Why do the wildlife folks cut every tree

Evergreens are good for winter cover. The rest are better cut. We cut ours and make small brush cover to support grass's on fence rows and ditches. Pheasants typically hold very well in these.
 
s.davis said:
I've been. It's not a great supporting argument for "pheasants need trees to survive".
Click to expand...
Obviously pheasants can't live in heavy timber. Northern MN is literally almost nothing but heavy timber.

The argument here is if a row or trees is beneficial for upland birds, other wildlife, and the landscape in general. Flattening every single tree for the sake of improving pheasant or quail habitat isn't the solution here. Certain types of trees are clearly beneficial and should be left there. Other species of wildlife and upland birds can also greatly benefit.

Areas with trees are also less likely to be plowed under and converted to agriculture. Their roots help with erosion control. We all know that isn't helpful for anyone here unless you're a farmer.
 
Huede said:
Evergreens are good for winter cover. The rest are better cut.
Click to expand...
This was kind of what I had in mind when I made the original post. I don't want to pheasant hunt a forest. But it is nice to see a row or two of pines on certain properties. Maybe they don't even have to plant them, but I've seen some nice pine rows sawed down. South Dakota seems to have nice shelterbelts on the state land out there.
 
When you manage a wildlife area for hunting, you need to make the "best use" of what should be adapted to be there. The habitat type that is most endangered in the United States is native grasslands. There is significant value to extensive grassland tracts. Unfortunately, our predecessors did not know what we know now. They planted tree species that aggressively expand into prairie habitat, degrading that habitat and adding extensive costs to managing those grasslands. Mechanical removal is the most expensive method to use! Fire is probably the least expensive. However, these aggressive tree varieties are often vigorous resprouters and respond to fire with more aggressive resprouting. This control is the highest cost in managing for wildlife. The reason for getting rid of all of them is that the seed source grows exponentially as does the number of invaders over time, thus exponential growth in costs as well. Managers aren't against timber, it is great habitat and we want just that where there is supposed to be timber. On my area, I want my grasslands to be grasslands! I want my timber to be native and in a physical form that will benefit turkey and deer as well as quail and pheasants. Now, if you overlay quail and pheasant habitat adaptivity over a graph of deer and turkey adaptivity (see attached), the deer and turkey have the much broader adaptive niche. As the plant community goes through natural succession from bare ground, to annual plants, to perennial plants, to shrubs, and finally to woodlands, the ability of quail and pheasant to survive in those habitats declines. A land manager's job is to manipulate habitats toward their most productive state. The wildlife managers are just doing what they need to do to keep upland birds on the ground for hunters. Where woodland habitats should exist, you will find them managing those with a similar goal, being the most productive.
 

Attachments

  • quail adaptive niche.JPG
    quail adaptive niche.JPG
    45.5 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Prairie Drifter said:
When you manage a wildlife area for hunting, you need to make the "best use" of what should be adapted to be there. The habitat type that is most endangered in the United States is native grasslands. There is significant value to extensive grassland tracts. Unfortunately, our predecessors did not know what we know now. They planted tree species that aggressively expand into prairie habitat, degrading that habitat and adding extensive costs to managing those grasslands. Mechanical removal is the most expensive method to use! Fire is probably the least expensive. However, these aggressive tree varieties are often vigorous resprouters and respond to fire with more aggressive resprouting. This control is the highest cost in managing for wildlife. The reason for getting rid of all of them is that the seed source grows exponentially as does the number of invaders over time, thus exponential growth in costs as well. Managers aren't against timber, it is great habitat and we want just that where there is supposed to be timber. On my area, I want my grasslands to be grasslands! I want my timber to be native and in a physical form that will benefit turkey and deer as well as quail and pheasants. Now, if you overlay quail and pheasant habitat adaptivity over a graph of deer and turkey adaptivity, the deer and turkey have the much broader adaptive niche. As the plant community goes through natural succession from bare ground, to annual plants, to perennial plants, to shrubs, and finally to woodlands, the ability of quail and pheasant to survive in those habitats declines. A land manager's job is to manipulate habitats toward their most productive state. The wildlife managers are just doing what they need to do to keep upland birds on the ground for hunters. Where woodland habitats should exist, you will find them managing those with a similar goal, being the most productive.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with clear cutting Russian olive!!
 
Goosemaster said:
I don't agree with clear cutting Russian olive!!
Click to expand...
Again, it is a cost thing. They will continue to expand and you continue to spend your habitat dollars doing work on that same thing over and over. It is much easier to find some other species to plant that will provide the positives that Russian Olive's do without the negatives.
 
Last edited:
In Kansas every once in a while you see a property for sale with an aerial photo like this:
1697662159513.png

How long do you suppose it's been since that piece has been burned or seen any meaningful timber management? Annual burning has it's own downside, especially for Prairie Chickens, but that property is a disaster for every native species except whitetails, turkeys, and squirrels. The photos on the listing show lots of nice Kansas bucks. https://www.sundgren.com/120-acres-hunting-land-north-of-howard-in-elk-county-kansas/

FYI, here's google earth from March of '96. It's already showing some woody encroachment, but maybe it would be salvageable as grassland. I'd hate to think what it would cost today to convert.
1697662558382.png
 

Attachments

  • 1697662722372.png
    1697662722372.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 2
That one picture shows all of the various stages of woody invasion. Shelterbelts planted with good intentions have caused enormous destruction. A more careful selection of tree species would have been all it took to have prevented this. One thing Matto said is only true to a point. At some level this woody invasion is even not tolerated by whitetails!
 
I attended a Pheasant’s Forever State conference program a few years ago where some wildlife biologists were trying to improve quail habitat in Missouri. They were cutting trees and planting plum thickets, etc, stuff that wouldn’t support avian predators, foxes, coyotes and raccoons. They had some pretty compelling evidence that quail and pheasants couldn’t nest within about 150 yards of those heavy tree rows, the predators would come out and destroy the nests. If that is true, and I believed the evidence they provided saying it was, if you have a tree row on all sides of 80 acres and you take 150 yards out of nesting on all sides there isn’t a lot left for birds to nest in. They were having success where they were.
 
Thanks for all the replies, it makes a lot more sense now why they remove certain trees on public managed land. I still do enjoy hunting a good old row of cedars.
 
I'm nowhere near an expert? I know nothing. But I do know that a certain landowner we hunt on in SD has an owl living in her wooded area by her house along with about 200 pheasants....ALL THE TIME. If that owl was that much of a threat, why do those pheasants stay there?
Before someone asks, she found the owl injured, nursed it back to health, named it and released it. It stays around her farm lot....otherwise....
 
Tree row removal has more to do with increasing unfragmented nesting Habitat for all grassland nesting birds. Federal property especially has a focus on threatened species like grasshopper sparrows and bobolinks. Those species will avoid trees. Russian olives and Chinese elms are very invasive. Both state and feds will remove those trees when funds allow.
 
HS Strut said:
I'm nowhere near an expert? I know nothing. But I do know that a certain landowner we hunt on in SD has an owl living in her wooded area by her house along with about 200 pheasants....ALL THE TIME. If that owl was that much of a threat, why do those pheasants stay there?
Before someone asks, she found the owl injured, nursed it back to health, named it and released it. It stays around her farm lot....otherwise....
Click to expand...
I will say this.Imo owls kill pheasants. They love Russian olive, and Ash trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top