Cattle Grazing in WPAs/WMAs

[ETH310]

I was frustrated to find that some of my favorite public pheasant hunting land has obviously been grazed and one has cattle actively grazing on it. I'm not trying to bash the farmers, I understand they're just trying to get by like everybody else, but it stinks when some of my honey holes look like a softball field. Anybody know what the deal is with this? I'm guessing it's some sort of emergency program due to the drought. Luckily we did some pre-season scouting, so we knew about it before opening day and on the upside I've hunted some new areas, some good and some not so much.

[jdog]

this has actually been going on for years just wait it does pay off

[harvey lee]

They can also graze on National Grasslands under certain conditions. I have seen crops planted on WMA's also by a farmer and he also harvested the crop.

[creepworm]

They decided to graze it instead of burn it as a management tool. Huge herds of wild buffalo used to roam the prairie and intensively graze areas before moving on. This is emulating that the way a prescribed burn emulates the wildfires that used to happen. Short term pain for long term gain.

[LandDr]

If you ever get a chance, compare "prescribed burn" prairie to "grazed" prairie. It is night and day in comparison. The prescribed burn prairie will be taller, thicker and much nicer than the grazed prairie. Grazed prairie is better than "no management", but nothing beats a good fire.

I own a land management company and I get frustrated when I see grazing going on on our WMAs and WPAs. I think of all of the time, labor and tax payer dollars that went into making that happen. Can you imagine all of the meetings that went on prior? All of the negotiating and setting up of grazing contracts? All the follow up inspection time? Etc., etc, etc. The cost is mind boggling. A prescribed burn would have been A LOT cheaper with better results.

Properly timed fire takes out thistle and volunteer trees as well and better develops the root systems of the prairie to further compete against weeds, trees and pocket gophers. And you have the cover in the fall and winter versus something grazed.

Sorry...I just don't agree and I would never ever graze my seed production sites or my wildlife cover. I am trying to manage for pheasants and deer...not prairie chickens, bob-o-links, butterflies and buffalo. :-)

Land Dr

[creepworm]

I completely agree that prescribed burns are better. I think the DNR and USFWS would agree and try to do prescribed burns over grazing which is why you see more burns. Sometimes they are not possible. The WMA/WPA may be a fairly populated area or have homes surrounding it. They also may not have had the right wind/moisture conditions to do it the last year and a half and decided to graze it instead of burning it.

[LandDr]

The management units I see being grazed are rural and can easily be burned. Even if weather doesn't provide for burning a certain spring, I would still leave it until the following year instead of spending that much tax payer money on mediocre management. Or better yet, outsource it to private companies to get the work done...then it would get done and get done even cheaper.

Government can operate more efficiently and cost effectively...this is just another example of it.

Land Dr

[B. Amish]

grazing does things that fire can't. in the end, seasonal grazing or 'flash grazing' can be very beneficial.

prairie is a disturbance dependent ecosystem. the prairie existed because of weather (moisture), fire, and grazing.

each disturbance has good things and bad things associated with it. drought means lack of water for your wetlands, but can limit tree growth. fire means great grass growth, but can burn nests and limits forbs. grazing generally promotes forbs and adds diversity, but can elminate winter cover.

don't get me wrong, fire is a great tool. but your window for fire is pretty small and with fire, you're pretty much tailoring a site to be thick with grass.... too thick sometimes for nesting ducks. and lacking forbs that means lacking insects for young pheasants.

and also, grazing a wpa or wma may mean that the selected rancher can take pressure off his own pasture for a season, which may benefit wildlife further.

[B. Amish]

The management units I see being grazed are rural and can easily be burned. Even if weather doesn't provide for burning a certain spring, I would still leave it until the following year instead of spending that much tax payer money on mediocre management. Or better yet, outsource it to private companies to get the work done...then it would get done and get done even cheaper.

Government can operate more efficiently and cost effectively...this is just another example of it.

Land Dr

cows munching on grass would decrease the costs associated with a burn. there are some upfront costs with fence sometimes, but i think sometimes the selected ranchers are attributing to those costs.

[LandDr]

There are lots of flowers in the prairie plantings after burns, usually a lot more...that is not a limitation by any means and lots of insects. If the grass mix planted consists of a substantial amount of "bunch" grasses, then there is tremendous nesting and brooding opportunities...usually 4 to 5 times greater (problem is we are not getting our hens thru the winter to actually utilize the nesting cover as "dead hens don't lay eggs")...and there is more canopy protection from avian and ground predators. We usually complete 55 to 60 burns every spring...and that is just with our single crew.

The cost for benefit is just not there in my opinion and I think it is more "political" than anything...

[B. Amish]

c'mon now. spring fire rotations pretty much result in a site being dominated by big bluestem and indian grass with little else.

diversity on a prairie is what we should all hope for whether we want pheasants, prairie chickens, deer, or ducks.

fire alone doesn't promote diversity. give the prairie the full toolbox and use grazing along with fire and get as much out of it as you can.

[jentz]

Due to the drought the farm bureau and the DNR opened grazing on these lands,I believe only 20% of total acrage can be grazed permit only.In sever drought areas haying is also a option to farmers this year.They NEED the feed!! It wont harm anything it wasnt opened to these practices untill mid or late Aug.

It seldom happens only in times of need as this years drought.

[rundrave]

you also have to keep in mind with the drought and the price of hay. Why burn it when it can be taken care of and feed livestock at the same time? Its a 2 for one special IMO.

I also have to say that the risk of burning probably out weighed the reward with as dry as its been. I am sure burns have their time and place, unfortunately over the last year or so and as dry as its been its just not in the cards.

*** I see jentz got his post in there before me lol ***

[LandDr]

I intensively manage my seed production sites with fire...not grazing. Both the grass seed and the flower seed production sites.

If you burn your prairie every single year, you may have the result you are speaking of...but that is not the type of management that would take place on the WMA or WPA. Forbes like fire as well, especially with earlier fires in the spring versus later fires.

There are some people that walk a WMA or WPA just to enjoy nature, but most of the people that use WMAs and WPAs are hunting pheasant, ducks or deer. They don't walk thru it and say, "what a beautiful diverse prairie even though I didn't see any pheasants". Since it is "public", we do have to cater to everyone, but the original post was regarding his hunting experience.

[LandDr]

Cutting or mowing doesn't really provide that much of a benefit...in fact I have seen it do more harm as several species of grass and forbes don't like to be cut. I have learned this the hard way in our seed production sites. Some that were cut did not recover for up to two years and some did not recover at all. You can observe this along some roadways that are clipped as they lose diversity.

I was not aware of any WMAs or WPAs opened up for emergency grazing or haying as was with CRP. The sites I am aware of are under contract already as part of the DNR's working lands initiative.

Good discussion...but I gotta get back to work.

[flyfisher03]

Wildlife managers are trying to add in the elements that were historic to our tall grass prairie ecosystems. Before settlement and the prairies were broken up they would burn one season, when it greened up in the spring they were grazed by bison that also helps reduce woody vegetation. The bison then moved on.

What they are doing (depending on weather conditions) is burn one year, graze year two, and rest for year 3 or 4. This stimulates the biodiversity of the prairie.

Here is a grant application for the Lac qui Parle WMA. In it contains reasons why they want to graze.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/grants/habitat/lessard_sams/2011/funded/021.pdf

[rayguy]

Called the DNR about this a couple years ago and was told they do this to generate re-growth of the plants. Maybe so but it takes away the acess to the wpa's they are on as dogs and cattle don't mix to well. Worse yet in my mind is they are putting four strand barbed wire around many wpa's in Bigstone and the other western counties. It is almost impossibnle to drag a boat past the wire, hard to get over as there are no gates and a for sure dog ripper upper. Whats up with this? Our money bought these lands and now they are making it far more diffacult to access them.

[BLACKJACK]

Glad to see this subject come up, its one of my pet peeves, especially since I live in the epicenter of the ‘mimic the buffalo’ movement, I’ve seen three WPA’s get fenced in the last year.

First of all, most of the lands that were opened up for drought relief/haying and grazing are CRP lands. Anybody doing that had to take a reduction in their payments. I wonder about the quality of the hay they took off of their but hey its their land, go for it.

I have yet to see a WMA - Wildlife Management Area - that has been grazed. In fact, they're the ones that have planted shelterbelts and established food plots - they're doing a good job of managing for wildlife.

The problem is on the WPA's - Waterfowl Production Areas. The area manager out of Litchfield is a prairie nut, he thinks that everything should be back to its 'natural state' from 200 hundred years ago. Is that really realistic?? He started by doing massive tree cuttings, every tree, even planted shelterbelts, were cut down, piled up, and burnt. Fine, some trees get to be very invasive, but periodic burns would control them. If you deer hunted those areas, you're out of luck. (You naysayers will say that there are still deer there, which is true, but take a drive around on opening day of deer hunting, see where you see more blaze orange, on the 'prairie' WPA's or the WMA's with some shelterbelts and tree groves).

Now this prairie nut has gotten the idea that grazing is the answer, mimic the buffalo. The problem is that they overgraze these areas, they keep lots of cattle on a WPA for months at a time, by the time they get them off of the land, it looks just like the real cow pasture that’s been pastured for years down the road.

Buffalo were roamers, they’d come thru an area, eat off the choice grass and move on. Even out by Lac Qui Parle, they doing patch grazing, they have 30 cows on 400 acres plus, it doesn’t get overgrazed, the cows will eat off certain spots and leave the rest.

Problem is that these WPA’s are getting managed for prairie and small birds like meadow larks. Fine and dandy, except they were bought by hunters and their Federal Duck stamps, some consideration should be made for hunters, if burning would do the same thing, and then leave some nice grass for fall hunting, that should have priority. Instead we have hilly golf courses. Don’t believe me, I could show you a couple.

If you don’t like what they’re doing, call the Waterfowl Production manager out of Litchfield

[BLACKJACK]

I also have to say that the risk of burning probably out weighed the reward with as dry as its been.

Don’t tell me ‘it’s too dry’, ‘it’s too close to houses’, etc. I’ve seen their burn crews, 8 pickups, 2 water trucks, 6 atv’s, and a crew of 20, with a proper burn break mowed and less than 20 mph winds, they can burn it.

[LandDr]

Thank you for that comment Blackjack. I appreciate when people understand what goes into conducting a prescribed burn...especially the identification of wind speed, direction and especially safety. We don't just go around burning stuff recklessly.

I have had a few fire department staff out on burns before and they all comment on how controlled and boring our burns are. The FD staff evidently wanted some escaped fire and some excitement. LOL We keep everything well under control on our burns and have never had an incident...knock on wood.

If we had more 5 - 10 acre thick conifer developments on WMA\WPAs along with more food and thicker native prairies, we would have a lot more hens making it thru the winter for spring reproduction, resulting in more fall roosters...and better deer as well. In the ponds, we need them loaded up with shrimp, sago and wild rice as well as maybe some flooded crop management (that is probably asking for too much however). Why not intensively manage these properties for more opportunities and for greater hunter carrying capacity as well.

[B. Amish]

a large chunk of the wpa's in north and south dakota see grazing. this isn't just limited to litchfield, mn.

it's a management practice that won't please everyone.

have you seen one of these hilly golf courses after it was grazed? what's your take afterwards?

you'll see more and more wma's with grazing in the next few years.

[BLACKJACK]

they all comment on how controlled and boring our burns are.

[BLACKJACK]

If we had more 5 - 10 acre thick conifer developments on WMA\WPAs along with more food and thicker native prairies, we would have a lot more hens making it thru the winter for spring reproduction, resulting in more fall roosters...and better deer as well.

[BLACKJACK]

a large chunk of the wpa's in north and south dakota see grazing. this isn't just limited to litchfield, mn.

it's a management practice that won't please everyone.

have you seen one of these hilly golf courses after it was grazed? what's your take afterwards?

you'll see more and more wma's with grazing in the next few years.

I have seen the fenced in WPA's in SoDak, and again from a hunting standpoint, they suck!! But for the first time, I also saw a cornfield in a WPA in SoDak, looks like they're taking a small portion of their thousand acre WPA and putting in some corn for pheasants!!! Grass and corn and the farmers shelterbelt 1/2 mile away, how do you suppose the pheasants in that area will do?? Then go 3 miles away to one of those grazed down WPA's with no food or shelter around and find a pheasant!!!

[rayguy]

Back to the fences. What in the world are they for. To keep us out or are we planning on having the DNR go into the cattle business? At the state fair DNR building I asked the question and you won't believe what I was told. The wardens said it was for the good of the vegitation and plant rejuvination. How in the world can 40 cows eating everything down to the ground help anything let alone help ducks. There our WPA'S bought for waterfowl production not to be the Ponderosa. While I'm at it another question I asked was why there are no acess roads to off road Wpa's in Big Stone, Swift and areas south of the River out there. The response was we want to keep kids from partying there in the summer. My God have they never heard of gates in the non hunting season. I'll tell you one reason we are losing older hunters by the score. Areas are being fenced, no acess a older guy can get to, and who wants to take a dog out in a cattle stampede to get to the water. Wonder why we don't take our Grandkids out?

[creepworm]

Blackjack, it is a WATERFOWL production area. Not a deer hunting area or a pheasant breeding area but a waterfowl production area. It is bought with waterfowl stamp dollars and is managed for the production of waterfowl. It is right in the name, a Waterfowl Production Area, solely there to produce waterfowl. Trees would give avian predators a place to sit and pick off waterfowl thus hindering the ability of the waterfowl production area to produce waterfowl. Therefore, leaving trees on a waterfowl production area would not make sense because the waterfowl production would not be as good on that waterfowl production area. Maybe it would be nice for deer hunters to be able to better deer hunt a waterfowl production area but that is not the reasoning for the waterfowl production area, the reason for the waterfowl production area is to produce waterfowl. Food plots may also benefit other creatures in a waterfowl production area but it would not benefit waterfowl, and seeing the reason for waterfowl production areas are to produce waterfowl it doesn't make much sense to put a food plot in a waterfowl production area.

I purposely put waterfowl production area into that paragraph as many times as I possibly could because it is a waterfowl production area, bought with duck stamp dollars with the purpose of producing waterfowl. That is all. It is right in the name.

Saying a waterfowl production area should be managed for something other than the production of waterfowl is like saying a wildlife management area should be managed for something other than wildlife.

[candiru]

The problem now is taking this grazing away from farmers if it doesn't do any good. Once something is started no one seems to have the guts to end it. The sooner this is questioned the better.

[LandDr]

WPAs were purchased with duck stamp dollars for the most part...that is true. But ducks are not the only wildlife that use the property and duck hunters are not the only kinds of hunters that use these properties. That's like saying the WMAs were purchased with pheasant stamp dollars (and they are along with some other dollars) and we are only going to manage for pheasants...ducks need to go somewhere else. Taking that position is more of a "preservationist" position rather than a "realists" position. Reality is that we use these properties for hunting all species...it should not matter what dollars were used to purchase them. Also, reality is that pheasant and deer hunters bring in A LOT more money to the local economy versus duck hunters. Why not use the properties to manage for all species for the greater good of all hunters and the greater good of the economy?

What would a 5 or 10 acre conifer planting hurt being put on the north or west side of a WPA? I am talking "conifers" (spruce)...NOT tall maple, elm, cottonwood or other deciduous trees that provide perches for avian predators (as creepworm mentioned). Obviously we are all against those types of trees...but spruce, cedar and RM juniper will provide thermal winter cover without the perches. And would it hurt to supplement these winter areas with a food plot or at least a bunch of feeders? It would not hurt the ducks at all!

Rayguy...you are getting the "canned" response from the DNR. That is what they have been told and read...so that is what they tell you. I would be surprised if they had any personal experience they could reference.

When I put a design together for a property, I design for pheasants, deer, ducks and turkey...and they all prosper incredibly. With the more intense design, there is a greater carrying capacity for ALL wildlife and there is also a greater carrying capacity for the number of hunters that can use the property as well as the number of hunter days the property can be used. I have asked to work on some WMAs and WPAs but they won't let me. I wonder why? Maybe because a hunter and land manager may actually create something that other hunters really like?

It is virtually impossible to change how the DNR operates and thinks. I sat on the MN Pheasant Oversight Committee for two 4 year terms...this committee made recommendations to the DNR for the short and long term management of MN's pheasants. Probably the number one reason people dropped off the committee was because they felt the DNR did not listed to our recommendations anyway. They would put in all the drive time and meetings to give solid recommendations, only to see the DNR do their own thing anyway. Get's very frustrating.

[BLACKJACK]

creepworm,

I understand they are Waterfowl Production Areas but as Landdr pointed out so well, you could manage for duck production AND pheasants/deer, with very little impact on duck production. It would be a win/win situation.

The dollars for these areas came from duck hunters, I'd venture to say that 90% of duck hunters also hunt other species like pheasants and deer and wouldn't object to the the WPA's being managed for other species. But managers of these areas have their own agendas and don't listen to us peon hunters.

You know what their agenda is?? Its not even ducks, its restoring prairie and habitat for prarie nesting birds, they're concerned that the populations of birds like meadow larks, dickcissels, bobolinks, etc. are declining. How do I know that?? I've talked to technicians out of the Litchfield Fish and Wildlife office, they said thats what there goal is. Their boss thinks that the areas that were once prairie should be restored to prairie. I've talked to local biology teachers that the Fish and Wildlife service has hired to do bird counts in these WPA's, they're not counting ducks, they're counting tweety birds. So don't tell me they're managing for ducks.

[Mlaker3]

It is political as mentioned. USFWS is trying to get along with the locals. There are a lot of counties that will vote down any purchases of land tracts by the USFWS and they are trying to give a more positive spin to permanent grasslands. IMHO.