There are four genera and six species of geese in North America. The genus Anser consists of two species in North America, the White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) and the Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus). The genus Brant consists of four species in North America, the Brant (Branta bernicla), the Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) and the Cackling Goose.

The genus Chen consists of two species in North America, the Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) and the Ross’ Goose (Chen Rossii). The White-fronted Goose, Brant, Canada Goose, Cackling Goose and Snow Goose are further divided into two or more subspecies / populations depending on which reference book you consult. The three most hunted goose populations in North America are the Lesser Snow Goose, the White-fronted Goose, and the several subspecies of the Canada Goose. Most goose species in North America are fairly similar in their habits; information on one species generally applies to other species as well. Special emphasis is given to the Giant Canada Goose because of its abundance in many different areas, including urban locations.
Greater White-fronted Goose
There are five subspecies of Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) which inhabit Asia and North America, three species inhabit North America. The Greater White-fronted Goose is gray-brown on the head, neck, back and sides, with black specks on the belly, from which they get their common name of “speckle belly”. They have a white frontal patch on the head, from which they get their English language name. In North America the Greater White-fronted Goose breeds from Alaska to Greenland, and winters from southern British Columbia to southern Illinois, and the Gulf Coast of Texas and Mexico. White fronts feed almost exclusively on rice on both their California and Texas wintering grounds. In the Midwest they often feed on soybeans and corn during the fall migration. The estimated combined population of all subspecies of the Greater White-Fronted Goose in 1986 was 377,000.
The total number of the Pacific population of this goose, of which there is two subspecies, was thought to be around 200,000 in 1992. The large paler colored Tule Goose subspecies (A. a. elgasi, formerly called gambelli), which nests in the Yukon Territory, winters in the Sacramento Valley of California. It had a population of around 2,000 birds in 1992. The smaller tundra subspecies (A.a frontailis) is more widespread, with birds in both the Pacific population and the Mid-continent population.
The Pacific population of the tundra subspecies nests in Cook Inlet's Redoubt Bay in Alaska, and winters in the Sacramento Valley, California. These geese often stop in the Klamath Basin in late October and early November before moving further south. The 80,000 geese that summer in the Yukon Delta migrate down the West Coast. The geese of the Iditarod and Innoko rivers and the Arctic slope population, and the geese of the Alaskan interior population, migrate through central Canada and the United States, wintering near the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana.
The mid-continent population of the tundra subspecies nests in the northern Canadian provinces. The Western mid-continent population fly to Whitewater Lake in Manitoba and the national wildlife refuges on the Souris River in North Dakota, before wintering in the south central states and the Gulf Coast. Many of the geese of the Eastearn mid-continent population join with the Western mid-continent population, but some migrate through the Mississippi and central flyways.
The Greenland subspecies (A.a. flavirostris) is a vagrant in eastern North America.
Emperor Goose
The Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus) is a metallic blue-gray color with feathers tipped with black and then white, giving the birds an irregular banded appearance. The head is white with a dark throat and chin up to the pink bill. They nest on the central western coast of Alaska, primarily in the Yukon Delta, an on the eastern coast of Siberia. They spend the autumn and winter along the Aleutian Islands. The population numbers about 150,000 birds.
Brant
Brant geese (Branta bernicla) are a small dark sea goose of Asia and North America. Two of the three subspecies inhabit North America. The Brant is similar in appearance to the Canada Goose, but with a black breast. They lack the white cheek patches of the Canada but do have a small white throat patch. Brant nest the farthest north of all North American geese, generally inhabit salt water on both the Atlantic and Pacific coast, and feed almost exclusively on aquatic vegetation when they are in staging and wintering areas. In recent years Black Brant have switched their diet from eelgrass, which has disappeared in many areas, to sea lettuce.
The western subspecies, referred to as the Pacific Brant or Black Brant (Branta b. nigricans) can be distinguished from the eastern North American subspecies because the black chest stretches into the belly. Their greatest nesting concentrations are near the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. They migrate along the Arctic Coast westward to the Being Sea, then to Baja California and Mexico. Pacific Brant have not changed their feeding and migrating pattern much. The eastern subspecies is often referred to as the white-bellied, pale-bellied, or Atlantic Brant (B. b.hrota), and has a noticeably whiter belly than the Black Brant. They nest on many islands of the eastern Arctic Ocean and eastward to Greenland. They migrate south through Hudson and James bays, and winter along the coast from Massachusetts to South Carolina, with the largest population along the coast of New Jersey and Long Island, New York. Some of them may cross the Atlantic to spend the winter near England and Ireland. The combined total of the two Brant populations in 1986 was estimated at 291,000 birds.
Canada Goose
At one time there were eleven recognized subspecies of Canada geese (Branta canadensis). However, in the early 21st century the smaller subspecies were given a separate species designation as the Cackling Goose.
The Canada Goose is generally gray-brown on the back and wings, with a light gray chest and belly, and a black upper-rump, tail, neck and head. The head has a distinctive white cheek patch, and the tail is separated from the body by a white crescent on the lower-rump. Giant Canada geese may have a white band extending between their eyes. Generally speaking the two largest subspecies, the giant and the western, are the lightest in color; the next darkest in color are the Richardson's and lesser. The estimated population of all Canada goose subspecies in 1996 was over 2,500,000; with about 1,000,000 of those the once thought to be extinct Giant subspecies.
The sizes of the different subspecies of Canada geese range from 6 pounds in the smaller subspecies to 16 pounds in the larger subspecies. There is a record of a 27-pound Canada goose in Manitoba. Overall lengths range from 22-45 inches from bill to tail. Six-foot wingspreads may be reached in the giant Canada goose. Canada geese regularly have 70 percent nesting success rates. Of their nesting losses, 48 percent are attributed to predators, and 42 percent are due to nest desertion.
The subspecies of Canada geese, from largest to smallest, with average adult female and male weights in pounds, include the giant (B. c. maxima) 11.1 and 12.5, western (B. c. moffitti) 8.2 and 9.9, Vancouver (B. c. occidentalis) 8.2 and 9.9, dusky (B. c. fulva) 8.3 and 9.9, Todd's (B. c. interior) 7.7 and 9.2, Atlantic (B. canadensis) 7.6 and 8.8, lesser (B. c. parvipes) 5.4 and 6.1.
From east to west the subspecies of Canada geese, listed in descending order of population numbers, with their relative nesting areas/flyways are: the North Atlantic Population: Atlantic; Mid-Atlantic Population: interior, Atlantic, giant; Tennessee Valley Population: interior, giant; Mississippi Population: interior, giant; Eastern Prairie Population: interior, Richardson's, lesser, giant; Western Prairie Population: interior, giant, lesser, Richardson's; Tallgrass Population: Richardson's, lesser, giant; Shortgrass Population: lesser, Richardson's, giant; Hi-Line Population: western, giant; Intermountain Population: western; Northwest Coast Population: Vancouver.

The estimated 700,000 Canada geese of different subspecies that migrate through the Mississippi Valley Flyway nest near Hudson Bay and stage for their fall migration on the Horicon Marsh in eastern Wisconsin. Instead of wintering in the Louisiana bayous like they formerly did, many of these geese now winter near the Horseshoe Lake Refuge, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, and Union County Refuge in southern Illinois. Atlantic Flyway geese often winter on Chesapeake and Delaware bays, feeding on the farms of the Delmarva Peninsula and in New Jersey.
The three prairie populations of Canada geese subspecies (including the Giant subspecies) often winter in the agricultural areas of the plains states from Texas to Missouri and Minnesota. From 200,000 to 250,000 eastern Prairie Population Canada geese stage on the Lac Qui Parle Refuge in west central Minnesota each year before going further south. Instead of grazing on their traditional forages of forbes, grasses and sedges like the did in the past, many Canada geese now feed on corn, barley, oats, soybeans and wheat during their migration and wintering stages.
Several subspecies of Canada geese go on a molt-migration every year, which takes several thousand non-breeding geese far from their nesting areas. Groups of mixed subspecies of Canada geese can be found near the Thelon River area 200-300 miles west of Hudson Bay, where they molt. Most of these are the larger giant and western subspecies that may have flown 1,000 to 2,000 miles north of their breeding areas. In some years thousands of interior Canada geese may over-fly their traditional nesting grounds on Hudson Bay to molt on the Ungava Peninsula of Quebec, which is on the breeding grounds of the Atlantic Canada goose subspecies. In recent years several southern flocks of Canada geese from Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin and other nearby states have been flying to the coast of James and Hudson bays to molt in the spring. These spring migrations are one of the ways geese reduce competition for food on their traditional nesting areas.
Giant Canada Goose
The Giant Canada Goose (B. c. maxima) was thought to be extinct until Dr. Harold Hanson of the Illinois Natural History Survey, and other researchers, rediscovered them in Rochester, Minnesota in 1962. They now number over a million birds, comprising over a third of all Canada goose subspecies in North America. Giants are the largest subspecies of Canada goose, and because their size allows them to withstand cold temperatures better than smaller geese, they are able to stay farther north in the winter than the smaller subspecies. Giant Canadas in urban areas like Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minnesota, and Chicago and Elgin, Illinois may not migrate at all.
Unlike most other geese giant Canadas often mate at two years of age; the smaller subspecies of Canada geese often mate when they are four years old. Giants generally nest farther south than the smaller Canada goose subspecies, often in areas where there is more abundant forage for their large appetites. Because giants don't nest in inhospitable sub-arctic regions like their smaller relatives, they often breed earlier than other geese and they generally have better nesting success than other geese, with clutches of from 2-12 eggs; smaller geese usually have 2-6 eggs per clutch.
As a result of their large body size, and their habit of living in urban areas, giant Canadas are less susceptible to predators than other geese. In the urban areas where many giant Canada geese live, all of the young may reach six months of age. Since giant Canadas nest farther south and winter farther north than other geese, they also receive less hunting pressure (as little as 50 days) than geese that migrate from as far north as Canada and the Arctic Circle to the Gulf Coast (which may be subjected to as much as 120 days of hunting). The earlier mating habits, higher reproduction rates, lower predation rates, and less hunting mortality of giant Canada geese has led to a population explosion of giants in many areas. Giant Canada geese have become a nuisance in many urban areas, where they leave droppings and destroy grass on parks, golf courses and lakeshore properties.
The giant Canada geese that nest in the Interlake region of Manitoba between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis, stage on Silver Lake and the surrounding rivers, ponds and gravel pits on the Rochester (Minnesota) Goose Refuge. About half of the 35,000 geese that visit the Rochester Refuge each year remain in the area through the winter; the others migrate to areas near Kansas City, Kansas.
Cackling Goose
The Tavener's, Aleutian, Richardson's and cackling geese, which were formerly considered subspecies of the Canada Goose, are now considered a separate species, the Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii) with four subspecies; the Tavener’s (B. c. taveneri) 4.7 and 5.9, Richardson's (Branta hutchinsii) 3.2 and 3.9, the Aleutian (B. c. leucopereia) 3.7 and 4.2, cackling (B. c. minima) 2.8 and 3.4. The Cackling Goose is similar to the Canada Goose in color, but is often darker and noticeably smaller. The Tavner's is the largest of the subspecies, with a longer neck and rounder head; it is moderately dark and typically has a white neck-ring. The Richardsons' is the palest in color; the cackling is the darkest. Both the Aleutian, which inhabits the Aleutian Islands, and the Richardson's, which inhabits British Columbia, often have white neck-rings up to an inch wide.
In 1986 there were an estimated 4,000 Aleutian, 7,000 Dusky and 23,000 Cackling Canada geese breeding in Alaska. These are the only three populations of Canada geese without significant numbers. The Aleutian Cackling Goose is on the endangered species list. The subspecies of Cackling geese, listed in descending order of population numbers, with their relative nesting areas/flyways are Northwest Coast Population: dusky, cackling; Alaskan Population: cackling, Taverner's, Aleutian.
Snow Goose
There are two subspecies of Snow Goose, the Lesser Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens), familiar to hunters from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast; and the Greater Snow Goose (C. c. antlantica), which is only found in the eastern States. Both the Greater and Lesser Snow Goose are white with black wing tips. The blue phase of the Lesser Snow Goose is blue-gray in color, usually with a white head and neck. The young of both the Greater and Lesser Snow Goose are light gray.
The blue phase of the Lesser Snow Goose is thought to be an adaptation for nesting on the central Canadian tundra. Since Lesser Snow geese often nest before the snow melts, their white color provides them with camouflage. However, when spring comes early, and the snow melts, white geese are very noticeable and susceptible to predation. The blue phase allows some birds to nest successfully during early springs with little or no snow.
The blue phase is the dominant color of the Lesser Snow Goose, and in the interior populations, it is often the predominant color of the flocks. Most of the Lesser Snow geese on Baffin Island and Southhampton Island (which is about halfway between Baffin Island and the McConnell River area) are blue phase geese. From the McConnell area west, most of the geese are white phase. During the fall migration, blue phase geese are rare west of the eastern Great Plains, but both color phases are commonly seen on the Great Plains. In recent years there have been about 2,000 blue phase Lesser Snow geese wintering along the Atlantic coast, some of them as far south as Florida.
The several populations of the Lesser Snow Goose breed from the southern Arctic Circle to lower Hudson Bay, and are divided into four populations: the Mid-continent, Western Central Flyway, Western Canadian Arctic, and Wrangell Island populations. The largest nesting populations are the approximate half million geese on Baffin Island, and the approximate half million geese on the western coast of Hudson Bay and the McConnell River delta.
Hundreds of thousands of the white phase Lesser Snow Goose migrate along the Pacific Flyway from Wrangell Island and western Canada. Most of these geese winter in California's Central Valley. Lesser Snow geese migrating through the Mississippi Flyway travel from staging areas on James Bay, to northern North Dakota, northern South Dakota, and the Missouri River in central and southern Missouri, then down to Louisiana. Many of these geese stop to feed on open grain fields along the way.
Lesser Snow Goose populations have increased dramatically in recent years, and they are destroying the habitat on their nesting grounds. More liberal hunting regulations are needed to bring the populations back in balance with their environment. Recent efforts to control the numbers of Snow geese have been unsuccessful, and I suspect they will continue to be, unless more hunting or egg collecting is done on the breeding grounds. In addition, Lesser Snow geese seem to be migrating more through the Great Plains than they used to, and they are wintering farther north, because of forage like waste grain and winter wheat which is available in agricultural fields in the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. The saltwater intrusion into traditional coastal marsh wintering areas (due to oil exploration) has resulted in Lesser Snow geese nesting farther north than they used to.
Interestingly, Lesser Snow geese are relying on a defense mechanism that may lead to a decline in their numbers. They travel in extremely large flocks. While this habit of traveling in large flocks makes them less susceptible to predators (because of the number of geese watching for danger) the need of these large flocks for vast amounts of food and large fields to feed in may eventually lead to lower reproduction rates and higher instances of disease and starvation (because the geese rarely find enough food to last more than a few days). Lesser Snow geese are also destroying their nesting habitat in Canada by overgrazing. In 1982 there were an estimated 2,622,000 Snow geese. Their numbers have grown considerably since then.

The Greater Snow Goose nests near the Arctic Circle on Ellesmere Island and Bylot Inlet near Baffin Island, and migrates through the New England states along the Eastern shore from New Jersey to North Carolina, often stopping in October along the St. Lawrence River near Cape Tourmente. The population has recovered from a few thousand birds to an estimated 250,000 in 1986. Greater Snow geese have not changed their feeding and migration patterns much in recent years.
Ross’ Goose
The Ross’ Goose (Chen rossii) looks like a smaller version of the Lesser Snow Goose, but the bill is stubbier; it is almost impossible for the average hunter to distinguish between the two species. This goose winters in the central Canadian Arctic region, mostly on Queen Maud Gulf. By late September many of the geese are on staging areas in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The majority of the geese migrate through the Klamath basin in Oregon and Sacramento Valley in California, before arriving in December in the San Joaquin Valley. Smaller numbers migrate through the Rocky Mountain States and winter in Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico. Ross' geese now use many of the same migration routes as the Lesser Snow goose. A blue phase of the Ross' goose has been noted, with a white head; they differ from the blue phase Lesser Snow Goose, which generally has a white head and neck. They are most frequent in California's Central Valley. Scientists are unsure whether this color phase is a result of cross breeding with the blue phase of the Lesser Snow Goose, or it is just a recessive color phase.

If you are interested in more duck and goose hunting tips, or more duck and goose biology and behavior, click on Trinity Mountain Outdoor News and T.R.'s Hunting Tips at www.TRMichels.com. If you have questions about deer, elk, turkey or waterfowl log on to the T.R.'s Tips message board. To find out when the rut starts, peaks and ends in your area click on Whitetail Rut Dates Chart.

This article is an excerpt from the Duck & Goose Addict's Manual ($19.95 + $5.00 S&H), by T.R. Michels, available in the Trinity Mountain Outdoor Products catalog.

T.R. Michels is a nationally recognized game researcher/wildlife behaviorist, outdoor writer and speaker. He is the author of the Whitetail, Elk, Duck & Goose, and Turkey Addict's Manuals. His latest products are Hunting the Whitetail Rut Phases, the Complete Whitetail Addict's Manual, the 2006 Revised Edition of the Elk Addict's Manual; and the 2006 Revised Edition of the Duck & Goose Addict's Manual.

For a catalog of books and other hunting products; or for information on a wide variety of Natural History Eco-Tours, viewing and photographing regional and national scenic areas, songbirds, big game animals, elk bugling, wolf howling, or sandhill crane, swan, prairie chicken, sharp-tailed grouse, and swan tours or other trips with T.R. Michels contact: T.R. Michels, Trinity Mountain Outdoors, E-mail: TRMichels@yahoo.com, Web Site: www.TRMichels.com.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:53 AM | Permalink

During August the Whitetail bucks may be traveling to food sources together, and getting ready to shed velvet. It's time to begin clearing deer trails, shooting lanes and stand sites for the hunting season. It's also time to start your archery practice.

Social Balance and Carrying Capacity
When we are talk about ideal social conditions in deer management, the buck to doe ratio should be close to one buck to one doe (1:1). However, in areas where this type of management has not been practiced the buck to doe ratio may be as low as one buck to five does (1:5). Keeping the buck to doe ratio in balance helps increase the number of older bucks in the herd. It can also improve the social ranking, health and reproductive rate of the herd. A herd of 100 deer with a makeup of 50 percent bucks and 50 percent does will not increase by 100 percent per year, because some of the does will be too young to breed, and some too old to conceive. Even if each doe produces twins the natural mortality rate would keep the increase below 100 animals.
If you are trying to increase the number of older bucks in the area you must remember that the habitat can only carry only so many deer, it makes no difference if they are bucks or does. The herd must also be kept in balance with the carrying capacity of the habitat, in order to keep both the habitat and the animals healthy.
Let's assume that there are 100 whitetail deer with a 50:50 male to female ratio, and the property has a carrying capacity of 150 animals. If every female produces twins, and 3/4 of the young survive the herd is now above carrying capacity of the land with 175 animals. To prevent habitat destruction and starvation up to 25 deer should be removed; either through natural mortality, predation or hunting. If half the young are male and half females, and no natural mortality or predation occurs the male to female ratio must be kept in balance by removing 12 males and 12 females the next year. This will keep the herd at carrying capacity. But, the herd should be kept below carrying capacity. By keeping the herd below capacity you insure that if a severe winter, drought or habitat destruction occurs the animals may still survive.
In many cases hunters only remove the males from the herd, which can be disastrous. If 25 bucks are removed from the herd there will be 37 males and 62 females, leaving 99 deer. Some of the bucks shot will be 1 1/2 to 3 1/2 years old, and they will never have a chance to become dominant breeding bucks. But, the real problem is that there are now 62 does that can conceivably produce 124 young with a 75 percent survival rate, increasing the herd by 93 the next year for a total of 192, with 83 bucks and 109 does. Because the herd is above carrying capacity, habitat destruction is likely to occur. If the hunters again remove only males, by taking 42 bucks, there are still 109 does instead of the original 50. If the practice of taking only bucks continues there will not be enough mature males left to ensure that all the does will be bred during the peak of the rut; some late born fawns will starve or die of exposure, and the population may crash. Even if the population doesn't suffer, the number of older bucks will decline; in order to produce more older-aged bucks some of the does must be taken each year.
If the habitat is at carrying capacity and the herd is balanced (as many hunters want it to be), equal numbers of does and bucks must be still be removed in order to keep the herd in balance with the habitat. If the herd is kept below carrying capacity there may be enough forage even if the harvest quotas are not met; if production is higher than normal; or if forage production is reduced by unforeseen circumstances. The best strategy for responsible deer management is to keep the herd below carrying capacity, and the male to female ratio as balanced as possible.

T.R. Michels, Trinity Mountain Outdoors, E-mail: TRMichels@yahoo.com, Web Site: www.TRMichels.com.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:33 AM | Permalink

Whitetail hunters are learning that the place to hunt for trophies may not be wilderness areas or farms, but in and around major metropolitan areas. Many of the freeways surrounding these areas throughout the United States cut through old farm lots, agricultural fields, swamps ravines, and cross wooded creeks and river bottoms. These areas often remain undeveloped for years, providing excellent feeding and bedding areas for white-tailed deer. Some of the property may be purchased by large corporations that wish to build corporate headquarters in wooded areas. These corporations often fence the property for security purposes, in turn creating deer refuges. Deer use the fenced property as bedding areas but must often leave through gaps in the fence or jump it to feed in nearby undeveloped wooded areas and fallow farm fields, providing hunting for opportunistic hunters.

With the spread of metropolitan areas into surrounding farmland, the expansion of wooded subdivisions, and the banning of gun hunting in many municipalities deer populations continue to thrive and actually increase in both the suburbs and metropolitan areas. Wildlife officials in some urban areas estimate as many as 49 deer per square mile in high income subdivisions and city and county parks. The increasing number of deer causes complaints from city residents whose shrubs, ornamental plantings and vegetable gardens are being destroyed by deer searching for food in the winter and early spring. These complaints and increasing car/deer collisions have prompted wildlife many urban officials to offer deer hunters several deer permits each in an effort to reduce the herd. Knowledgeable hunters are quick to take advantage of the abundance of deer and the excellent trophy hunting for bucks that often die from old age or a collision with a motor vehicle. Urban deer hunting opportunities are on the increase because many cities that previously prohibited deer hunting now seek help from wildlife officials and local hunting clubs to reduce their herds.
Trophy Quality
Urban hunters also learn that there are many trophy class bucks in metropolitan areas. There are no less than twelve bucks scoring over 160 points, including a 205 typical, listed in the Minnesota State Record book that have come from the five counties surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. There are also several others that have not been registered by hunters who wish to keep their success, and their hunting spots, secret.
Change of Mind
Deer hunters who have hunted rural or wilderness bucks need to change their mind about the seemingly tame urban deer before they pursue them. Veteran urban deer hunters have learned that metropolitan deer are extremely adept at avoiding hunters and staying out of bow range. While many of the does and younger deer are seen during the day the trophy bucks, like their rural counterparts, seldom show themselves during daylight and avoid areas frequented by hunters.
Information Networks
When I locate areas that look productive while scouting from the roads in late summer I talk to the local residents, asking them when and where they see deer. In particular I ask if there are any big bucks in the area. I find a resident who is a hunter and has seen deer including one or more big bucks. By asking a few more questions about where they were seen, and at what time, I get a good idea of where to look for deer. Then I setup where I can observe the buck from a distance without disturbing it to figure out the best place for an ambush.
Hunting Techniques
Urban deer hunters have learned that the spot and ambush technique work well on metropolitan trophy bucks. These hunters do very little scouting of the land itself, preferring to glass known feeding areas to spot the bucks. They use a topographical map of the area and Record the places, times and sightings of each buck in a journal. Once they determine an individual buck's travel route they setup along the route and ambush the buck when it appears. Because the older bucks are extremely wary the conditions must be perfect before hunting an individual trophy buck. One hunter, who wishes to remain anonymous, with 10 Pope and Young and two Boone and Crockett urban bucks to his credit says he gets only one chance at a trophy. If he misses or alarms the buck he may not see it again for the entire season.
Ambush
I use the spot and ambush method, especially if I have access to only a small part of the buck's territory, which is often the case when hunting urban areas. Many of these deer frequent city, county or state parks and sub-developments where they can't be hunted. But there are often nearby undeveloped wooded properties that can be hunted, or individual landowners in the subdivisions that do allow hunting. Because many of these areas consist of 5-40 acre plots the deer may use them infrequently as travel routes, where they can be hunted only at dawn and dusk, and only when the weather conditions are right. If I have access to larger parcels of land, especially small farms that continue to operate in the city limits, I often walk the buck rub routes on a daily basis, checking rubs and scrapes to see how active they are.
Obviously I leave scent behind while I scout but I am actually familiarizing the deer to my scent. After a week or two of smelling my scent and seeing me without being hunted the deer soon become accustomed to seeing me and smelling my scent. Then when they smell me while I am actually hunting they don't become alarmed. Urban deer are susceptible to rattling, scents, calls and decoys because few hunters have used these techniques on them. Because the deer are accustomed to the sounds, scents and sights of the city, and may never have been hunted before, they are more apt to respond to many of the techniques hunters use to attract deer than heavily hunted rural or wilderness whitetails. By scouting and patterning the deer in the winter and spring you can cut down the time needed to scout and hunt in the fall. If you have time during the fall to observe the rub routes of bucks you should be able to determine the size of the bucks (several bucks often use the same rub route in urban areas) and what time they arrive at particular areas. This will make it easier for you to choose a hunting site in the fall.

If you are interested in more deer or turkey hunting tips, or more deer and turkey biology and behavior, click on Trinity Mountain Outdoor News and T.R.'s Hunting Tips at www.TRMichels.com. If you have questions about deer, elk, turkey or waterfowl log on to the T.R.'s Tips message board. To find out when the rut starts, peaks and ends in your area click on Whitetail Rut Dates Chart.

This article is an excerpt from the Complete Whitetail Addict's Manual ($49.95 + $5.00 S&H), by T.R. Michels, available in the Trinity Mountain Outdoor Products catalog.

T.R. Michels is a nationally recognized game researcher/wildlife behaviorist, outdoor writer and speaker. He is the author of the Whitetail, Elk, Duck & Goose, and Turkey Addict's Manuals. His latest products are Hunting the Whitetail Rut Phases, the Complete Whitetail Addict's Manual, the 2006 Revised Edition of the Elk Addict's Manual; and the 2006 Revised Edition of the Duck & Goose Addict's Manual.

For a catalog of books and other hunting products; or for information on a wide variety of Natural History Eco-Tours, viewing and photographing regional and national scenic areas, songbirds, big game animals, elk bugling, wolf howling, sandhill crane, swan, prairie chicken, sharp-tailed grouse tours or other trips with T.R. Michels contact: T.R. Michels, Trinity Mountain Outdoors, E-mail: TRMichels@yahoo.com, Web Site: www.TRMichels.com.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:00 AM | Permalink

In much of North America white-tailed deer can be found in and near cornfields. In the Midwestern corn-belt a majority of the whitetail's habitat may be corn. With the large size of these fields, and with the lack of wooded areas whitetail deer, including trophy bucks, travel, feed and bed in the corn. Because these fields offer security, bedding cover and food the deer spend all day in the corn.

The often move out of the corn only at night as they go to water and search for clover, alfalfa, soybeans, winter wheat, grasses in CRP lands, and berries or nuts small hedgerows, ditches, fence lines, creek bottoms and woods.
One key thing to remember when trying to locate cornfield deer is that they like to have access to water. Although deer will drink from rain filled puddles, stagnant ponds and dry creeks they prefer to drink from larger ponds and lakes or nearby running water. If there is water within two or three miles deer will travel to it. But, unless they can get to the water while staying in the corn or other cover they will travel to the water at night. Because deer are crepuscular (their major movement times are dawn and dusk) this is normal for them.
While deer normally move at dawn and dusk hunters often equate this movement with feeding. In fact deer often move to nearby water at midday if there is available cover. They also move to water at dusk and dawn. On one of the farms I used to hunt the deer could get to the four nearby lakes while remaining in or near woods and thick brush. Therefore they drink during the day, before moving into the alfalfa and hay fields in the evening. They drink again in the morning on the way back to their bedding areas. When the deer bed in the corn they can't get to the water during the day without exposing themselves. So they move to water under cover of darkness.
Deer Habits
In areas where deer use corn as daytime bedding areas the trails they use going from the bedding area often lead, not to food sources, but to water. In this case when you are trying to Pattern deer remember that any rubs you may see on brush and trees in the area are probably going from a buck bedding area, which may be in the corn, the middle of a CRP field (where you swear a deer couldn't hide) or in any patch of cover the buck can find, to a staging area where does gather before going to water. Deer in corn country often travel extensively because of limited habitat and water, which causes the does to use large home ranges and spread out. In order for the buck to breed with several does he must travel to their widely spaced home ranges. A veterinarian in Iowa, who is also an avid archery hunter, reports seeing a buck five miles from its core area during the rut. He sees very few rubs and scrapes because of the lack of trees in the area, and he seldom sees the buck during daylight. This nocturnal behavior is to be expected. Because these deer live in the corn, and with the lack of large wooded areas that offer security the deer are not necessarily nocturnal, but they don't move far in open areas. Instead they move freely in the corn during daylight, where they can't be seen. They move in open areas to other food and water under cover of darkness. The habitat and this travel pattern makes it extremely hard to hunt cornfield bucks. If there are no wooded areas with mast crops, or large trees to hang tree stands on how do you hunt them?
Locating Deer
During the pre-rut, cornfield bucks seldom move outside the corn during daylight hours. Even when they begin rubbing and scraping these bucks usually move at dawn and dusk. One of the few times during the year when these bucks act stupid and move during daylight is during the time the does are in estrus. When the deer are bedding in the corn, you can either setup in the corn or nearby cover along the trails the deer use as they come and go dawn and dusk, or you can stalk the deer in the corn. To successfully stalk deer in the corn, either with a gun or bow you need to know the lay of the land within the field. You can do this either by walking the field prior to the season or by using a topographical map to locate any wet areas, depressions, gullies and grassy hills where corn doesn't grow. All these areas are used by deer as bedding areas, depending on the weather. If you see rubs and scrapes in doe use area during the prerut, but the bucks are nocturnal, you may see them during the breeding period, near the does use areas in daylight. The corn may be down by this time. With the lack of suitable cover to archery hunt from you may have to pursue them with a gun.
Find The Does
During the breeding period the bucks will travel at all hours of the day but because of the low numbers of deer per square mile few bucks may be seen. The best way to hunt corn field bucks during the rut is by locating the does and their bedding and feeding areas. If you know where the does are sooner or later the bucks will show up.

Scouting
By checking a topographical map before entering the field you can determine if there are gullies or strips of cover leading from the field to woods or other cover outside the corn field. Deer use these areas when entering or leaving the field and you should check to see if there has been recent use there. The maps will also show you where the deer may bed in the field. Next scout the field itself. If you can do this before the season don't worry about spooking the deer too much, by the time the season rolls around they will return to their normal habits. But, be sure to stalk the field as if you were hunting even if you can't hunt. You want to try to find out exactly where the deer are bedded. To do this you want to be as close as possible when you do see and possibly spook deer. If they spook before you are close it will be hard to determine exactly where they were bedded. If your first scouting trip is during the season be sure to bring your gun or bow with you in case you get close enough for a shot.
Stalking
When I stalk a field I concentrate on approaching the grassy or open areas, and hills or gullies (where I think deer may be bedded) from downwind and usually wait until after a rain or snow has gotten the corn wet and not as noisy as it is dry. I walk across the rows on a diagonal so that I can cover as mush ground as I can. I carefully check each row before I enter, looking as far down the row. Then I step in, look farther down the row, and stick my head into the next row. If you have spent any time in cornfields you know that corn rows are not straight and are often clogged with broadleaf's and grass. You have to look carefully along each row, and because the rows often curve you may not be able to see more than a few feet. Stalking a large cornfield may take hours, and demands patience and perseverance, but if you know there are deer in the field it can be a real challenge. When you see deer make note of where you saw them and check for sign that they have used the area on a regular basis. If you see stalks bent or broken, eaten corn cobs, lots of tracks, droppings, or beds, you can almost be sure the deer will be back later. Wait a few days until the conditions are right and try it again.
Camouflage is a must when hunting up close like this and I wear my own Field “Stalker” camouflage pattern in either the white or dirt colored background, depending on the conditions. Late in the season when the leaves are dried and gone, and when the skies are gray I wear the white version. Deer are often laying down in the field and when they look up they see lots of light open sky. Using the white version of Field “Stalker” helps to break up my outline better than the darker version or any other camouflage I might wear. Be sure to camouflage your weapon with tan camo tape and cover you hands and face.

Blinds
There is one other way to hunt cornfield deer, with a hunting blind. Midwest hunters can use the same tactics used by Texas hunters, by using an enclosed tripod stand or enclosed platform stand. I have used enclosed wooden stands constructed of two by fours surrounded on all sides by camouflage material when hunting bears in cornfields, they work for deer too. The key is to set the blind up well in advance of the season and let the animals get used to it without being threatened. This type of blind works well in open brush or corn fields where you have to get above the vegetation to see the deer. There are a couple of problems with elevated blinds. One is that in farm country you are not often allowed to use a rifle, which restricts your choice of weapons to archery, shotgun or muzzleloader, and this restricts your shooting range. Because of this these type of stands work best if you can rifle, shotgun or muzzleloader hunt.

Ground Blinds
Hunters can also use ground blinds such as a Hide um Hunter or Double Bull to hunt cornfield deer. When I know bucks are crossing between two wooded fingers on either side of a corn, soybean or alfalfa field I place a blind within shooting range of the crossing and close enough to one side of the field that I have a shot when the buck shows itself. If the field is narrow enough I can cover both sides of it. I also like to set up a blind a few yards away from the inside corner of a field that is surrounded by trees. That way I can easily watch two sides of the field at the same time, especially the corner where bucks often seem to exit and enter the field, and where they often have a scrape. I set the blind up on a high spot in the field if I can, so that I can see as much of the field as possible. If the deer aren't in range I move the blind closer for the next hunt. Moving the blind usually doesn't bother deer in farm country, because they're used to seeing cars, pickups, tractors, combines and grain wagons sitting in fields in the fall.

Offbeat Blinds
When you see deer sign near something that can be used as a blind take advantage of it. On one of the properties where I currently do deer and turkey research there are several trails and rubs within fifty yards of an old combine, and a large chemical tank used to apply liquid fertilizer to the farm fields. On another property the deer walk within five yards of an abandoned farmhouse, a broken down barn, and a VW bug. A hunter could easily stand in the hopper of the combine, cut a door and a shooting port in the old chemical tank, or sit in the old house, barn or VW and take a deer as it walks by.

If you are interested in more deer or turkey hunting tips, or more deer and turkey biology and behavior, click on Trinity Mountain Outdoor News and T.R.'s Hunting Tips at www.TRMichels.com. If you have questions about deer, elk, turkey or waterfowl log on to the T.R.'s Tips message board. To find out when the rut starts, peaks and ends in your area click on Whitetail Rut Dates Chart.

This article is an excerpt from the Complete Whitetail Addict's Manual ($49.95 + $5.00 S&H), by T.R. Michels, available in the Trinity Mountain Outdoor Products catalog.

T.R. Michels is a nationally recognized game researcher/wildlife behaviorist, outdoor writer and speaker. He is the author of the Whitetail, Elk, Duck & Goose, and Turkey Addict's Manuals. His latest products are Hunting the Whitetail Rut Phases, the Complete Whitetail Addict's Manual, the 2006 Revised Edition of the Elk Addict's Manual; and the 2006 Revised Edition of the Duck & Goose Addict's Manual.

For a catalog of books and other hunting products; or for information on a wide variety of Natural History Eco-Tours, viewing and photographing regional and national scenic areas, songbirds, big game animals, elk bugling, wolf howling, sandhill crane, swan, prairie chicken, sharp-tailed grouse, wildlfower or other trips contact: T.R. Michels, Trinity Mountain Outdoors, E-mail: TRMichels@yahoo.com, Web Site: www.TRMichels.com.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:00 AM | Permalink

Fire Suppression
Fires, whether from natural causes such as lighting, or caused by humans (intentionally or unintentionally) on prairies and meadows, and in brushy areas and forests, have been part of the natural process of plant regeneration for centuries. Even naturally caused wildfires can be beneficial as they reduce natural fuels, which in turn reduces the chances of wild fires in the near future.

Wildfires also expose mineral soil for seedbeds for regeneration of wind-disseminated species, such as fungi, mosses, grasses, forbes and many tree species. The reduction in vegetation in turn helps in the control of insects, diseases, and competing vegetation. As a result of this wildfires often result in the improvement of natural ecosystems and wildlife habitat as varied as wetlands, prairies, brushy areas and forests.
Native Americans often deliberately set fires to clear the land for horticulture, to improve access to some areas, and to change the composition of the plant community to attract game animals (such as bison). Early settlers set fires to assist in preparing the soil for agriculture and to eliminate stubble from the fields in the fall.
However, because of the destruction of human life, property, and resources by wildfires, the general government policy for most of this century has been to utilize man-made fire for the suppression of wildfires. The use of media campaigns such as Smokey the Bear, and Bambi fleeing from a fire, combined with fire suppression practices has resulted in a build up of vegetative fuels in many areas. Fire ecologists expect it will take several years of wildfires to establish a natural fire regime in many ecosystems.
In some areas where fire has been prevented from conducting its natural role in the environment, private and governmental agencies and scientists are setting controlled fires to mimic natural fire and improve landscape health and community safety. "One of the hard lessons we’ve learned is that eliminating or suppressing all fires actually increases the risk to people, damages natural habitats and drives up fire fighting costs” said Susan Harris, state director for the Nature Conservancy of Missouri.
Years of forest management practices that have eliminated wildfires has resulted in many forests becoming choked with thick undergrowth and small trees, that naturally occurring fires would normally eliminate. After years without fire, these forests become tinderboxes that are prone to hotter burns that are harder to control and pose a greater risk to communities than normal. These intense fires can have the ability to severely damage plant and wildlife species.

The Benefits of Fire
Many plant and animal species need fire to reproduce and thrive. Plants that need fire to reproduce and thrive are referred to as "burn-species". Some of the "burn species" plants are ephemeral annual herbs and forbes that have found an unusual means of adapting to environments that are for the most part unfavorable to their survival.
In the first year after a fire has temporarily diminished dominant forms of vegetation these herbs and forbes may appear and flourish, and upon maturation, they leave their sees behind. Although these plants may disappear from the landscape within a few years of a fire, the seeds can remain viable for up to 100 years or more. The goal of the seeds is to re-colonize the area after another fire. The plants may also appear from time to time in areas disturbed by other means, such as along sections of recently cleared trails, on land slides, and even along the areas of new road construction.
White-tailed deer, doves, quails, turkey, sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken are game species that benefit from prescribed fire. Habitat preferences of several endangered species, including the Florida panther, gopher tortoise, indigo snake, and red-cockaded woodpecker, are also enhanced by burning. The benefits to wildlife from fires can be substantial; fruit and seed production is often stimulated; herbage, legumes, and browse from hardwood sprouts may increase in both quality and quantity; and openings are created for feeding, travel, and dusting.
After years of fire suppression in many areas, land managers now have to go back and ignite fires to mimic the natural fires these species depend on. Prior to settlement by the Europeans, occasional fires were an integral part of many ecosystems, and native plants and animals had adapted to the occurrence of wildfires. Forests were a more varied blend of old and young trees, and some forests were more open in character. Fire recycled the nutrients of the dead wood for use by growing plants, and conditioned the forest floor for the regeneration of species that are dependent on disturbance of the forest floor.
Pine trees of many species are a prime example of species that benefit from fire. During high intensity burns, the sealed cones of many pines open up, allowing dispersion of seeds over the fire-cleared ground. Anyone who has visited Yellowstone Park since the latest wildfires there has seen the abundant re-growth of not only the pine trees, but of many grasses, wildfires and shrubs; which have provided new habitat for many species or birds and mammals. In many areas pine trees are failing to regenerate due to past fire control practices.
The federally endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker is a fire-dependent species. It nests only in mature pine trees that are free of surrounding underbrush. Researchers believe the Red-cockaded Woodpecker colonies in many areas have been abandoned because the sites have become too brushy. Periodic fires would control the brush, which may provide predators with access to woodpecker nests.
Entire ecosystems often need fire to maintain their natural diversity of plants and animals. Many pine-oak, oak forests, and oak savanahs have poor reproductive success without occasional fires. Little or no oak regeneration has occurred in some areas as a result of fire suppression. Oaks provide acorns in the fall, which are an important food source for black bear, white-tailed deer, turkey, and other wildlife.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:00 AM | Permalink

Part of the problem with "the idea of conservation" is that we humans may have begun to realize too late that in order for this planet, and us, to survive, we must conserve, and preserve, much more of the native habitat of the entire world, than we ever realized - until just the last century, after much of the important and needed habitat has already been destroyed - by us. We need to look at not only saving a particular wildlife or plant species, but saving the surrounding habitat and other species that are all dependent on each other for survival and reproduction.

What is an Ecosystem?
In recent years conservationists have begun to realize that in order to properly maintain and manage wildlife habitat, they need to look beyond just the immediate area or species of concern, to a much broader area, in which the microbes, animals, plants, and geology of the habitat interact as an entire system, that interacts within itself.
The Glossary of Forestry Terms for the Province of British Columbia defines an ecosystem as "a functional unit consisting of all the living organisms (plants, animals, and microbes) in a given area, and all the non-living physical and chemical factors of their environment, linked together through nutrient cycling and energy flow. An ecosystem can be of any size-a log, pond, field, forest, or the earth's biosphere - but it always functions as a whole unit"
Most Americans are familiar with the term "Yellowstone Ecosystem" which the US Government uses to define the interaction of microbes, plants and animals of the area surrounding Yellowstone Park. This area encompasses not only the caldera or crater of the Yellowstone volcano, but also stretches of the Bechler, Fall, Firehole, Gallatin, Gardiner, Gibbon, Lamar, Lewis, and Yellowstone rivers. One of the original descriptions of the "ecosystem" of Yellowstone took into account the range of the endangered grizzly bear. The Yellowstone Ecosystem was later defined as the range of the cutthroat trout in the area, and later still to the range of the antelope, bison, elk, whitebark pine and other species - until the ecosystem has grown to what it is today, a large part of northwestern Wyoming, and smaller parts of southern Montana and eastern Idaho.
One definition of ecosystem management was expressed by J. Stan Rowe in 1992. "Ecosystem management is the application of the ecosystem approach in the conservation, management, and restoration of regional and local landscape ecosystems. It means that everyone attends to the conservation and sustainability of ecosystems, instead of sharply focusing on the productivity of individual or competing resources -- which has been our traditional mode of operation." An ecosystem can be as small as a backyard or small watershed, or as large as the planet earth.

What is Eco System Management?
Ecosystem management can be defined as the integration of ecological, social, and economic objectives for natural resource planning and management. The key to this "definition" lies in defining the objectives that are being integrated into the management plan. The ecological objectives of ecosystem management should address the conservation, preservation, maintenance and/or enhancement of biological diversity and ecosystem integrity; as a whole
Biological diversity is the variety of life and life processes, and includes the levels of landscape, community, species, and genetics. "Ecosystem integrity" is a related term, operating at the community and landscape levels, that addresses the ecological processes that are needed for ecosystems to function in a predictable manner. The focus of ecosystem management on integration of these ecological objectives with the best efforts of the social and economic objectives is what separates if from other natural resource management practices.
Special interest groups (hunters, fishermen, birders, wildflower enthusiasts, butterfly enthusiasts) often adopt narrow and polarized views on resource issues. When this occurs, both human interests and the natural resources can be, and often are, threatened. The spotted owl and the timber industry controversy in the Pacific Northwest forests, the agricultural interests and Everglades restoration/preservation debate in Florida, and the re-introduction of wolves to the yellow system are examples of this.
In the past conservationists and resource managers have recognized the need for a new and different approach to habitat and wildlife management. This approach calls for participation between what may be widely diverse groups, so differences can be resolved, problems can be solved, and long-term care of our natural resources can be implemented, which hopefully will lead to a focus on management strategies commonly referred to as "ecosystem management." The implementation of this new "ecosystem management" based strategy is not yet completely defined, but the shift in why and how natural resources should be managed is beginning to take shape, and it can have beneficial and far-reaching effects for all outdoor lovers.
Ecosystem management is looking at a larger picture than we have looked at before. We need to look beyond municipal, county, state and federal agency boundaries, and work closely with land managers, in both the public and private sectors. We need to address the short and long-term consequences of our decisions, and consider every resource, such as plant communities, wildlife communities, watersheds and, geology as connected parts of a system, rather than as individual parts of the eco-system to be managed separately. Eco-system management means being aware of all of the parts of the ecosystem, from local and national, to international and even global aspects.

The choices conservationists and land managers have to make won't go away. However, a fundamental principle of ecosystem management holds that decisions must be based on the best information science can provide, with sustainability as the goal. This framework provides a means to evaluate objectively the trade-off of different management choices.
More than just federal lands are at stake. We all live in ecosystems of multiple ownership, and the issues addressed on federal lands exist elsewhere. Everyone has a stake in working for diverse, healthy, sustainable ecosystems, and its going to take everyone's support and participation to make it all work.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:00 AM | Permalink

I don't claim to know a lot about habitat conservation, other than to say I know that we need it, for a variety of reasons. I've lost at least two good deer hunting areas to development since 1997 (obviously those areas also contained songbirds, small mammals, trees, shrubs, herbs, forbes (wildflowers), butterflies and other invertebrates. I've also noticed the destruction of good wildlife habitat (for housing or business development projects) in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico and many other states. As a result of this I find myself becoming more interested in, and hopefully more knowledgeable about, both wildlife and habitat conservation.

As I've traveled around the country during the past several years on our Natural History Eco-Tours and family adventures, I've had the opportunity to meet and talk to several different outdoorsman. I recently met the biologist for the "Northern Trail" at the Minnesota Zoo, who manages the wolf, tiger and other exhibits. Then I met the Outdoor Education Manager for the Three Rivers Park District in Hennepin and Scott Counties of Minnesota (which includes the recognized IBA [Important Birding Area] of Murphy Hanrahan Park), and an attorney with the state of Minnesota who writes legislation for threatened or endangered species. And with all of them - our conversation got around to habitat and wildlife conservation.

As a result of talking to Minnesota's State Farmland Wildlife Manager, Al Berner, about such various species as deer, ducks, pheasants, turkeys, sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens, I've come to realize that the loss of habitat for many game species also means loss of habitat for many non-game species, such as insects, fish, small mammals and songbirds. In other words what is good for the game birds, is also good for the songbirds and other types of birds.
While I was talking to Al he impressed upon me the need for habitat restoration such as Conservation Reserve Program lands, and other habitat conservation, such as preserving or maintaining existing prairie and wetland habitat. Many upland bird (game) species, such as pheasants, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie chickens, gray partridge, and even turkeys, need large areas of prairies, meadows, swamps, sloughs, fens, oak savanna, etc., for breeding and nesting habitat. Those areas also support dickcissel, bobolink, various species of sparrows, and meadowlarks. Many of those areas, because they are often on fairly level ground that might not be suitable for farming, are destroyed to make room for business complexes and housing.
To those outdoorsmen and nature lovers who don't hunt this might not seem like a concern, except that those areas are also prime habitat for many species of birds, small animals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, wildflowers and other plants. As I lead our natural history tours I've begun noticing the wide variety of native plants, wildflowers and birds that use wetlands, meadows and prairies. I've also begun to realize how much of their habitat is destroyed by human encroachment, in the name of progress.

After watching several programs on the Discovery, History and Animal Planet channels, I've come to realize the importance of wetlands (that serve as important habitat for birds) as barriers to the negative effects of storm surges and flooding. Cattail, saw grass, rushes and other wetland plants have the ability not only to reduce erosion due to flooding and storm surges, they also have the ability to reduce the harmful effects of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers on the water and plant life, which provides needed habitat for the wildlife (including birds).

When rain falls on land covered with natural vegetation, the plants can slow the flow of run-off until it has a chance to sink into the ground, resulting in only a 10 per cent run off. However, when rain falls on a parking lot, 55 per cent of the water can run off into local brooks, creeks and wetlands, and from them into larger bodies of water. Run-off water may contain a variety of contaminants including oil, grease, heavy metals and sediments, plus harmful herbicides and pesticides, and fertilizers containing phosphorus, which can promote the growth of algae, often resulting in mass of green scum floating on the surface of the water, and result in algae "blooms" which often turn the water red-brown or blue-green.
Any of these conditions can result in less sunlight entering the water, causing less photosynthesis by native aquatic plants, resulting in less oxygen content in the water, and the possible spread of less beneficial and /or non-native and invasive plants, which do not help maintain the balance of the eco-system.
The preservation or creation of shallow swamps, sloughs, ponds or lagoons, between run-of water and/or streams, and deeper bodies of water, with their native vegetation, can greatly increase the natural filtration of water. Plants such as cattails, saw grass and sedges that may have extensive root systems which survive in shallow water, not only slow the speed of the water, but also trap sediments, and can filter out and use some of the contaminants that may cause a negative impact on the ecosystem plants in deeper waters.

Habitat Destruction for Economic Gain
Destruction of prairies and meadows for the development of agricultural, business and residential property reduces grasses, sedges and forbes (wildflowers) that provide seeds, pollen, forage and nesting habitat for birds, habitat for small mammals, which in turn support raptors and predatory mammals. Without beneficial ground cover (used by ducks, geese, grouse, songbirds, small mammals, insects, etc.), much of the precipitation that falls on the ground (which would normally soak slowly into the ground) may run off, often eroding the land (which causes further destruction of the habitat) and form gullies that may quickly funnel the water, with any contaminants, into creeks, streams, rivers, sloughs, marshes, ponds, lakes and larger bodied of water.
The construction of even the most primitive of roads in any type of habitat often leads to this same type of erosion, and the same type of habitat destruction and surface and water pollution. Off-road vehicle use often destroys ground cover, which again results in water runoff, and the eventual erosion of the topsoil, and the creation of more gullies; and the cycle continues. I've seen the destruction that the development of gravel roads into the sagebrush flats and foothills of the Rocky Mountains near many towns creates.
Agricultural fields and livestock pastures often allow runoff of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and animal waste into creeks, streams, rivers, sloughs, ponds, lakes and rivers; which affects aquatic plants, fish and invertebrates; in turn affecting mammals and birds. This can easily be alleviated by creating buffers of natural vegetation to stop or slow the water from running directly into the water. These buffers can act as habitat for birds and other wildlife. Livestock also cause erosion of the banks of watersheds when they destroy natural vegetation and breakdown the banks. This can be avoided by erecting fences to keep the cattle away from the water

Section Line (as in road-ditch habitat)
Al Berner informed that by law, the 33 feet on either side of the right of way on all section lines (four of them in on square mile, running from east to west and north to south surrounding the square mile) belongs top the state, and if it was left in natural conditions, would provide thousands of acres of habitat for wildlife in Minnesota. Basically what this means is that the 33 feet on either side of many roads in Minnesota, plus all of the land on section lines without roads, could be left in natural habitat, But, farmers rarely recognize these lines, or honor the laws that forbid them from burning, plowing, mowing and planting those right-of-ways. And to top it off the city, county and state often mow the ditches, effective destroying the habitat, which is not only used by pheasants and ducks to raise young (which often gets the hunters and trappers up in arms), it also is used by many birds and small mammals.

Fire Suppression
Fires, whether from natural causes such as lighting, or caused by humans (intentionally or unintentionally) on prairies and meadows, and in brushy areas and forests, have been part of the natural process of plant regeneration for centuries. Even naturally caused wildfires can be beneficial as they reduce natural fuels, which in turn reduces the chances of wild fires in the near future. Wildfires also expose mineral soil for seedbeds for regeneration of wind-disseminated species, such as fungi, mosses, grasses, forbes and many tree species. The reduction in vegetation in turn helps in the control of insects, diseases, and competing vegetation. As a result of this wildfires often result in the improvement of natural ecosystems and wildlife habitat as varied as wetlands, prairies, brushy areas and forests.
Native Americans often deliberately set fires to clear the land for horticulture, to improve access to some areas, and to change the composition of the plant community to attract game animals (such as bison). Early settlers set fires to assist in preparing the soil for agriculture and to eliminate stubble from the fields in the fall.
However, because of the destruction of human life, property, and resources by wildfires, the general government policy for most of this century has been to utilize man-made fire for the suppression of wildfires. The use of media campaigns such as Smokey the Bear, and Bambi fleeing from a fire, combined with fire suppression practices has resulted in a build up of vegetative fuels in many areas. Fire ecologists expect it will take several years of wildfires to establish a natural fire regime in many ecosystems.
In some areas where fire has been prevented from conducting its natural role in the environment, private and governmental agencies and scientists are setting controlled fires to mimic natural fire and improve landscape health and community safety. "One of the hard lessons we’ve learned is that eliminating or suppressing all fires actually increases the risk to people, damages natural habitats and drives up fire fighting costs” said Susan Harris, state director for the Nature Conservancy of Missouri.
Years of forest management practices that have eliminated wildfires has resulted in many forests becoming choked with thick undergrowth and small trees, that naturally occurring fires would normally eliminate. After years without fire, these forests become tinderboxes that are prone to hotter burns that are harder to control and pose a greater risk to communities than normal. These intense fires can have the ability to severely damage plant and wildlife species.

The Benefits of Fire
Many plant and animal species need fire to reproduce and thrive. Plants that need fire to reproduce and thrive are referred to as "burn-species". Some of the "burn species" plants are ephemeral annual herbs and forbes that have found an unusual means of adapting to environments that are for the most part unfavorable to their survival.
In the first year after a fire has temporarily diminished dominant forms of vegetation these herbs and forbes may appear and flourish, and upon maturation, they leave their sees behind. Although these plants may disappear from the landscape within a few years of a fire, the seeds can remain viable for up to 100 years or more. The goal of the seeds is to re-colonize the area after another fire. The plants may also appear from time to time in areas disturbed by other means, such as along sections of recently cleared trails, on land slides, and even along the areas of new road construction.
White-tailed deer, doves, quails, turkey, sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken are game species that benefit from prescribed fire. Habitat preferences of several endangered species, including the Florida panther, gopher tortoise, indigo snake, and red-cockaded woodpecker, are also enhanced by burning. The benefits to wildlife from fires can be substantial; fruit and seed production is often stimulated; herbage, legumes, and browse from hardwood sprouts may increase in both quality and quantity; and openings are created for feeding, travel, and dusting.
After years of fire suppression in many areas, land managers now have to go back and ignite fires to mimic the natural fires these species depend on. Prior to settlement by the Europeans, occasional fires were an integral part of many ecosystems, and native plants and animals had adapted to the occurrence of wildfires. Forests were a more varied blend of old and young trees, and some forests were more open in character. Fire recycled the nutrients of the dead wood for use by growing plants, and conditioned the forest floor for the regeneration of species that are dependent on disturbance of the forest floor.
Pine trees of many species are a prime example of species that benefit from fire. During high intensity burns, the sealed cones of many pines open up, allowing dispersion of seeds over the fire-cleared ground. Anyone who has visited Yellowstone Park since the latest wildfires there has seen the abundant re-growth of not only the pine trees, but of many grasses, wildfires and shrubs; which have provided new habitat for many species or birds and mammals. In many areas pine trees are failing to regenerate due to past fire control practices.
The federally endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker is a fire-dependent species. It nests only in mature pine trees that are free of surrounding underbrush. Researchers believe the Red-cockaded Woodpecker colonies in many areas have been abandoned because the sites have become too brushy. Periodic fires would control the brush, which may provide predators with access to woodpecker nests.
Entire ecosystems often need fire to maintain their natural diversity of plants and animals. Many pine-oak, oak forests, and oak savanahs have poor reproductive success without occasional fires. Little or no oak regeneration has occurred in some areas as a result of fire suppression. Oaks provide acorns in the fall, which are an important food source for black bear, white-tailed deer, turkey, and other wildlife.

Part of the problem with "the idea of conservation" is that we humans may have begun to realize too late that in order for this planet, and us, to survive, we must conserve, and preserve, much more of the native habitat of the entire world, than we ever realized - until just the last century, after much of the important and needed habitat has already been destroyed - by us. We need to look at not only saving a particular wildlife or plant species, but saving the surrounding habitat and other species that are all dependent on each other for survival and reproduction.

Eco Systems and Eco-system Management

What is an Ecosystem?
In recent years conservationists have begun to realize that in order to properly maintain and manage wildlife habitat, they need to look beyond just the immediate area or species of concern, to a much broader area, in which the microbes, animals, plants, and geology of the habitat interact as an entire system, that interacts within itself.
The Glossary of Forestry Terms for the Province of British Columbia defines an ecosystem as "a functional unit consisting of all the living organisms (plants, animals, and microbes) in a given area, and all the non-living physical and chemical factors of their environment, linked together through nutrient cycling and energy flow. An ecosystem can be of any size-a log, pond, field, forest, or the earth's biosphere - but it always functions as a whole unit"
Most Americans are familiar with the term "Yellowstone Ecosystem" which the US Government uses to define the interaction of microbes, plants and animals of the area surrounding Yellowstone Park. This area encompasses not only the caldera or crater of the Yellowstone volcano, but also stretches of the Bechler, Fall, Firehole, Gallatin, Gardiner, Gibbon, Lamar, Lewis, and Yellowstone rivers. One of the original descriptions of the "ecosystem" of Yellowstone took into account the range of the endangered grizzly bear. The Yellowstone Ecosystem was later defined as the range of the cutthroat trout in the area, and later still to the range of the antelope, bison, elk, whitebark pine and other species - until the ecosystem has grown to what it is today, a large part of northwestern Wyoming, and smaller parts of southern Montana and eastern Idaho.
One definition of ecosystem management was expressed by J. Stan Rowe in 1992. "Ecosystem management is the application of the ecosystem approach in the conservation, management, and restoration of regional and local landscape ecosystems. It means that everyone attends to the conservation and sustainability of ecosystems, instead of sharply focusing on the productivity of individual or competing resources -- which has been our traditional mode of operation." An ecosystem can be as small as a backyard or small watershed, or as large as the planet earth.

What is Eco System Management?
Ecosystem management can be defined as the integration of ecological, social, and economic objectives for natural resource planning and management. The key to this "definition" lies in defining the objectives that are being integrated into the management plan. The ecological objectives of ecosystem management should address the conservation, preservation, maintenance and/or enhancement of biological diversity and ecosystem integrity; as a whole
Biological diversity is the variety of life and life processes, and includes the levels of landscape, community, species, and genetics. "Ecosystem integrity" is a related term, operating at the community and landscape levels, that addresses the ecological processes that are needed for ecosystems to function in a predictable manner. The focus of ecosystem management on integration of these ecological objectives with the best efforts of the social and economic objectives is what separates if from other natural resource management practices.
Special interest groups (hunters, fishermen, birders, wildflower enthusiasts, butterfly enthusiasts) often adopt narrow and polarized views on resource issues. When this occurs, both human interests and the natural resources can be, and often are, threatened. The spotted owl and the timber industry controversy in the Pacific Northwest forests, the agricultural interests and Everglades restoration/preservation debate in Florida, and the re-introduction of wolves to the yellow system are examples of this.
In the past few years conservationists and resource managers have recognized the need for a new approach to habitat and wildlife management. This approach calls for collaboration between groups, problem solving, and long-term care of our natural resources, which has led to the focus on management strategies commonly referred to as "ecosystem management." The implementation of this new "ecosystem management" based strategy is not yet completely defined, but the shift in why and how natural resources should be managed is beginning to take shape, and it can have beneficial and far-reaching effects for all outdoor lovers.
Ecosystem management is looking at a larger picture than we have looked at in the past. We need to look beyond municipal, county, state and federal agency boundaries, and work closely with land managers, in both the public and private sectors. We need to address the long-term consequences of today's decisions, and consider various resources, such as plant communities, wildlife or watersheds, as interrelating parts of a system, rather than as individual components to be managed separately. It means awareness of all of the components of the ecosystem, from local and national, to international and even global aspects.

The choices conservationists and land managers have to make won't go away. However, a fundamental principle of ecosystem management holds that decisions must be based on the best information science can provide, with sustainability as the goal. This framework provides a means to evaluate objectively the trade-off of different management choices.
More than just federal lands are at stake. We all live in ecosystems of multiple ownership, and the issues addressed on federal lands exist elsewhere. Everyone has a stake in working for diverse, healthy, sustainable ecosystems, and its going to take everyone's support and participation to make it all work.

In response to this article Fred Lesher of Wisconsin wrote:

My opinion is that "birders" are woefully lacking in effective group support of nature. Hunter & fishers, in contrast, are organized in various ways, and have lots to say about nature, as they understand it. However, their views are quite selfish.

I have spoken at public hearings on the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Upper Mississippi R. F&W Refuge (Wabasha, MN to Rock Island, IL). A largely hunter/fisher crowd booed me in LaCrescent, MN at a hearing when I spoke up for more effort on the Refuge to conserve & protect passerine birds, migrant & resident, on the Refuge. "Do you buy fishing and/or hunting licenses?" was shouted at me from the mob. Well, yes I do, though I have not hunted for several years, and fish elsewhere, if I do, than the River.

And of course, the right to have an opinion and be heard does not depend on having purchased a license of any kind. Their attitude, and there were dozens of them, is that "We pay, therefore we say." I was told by a member of the crowd that public viewing platforms & auto pull-offs along the Refuge were an extravagance and a waste of money.

I believe that the Upper Mississippi River is a national treasure. It is not the Grand Canyon, but its wetlands & hardwood forest bottomlands & surrounding bluffland forests are not only breathing oxygen, they are presenting sentient human beings with beauty at all seasons and the grace of life other than whatever it is that human beings think they are doing. In my faithful opinion, human beings are dangerous creatures which may destroy the planet. Bird-chasing & listing is not supportive of the environment. It too is short-sighted & selfish.

Alas, I too listed & chased birds for at least 55 years, but I have to conclude that unless bird listers & chasers act and speak up for non-game birds, these birds will suffer. Of course, their numbers are diminishing, and they are suffering. Who cares?

Joel of Minnesota wrote:

After decades of birding I find I treasure the great experiences more than the numbers of species.

Fred of Wisconsin wrote:

Someone needs to speak out for non-game wildlife & habitat & the non-hunting/fishing public. I get very little support in my views, as far as I know, from anyone. USFWS folks do welcome my views. I think they are under huge pressure from the hunter/fisher lobby to yield on keeping most refuge boundaries & any limitations where, when, how to hunt on the Refuge the way they are.

To repeat, I do not hunt or fish on or even near the Upper Miss. Refuge, so I don't know details of hunter/fisher issues about boundaries & complications for their uses.

My birding has taken me up & down the River birding by car & on foot between Lake Pepin & Clinton, Iowa, Pools 4-13. I am most active birding along Pools 7-9. To my knowledge, no local or state National Audubon Society groups or other state & local birding groups have appeared at hearings about the Mississippi River Comprehensive Conservation Plan. These hearings were held within the past year or two up & down the Upper Miss. Refuge.

Earl wrote:

Thanks for posting this article. It's a good summary of the issues that are important for everyone who cares about the outdoors. I certainly agree with you that birders and nature lovers need to join together with hunters and anglers because we are all after the same thing; habitat preservation.

Joel wrote:

Our 15 acres is about 1 acre 'developed', 5 acres planted diverse prairie, 4 acres young trees and shrubs, 5 acres woods (mostly oak), plus a groundwater pond and intermittent stream. It provides pretty good habitat for a variety of species - just as we want it to. I retired early a couple years ago so that I could spend more time on nature oriented projects.

I advise Olmsted county on prairie management and restoration, give talks on butterflies, birds, prairie and native landscaping. Even with all that I do, I still have to wonder if my net affect on wildlife is positive. I do travel by air from time to time, and take several trips each year around the state and region to see birds and attend meetings. Each trip not only affects the area that I travel through, but also those areas that were used to produce the fuel and machines that I use.

I feel that our current culture is terribly selfish, materialistic and short-sighted. As with most people, my best memories are of experiences and relationships - not of material goods. And yet we seem to focus on getting more material goods, to the detriment of wildlife and our relation to the world.

Birders are part of this. Some birders are responsible and considerate, although often in a narrow sense. Others are frankly very self-centered, self-justifying, and narrow minded. We have to find better ways of living together with other people and with the rest of the creatures of the world.

There is only one earth, and we have to learn to share it better. Sorry about the ranting. It helps me to vent sometimes.

Thanks for caring about the broad whole of wildlife.

Another e-mail on the subject of habitat conservation:

Actually, I think the term "habitat conservation" has a different meaning for birders than it does for hunters.

Hunters conserve habitat so they have somewhere to hunt, whereas birders want to conserve habitat so that no one dies.

My Response: I'm sure there is a wide range of meanings and /or definitions of what habitat conservation is.

While it may be that hunters ant to preserve habitat primarily for hunting, they may be one of the largest influences behind "habitat conservation" for deer, turkeys and waterfowl; which in turn is habitat for hundreds of species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, flowers plants and other species.

Many of the WMA's (Wildlife Management Areas) and possibly all of the WPA's (Waterfowl Production Areas) are there due in large part to the efforts of hunters. So, without them even thinking about it, their efforts to conserve habitat benefit many other species.

And then you can add the fact that the Federal Migratory Bird Licenses and State Waterfowl, Small Game, Upland Bird, Turkey, Deer, Bear, Elk, on and on and on Licenses, plus part of the taxes on firearms and ammunition, are dedicated to the Natural Resources Departments of US and each State, means there a literally thousands (if not hundreds of thousands nationally) of dollars paid out annually by hunters, trappers and fisherman, to preserve habitat.

So, hunters may have a right to "feel" they contribute a little more than their fair share when it comes to habitat conservation, because they contribute a lot. Which is they may get a little defensive when it comes to the views of birders, wildflower lovers, butterfly enthusiasts, and "tree huggers" (conservationists).

I'm not trying to say that hunters, trappers and fishermen knowingly help birds, flowers and butterflies, but the fact is they do help.

I suspect many birders may not realize how much habitat is conserved by, and due to, those who hunt and fish, as a result of their hunting and fishing. I also suspect some birders do realize it.

And while it may be true that some birders look at habitat conservation as it affects the earth, air pollution, ozone levels, carbon dioxide - oxygen exchanges, ozone levels etc, there are those who don't think about it at all, and are only interested in birds.

Having been a hunter for over 43 years, and being involved in the hunting industry, including guiding, designing camouflage and other products, writing articles and books, and giving seminars since 1989, I have to say that many hunters, trappers and fishermen don't think about species or habitats they can't of don't hunt, which may be seen as selfishness. I suspect it has more to do with single mindedness of purpose and ignorance, than with selfishness.

There are however, other hunters, who realize that there is more to habitat conservation than "game animals" and their "needs" for habitat conservation. I know I am not the only hunter who enjoys scenic areas, birds and butterflies.

So, I suppose there is a lot of education that needs to be done, before hunters, fishers, trappers and other nature lovers can see the benefits of each other's efforts when it comes to conservation. As an outdoor writer and seminar speaker I'm willing to try to educate all sides (in my own small way), and it looks like others here are doing their part to advance the cause of habitat conservation from the birders and /or nature lovers point of view. But, we can't do it alone. So - what are the rest of "us" (including all of you who love birds, flowers, butterflies etc.) going to do to help.

Do we need to meet with the MDHA Minnesota Deer Hunter's Association) which I write for, and the State Chapters of Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, the National Turkey Federation, the Ruffed Grouse, Sharp-tailed Grouse and Prairie Chicken Societies, Trout Unlimited, etc., all of which are contributing time, effort and dollars to habitat conservation? I suspect it might be a good idea for the lobbyists or "powers that be" of each of those groups already know each other, and may be working together, but we may have to educate the members and/or participators of each group and faction, so they understand the needs and desires, and the efforts and funds, that each contributes to conserve habitat. We need to find a way get through to each other, make each understand the broader impact and consequences of not doing anything, and the benefits of doing something, as an integrated group.

I think this exchange could make a good article in the MN DNR publications, as well as in Ornithological, Audubon, Isaac Walton, Sierra Club, Safari Club and other publications. And I will try to get it into them. The problem is once it goes into one publication; many other publications will not publish it. They all want "first rights" or "exclusive rights" and rarely want to "reprint" a "previously published" article.

However, since I write for over 40 Internet hunting web sites and magazines (two of which I own), I can send it out to them (if all else fails). So I can guarantee that it will be out there.

If anyone has nay pull with any publication, or know of other publications where this subject can be talked about and advanced, please post it here or contact me.

I think all of your comments should be posted here, so we all gain by the input.

Any other ideas?

(I think I feel another "cause" coming into my life.)

Another E-mail:

No one is ever going to convince me that any good ever comes out of killing animals for "sport".

Again, I have worked in retail, and have spoken first hand with hunters about this subject, and some of them did allude to the fact that having to pay to do their "sport" was something they were upset about. Some even referred to the people that make them buy a license as "tree huggers". There are also those hunters that buy "deer corn" and feed it to the deer, the deer then come to trust these people, then the people hunt them.

My response: You may not understand the fact that deer must be eliminated on a regular basis, or they will overpopulate and destroy habitat, which is needed by many species, including birds. The forbes wildflowers, herbs, grasses, sedges and leaves, berries, fruits and nuts they eat, are also eaten by birds and small mammals.

If deer overpopulate, they can eliminate much of the habitat and forage base, including reducing the forest under-story that is so vital to many birds.

Deer Licenses pay a large part of the DNR bill for wildlife management, which in turn helps birds. Deer hunting is needed to control deer populations, and the money generated by license sales are needed DNR funds.

As to feeding corn to deer; some people do it because they like to see deer (like birders use bird feeders). Some people feed deer to help them get through the winter, which in many cases they need help with. However, I must point out that deer that are hunted do not often "trust" the people who put our corn, they are way by nature, but some deer become semi-tame. And it is illegal to use corn as "bait" deer to come in to a hunter, thereby making it easy to shoot, Any hunter who feeds deer during the hunting season for the purpose of hunting is breaking the law, and should be prosecuted.

I'm not looking for "negatives" on other factions here, I'm looking for reasons why other factions should understand why they should listen to birders.

Another e-mail:

T.R.
We do not share every view on the hunter/birder discussion. Saying that it is understandable that they get a "little defensive" about the views of "tree huggers" (including me) is a mis-statement. At the hearing I attended & at which I dared to speak my views, they were very offensive, rude & crude.

Unlike what your correspondent claims, that birders "want to preserve habitat so that no one dies," which is a typical stereotyping of those who care about the whole system, not primarily about game animals, many birders are well educated about the natural world.

I know that hunting & fishing licenses etc paid by those who hunt & fish make up a large share of moneys going to habitat preservation. But what percent also comes from what I think is called "general revenue sharing", coming from elsewhere among taxpayers? I don't think hunters & fishers pay for habitat preservation, including wildlife areas and parks, entirely on their own.

Our local "outdoor" writer for the La Crosse Tribune, Bob Lamb, is unfortunately strictly "hook & bullet" in his coverage of the "outdoors." And readers love it I guess. So at least locally in La Crosse, the so-called "outdoor" pages are lacking in anything close to "balanced" coverage of non-game outdoor activities. Bob Lamb, the "outdoor" writer loves bass tournaments & riding so fast in 60+ mph bass boats that the wind forces his mouth open and makes his eyes water.

I spare you my comments & observations about bass "tournaments" on the Mississippi River.

My response: The point about "so people or things don't die" I think was meant as a way of expressing that birders DO know more about the environment, and realize that if we do not save habitat, we all suffer.

My use of "little defensive" to describe hunters was just a way of saying they DO get offended, whether a lot of a little.

Any hunter who gripes about paying a license fee to hunt, can either put up or shut up. Pay up or quit.

The point I was making about hunter dollars and habitat is that they are one of the few groups that are taxed on the equipment they buy to pursue their interest. I do not believe birders are taxed on binoculars, bird feeders, books or other bird related equipment. Thus, hunters do have an argument that they pay more than other groups for habitat conservation. I believe that is an undisputed fact.

Add to that the fact that hunters also pay taxes to the General Fund, and they know they are paying twice. Where many other ou5door interest groups only pay once.

Not trying to start an argument, just point out the facts, as I know them. T.R.

I had a couple of thoughts on this subject.

1. I'm going to turn this into an article, which I will offer to such publications as the Volunteer, Safari Club, Ducks Unlimited, Isaac Walton League etc., plus the hunting/outdoor magazines I write for, and hope many of them publish it, so that all sides of the outdoor lovers equation see the others point of view. Hopefully the MN Volunteer will take it. Feel free to ask me to offer it to any magazine you think you can get it into.

The problem is once one magazine publishes it, most others won't. So, if any of you have any pull with any outdoor magazine let me know. Since I write for over 40 Internet web sites and e-magazines (two of which I own, publish and edit) I can guarantee it will go on the Internet (after I get it in some print magazine).

2. I'm going to contact the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association (which I frequently write for) to see if and how they and other hunting organizations work with non-hunting organizations to conserve habitat.

Anyone else have any ideas how all conservationists can work together, and educate each other on the other's views, and why we need to work together, for the benefit of all of us and the animal and plant species.

3. If we are thinking primarily as birders, we have to think about habitat conservation in South America, where deforestation is a big problem. How does the bird community work and spend funds to conserve South American habitat?

T.R.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:00 AM | Permalink

By July most of the does should be done fawning. The fawns should be growing and following their mothers some of the time. The bucks are growing racks, and all the whitetail deer should be feeding on preferred foods.

Planning Ahead
Any type of deer management should take into account several different factors; herd size, buck to doe ratio, age structure of the herd, fawning rates, type of habitat, available food sources, seasonal use of the habitat; and hunting success by age, and sex. One of the first steps in deer management should be to determine the size and makeup of the herd. A fairly accurate count of all the animals should be taken to determine buck:doe ratio and fawning rates; to determine if the herd is in balance with the available habitat, so that overuse of the habitat by the deer does not occur; which could resulting in habitat destruction, poor nutrition, starvation, disease, stress, and poor reproduction and growth of the deer herd. You can start to produce a socially balanced deer herd: 1. By keeping the herd at or below the carrying capacity of the habitat. 2. By balancing the buck to doe ratio of the herd. 3. By ensuring that there are adequate numbers of both sexes and all ages classes of deer in the herd, so that maximum breeding occurs at the appropriate time of the year.
You can find out how many deer there are in the area by having several different people counting deer in different areas, at the same times, on several different days or nights. Be sure to determine the sex of all adult deer, and count all of the fawns. While you may miss some deer using this method, if you use the highest number of deer seen during any one time, you will have a fairly good estimation of the size and makeup of the deer herd n your area. You can also ask your local game managers how many deer they believe there are per square mile in your area. The game manager should also be able to tell you the carrying capacity of the land.

In order for any deer management program to work hunters and game managers must realize that:

1. The habitat can carry only so many deer, it makes no difference whether they are bucks or does. Once the number of deer exceeds the carrying capacity of the habitat there will eventually be habitat destruction, which can lead to disease, stress, and starvation of the deer. Or the deer, particularly younger bucks, will leave to find more suitable habitat, making them susceptible to injury and death by natural causes, hunting, or vehicle collisions.

2. Once the carrying capacity of the habitat has been determined, the total number of deer should be kept below that capacity, so that there is adequate nutrition in winter, and in case of forage and habitat loss due to natural causes.

3. Because the habitat can carry only so many deer, and one of the goals of deer management should be to ensure that there are appropriate numbers of both sexes, and all age classes of deer, one of the first objectives should be to balance the buck to doe ratio of the herd. The best way to increase the buck:doe ratio is to remove some of the does. In order to keep the buck:doe ratio stabilized an appropriate number of both bucks and does should be removed every year.

4. To increase the average age of the bucks in the herd younger bucks must be allowed to reach four to five years of age, which is when they should be the dominant breeding bucks. It may be four to five years before there are significant numbers of older bucks available to achieve all the breeding at the proper time.

5. The oldest and youngest deer, and bucks that are exhausted from the rut, are usually the weakest and the first to die. In order to keep weaker deer alive when they are under stress their health needs must be provided for. With the threat of infectious diseases, the best way to provide for the nutritional needs of the deer is through habitat improvement, and food plots; not through supplemental feeding.

6. Increased deer attraction to a particular property, improved survival and fawning rates, and increased body and antler size can be achieved by providing adequate cover and water, planting deer forage and browse, and providing year round minerals. Supplemental feed can be supplied (only where CWD and TB are not a concern) in the winter and early spring when deer are stressed.

T.R. Michels, Trinity Mountain Outdoors, E-mail: TRMichels@yahoo.com, Web Site: www.TRMichels.com.

Posted by T.R. Michels at 08:00 AM | Permalink