clearly not ply-able to the area I am thinking of. As it is teaming with pheasants now with seemingly little to no cover, believe it or not it's true. Most would just pass on and never consider hunting the area. And it is a wide range of IA and Sth MN. The main thing is the winter cover. That they lack. Many of the farmers have been going no till, leaving tall corn stalk fields all winter. The birds crawl around out there like ants. It is amazing. The winter is what is going to get them right now. Plantings like those lilac rows in Guides post on what shrub. the old growth lilac is what I had in mind, along with some grass edge, would solve that problem in most of that area. I can't say anything about the rest of the US. When I used to hunt ND allot my friends out there had narrow tree rows all over and you see a thousand birds come out of those things all the time. It worked great there. This subject is one of geography I would think. We all live in different parts of the world, and what works in some areas may not work in others and the opposite should only make sense as well. A study on quail in Mississippi most likely has no effect on this development in MN or Nth IA because we don't or will never have Quail.. I guess maybe we need to think about where we are each of us and just do what we think best for the area. At least we are trying.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Here in northern Iowa Fc is 100% right. In my opinion more winter cover would = hunts that would make South Dakotas hunts look cheesy. We had the winter cover before and had tons of pheasant. Wheres the study for northern IA winter pheasant survival grass alone don't work here. cattails and honey suckle is what you need to have big # of birds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top