Sportsman, are you aware of noxious weeds that can limit habitat in wetlands for wildlife. In the last 10 years, the state of North Dakota has had two noxious weeds move into our wetlands. They both can have devastating effects if not properly controlled. They are purple loosestrife and saltcedar.

Purple loosestrife has been in the state for a number of years as an ornamental plant. It is loved by gardeners across the country. What has happened is that the cultivars, the sterile variety, have crossed with wild variety. This plant is quite capable of replacing cattails and other vegetation on the waters edge of cattail swamps. And when it gets out of control, ducks will avoid areas infested with purple loosestrife

Purple loosestrife is a perennial forb introduced to North America from Eurasia and Africa. Wild infestations are associated with moist or marshy sites. The stems are erect (1.5 to 8 or more feet tall); four to six angled, and can be smooth or pubescent with few branches. Leaves are simple (0.75 to 4 inches long, 0.2 to 0.5 inches wide), entire, and can be opposite or whorled.

The most identifiable characteristic of purple loosestrife is the striking rose to purple colored flowers (Figure 4). The flowers are arranged on a spike, which can be a few inches to 3 feet long. The plant usually flowers from early July to mid-September in North Dakota.

The spread of purple loosestrife is primarily by seed, but the plant can also spread by vegetation from stem cuttings. Research at NDSU has shown that seed viability of purple loosestrife growing in North Dakota wetlands ranged from 50 to 100 percent. With approximately 2.7 million seeds produced per plant, purple loosestrife has the potential to spread rapidly once established in an area.

Saltcedar is the other invader that is causing devastating effects. Saltcedar can quickly become a monoculture along lakes and waterways. A single plant has been reported to transpire over 200 gallons of water per day. In the early morning and evening, moisture with high salt content is exuded from the foliage, causing the soil to become saline. Saltcedar can choke waterways and has even dried up entire lakes (Figure 4). Native riparian species are quickly displaced by saltcedar, which in turn causes displacement of native birds and animals that generally do not feed on the leaves or eat the saltcedar seeds. Saltcedar, even in the seedling stage, will tolerate short-term flooding and can establish away from waterways when seeds are washed in during flooding. Once established the plants can become so thick cattle will not graze the area.

Saltcedar, or tamarisk, is a shrubby bush or tree that can range in size from 5 to 20 feet tall (Figure 1). The bark is reddish brown, especially on younger branches. The leaves are small and flat and resemble evergreen shrubs such as arborvitae (Figure 2). Flowers are pink to white in color, five-petaled, and appear from mid to late summer. The seeds are extremely tiny and similar in size and color to pepper. Each seed has a pappus, which allows it to float long distances in water or move in the wind. Seeds are short-lived and usually germinate within a few months after dispersal.

Both of these plants are still found in flower gardens because gardeners do not seem to see the potential. You can help by removing any you have and ask your neighbor to do the same.

Because of their potential to invade lands that you use, we need your help in identifying any plants found. Even if you are not positive on the ID, please call one of the numbers listed below.

ND Dept. of Ag, Noxious Weed Division:

Toll free Toll-free: 1-800-242-7535

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)

Introduction

Migrating Snow Geese

Migratory waterfowl have traveled the North American continent for thousands of years. They have awed many who have seen their great winged migrations. Waterfowl inspire many to watch them, hunt them, and study them intensely. As a resource, waterfowl and other birds generate nearly $20 billion in economic activity and create more than 234,000 jobs in the U.S. alone (Ducks Unlimited, 2004). However, over the past century, waterfowl numbers have declined to alarming lows. The primary culprit in the decline, as with most wildlife population declines, is habitat loss. Aggressive agricultural practices and policy during the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a drastic loss of wetlands. In 1986 the United States and Canadian governments took action to reverse the decline with the signing of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). The Plan is a 15 year $1.5 billion agreement with the goal to restore waterfowl populations to 1970s levels through habitat conservation and restoration. The Plan is innovative in that it calls for the formation of partnerships, known as joint ventures, between government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to achieve its goals. This paper will describe the conditions that led to the formation of the Plan, a summary of the Plan, the uniqueness of the partnerships formed through the Plan, and an overview of one of the joint ventures, the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture.
Conditions Leading Up to the Formation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The early 1970s are used as a benchmark to measure waterfowl populations. Populations of some species were near all-time highs. However, within a decade, waterfowl populations would plummet to near all-time lows. Dramatic habitat losses coupled with a long-term drought on the Great Plains were the primary causes of such declines. Losses of habitat and their associated wildlife not only impact the environment but also carry an economic impact as well. Activities related to wetland habitat and wildlife, such as hunting and bird watching, generate billions of dollars in economic activity every year.

A lot of wetlands are being burned off this spring like this one in S. Barnes County

Wetlands are among the most biologically diverse and productive environments in nature. However, many also see them as a nuisance and an impediment to development and agriculture. Wetlands have been drained in North America for urbanization, industry, and agriculture. The loss of wetlands to agriculture accelerated rapidly in the 1970s when United States agricultural policy shifted to dominate the world’s grain markets. Produces were encouraged to farm from “fencerow to fencerow.” Land that had not previously been in production fell under the plow. Of the estimated 221 million acres of wetlands originally in the lower 48 states, only 104 million acres remain, an aggregate loss of over 53 percent (Dahl, 1990). Iowa has lost over 89 percent of it wetlands, California 91 percent (Gerlach, 1995). With the exception of New Hampshire, Alaska, and Hawaii, no state has lost less than 20 percent of its original wetlands (Dahl, 1990).

Canada’s wetlands did not fare much better. Since settlement, 65 percent of Atlantic tidal and salt marshes, 70 percent of the lower Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River shoreline marshes and swamps, up to 71 percent of prairie potholes and sloughs, and 80 percent of Pacific coast estuarine wetlands are estimated to have been converted to other uses (Wetlands International, 1996)

Waterfowl depend on wetlands and their upland habitats for breeding, migrating, and wintering. Waterfowl managers in the US and Canada recognized that the recovery and perpetuation of waterfowl populations depends on the long-term protection, restoration, and management of habitat on an ecosystem basis (NAWMP, 1986). To accomplish these goals on a continent-wide scale called for an ambitious, comprehensive, and revolutionary plan. The led to the creation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which was signed in 1986 by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the Canadian Minister of the Environment.
Summary of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was established in 1986 to protect waterfowl in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It is rooted in the earlier understandings stemming from the 1916 Convention for the Protection Migratory Birds signed by the United States and England, on Canada’s behalf, and by subsequent treaties with Mexico and other countries in 1936 (Gerlach, 1995). The Plan focuses on habitat management from the breeding grounds in Canada and the northern Great Plains, through the migration routes within the United States, and to the wintering grounds of the southern U.S. and Mexico. The habitat to be managed is mainly wetlands, upland nesting cover, and the grasslands along the migratory flyways (Gerlach, 1995). The Plan establishes a fifteen-year framework for international cooperation for wetland restoration and waterfowl population increases (Graziano 1993).

Pheasants are another species that benefits from the NAWMP (photo credit ND Game & Fish)

Although the NAWMP is primarily designed for waterfowl, it also helps many other species by improving and preserving the habitat that supports them. The Plan is not only beneficial to animal and plant life but to human life as well. Benefits of wetland conservation include: floodwater retention, decreased soil erosion, carbon sequestration, improved soil and water quality, and reduced runoff of fertilizers pesticides and other pollutants. The improvement of the quality of human life through recreation and aesthetic benefits are also advantages of the Plan.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan uses specific population and habitat goals as its basis. These objectives are: to secure protection for an additional six million acres of habitat in thirty-four geographic areas, which are the most important breeding, wintering, and staging areas to waterfowl; to restore duck populations to 62 million breeders which would produce a fall flight of 100 million birds, which is similar to 1970s levels; and to achieve specific population levels for geese, swans, and ten principal species of ducks (Graziano, 1993).

The vision of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is not only ambitious, but also costly. The price tag for habitat protection alone is $1.5 billion (Williams, 1999). In order to achieve these lofty and expensive goals, the Plan envisioned regionally based partnerships called “joint ventures.” The joint venture concept calls for cooperation and partnership between all levels of government and private organizations. In reality, the NAWMP is a “partnership of state, federal, provincial, tribal, territorial, and private organizations, all of which are dedicated to protecting and improving migratory bird habitat and restoring duck populations” (Graziano, 1993).

The NAWMP has seen some updates since it was first signed in 1986. In 1988 the U.S., Canada, and Mexico signed the Tripartite Agreement “to develop and design conservation strategies for migratory birds that might lead to a coordinated management plan between the three countries” (NAWMP Update, 1994). The vision of the Tripartite Agreement was realized when the North American Waterfowl Management Plan was updated and expanded in 1994 to include Mexico as a signatory and full partner, making it truly continental in scope (Williams, 1999). In 1998 the Plan was updated again, reaffirming the Plan’s strategic focus, emphasizing its biological foundations, and advocating a vision for conservation through planning, implementation, and assessment in an adaptive approach to waterfowl conservation (Williams, 1999). The 1998 update calls for improvements in habitat monitoring and better understanding of the relationships between habitats and populations.
The Joint Venture Concept: A Partnership Approach

The fact that the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is such an ambitious undertaking, encompasses such an international scope, carries such a hefty price tag, and ranges across regionally and geographically different areas requires a different and unique approach to obtaining its management goals. The Plan acknowledges that the efforts to achieve waterfowl population objectives go far beyond the capability of government wildlife agencies and require and unprecedented partnership with public and private organizations from a wide range of society (NAWMP, 1987).

The Plan identifies 34 four areas of major concern and, of those, twelve joint ventures began in the U.S. and Canada. These are: the U.S. Prairie Pothole; Central Valley Habitat; Lower Mississippi Valley; Gulf Coast; Atlantic Coast; Lower Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin; Playa Lakes; Upper Mississippi River-Great Lakes Region; Rainwater Basin; Pacific Coast; Canadian Prairie Habitat; and Easter Habitat joint ventures (Graziano, 1993). In addition, two species-based joint ventures, both international in scope, were organized for the black duck and arctic goose (Graziano, 1993).

Partnerships are necessary for the NAWMP to succeed. The joint venture concept’s goals are to: provide funding for the Plan; bring in sufficient personnel and organizational capabilities to accomplish the varied and complex tasks associated with each joint venture; to include the largest possible number of wetland areas, those owned by private landowners; to bring the best available science to the task; and to advance the NAWMP’s intentions through outreach and education (Graziano, 1993).

The partnerships created through the joint ventures help to increase the success and stability of the undertakings because of redundancy in leadership and advocacy. If one partner fails or withdraws, others will be there to keep the project going.

The cost-sharing principle is built into the primary funding source of the NAWMP, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). The NAWCA, passed in 1989, states that each congressionally appropriated dollar must be matched by one non-federal dollar (Graziano, 1993). These non-federal funds come from non-governmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited. While the NWACA requires a 1:1 dollar match, that ratio is often exceeded as joint venture partners contribute more than what is required in the statute. What is particularly new and exciting about the NAWMP is the amount of corporate funding. The largest corporate contribution to date is $3 million from Dow Chemical Company (Graziano, 1993).

Joint venture partnerships are also essential to the NAWMP because they provide diversity in expertise and capability that is not available through one organization or agency. One group can provide technical expertise in wetlands restoration, while another can raise funds, another in lobbying efforts, while yet another can provide outreach and education to landowners.

Partnerships with Private Conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited not only have been important in securing funding and organizing the logistics of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, but they also play an important role in outreach and education. Many of these conservation groups also have in-house communications teams that produce high-quality publications that are sent to supporters and those interested in the NAWMP in the United States, Canada, and Mexico (Graziano, 1993). These publications educate about the successes and goals of the various joint venture projects and help in advancing the mission and gaining support for the NAWMP.
International Partnerships in Action: The Prairie Pothole Joint Venture

The heart of the Prairie Pothole Region in ND

To further examine the international aspects of the NAWMP we shall take a closer look at one of the original joint ventures from the 1986 version, the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV). The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) stretches between the United States and Canada. It is found in the northern Great Plains of the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, Montana, and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. This ecosystem is significant in that it is mainly grasslands with millions of lakes, ponds, and marshes. It is also very fragile and degraded as the most productive habitats are the small temporary and seasonal wetlands that are very susceptible to drought and the farmer’s plow. The PPR is the most important waterfowl producing regions on the continent, producing almost half of the ducks in North America (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989).

The goals of the 1986 version of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture call for the permanent protection and improvement of 1.1 million acres and the short-term protection of an additional 5 million acres of habitat on private land through the use short-term conservation easements with private landowners (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). Other targets of the 1986 PPJV include: managing existing land to increase waterfowl production and other wildlife and wetland issues; develop and sustain habitat on private land; develop a communication and education program that will inform and educate private landowners and targeted audiences about the multiple values of wetlands; protect additional habitat using fee title acquisition and perpetual easements; and to strengthen and enforce Federal and State laws and regulations concerning wetlands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989).

The plan to finance 1986 Prairie Pothole Joint Venture called for 25 percent of the funding to come from Canadian interests and the remaining to come from U.S. interests. The Plan notes, however, that “this should not be construed as a commitment of the United States to finance activities in Canada” (NAWMP, 1987). The shared cost of the plan was estimated to be $37 million per year for the first 15 years and were to be shared by Federal, State, local, and Provincial agencies, private organizations, and individuals dedicated to achieving the objectives of the PPJV (U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Update, 1995).

In order to undertake a project of such magnitude, potential issues with partners, landowners, and the public needed to be addressed. The PPJV calls for exploration of these issues: to build a spirit of cooperation and trust between partners; to change existing waterfowl management policy from habitat management on public land to management on both public and private lands; to find funding for the non-traditional approaches of paying landowners for wildlife conservation; to build trust between landowners and wildlife agencies; and to change public attitudes about wildlife management and find a balance with agricultural economics (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989).

The future of conservation lies with the landowners

Perhaps the most difficult issues to address are the attitudes and concerns of the farmers and landowners. Their livelihood depends on the land and they tend not to like being told what to do by government agencies. However, in order to attain the goals of the PPJV, private landowners must be included as they hold the greatest portion of land required for protection. Their concerns must be addressed and attitudes changed. The primary means of appeasing and compensating landowners is through the use conservation easements from programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program, Swampbuster, and to reimburse landowners for crop degradation from increased waterfowl populations.

The importance of the PPJV was reaffirmed with the 1994 update of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and its importance was recognized in the update in the following statement: “The highest priority continues to be the mid-continent prairie breeding grounds in the United States and Canada” (U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Update, 1995). The PPJV partners had raised nearly $140 million and protected 1.9 million acres of habitat in the first seven years of the project. This is especially significant in that this work was accomplished in a sparsely populated region lacking financial resources.

As partners in the PPJV continue to work to achieve their goals, they must continue to form new partnerships to maintain their funding and momentum. Agricultural interests are beginning to recognize the importance of the PPJV and have begun providing direct support for habitat projects. The enhancement of soil and water quality through wetland restoration benefits those who usually oppose such programs. Winning the support of the agricultural sector is an indicator of the Plan’s success and outreach.
A Look Ahead

The NAWMP’s future was secured with the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act as part of the 2002 Farm Bill. The Bill provides $40 billion in funding over ten years to reauthorize the NWACA partnership programs, enhance fish and wildlife partnership programs, and to develop new, cooperative conservation programs (The White House, 2004). The success of the unique partnerships formed through the joint venture concept has not only imitated by other programs, but has also insured that the NAWMP will be a reality for the next decade.

Bibliography
Dahl, T.E. Wetland Losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC. 1990.

Ducks Unlimited. Waterfowl Fact Sheet. http://www.ducks.org/about/faq/faq_conservation.asp#Impact. 2004.

Gerlach, Luther. “Innovations in Cooperation: North American Waterfowl Management Plan.”

Water Quality/Quantity Management and Conflict Resolution: Institutions, Processes,
and Economic Analyses. Ed. Ariel Dinar and Edna Loehman. London: Praeger, 1995.
337-353.

Graziano, Angela. “Preserving Wildlife Habitat: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.” Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships. Ed. Eve Endicott. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993. 85-103.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). A Strategy for Cooperation. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. 1986.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Update (NAWMP Update). Expanding the
Commitmnent. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. Mexico. Secretaría de Desarrollo Social. 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan: A Component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 1989.

U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. U.S. Prairie Pothole Joint Venture Implementation Plan Update . U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. 1995.

Wetlands International. A Global Overview of Wetland Loss and Degradation.
http://www.ramsar.org/about_wetland_loss.htm. 1994

Willams, Byron. “Evaluation of Waterfowl Conservation Under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.” Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 63. No. 2. 1999. 417-436.

The White House. Fact Sheet: President Announces Wetlands Initiative on Earth Day.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040422-1.html. 2004

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)
• The Realities of Winterkill (1)

The Prairie Pothole Region of North Dakota

A recent rainy spell has rekindled somewhat the time-worn debate over the value of wetlands, small ones in particular.

North Dakota has hunreds of thousands of these small, shallow wetlands. They’re often called temporary wetlands because they typically only hold water for a few weeks after spring snow melt, or after heavy summer rains like we had a couple of weeks ago. Most of the year, because of evaporation and water absorption into the ground, they are dry.

North Dakota also has a lot of larger, deeper wetlands that usually hold water year-round. While the state once had an estimated 5 million acres of wetlands, and today only about 2 million acres remain, North Dakota’s combination of wetlands is still part of the best waterfowl production habitat in North America.

It’s widely known that wetlands and waterfowl are closely tied, but wetlands have other benefits, and one of them is the capacity to hold water and keep it from running into river systems. That benefit is on my mind as I write this, as the same rain that is pounding my roof and cycling my sump pump is also creating localized flood conditions.

Other Wetland Benefits

Waterfowl rely heavily on a temporary wetland such as this one

It’s not that the restoration of North Dakota’s 3 million acres of altered wetlands would prevent flooding, especially in my urban neighborhood, where concrete, asphalt and rooftops all serve to shuttle water to the lowest point much more quickly than if the area was still a grass prairie.

In fact, look at all the square miles of concrete in any of the state’s larger cities, and you can easily understand how quickly water from a heavy rain moves from parking lots and driveways to city streets to storm sewers to the local river. Before the growth of our cities, that water would either have soaked into the ground, or run off naturally in much reduced volume.

Now, I’m not advocating turning back the clock to an earlier, more pristine time. We live here, and to do that, we’ve changed a lot of things. And because we’ve changed things, we sometimes have to tolerate the consequences.

Out in the country, the amount of water a small one-half-acre wetland can hold won’t save a town from a devastating flood. But when thousands of those small wetlands are breached, and the water runs out via ditches and channels and eventually winds up in a large lake or river system, it can add significantly to a flood that is occurring naturally.

When it comes to high water over large areas, even a few inches of extra water can mean a dike breached or homes flooded that would not otherwise have occurred.

Providing Cleaner Water and Habitat

Water can accumulate quickly in a wetland, but it takes awhile for it to recede. As the water slowly percolates down through the wetland bed, it is naturally filtered and becomes part of the regions aquifer. Vegetation growing in wetlands also helps filter chemicals and fertilizers out of water, rather than that water running off and into our river and lake systems.

Value to Waterfowl

Blue Wing Teal brood

I’ve had many people – some of them avid duck hunters – ask me about the real value of those small wetlands for ducks. Honestly, you can see a lot of big wetlands out in the country and it’s probably understandable to wonder if that isn’t enough.

It’s not, and the truth is those small wetlands are more important for breeding ducks than big lakes. The small shallow wetlands are breeding territories for ducks, and they are also the first water to warm up in spring and provide nutrient-rich aquatic insects that fuel the duck production process. If you’re a duck hunter and are indifferent about small wetlands, that seems a bit of a double standard.

As this column is printed, biologists across the nation are assessing and tabulating duck breeding conditions in North Dakota and elsewhere on the duck production grounds of North America. Heading into last winter, many of North Dakota’s remaining small wetlands were dry. Spring runoff did little to fill them.

Seasonal Wetland

Abundant rain in late May helped start the recharging process, but how much that will help the initial duck nesting process remains to be seen.

But again, the relationship with ducks and other wildlife is only part of the value of those small wetlands. In some parts of the state, every drop of water stored in a wetland is one less drop running into a flooding river or lake.

Fact is, they benefit each of us, and it’s at this time of year those benefits might be most evident.

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)
• The Realities of Winterkill (1)

Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) President Bob Friesen said, “this forward- thinking decision supports the initiative already undertaken by Canada’s farmers under ALUS, to improve the environment for all Canadians.” He added that “ALUS is a win- win situation for producers, rural communities and urban Canadians, who are demanding greater environmental sustainability in their food production”.

David Rolfe, President of Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP), commended the agriculture Ministers for a decision that will allow vital research required to implement EG&S policy to be conducted under ALUS. Rolfe said “ALUS is the first landscape conservation plan to be designed, developed and delivered by farmers, farm organizations and rural communities across Canada.” Rolfe emphasized “at this time, ALUS is a process of discovery, it is imperative to launch the research to test this innovative concept, and make adjustments along the way.” ALUS pilot project proposals have been developed in Manitoba, Ontario and PEI, with more research pilots planned elsewhere.

“Delta Waterfowl has worked every step of the way with KAP, CFA and other leaders in the farm community to develop ALUS,” said Delta President Rob Olson, “as a research and conservation organization, Delta Waterfowl understands the importance of science- based approaches to ensure any new policies actually deliver environmental, social and economic benefits to Canadians.” He said that Delta will continue to work with farmers, governments and universities to help design and deliver research required under ALUS.

Cecilia Olver, Vice President of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan said, “ALUS makes good business sense for the farmer and the environment. This decision is important because it puts conservation in the hands of the farmer, and that is critical because no- one is in a better position to design or deliver conservation benefits from farms, than the farmer. Olver suggested, “this decision recognizes the fact that so much more can be achieved for the environment and wildlife by working with farmers rather than against us.”

Bill Dobson, President of Alberta- based Wild Rose Agricultural Producers lauded the Ministers’ decision to proceed with ALUS research pilots. “Canadians have a great opportunity through ALUS to conserve and manage valuable resources like water supply and quality to the benefit of all,” said Dobson. “We either have too much or too little water,” added Dobson, “and I think ALUS would improve the capacity of the land to mitigate water issues at both ends of the spectrum.”

“ALUS will work for farmers and the environment because it solves problems,” said Bauke Vogelzang, President of the Norfolk Federation of Agriculture in Ontario. “You can’t legislate a healthy environment,” said Vogelzang, “laws are only part of the solution.” Vogelzang believes that rewarding farmers for producing environmental benefits will improve air and water quality, provide more habitat for fish and wildlife, and have a positive impact on the health of Canadians. ALUS is proposed as a stand- alone environmental program, designed to deliver environmental benefits from farms on an audited fee for service basis. “ALUS isn’t an income subsidy,” Vogelzang insisted, “it’s a service we will provide Canadians,” and added, “but it will also help diversify farm incomes and provide a suite of welcome environmental business options for many producers to consider.”

Delta Waterfowl Western Policy Vice President Robert Sopuck said that informal discussions with US trade officials indicate ALUS could be acceptable under WTO rules, and pointed to the popularity of environmental services programs in several countries. “The US Farm Bill and the European Union incorporate many features similar to ALUS in their conservation programs,” said Sopuck.

Mike Nabuurs, Executive Director of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture said, “we are delighted to see the agriculture Ministers move forward with the decision to test the ALUS proposal. ALUS is a major opportunity to achieve viable solutions for farmers and the environment in PEI, and I look forward to continuing to develop the ALUS concept here.”

Source – Delta Waterfowl

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)

We’re building on a generation of hunters who grew up with the Conservation Reserve Program. Just about half of that generation has never known a North Dakota landscape that did not have at least a few fields marked with a triangular yellow Private Land Open to Sportsmen or PLOTS sign encouraging walk-in hunting access.

I’m showing my age, but can it really be more than 20 years since the first acres of CRP were planted and a decade since PLOTS began creating new opportunities for hunters?

Like a lot of programs, CRP and PLOTS started our modestly, went through a period of vigorous growth, leveled off, and now CRP is going the other direction. While something like half of the acres in the PLOTS program are tied to CRP, the Game and Fish Department has been able to maintain its goal of 1 million acres.

At least, that’s where we are at now, headed into the 2008 hunting seasons.

Last year, CRP contracts began expiring on a large scale. In addition, a few hundred landowners canceled newly renewed CRP contracts. Some of these acres were in the PLOTS program, and as the land was prepared in the fall for spring planting, obviously it lost most of its value as a place to hunt. Some hunters wound up at tracts highlighted in the PLOTS guide that were burned, plowed or both.

This was an unfortunate situation in which landowners did pay back any up-front money they had received to enroll the land in PLOTS, but there was no way to let hunters know what was going on after the map guide was printed in mid-August.

This year, much the same thing could happen. North Dakota has about 136,000 CRP acres expiring and any former PLOTS tracts associated with those acres are not highlighted in the 2008 guide. Private land biologists have worked hard to enroll new acres to compensate for those that were not renewed or expired last year or this year.

It is difficult to predict just how much additional conversion will take place. Without digging into all the variables of cropland rental rates, commodity prices and CRP payment rates, some landowners will decide that cancelling a CRP contract makes economic sense.

If that contract involves a PLOTS area, Game and Fish will change the respective map on its website at www.gf.nd.gov. Hunters who want to make sure a PLOTS area highlighted in the guide is still there, should double-check the map on the website.

While we don’t know how much of this will occur, we do know that North Dakota lost more than 400,000 acres of CRP in 2007. In 2008, 2009 and 2010 combined, another 670,000 acres will expire.

Let’s pull out numbers from just one county as an example. Burleigh County, home to Bismarck, is located in the south central part of the state, and over the last decade has provided good pheasant, waterfowl and deer hunting.

However, Burleigh County lost nearly 32,000 acres of CRP in 2007. That’s more than 39 square miles, or more than a township of CRP gone from the landscape.

In the last year, much has been written about the loss of wildlife habitat associated with expiring CRP. Certainly, over the next few years, pheasant, deer and waterfowl populations will suffer because of this loss.

In addition, whether CRP is in the PLOTS program or not, it provides a place for people to hunt. At present, that loss of a hunting place is probably more noticeable than lower pheasant numbers.

With less CRP, pheasants and deer will move to nearby acres where there is habitat. So will hunters, creating more competition for space on public and private land.

That’s not to say overall hunting in North Dakota won’t be good this year. While pheasant and duck numbers will be down some, they are still riding a high. It’s important for hunters to understand the changes occurring on the landscape, and to adjust expectations accordingly.

Related Articles

• The Importance of the CRP Program (0)
• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Youth Pheasant Hunting (1)
• Wiley Winter Roosters (0)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)

It’s no secret that Conservation Reserve Program acreage continues to decline in North Dakota. This is not a surprising development, as for many years agencies and conservation organizations have been pointing toward economic factors that could potentially influence landowner interest in CRP.

The reality of the situation in 2008 is that accelerated CRP loss will impact North Dakota wildlife and conservation, reversing some of the benefits created over the last two decades. First implemented in 1986, the CRP has been protecting highly erodible land, and at the same time, these permanent grass stands have providing nesting habitat for pheasants and ducks and a home for everything from deer to songbirds.

The first wave of CRP contracts to expire came early last fall. By the time pheasant season opened, hunters were encountering a few quarters or sections that in years past had provided a great pheasant hunt or an afternoon of deer hunting, that were in various stages of conversion back to cropland.

By the end of December, more than 400,000 acres were readied for crop planting this spring.

More of this is expected in 2008, though the number of contracted acres scheduled to expire on Sept. 30 is less than 2007. In coming years, unless there is a change in national farm legislation, this occurrence will increase.

The latest projections indicate North Dakota will possibly lose 60 percent of its CRP acres between 2007 and 2012, moving us from about 3.4 million acres down to around 1.4 million acres. Some counties such as Stutsman, Burleigh, Emmons and Williams may find 70 percent or more of existing CRP acres no longer in the program.

While there is a lot of national and even international discussion over the economic and political factors that may or may not be influencing the Conservation Reserve Program, my role is to focus on what might happen if all the predictions hold true.

In the short term, we likely won’t lose all our pheasants overnight, unless we get a winter on par with 1996-97 winter blast. Habitat conversion will, however, increase the competition for space for existing wildlife, and for hunters as well. Less space for roughly the same number of birds could even mean a short-lived bump in hunter success – kind of like recent high walleye catches on Lake Sakakawea as the water level has gone down.
Such a scenario won’t last long, though. In the long term we’ll see pheasant numbers decline. The greatest value of CRP for pheasants is as nesting and brood-rearing cover. Without it, the carrying capacity of any given landscape is reduced. Potential for population recovery after a severe winter would be greatly reduced.

And in similar fashion, less CRP will impact many other species, from ground-nesting ducks to songbirds and deer. At the same time, we could see more soil erosion.

The bottom line is, North Dakota is going to have less CRP, and over the next few years hunters will see more and more visible examples of what this means in terms of hunting acres available and long term wildlife populations. What happens on the economic and political scene over the next couple of years will have a great influence on where that bottom line actually ends up.

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)

It’s July but I’m thinking of fall. And with good reason.

Last year’s pheasant harvest was likely higher than in any year since the mid-1940s. The past winter was relatively mild which should have meant fairly good carryover of birds. While abundant rains over much of the state could inhibit nest success and brood survival to some extent, across the board, winter weather, habitat and hatching conditions haven’t shifted too far out of the average ranges.

As we know, that’s just this year. Like most, I feel a bit hesitant going through another fall, almost expecting a hum-dinger of a winter to meet us head on. Let’s just say change is inevitable, and one of the winters we’ll be shoveling more than we’d care to.

One element regarding future fall prospects that is a little more easily gauged than if and when the next Alberta Clipper hits ( I can’t believe I typed those words in June), is the status of the Conservation Reserve Program, a huge component of prairie habitat which is the backbone for much of the fall bounty we’ve experienced.

Kevin Kading, Game and Fish Department private lands section leader, says: “After last year the immediate picture is a little more clear. Much of the state was offered CRP extensions or reenrollments ranging from 2-15 years, but fast forwarding a few years it again becomes a little tougher to gauge.

In 2007, Kading saidy, 84 percent of North Dakota’s CRP acres were accepted for either long-term reenrollments or short-term contract extensions. Over the next three years, however, many of those short-term extended contracts will expire, which would reduce North Dakota’s CRP acres by another 10 percent by 2010.

“A new federal farm bill could result in continued extensions and more reenrollments,” Kading added, “It’s really hard to say, .things could go the other way too and people should be aware that the future of CRP, and how it will look down the road are still undertermined as discussions for the 2007 Farm Bill are just getting underway. ”

Landowner interest and financial considerations drive much of the CRP, and Game and Fish private land programs. Essentially, if the funding incentive for putting or keeping land in CRP doesn’t match, for example, a corn-driven ethanol market, or CRP criteria changes so less land in eligible, we can expect a significant change in our prairie landscape.

Since a good share of the Department’s Private Land Open to Sportsmen program, or PLOTS, is based on CRP acres, Game and Fish biologists haven’t been sitting on their hands waiting to see what happens. Within the wheel of private lands programs are spokes which include the CRP access program.

Game and Fish has $2 million specifically targeted for these programs and we pays $1-$4 per acre in an upfront lump sum to landowners with CRP renrollment or extension agreements. The variation in payments takes into account factors such as whether the land is in the heart of pheasant range, or on the fringe.

“Initially last year we had more than 500 landowners express interest in the program,” Kading saiy, “which resulted in 100,000 new acres coming into the PLOTS program.”

Game and Fish is also working with landowners who opt out of CRP, but still want to keep the land in grass, rather than returning it to cropland. “Maybe they want to graze it, but not break the sod,” Kading said, “so even if the land is not currently enrolled in CRP, but has been before we still have our working lands program we can plug in.”

The PLOTS program is nearing the benchmark of 1 million acres. It’s hard to imagine that a little over a decade ago the PLOTS program was just a concept, but Kading understands there’s still more work ahead.

“We’ll take a step back and look at our programs and results and ask ourselves questions as hunters and biologists,” Kading said. “What’s working? What can we do better? It’s hard to predict how corn and other commodity prices will impact interest in our programs or what changes may come through the farm bill, but we are already looking ahead to see how we can make things better for landowners, wildlife and hunters of North Dakota.”

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)

PLOTS land has opened up upland hunting options statewide

900,000; that’s a big number. In terms of acreage its 5,625 quarter sections of land or about 1,406 full sections of land. 900,000 is also the total number of acres enrolled in the North Dakota Game and Fish Department’s (NDG&F) Private Land Open to Sportsmen Program (PLOTS).

For the past several years, the yellow triangle of the PLOTS program, which marks the corner and edge boundaries of private properties open for hunters to use, has been a welcome sight for resident and visiting hunters who are becoming used to seeing more and more red, black and orange “NO HUNTING” signs. In an era where recreational land purchases, leasing operations, and general disdain for hunting pressure is increasing, the PLOTS program helps provide access to various habitats that hold the game species that outdoorsmen pursue

Through efforts of NDG&F and its agents, the PLOTS program has flourished, adding approximately 100,000 acres to last year’s total. Through the generous contribution of land for a small sum, landowners are what really make the program grow.

While not all PLOTS land consists of rearing grass, cattail sloughs or shelterbelts, most every PLOTS has some sort of food or cover available to wildlife. There are many varieties of land in the program, including the Wetlands Reserve Program – which provides additional incentives to landowners looking to restore, protect and enhance wetlands; and the Working Lands Program – a short-term program based on the wildlife value of lands that are actively farmed or ranched in the state.

For the most part, PLOTS lands are open to walking hunters from September 1 through April 1 of each year. For waterfowl hunters looking to access sloughs on program lands, landowners may grant access via motor vehicle. Green signs below the standard triangle let hunters know when vehicular access is allowed. Similarly, orange “no shooting towards buildings” and “no hunting in unharvested crop” signs help further define the rules of the program.

For many hunters, including myself, PLOTS has been a benefit to nearly every hunting trip taken in North Dakota. Whether hunting somewhere new, or looking for a quick walk after work, the program’s lands are always available. Whether it is ducks and whitetails in the east, or upland and mulies in the west, PLOTS provides hunters with a place to go when they don’t know the local landowners. In this day and age of corporate farming and increasing non-resident land ownership, that is a benefit to all.

These lands must be treated with respect. Hunters are advised to treat every parcel of PLOTS as if it were their own – picking up after themselves and others right down to the last shotgun shell if possible. Respecting the no motor vehicle restriction and aiming shots away from houses and farm buildings is another positive act that all hunters must take in order to continue the goodwill between outdoorsmen, landowners and the NDG&F in this program.

If the owner of the program land lives nearby, it is also a good idea to offer them a thank you before or after the hunt. Without their entrance into one of the many program contracts, PLOTS simply would not exist. PLOTS is a proactive method of ensuring hunting access for all, and without the landowners, NDG&F and ethical sportsmen, the program would not be all that it has become. The program’s future is bright, and the use of PLOTS land, has brightened many trips for me and other hunters in this state with a good walk, plentiful game species, and a bird or two in the bag.

PLOTS guides are available at most license vendors and on the internet at www.gf.nd.gov. Download maps or pick a guide up today to find program lands near you. Whether you pursue ducks, grouse, deer or other species, the PLOTS program provides the opportunity for everyone to enjoy a positive experience…in our outdoors.

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)

Wildlife management is pretty good science, but it is not always an exact science. We do the best we can with the knowledge and research we have, but sometimes, we don’t have all the answers. And sometimes, the answers change based on new research and knowledge.

Such is the case with the historical practice of feeding wildlife – deer, birds and just about everything in between. This practice was once embraced by most wildlife professionals, but over the course of time what was once the standard is now being refined.

The traditional thought process seemed logical. The components needed to sustain wildlife through a harsh Midwest winters haven’t changed. Food, water, shelter and space – not necessarily in that order – are all required to varying degrees, depending on the species and climatic conditions.

For concerned humans, food and water for wildlife were more easily provided, while cover and space were more time consuming and costly and thus not considered as easy or economical to put into practice. In fact, most people felt that providing additional winter food would compensate for a general lack of adequate winter cover and space.

The not so pretty results

Years of artificial feeding provided results. Sure, successes of dozens of roosters and hens pecking at feed during bone-chilling January freezes were proudly reported, but that’s not a complete report. Pheasants and even song birds were found dead with full crops (stomachs). Dead from exposure to snow and cold, even when the feeders were full. Over time it became evident that more than food was needed to keep them alive.

I’ve seen deer gathered around feeders and figured they’d be fine to make it until the spring thaw. But what you don’t see if you’re not watching all the time is that when deer are drawn out of suitable cover and artificially concentrated around corn piles and alfalfa bales, the natural pecking order keeps needed nutrients from young of the year, which can possibly lead to increased mortality.

Just last winter, a neighbor reported a great horned owl lurking near her bird feeder. The predatory bird realized the feeder was drawing in smaller birds and provided a gathering point. The owl conserved energy by simply waiting and watching until an opportune moment, and then with oh-so-quiet owl-like stealth, it imposed a death sentence on many unsuspecting songbirds.

This is a great example of a well-intentioned bird feeder perhaps causing more harm than good, and it helps summarize the current developing theory on feeding: It may be good for an individual or a few animals, but it does little for the overall health of a species.

Congregating species with artificial food sources can even increase the potential for transmission of sickness and disease.

The bottom line, after years of scrutiny and research, is that natural food plots, with suitable winter cover nearby, is best for wildlife management.

Alternative to feeding

So what are the alternatives? If I could paint a picture, it would include those needed habitat components in as natural a setting as possible. For pheasants and big game, picture a couple rows of standing grain adjacent to a shelterbelt and thick CRP type grass cover near cattail sloughs.
Such a setting is much preferred to piles of grain dumped in the middle of a frozen, snow covered fallowed field a long way from any shelter from the numbing winter wind.

In back yards, consider a total landscaping practice involving planted Maxmillian sunflowers, and berry producing plants and vines. An array of wildflowers will draw insects, which will in turn naturally attract song birds and other watchable wildlife during the warm months.

So is the “new” philosophy perfect? Probably not. Is it set in stone? Same answer. However, most scientists and biologists agree that for the welfare of species as a whole, it’s the best recommendation given the research and knowledge we’ve got to work with.

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Realities of Winterkill (1)

A couple pheasants taken on PLOTS land.

North Dakota does not have much public land, compared to our neighbors to the east and west. While Minnesota is about 30 percent public ownership and Montana about 40 percent public, more than 90 percent of North Dakota is privately owned.

So it makes sense that much of our resident wildlife, such as pheasants, grouse and deer, depend on suitable habitat found on private land, and hunters depend on relationships with private landowners for outdoor recreation.

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department’s mission of “protecting, conserving and enhancing fish and wildlife populations and their habitats,” cannot be achieved without directly working with private landowners.

The familiar PLOTS sign

Over the past couple of decades, a Private Land Initiative has evolved within the game and fish department. Within the past several years this project has greatly expanded. Many readers are likely familiar with the triangular yellow signs in the countryside that indicate a Private Land Open to Sportsmen tract. These PLOTS acres are the backbone of the department’s effort to increase habitat, and hunting access, on private land.

The challenge is to provide new and dynamic programs into the future. A new option called the Working Lands Program is now part of the mix and generating considerable interest around the state.

Working Lands were designed to create a niche for landowners who maintain decent wildlife habitat on their land already, but do not want to take large tracts out of production to qualify for one of the other programs. It embraces pasture, crop fields and odd acres, and enrollment is based on points assessed to land use such as wetland and woodland acres, no-till practices and rotational grazing. Location of land in relation to other public hunting opportunities is also important.

Interested landowners can improve chances for eligibility and compensation by implementing other conservation practices. Keep in mind, working lands and all game and fish private land programs are voluntary, and flexible enough to work with most individual landowner needs.

While all private land enrolled in a game and fish program is designated with a yellow sign, the land behind the sign could be part of several distinct options for landowners. These options include:

CRP cost-share: Incentives on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program are up to 50 percent cost-share on cost of seed for establishing cover. Approximately 177,000 acres are open to walk-in hunting access through this program. Additionally an option of agreeing not to graze or hay the tract before the end of the contract may add upto $2 acre per year.

Habitat Plots: These acres include 3-6 year rental or 20-year long-term contracts on cover that provides habitat. Payments are based on soil rental rates. In 2003 about 142,000 acres were enrolled.

Coverlocks for Conservation: An all- encompassing long-term program that includes grass and trees in priority watersheds across the state. This program included 14,500 acres last year.

Native Forest Conservation: Provides payment for maintaining and protecting native woodland habitat on private land. Priority areas include the Pembina Hills and Turtle Mountains. In 2003, 13,500 acres were enrolled. Depending upon landowner objectives, short and long term alternatives are available.

Beginning Farmer: Works with the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust to offer incentives to new farmers who incorporate select conservation measures into their operations.

Wetlands Reserve Program: This U.S. Department of Agriculture program pays landowners for long-term or permanent easements for restoring wetlands. Payments can range up to 90 percent of the appraised land value for 30-year easements; accounted for 2,800 acres in 2003.

Tree Planting Cost-share: Cost share fund incentive for establishing wildlife tree plantings on private land; 2,200 acres in 2003.

Food Plots: Provides annual payments for planting of agricultural crops left for wildlife food during winter; 1,900 acres in 2003.

The PLOTS program is proving to be an effective land restoration program

Add it all up and as of Dec. 31, 2003, game and fish had partially funded 425,000 acres of habitat through PLI incentives. All of this land is also open to walking public access for hunting. While PLI programs in North Dakota will never replace the need for hunters to develop relationships with private landowners, landowner/hunter relations, they do provide options that did not exist 10 years ago – for both landowners and hunters.

As producers begin deliberating their plans for 2004, now is a good time to take a first or second look at how game and fish programs might fit into an operation. These projects continue to evolve, to the benefit of landowners, hunters and wildlife as well.

Related Articles

• “A Career Outdoors? Keep your options open” (1)
• Wildlife and Habitat Management: The Joint Venture Concept of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (0)
• Undue Burden – Interesting Facts About Wolves (0)
• The Value of Temporary Wetlands (0)
• The Truth Behind Feeding Wildlife (0)