# National Grasslands and Pheasants



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

I know it will never happen but everytime I drive from Fargo to Lisbon I marvel at the size of the grasslands. My question is how good do you think the grasslands could be for pheasants if they were managed for pheasants. I am thinking food plots on every section, nesting cover and a stock dam on every section. I would even let farmers plant corn one quarter to a section.

How many hunters do you think could hunt there? Would it be better for the small towns in the area if the grasslands were managed for wildlife or not?

Just some things I think about drving across the prairie.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

My only speculation on this is that for the most part, the grasslands are native prairie and managed for native prairie habitat. It is also a location for the Prairie Fringed Orchid which it is also managed for and an endangered plant. There is less than 1% of the world left in native prairie. Tearing it up for food plots just for pheasants, leaves less native prairie for the Baird Sparrow (endangered species list) Prairie Chicken, sharptail grouse, and a whole list of other birds which only nest in native prairie habitat along with insects (both good and bad insects) that rely on native prairie habitat as well.

I am guessing that has something to do with why they don't key in on managing it for pheasants. I am guessing if the pheasants are there, managers don't mind, but they probably won't manage specifically for it.

IMHO. Hopefully a few others can chime in. I was down there about 6 years ago, so I am going off that knowledge. The management plan might be different now.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

> I am thinking food plots on every section, nesting cover and a stock dam on every section


Thinking like a pay-to-hunt outfit in other words.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Ummmm......

The grasslands are managed for wildlife now, or at least managed to have the best impact on the prairie eecosuystem that they can while still allowing grazing.

Wildlife does not always equal only whitetail deer and pheasants.

There are a whole suite of native plants and animals that lived here and utilized this ecosystem before farming and definately before pheasants. Why would you remove them in the name of enhancing a parasitic, introduced, invasive species????

By the way, I love to hunt them too, more than anything else, hence I checked on the forum here.

Tom


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

I don't disagree with what is said except "it is being managed for wildlife now". I have not followed it closely, but my impression is the "cattle industry" has a significant voice. I don't think pheasants would be worse than cows and I think they would generate a lot more revenue for everyone except a few privileged lease holders.

Also, how about managing the stock dams for fishing?


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Agreed,

the Ft Pierre NT Grasslands is the only unit in the country that is managed with wildlife as the PRIMARY GOAL. But I can guarantee you that every rancher on the CHeyenne thinksthe wildife is in fact all the USDA cares about. It could be managed at a much higher level for wildlife, but it would involve major changes in grazing patterns and goals.

No offense, but who gives a rip about revenue. Some things are worth preserving for what is important 70 years from now, not just for a hoot of a hunt next year, or a couple of Eurasion water bass for a few more.


----------



## Scott Schuchard (Nov 23, 2002)

i say leave them alone i wish we had more of the Natural Grasslands in ND


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Problem is Cinder is that pheasants don't graze native prairie grasslands. What people often think is that seeing a cow (or a buffalo for that matter) on a piece of ground is a bad thing. Actually if managed right, it is a good thing.

These natives grasses and forbs were here long before us. And they got eaten on by everything including mule deer and elk, but mostly by buffalo. When buffalo didn't come along and the native grasses and forbs got too abundant, we had wildfires. Between the two it helped manage these lands. Problem back then, there wasn't anyone around to stop the fires or to move the buffalo, so our range conditions were actually much worse than they are today (with the exception of the small percentage of farmers who overgraze their pastures).

So it seems cows have taken the presidence over the grasslands when in reality they are our easiest means of maintaining healthy native plants.

The native plants need some sort of utilization on them whether grazed or by fire. These plants have been adapted to grazing and fire for years and actually don't do well when those kinds of things aren't manipulated on them.

I like prescribed burns myself, but we kill nests when we do that in the spring when cows will just eat around the nest even while the hen sits there. They compliment each other very nicely.....unless of course we overgraze. Plus those cows deter predators.

The Lewis and Clark Journals are a great resouce on how bad our prairie systems looked way back then. Not at all like the movie Dances with Wolves.

Anyway. There is range management 101 for you. Just figured maybe you thought the cows were a bad thing. They can be bad if allowed to graze an area too long, but managed right, we will have more wildlife with them than without them.

Taker easy fellas and have a great weekend.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

OK - forget the pheasants, but I do vote for getting rid of the cows and managing them like the Ft Pierre grasslands. Also, the Mooreton Pond seems to provide lots of recreation and I think the Grasslands could handle 20 or 30 ponds similar to it.

We could probably get Mule Deer in the area too.


----------

