Why those fence lines must go.

I think that this contradiction is partly based on location, partly based on management goals, and partly based on cover species selection. Pheasants don't generally "need" the taller vertical structure like mature 60 foot elms etc. True, they may occasionally use them. Yes, the further north you go in the pheasant's range, the more woody vegetation is an annual necessity. I'd say in Kansas that pheasant survival being dependant upon shelter belt density woody cover is only a 10-20 year occurance. Most years, plum thickets or single rows of cedars would suffice. Some years, they may do just as well in CRP or kochia. The heavier snow loads and lower temperatures make the heavier cover more important up north. Another consideration, one I hear hints of, but that hasn't been outright stated is: there are species of woody cover that tend to attract predators or tend to excape from their rows to degrade adjoining habitat. In Kansas, we have a severe problem with cedars, locust, Siberian Elm, Russian Olive, Osage Orange, Multiflora Rose, and a number of other woody species infesting adjoining acres and causing significant management costs for years down range. Further, in areas where coons, skunks, oppossum and other meso predators have significant populations in adjoining riparian habitats, the added cover provided by feral cedars or mature den trees away from the riparian corridor makes those predators significantly more efficient operating within the nesting habitat adjacent to those plantings. From a function standpoint, yes, the taller trees in a homestead shelterbelt are going to save you some BTU's or bales of hay. If we were writing management plans for our acreages today, based on what we know now, we all would probably be able to "change" the species or design to make the resultant habitat more pheasant friendly and less predator friendly. If you want to take the arguement further, these "introduced" woody habitats in our grasslands have allowed non-native, or maybe more properly defined, non-indigineous species to move into the prairie and thrive where they otherwise never would have. On the other side of that, those same woody plantings in our grasslands have degraded those same grasslands for some of our more grassland dependant species like prairie chickens, dickcissels, and meadowlarks....... One can be a purist or a generalist, the next generation may be able to tell us which was more correct.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
I think that this contradiction is partly based on location, partly based on management goals, and partly based on cover species selection. Pheasants don't generally "need" the taller vertical structure like mature 60 foot elms etc. True, they may occasionally use them. Yes, the further north you go in the pheasant's range, the more woody vegetation is an annual necessity. I'd say in Kansas that pheasant survival being dependant upon shelter belt density woody cover is only a 10-20 year occurance. Most years, plum thickets or single rows of cedars would suffice. Some years, they may do just as well in CRP or kochia. The heavier snow loads and lower temperatures make the heavier cover more important up north. Another consideration, one I hear hints of, but that hasn't been outright stated is: there are species of woody cover that tend to attract predators or tend to excape from their rows to degrade adjoining habitat. In Kansas, we have a severe problem with cedars, locust, Siberian Elm, Russian Olive, Osage Orange, Multiflora Rose, and a number of other woody species infesting adjoining acres and causing significant management costs for years down range. Further, in areas where coons, skunks, oppossum and other meso predators have significant populations in adjoining riparian habitats, the added cover provided by feral cedars or mature den trees away from the riparian corridor makes those predators significantly more efficient operating within the nesting habitat adjacent to those plantings. From a function standpoint, yes, the taller trees in a homestead shelterbelt are going to save you some BTU's or bales of hay. If we were writing management plans for our acreages today, based on what we know now, we all would probably be able to "change" the species or design to make the resultant habitat more pheasant friendly and less predator friendly. If you want to take the arguement further, these "introduced" woody habitats in our grasslands have allowed non-native, or maybe more properly defined, non-indigineous species to move into the prairie and thrive where they otherwise never would have. On the other side of that, those same woody plantings in our grasslands have degraded those same grasslands for some of our more grassland dependant species like prairie chickens, dickcissels, and meadowlarks....... One can be a purist or a generalist, the next generation may be able to tell us which was more correct.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say. The other point that maybe I have not explained well is that I am an all species conservationist rather than a Pheasants Forever biologist. As long as things are in balance all species are welcome here. Presently deer and coyote numbers are out of balance so that will need continued effort. But I enjoy seeing and listening to the owls as much as I do the roosters. I realize that this is a pheasant site, but I believe I can have all the pheasants I need and still be a steward of the land for all that live here.
 
Moellermd, I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek realignment on whom is the native species. However, in some areas, though hawks and owls may be native, they may not necessarily be indigineous. The adding of woody cover and human structures may largely be responsible for the ability of these predators to subsist where they might not have decades ago. By the same hand, we have created habitat (crop ground) that makes an otherwise unused niche available to pheasants. Yeah, I know, preaching to the choir. On another note, one of my peeve's with windbreaks is that when pheasants need them the most, hawks and owls benefit the most at the expense of our gamebirds.
 
1pheas4 said:
Obviously if a wind break is in place and utilized for cattle it must stay in place for that reason. On top of it wild birds in your area are using it also so that's a plus. If birds were not using it, well, the wind break still has to stay to serve as a wind break. That's that.;)

If someone is installing or improving grasslands and wants to boost upland bird #'s a bit, stay clear of planting tall trees if possible. If you want tall trees than more power to you. In no way is anyone telling anybody what to do, but instead just giving advice:cheers:
Click to expand...
x2.

I meant for my comment on tree planting to go all the way back to the beginning of the thread where it was first mentioned and in all instances where it's being done specifically for pheasants. Planting as a windbreak for a homestead or livestock, well that's it's primary purpose and it needs to be tall.
 
Most all raptors hunting is while in flight, when you see raptors in trees they are digesting after feeding. Most raptors will take flying game birds not the ones in the brush or thick stuff.
I say most, there are exceptions.
And it's true [100%] good pheasant cover is excellent ground hunting predator cover. controlling predators will benefit game birds and your hunting.

You have lots of raptors hanging around you've got a good pray population.

Anyone who has hunted ND will know of the shelterbelts. Planted mostly from 1930's to 1950's. Not for pheasants but for wind erosion. Main species of trees were Ash, Box Elder, Russian Olive, American Elm, Chinese Elm, Cottonwood. and some Juniper and Ponderosa Pine.

Most strips run about 150 to 200 yards apart. I have hunted in a four section piece of ground for more then 20 years all planted in these strips. The first decade it was all crops between the strips. Mostly small grain. Pheasant hunting was good, but you had to put in a few miles to get a chance at a limit.

Then all went into CRP. Planted in a mix of whatever was available. Alfalfa, Smothbrome, perennial Ryegrass, Timothy and Junegrass. Pheasant population exploded. I hunted often in Dec most pheasant would fly or run ahead and by the time you got near the end pheasants would fly out by the 100's at every strip!

So all those nesting/brood rearing hens could not have nested farther then about 100 yards from tall trees. Can't say for sure but I bet a lot of nesting was among the trees.

The owner of the property by the way went commercial, bed breakfast the works. Something like $600 for a 4 day hunt.
 
mnmthunting said:
Most all raptors hunting is while in flight, when you see raptors in trees they are digesting after feeding.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, but perhaps it's a regional thing. If they are flying, typically they are actively hunting, but I've seen a fair share of them going spot to spot perching for 5-15 minutes to survey the area and then moving again.

Last year in particular I twice had a Coopers hawk after a hen within 15' of me while in a treestand. The hen(s) flew into my egyptian wheat patch to get away and the Coopers hawk could be seen perching on a 40' oak above where the hens went in, then occasionally swooping into the sorghum, then back to the tree to continue waiting - repeat. On numerous other occasions I've seen them from my house in the same tree - either waiting on pheasants, rabbits, or mice I highly suspect.
 
You're spot on 1GB! Owls are even more adept at perch hunting. Those shelter belts are frequently their "home range" hunting area. That's why they are so successful when the snow is on and deep. All those pheasants have to do while roosting is make a noise of move and the owls have a heyday. That's why I've been removing tall trees out in my quail production grasslands. As long as a raptor can hunt without spending any energy, they are more apt to stay around. If they have to work for smaller and smaller gains, they will move to more productive hunting areas. This is also one of the reasons to stay up on your burning rotation. The more you let thatch build, the higher the rodent population. The rodents will pull more predators to the nesting area and the chances of quail/pheasants getting on the menu increases. Keeping your grasslands lower on the succession ladder and free of significant thatch favors the birds, not the rodents and predators.
 
Recon that's why those shelter belts with the tall trees hold so very few pheasants out there in the Dakotas.:(
And during the soil bank days and through the CRP days know what?
Burning grasslands was NOT part of the tremendous boom in upland bird populations.:)
 
Mnmt, you mean when farm equipment wasn't 40-50 feet wide? When we didn't have wheat farmers, corn farmers, bean farmers, just farmers that had to stay diversified to take advantage of the markets? When raptors weren't federally protected? When, at least in Kansas, we had 7X the furharvesters in the field as the most recent low in license sales? When my best coon brought $52, coyote $75, badger $50, bobcat $225, mink $40, possum $6? You mean before all the "fence lines" were taken out? When many soil bank acres were "go back" instead of planted to solid stands of NWSG? When crop fields were 40 acres, not 640? When we (Kansas) hadn't suffered the 27% increase in woodland expansion since the 80's? When many homes were still burning wood for heat? When the number of families per township were 10X what they are now? When our rural schools were full? When DDT was just being understood to be a problem in raptor eggs? When few farmers had sprayers and herbicides were limited? Dang hard to make equal comparisons between then and now. It's a whole new ballgame. Managing CRP and other wildlife habitats to keep them productive means making those acres function as almost all of the habitat niches that our game birds need in a year. Why, because those needs aren't being met by many ag acres or grassland acres adjoining the CRP plantings quite frequently. Today, the options for our gamebirds outside of farm programs acres can, at times, be dicey!
 
Last edited:
moellermd said:
Besides hawks and owls are native species, pheasants are invasive
Click to expand...


I once again recently talked with a county conservation worker who attached the word "invasive" to the ring neck pheasant. I cringe every time I come across this miss guided attitude towards this awesome bird.

Is our ring neck pheasant really invasive or simply non-native? When I heard the word "invasive" I think "invade". Which is exactly what species such as the Asian Carp, Buck Thorn, and Japanese beetle have done (just to name a few). Each of these species are competing with our native species, damaging natural resources, and are a real legitimate problem.

In what way has the ring neck pheasant competed with native species? In what way has he damaged our natural resources? To the contrary (through conservation messures taken place to boost his #'s) he has helped our natural resources and countless other species.

The pheasant has filled a gaping hole left behind from our cherished and justifiably missed native prairie chicken. The ring neck pheasant is all we've got.

As our ornaments enhance our Christmas trees each year so too the wild ring neck pheasant vibrantly enhances our grass lands and hedgerows. could you imagine life without him? Could you imaging walking the field for days without flushing a pheasant? Without him we are left with nothing in many parts of our county.

Moellermd, I know you're statement has a sarcastic tone to it, but with an unjust anti pheasant movement under way, I couldn't let "invasive" go without clarifying.;)
 
As far as I'm concerned soybeans are an invasive species, like fescue and smooth bromegrass. I think the root source of Kansas hard red winter wheat is Russian. Lord only knows how many outright pests and funguses we imported accidentially, starlings, house sparrows, wheat rust, etc. Invasive species talk is a slippery slope, most anxiously pursued by revisionist naturalists who want to restore the buffalo and presumablly the nomadic North American Indians, Oops! forgot, they came over the Aisian land bridge. Not native either. If you have been here and a beneficial part of the scene for as many years as pheasants have, you have earned your citizenship.
 
Are revisionist naturalist Invasive?:)
I had an old guy tell me game birds numbers were huge back when. Because raptors were poisoned,large trees were very few, and hunting seasons were not as long. Any truth to that? Oh and trapping was propular:thumbsup:
 
captaincoot said:
Are revisionist naturalist Invasive?:)
I had an old guy tell me game birds numbers were huge back when. Because raptors were poisoned,large trees were very few, and hunting seasons were not as long. Any truth to that? Oh and trapping was propular:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Seasons were not as long, fur prices were much better. That is all that I can tell you for sure about what you ask. This year will be down some because of a tough winter and a wet spring. Last year was one of best hunting years we have ever had, I have been telling people for the last few years that these are the good old days.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
Mnmt, you mean when farm equipment wasn't 40-50 feet wide? When we didn't have wheat farmers, corn farmers, bean farmers, just farmers that had to stay diversified to take advantage of the markets? When raptors weren't federally protected? When, at least in Kansas, we had 7X the furharvesters in the field as the most recent low in license sales? When my best coon brought $52, coyote $75, badger $50, bobcat $225, mink $40, possum $6? You mean before all the "fence lines" were taken out? When many soil bank acres were "go back" instead of planted to solid stands of NWSG? When crop fields were 40 acres, not 640? When we (Kansas) hadn't suffered the 27% increase in woodland expansion since the 80's? When many homes were still burning wood for heat? When the number of families per township were 10X what they are now? When our rural schools were full? When DDT was just being understood to be a problem in raptor eggs? When few farmers had sprayers and herbicides were limited? Dang hard to make equal comparisons between then and now. It's a whole new ballgame. Managing CRP and other wildlife habitats to keep them productive means making those acres function as almost all of the habitat niches that our game birds need in a year. Why, because those needs aren't being met by many ag acres or grassland acres adjoining the CRP plantings quite frequently. Today, the options for our gamebirds outside of farm programs acres can, at times, be dicey!
Click to expand...

In conclusion; I dare say pheasant populations in the Dakotas and MT were as good or better then anytime in history years 2005- 2010. I caught the end of the Soil Bank days. Audubon Iowa with my dad and Uncles. HOLY CRAP were there pheasants, lots of wood cover and trees too.
As long as this "earthy all native movement" stays away from my pheasant hunting areas I'll be happy.
A non managed 4000 acre WMA in pheasant country should literally hold 1000's of pre hunting season pheasants. And provide 100's of quality hunter days of recreation. even during these times.
 
One thing for sure, hunting pressure is sure hard on quail. After some point every quail you harvest leaves a shortage of birds for reproduction. Because they are so territorial, the quail are more suseptable. More so than pheasants, I have always thought, because pheasants have larger home territory, and are far more adaptable. Sac Wilcox wildlife area in Nebraska, had large cottonwoods, surrounding the wetlands, I can't tell you how many roosters I took out of a particular 40@ there over a period of 30 years, three years ago, bulldozed the entire 1/2 mile line, on the "expert advice", and payed for, by pheasants forever, Succeeded in making the area more acessable to hunters and less appealing to fall pheasants at least. A pass through there post apocalypse, on several occasions, yielded a fraction of the birds, even after adding food plots, and native grass to replace the wet ground plants, bare ground and tall native upland weeds, which persisted previously. By the way, due to growth pattern, cottonwoods are not much use to tree hunting hawks, on the other hand stumps are handy, they built giant slash piles of burn't cottonwood for ground predators with nice stump perches for hawks, and I sure miss the soft rustle of the golden leaves in the fall breeze, and the shaded road condusive to a mid-day nap in the truck. Improvement? All this in an area that barely has a tree, is farmed road to road, now about 50% in soybeans or fall chiseled corn stubble. So cover of any kind is neglible. We have seen the enemy and they are us.
 
oldandnew said:
Because they are so territorial, the quail are more suseptable. More so than pheasants, I have always thought, because pheasants have larger home territory, and are far more adaptable. Sac Wilcox wildlife area in Nebraska, had large cottonwoods, surrounding the wetlands, I can't tell you how many roosters I took out of a particular 40@ there over a period of 30 years, three years ago, bulldozed the entire 1/2 mile line, on the "expert advice", and payed for, by pheasants forever, Succeeded in making the area more acessable to hunters and less appealing to fall pheasants at least. A pass through there post apocalypse, on several occasions, yielded a fraction of the birds, even after adding food plots, and native grass to replace the wet ground plants, bare ground and tall native upland weeds, which persisted previously. By the way, due to growth pattern, cottonwoods are not much use to tree hunting hawks, on the other hand stumps are handy, they built giant slash piles of burn't cottonwood for ground predators with nice stump perches for hawks, and I sure miss the soft rustle of the golden leaves in the fall breeze, and the shaded road condusive to a mid-day nap in the truck.
Click to expand...

Oldandnew, It sounds like they need to take care of those stumps and brush piles. I do not believe removing cotton woods from a wetland hindered the pheasant population in that area in any way.

The fact is, hens will not nest within a certain distance from tall trees. We know this. As a result of tall trees you will have a net loss of nesting ground. Aside from nesting adult pheasants will utilize areas of tall trees (such as you've described) despite the increased chance of predation from ground dwelling predators and raptors.

I've seen trees removed from grass lands and pheasant populations increase dramatically due to improved nesting conditions.

I hunt an areas that had a good wild bird population a few years ago. It the past 3-4 years the trees have taken over the nesting grounds. I've flushed 1 wild hen in the past 3 years. I have no doubt it's due to tall trees.

Again, adult birds will utilize areas with tall tree stands but the down fall is an increase in predation and a decrease in nesting hens/utilization of nesting cover.
 
1pheas4, I appreciate the position of pheasants forever, and the stand against the increase of encroachment of woody cover and the effect it has on pheasants in particular. I would point out that one size does not fit all. Yes, in Illinois, Missouri, just to name a couple I'm familiar with, the encroachment of woody cover, and dimishing of grasslands is a prime concern. You probably have never seen the area of which I speak. Phelps County is almost completely given over to center pivot irrigated farming. There are literally miles of flat, totally tilled acres. You can spot this area from miles away due to the fact there are actually trees! Hardly a fence row, no nesting cover, land planted to soybeans, cut to the ground, with not even any stubble. Where there was corn, it is increasingly fall ripped to plow the stubble into mulch. This typifies the non wildlife area habitat. This is the extreme west edge of the rainwater basin, saving wetlands, and restoring desicrated wetlands, has been a DU priority. There is an occasional NRD corner, some federal wetlands, and Sac-Wilcox. When I was a kid, we would flush 8 to 20 coveys of quail per day, didn't even try to count pheasants. Plum thickets along every road, lots of rotationally farmed dry ground. Now gone, trees along water courses, and at the head of draws, anywhere there was water avaiable. Now gone presumablly forever. it's not the trees that killed off these pheasants, it's the wholesale destruction of habitat countywide that did it. Trees may well be the problem elsewhere, but when the cold wind blows, out there, all wildlife heads for the trees! In any case, spending time and effort to bulldoze a 5 acres or so of a treeline, isn't going to make enough additional effective nesting cover to amount to a hill of poop. While it might make the area more appealing to nesting birds, it is decidedly less attractive to fall birds looking for relatively open ground with tall overhead cover for loafing, brood rearing, dusting, and roosting cover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top