controlling predation without killing predators · the rest alone. you’ll be crazier than a...

work, just remove the varmint causing the problem and leavethe rest alone. You’ll be crazier than a sprayed roach if you tryto get them all.

This same way of thinking applies to predator control andsmall game management. You can’t get them all. To do so wouldbe to kill all snakes, fire ants, furbearers, hawks, and owls. Justfor a minute, let’s imagine you’re successful, and you get them all,discreetly. No fines or jail time and you didn’t get your vehicleconfiscated (you do about wet your britches whenever a wildlifeofficer drives by, but you’re not sitting in jail—yet). There will bemore quail and rabbits at first, but only until the rats and locustscatch up and eat up the world you created. When I think aboutsomeone wanting to kill all the predators, I often think of theteachings, when our creator looked at the creation and said it wasgood—every bit of it. I like coyotes and hawks, and seeing a minktrack on a river bank makes my day. I appreciate predators asmuch as I do small game, but the reality is that controlling pre-dation is necessary for small game management. The questionis how to go about it.

If you can’t get them all, and even if you could it might haveunintended consequences, should you just go after some of them?Maybe just Cooper’s hawks if you’re a quail person, but Cooper’shawks and all birds of prey are protected by law with serious penal-ties for violators. For that reason, let’s forget the birds of prey.How about just snakes? Snakes are hard on quail eggs, so that’sa possibility—just go after snakes. How do you go after snakes?You could mow all the weeds and destroy their habitat, but that’swhere quail nest—that wouldn’t be a smart plan. Raccoons areknown egg suckers. They’re easy to trap, and North Carolina hasa season. Maybe you could trap, or get a professional trapper to

I n my old job, I helped landowners with varmint problems.Sometimes it involved just a phone call with advice, some -

times a trip to the property to size things up, set the traps, andthe landowner did the rest, and sometimes I did it all—fromsetting the traps, to running them daily, to fixing the fence tokeep the varmints out—you name it. My kids got a lot of theirschool clothes from trapping money. We jokingly called it pos-sum money.

I learned many lessons from that job. One is not to let yourwife take the 2 a.m. call from the divorcee who wants the trapperto come over right now to get her possum—too much explainingfor the middle of the night. A second is that knowing the crittersand what makes them tick greatly increases your odds of success.A third is that there’s more than one way to skin the cat when itcomes to varmint control.

Some people think the best way to solve every wildlife problemis to start blasting. If you’re lucky, you might get the offendingvarmint with one shot. Congratulations. But if you’re like mostpeople, you never even see the varmint to get a shot, or when youdo, you miss and now you’re after an educated varmint. Or youkill the wrong one. Why kill the raccoon when the bobcat is theproblem? You might learn that for every one you shoot, there’stwo to take its place, and it’s a never-ending deal. And if you evershoot a hawk, and find out the hard way—the wildlife officerway—that what you did was extra illegal, you may give up yardchicken farming all together. We’re talking fines, maybe jail time,confiscation of firearms and vehicles—just a mess.

Most people eventually realize that the best way to protectproperty is to use fencing or barriers of some type, and to adopta live and let live philosophy with nature. When that doesn’t

Published by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

What’s Inside...u Ducking the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

u Benefits of Prescribed Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

u N.C. Longleaf Coalition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

u Game Lands Reach 2 Million Acres . . . . . 10

continued on page 2

By John Wooding, NCWRC Small Game Biologist

Controlling Predation Without Killing PredatorsHabitat Management is Key

Spring 2011 / Volume 16, Issue 1

The Upland Gazette u Spring 2011

SUBSCRIPTION FORM ENCLOSED

2 The Upland Gazette u Spring 2011

help. That’s a possibility. The pelts can be sold, as can the meat.How effective it will be depends on how many are killed and howquickly new ones move in to fill the void. It could be helpfulfor nesting quail, but chances are it won’t make any differencebecause you won’t be able to trap hard enough and over a largeenough area. You’re spinning your wheels if you set a trap ortwo on your 200-acre farm.

If you’re managing for rabbits, you could trap the coyotes.They eat their share. Since coyotes are smart, unless you’re a goodtrapper or willing to learn, it’s best to let a professional trapperhandle it. Otherwise, all you’ll do is give the coyotes a trappinglesson. If you are running a rabbit enclosure, you can effectivelymanage coyote predation with fencing and trap only those thatbeat the fence. Fencing is out of the question for wild rabbits thatlive in the wild, and no one is going to finance coyote trappingat a meaningful scale such as at the county level.

So what can we do? Trapping/shooting has questionable re-sults unless done in a major way, fencing is out of the questionbecause of price and practicality, and hawk/owl control is illegal.Poisoning is also illegal—ask the quail guys in south Georgia ifit’s worth it. They used a poisoned egg to kill the possum thatkilled the bald eagle that ate the poisoned possum—this broughtin all the wildlife officers, state and federal—big penalties, newscoverage, all over a possum. Reality leaves us few options tocontrol predation on small game, except one really good one,which is all we need.

Think about this: we really don’t have to kill the predators;all we have to do is control the predation. Sort of like a farmerprotects his flock from predation by using a fence—it’s notnecessary to kill the predator to stop the predation. It’s not prac-tical to fence out predators in nature, but if we’re skilled landmanagers, we can provide small game with enough hiding placesthat they can stay away from the predator. Cover is sort of likenatural fencing. The predator may circle the hiding places, orfly over, or slither through, but if the cover is dense enough, tallenough, and extensive enough, we have effectively controlledthe predation. Without firing a shot, or setting a trap. Very cool.The best way to control predation on small game is throughhabitat management.

A fundamental of cover management is that more is generallybetter. Too little, and we’ve created a predator food plot—a 15-footwide, weedy ditch bank may lure a female quail in to nest. It willalso attract the snakes and raccoons, and a long narrow cover

strip is easy for a predator to search. In the winter, a narrow coverstrip may lure in a rabbit. A coyote pair can walk the strip atnight, run the rabbit into the field, and share the meal. A widerstrip—maybe 50 feet wide, or if you have the land, 100 yardswide—gives small game the area they need to effectively usetheir natural defenses: camouflage, quietly tiptoeing away, andif need be, a burst of speed—all in the cover. (Or if they run intothe field, they can jump right back into the cover.) Quail thattake flight to escape predators only fly a short distance beforedropping back into cover.

Cover is the key for predator control. If you have the land, givethe quail and rabbits an entire field, managed for their benefitwith waist/chest-high weeds and blackberry patches, with plumthickets scattered about. We’ve all walked fields like this, andwith every step, we expect to jump a rabbit or a covey.

Rabbits perceive brush piles as hutches. You can string outbrush piles around your property, with connecting fairways ofblackberry and wildflowers—maybe a brush pile or two per acre.Rabbits will hide in the brush piles by day and forage by nightin the thickets. A big brush pile is 100 feet long by 30 feet wide(you can cut and pile whole trees to make the pile). Alternatively,you can ring an entire field with brush piles by felling trees awayfrom the field, and let the rabbits forage on the field edge at night.

You can create small game miracles with a little imaginationand creativity, coupled with a good understanding of the critters.Big results take work, land, and equipment. Controlling preda-tion with habitat management is not free, but for the price, it’sthe best deal out there.

Predators and prey have been going at this for eons. Smallgame are prey species, and they are naturally equipped to escapepredators, under the right conditions. The right conditions in-clude cover and sufficient nutrition. Food is the second half ofthe small game management equation. Both are essential. Withproper nutrition, small game are naturally prolific at reproduc-ing, which is another way they counter predation: produce lotsof little ones. They would be extinct if they weren’t prolific andphysically able to elude predators. Cover provides safety, foodprovides strength. Small game management—well done smallgame management—provides the safe world small game needto feed, to rest, and to raise their young. Predators will certainlyget a few—even under the best habitat conditions—but at accept-able levels, leaving plenty for us as well. Habitat management isthe professional’s method to control predation on small game.

continued from page 1

“You can create small game miracles with a littleimagination and creativity, coupled witha good understanding of the critters.”

I n the last 20 years, duck biologists may have spent more timethan any other wildlife managers talking about predator con-

trol. Much of this discussion has arisen from frustration. For mostof the last century, the prairie potholes of the northern prairies havebeen drained of their life blood. The loss of water was obvious;more subtle was the loss of upland cover near the marsh basins,the true nurseries for prairie ducks. The best habitat managementwaterfowl biologists and enthusiasts could muster hardly seemedto stop the bleeding.

Research on nesting hen mallards showed beyond doubt thatpredators were taking a heavy toll. In some parts of the potholecountry, only six percent of the clutches hatched. Losses amonghens were huge.

The research left an important question unanswered: Are theselosses of eggs and nesting ultimately caused by predators or alack of habitat? It was an interesting question, but since therewasn’t nearly enough state, federal, or private conservation moneyaround to replace lost marshes and upland nesting cover, themanagers focused on the predators. When you can’t do whatyou need to do, you do what you can.

So more and more discussions of waterfowl managementfocused on predators, and answers emerged. We identified the

most dangerous duck predators—red foxes,badgers, and ground squirrelswere high on the list. We got abetter grasp of the way differ-ent predator species influenceeach other. We experimented

with nesting islands and electric fences to keep predators awayfrom ducks, and we found out that it was possible to trap enoughred foxes to afford hens some measure of added nesting success.We found out that predator control was expensive, almost asexpensive as habitat work.

And, while we were working on all this, the $18 billion Con-servation Reserve Program came along, followed by a few wetwinters. More hens survived in the Dakotas; more eggs hatched,and North American duck populations in the Dakota prairie tooka hefty jump upward. Across the border in Canada where therewas no government subsidy for retiring land, duck populationshardly moved in spite of the added moisture.

All of which answered the first question: Are duck populationscontrolled by predators or habitat? Habitat seems to be the key.Of course, the habitat fix wasn’t cheap—CRP expenditures inthe Dakotas, Minnesota, and Montana amounted to more than$1 billion. However, that money bought us much more than20 million ducks. It was a salvation for dozens of other wildlifespecies, protected vulnerable topsoil, and may have tweakedgrain prices a little, thanks to the reduction in surpluses.

When the issue of widespread preda-tor control emerges in discussions ofwildlife management, the exam-ple of prairie ducks keeps com-ing back to me. When we can’t dowhat we need to do for wildlife, itseems to me that we ought to backup and try again.

3The Upland Gazette u Spring 2011

Ducking the IssueConservation Reserve Program Favors Habitat Management Over Predator Control

By Chris Madson, Editor, Wyoming Wildlife

As readers will quickly learn, the theme of this issue of the Upland Gazette is that having healthy wildlife populations is all about threethings: habitat, habitat, habitat. This holds true whether you are interested in bobwhite quail and deer in coastal pine woods or songbirdsand bears in the Appalachians. I thought a perspective from across the country from 15 years ago would be interesting.

The following editorial was first published in the June 1996 issue of Wyoming Wildlife by Editor, Chris Madson. The editorialcame at a time when I was working on a N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission-sponsored quail study looking at predation and habitatenhance ment. This work was a cooperative effort between the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, N.C. State University, and theVirginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Though ducks and quail are obviously very different, the points Mr. Madson madein 1996 about ducks were borne out in the results of our quail study a few years later—habitat was critical to any effort to increasebob white numbers. I thought a look back to the 1990s would interest our readers and complement articles in this issue.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the South has never provided the wildlife benefits seen in the Midwest and West—primarily due to the types of cover and management allowed here. This is an issue I encourage our readers to learn more about andone we will attempt to address in future issues. With proper changes to land manage ment regimes, CRP in the South could somedayprovide excellent habitat for bobwhite quail and other declining grassland birds.

I hope you enjoy the article as much as I did – then and now.Mark D. Jones, Supervising Wildlife Biologist


I f you go to a forest opening in earlyspring near twilight in central or east-

ern North Carolina, you might witnessone of the most unique courtship ritualsin the animal kingdom: the mating danceof the male American Woodcock. Thedance begins on the ground with the malewoodcock making a loud “PEEEENT” calland then taking to the air in a verticalspiral flight. On the way up, his wingsmake a distinctive twitter ing sound as airpasses through his first three thin primaryfeathers. The male woodcock circles andrises high into the air, up to several hun-dred feet. When he reaches the apex of hisflight, he returns to the ground in a diving,zig-zag motion, while making a chirpingcall. The ritual is repeated again and againas the male attempts to attract females.

Woodcock are a species of conservationconcern because of rangewide popula-tion declines of 1.1% per year since 1968,largely due to the loss of early-successionalforest habitat and a lack of forest distur-bance events such as timber harvest andfire. As a result of the decline, woodcockare listed as a Species of High Concern bythe U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan anda Game Bird Below Desired Condition bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Woodcock are technically consideredshorebirds, but you will not find themon the beach. They are adapted to life inforests and use their long bills to probe thesoil for earthworms. Woodcock are migra-tory and move between breeding areas inthe northeast and northcentral states towintering areas in the South. Woodcockwintering grounds are found in Louisiana,Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,North Carolina, South Carolina and Vir-ginia. Some woodcock remain in southern

states year-round, including North Car-olina, but most are migratory. Woodcockuse different nocturnal habitat types forroosting and feeding across their winterrange, including pastures in Louisiana,bottomland hardwoods, young pine plan-tations, seed-tree harvests and fallow-oldfields in Georgia, forest openings in Ala-bama, and fallow soybean and abandonedgrass fields in Virginia.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, re-searchers from North Carolina State Uni-versity (NCSU) studied woodcock in HydeCounty near Lake Mattamuskeet in easternNorth Carolina. They observed woodcockfeeding on earthworms in conventionally-tilled soybean fields at night rather than

By Emily B. Blackman, graduate student advised by Christopher S. DePerno,Christopher E. Moorman, and M. Nils Peterson in the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program

at North Carolina State University

An Earthworm Feast in Crop FieldsAmerican Woodcock Select Furrows for Foraging

in nearby disked corn or winter wheatfields. The tillage in the soybean fieldscreated deep furrows that protected wood -cock from winter weather and predators.However, since the original research proj-ect, most farmers have switched to no-tillagricultural practices for soybeans. No-tillplantings have narrower rows than con-ventional tillage and seeds are drilled intofields without disturbing the soil or creat-ing the deep furrows that were importantto woodcock 30 years ago.

During December–March 2008–2009and 2009-2010, NCSU’s Fisheries, Wild -life, and Conservation Biology Programconducted a research project in the samestudy area that was used 30 years ago to

Woodcock (right) are challenging game birds often taken while North Carolina huntersare pursuing bobwhite quail (left). However, the amazing “timberdoodle” is often found inslightly different habitats and is more than worthy of individual attention.

mark d

. jon

es


determine whether the large-scale adop-tion of no-till technology altered wood-cock use of crop fields. We investigatedwhether crop type, earthworm abundance,and field structure affected woodcock useof different fields.

We worked in 72 fields. Main cropsincluded no-till soybean planted aftercorn, no-till soybean planted after wheat,winter wheat, disked corn, and undiskedcorn with mowed standing stalks. Farm-ers in the area rotated their crops everyyear, switching between soybeans andcorn or among soybeans, corn, and win-ter wheat. No-till soybean fields plantedafter corn have furrows left from the pre-vious corn crop, whereas no-till soybeanfields planted after wheat are flat due todisking before wheat is planted. Similarly,undisked corn fields have furrows, whiledisked corn fields do not.

To evaluate nocturnal woodcock fielduse, we looked for woodcock in fieldsfrom dusk until around midnight, whenthey were likely to be out searching forearthworms. Because we wanted to com-pare earthworm abundance in our fieldsto determine which crop types offeredthe best feeding opportunities, we alsodug for earthworms in fields at the sametime of night when woodcock were likelyto be out foraging. Working with wildlifeat night is always a challenge, especiallywhen the study species is well camou -flaged. Woodcock plumage blends in per-fectly with debris and soil in crop fields.Luckily, woodcock have very large eyesthat shine brightly when illuminated bya head lamp. We spotted woodcock in ourcrop fields by using headlamps and care-fully searching for orange or red eye shinein the distance. Another research chal-lenge for our team was that woodcock arepicky about when they use crop fields.They typically stay in nearby forests whenthere is a full moon or when nights aretoo dry, cold or windy.

So, what were the results?We observed more woodcock in no-tillsoybean fields planted after corn and

undisked corn fields with mowed stand-ing stalks than in other crop types. Re-member, no-till soybean fields plantedafter corn and undisked corn fields werethe two crop types in our study area thathad furrows. So, although conventional-tilled soybean’s deep furrows have beenreplaced by no-till agriculture, woodcock

still found shelter from weather andpredators in no-till soybean fields that re-tained furrows from the previous corncrop and in corn fields that remainundisked over the winter.

Also, no-till soybean fields provided anabundance of earthworms. On average,we collected more earthworms in no-tillsoybean fields than in other crop types,probably because of the lack of soil dis-turbance in no-till fields. Tillage nega-tively impacts earthworm communitiesby exposing individuals to predation,and altering soil moisture and organicmatter content. No-till technology bene -fits earthworms and is considered to beenvironmentally friendly because of reduc-tions in soil and wind erosion and sur-face water run off. Additionally, other re-searchers have reported significant benefitsto wildlife from no-till agriculture, espe-cially increased crop residue on the soilsurface that provides quality cover, nest-ing, and food resources.

Today, in eastern North Carolina,undisked corn fields offer woodcock ther-mal protection and concealment from

predators, and no-till soybean fieldsplanted after corn offer high food abun-dance and concealment to winteringwoodcock. However, woodcock requireforest habitat close to the crop fields toprovide daytime shelter and a safe placeon nights when field conditions are unfa-vorable. Woodcock likely spend most of

their time in forests and only move to cropfields occasionally to feed at night. There -fore, to provide habitat for wintering wood -cock, it is important to conserve forestsin agricultural landscapes.

How can farmers help?To create nocturnal habitat for woodcockin tilled corn fields, farmers can leave fur-rows intact over the winter; if field disk-ing is necessary, it should be delayed untilspring. By not disking, farm ers can savetime and fuel and labor costs. In the nextplanting season, soybeans can be drilledinto the existing corn and the crop furrowsretained into the next winter. In fieldsnot in corn production, farmers can tillin the spring to create ridges and furrowsto improve crop drainage and soil warm-ing. The beds can be used for multipleseasons and crops can be rotated with notillage required until the beds need to bere-created. Improving woodcock winterfeeding areas may increase woodcock win-ter survival, allowing them to return totheir breeding grounds in good conditionfor their spring courtship dances.

“Woodcock are a species of conservation concern because of rangewide population declines of 1.1% per year since 1968 ... ”


W hat is at risk if burnable land is not maintained? We needa sizable amount of information to answer that question.

Information such as: the location and size of all current burn-able land, and the type of land included (farmland, forest land,private and so forth). We need to discern what characteristicsmake this land burnable, if any of the burnable land has actuallybeen burned and if so, how much and when, and how frequently.What would the land be like if left unburned? What is the valueof the land burned and unburned; and does the size of a burn-able piece of land affect value? Whew! It’s overwhelming andthought provoking.

Assembling a DatabaseTo begin to answer these questions, I would assemble a databaseand generate four maps for North Carolina. The first map onmy list would show the lands historically burned in the stateand the frequency at which they were burned. This is the onemap of my quartet that we actually have. Using various factors

such as topography, historical records, climate, plant communi-ties and soils, Cecil Frost (Ecology Faculty, UNC-Chapel Hill)mapped out the presettlement fire regimes for the southeasternUnited States. His maps indicate that the majority of North Car-olina burned every four to six years. The Sandhills and south-eastern part of the state burned every one to three years. Thereare pockets in the north east and in the mountains that were morelikely to burn every seven to 12 years or greater than 12 years.While the frequencies are fascinating, the fact that most of ourstate’s ecosystems evolved with fire and burned with some reg-ularity up until the early and mid-1900s is no surprise.

The second map would be trickier to generate and would showthe “valuable burnable land” across the state. Now that our stateis heavily developed with roads, highways, industry, agriculture,and homes, we need to look at a current map indicating lands thatare or can be burned and that provide value. Where are the placesthat are large enough and within a suitable landscape that makeburning meaningful? Of course, consistently applying labels suchas value, suitability, and meaningful can be difficult.

The third map would be a more restrictive version of the second.It would show “practical and valuable burnable land.” When wetake into consideration all the limitations to prescribed burningsuch as air quality concerns, effect of smoke near highways andneighborhoods and other high risk areas, it may not be practical orrealistic to expect to burn certain valuable burnable lands. However,I’ll bet this map would still include a fairly large portion of our state.

The last map to consider would depict what is actually beingburned. Unfortunately, our burn database is not complete enoughto adequately address this question. According to the N.C. Divisionof Forest Resources 2010 Forest Assessment, the annual averageacreage prescribed burned for hazard reduction, wildlife, or sil-viculture is 118,779 acres. Most parties involved would agree thatthe number is actually higher, and hopefully in the next few yearsthe information will be more certain. The large landholders whofrequently burn (Department of Defense, N.C. Wildlife ResourcesCommission, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService) know and record what they burn annually. But, mostof the records of day-to-day burning by family forestland own-ers are in a local office of the N.C. Division of Forest Resources.Collecting and compiling that data is a tall order. However, theDivision of Forest Resources is working to develop an onlinedatabase for reporting fires. While this is a step in the right direc-tion, there are still some issues to be addressed. For example,once the request to burn is called into the local Forest Serviceoffice or entered into the forthcoming online data base, thereis currently no way to know if the burn actually happened orwhether it was smaller or larger than planned.

Understanding the Benefits of Prescribed FireWhat Do We Have to Lose?

By John Ann Shearer,

President of the N.C. Prescribed Fire Council and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Using prescribed fire in the Wildland Urban Interface is sometimeschallenging, but has potential applications ranging from landscapingto protection from wildfire.

mark d. jones


Data Analysis and User GroupsThe data in my four-map example would provide us with a com-prehensive view of the geographic distributions of past, current,and future fire activities. This data could be used to prioritizeburn areas, inform the public of trends and potential benefits,and lobby for more burns. There is still work to do in order toanswer questions regarding what is at stake if we are faced withburning fewer and fewer acres. What if we go from several hun-dred thousand acres burned a year to just 100,000 acres or less?What difference will it make? When will the difference becomeapparent? Who will care?

One category of people likely to be concerned with these ques-tions would be those citizens who love the land for its naturalheritage value, aesthetics, wildlife, and recreational opportunities.They will be some of the first to be affected by the loss. After all,we know that the plant and animal species of our state’s ecosystemsevolved with fire and will fade away or at least change with outit. Walks in the woods will not be the same, and productive hunt-ing for many species will likely decrease. How many citizens wouldbe affected by this loss? How much do they care? How powerfulare they? How many actually realize the importance of fire?

People who care about healthy forests will notice a radicalchange. Forests grown for timber products often benefit fromprescribed fire effects. This is especially true for our longleafpine forests. Few forest owners are only interested in the forestas a timber resource. Most owners also care about the valuesof wildlife and recreation described earlier. Forests cover morethan 60 percent of our state. Certainly many people care aboutforests, but to what lengths are they willing to go to protect andmanage healthy forests?

The last group who will care is the largest group of all, butunfortunately by the time they care, it may be too late. These areresidents negatively impacted by wild fires. The fuels that accu-mulate without prescribed fire make wildfires more likely to occur.Unlike prescribed fires, wildfires are not planned and occur with -out consideration for smoke management or air quality. Onlyafter structures are threatened or destroyed is the larger popula-tion aware of the value of prescribed fire, and that awarenesstypically fades as time increases since a wildfire occurred.

Considering these user groups, we could conclude that whatwe lose by burning less is some native wildlife and recreationdependent upon native wildlife, healthy forests and the productsfrom them, and the opportunity for wildfire prevention. We feelthis impact already. Just as one begins to numb from cold grad-ually and becomes unaware of the onset of fatal hypothermia, weare gradually losing the benefits that come from fire-maintainedecosystems. We may or may not be aware of the change, but

none theless our reaction is slow. Land management without fireis a hard enough job. When proper land management calls forprescribed burning as part of the plan, the job gets tougher.

Challenges of Prescribed FireWe know many of the challenges involved in maintaining ourburnable lands. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that North Car-olina will grow in population from more than nine million in 2010to more than 12 million in 2030. Given our current populationand projected growth, many land management activities becomemore difficult to implement. This is especially true of the abilityto conduct pre scribed burns. With our expanded populationcomes air quality and smoke management issues and risks tostructures. Already, North Carolina has the most acres of any state(5.5 million) considered as Wildland Urban Interface. Wild landUrban Interface, or WUI as it is known, is the area where housesand wildland vegetation interface. With greater road density andtraffic counts come greater risks to traffic from smoke. Obtain-ing insurance to conduct prescribed burns can be a nightmare.Few private consultants are willing or able to undergo the rigorand pay the premiums. The N.C. Division of Forest Resourcesconducts prescribed burns on private lands and is also limited,not by insurance but rather by time, money and inspiration.

I realize that I have painted a rather gloomy picture. But onething is for sure, wildlife lovers are eternal optimists. I expect thedeep connections that we developed since we were children shoot-ing doves or rabbits on the back 40 have inspired us to be hope-ful people. Thank goodness for that! So, how do we optimistically,but realistically address this extremely challenging problem?

Local SupportThe N.C. Prescribed Fire Council was formed in 2006 to promoteand advocate for prescribed fire as well as to improve our expert-ise. The Council has identified education as the area of greatestneed and most opportunity for improvement. We cling to thehope that with the public’s greater understanding of the benefitsof prescribed fire, come solutions to maintaining it. The Coun-cil has no regulatory authority, but as a group with conceptualand practical expertise, we can serve as liaisons and educatorspromoting prescribed fire.

Feb. 7-13, 2011 marked the second annual Prescribed FireAware ness Week proclaimed by Governor Bev Perdue. The weekincluded public service radio and TV spots with a message aboutgood fires and good forests. The North Carolina Wild life ResourcesCom mission conducted a prescribed burn in Burke Countythat was featured on Charlotte’s WBTV and written up in theMorganton News Herald. An educational brochure was provided

continued on page 11

The mission of the North Carolina Prescribed Fire Councilis to foster cooperation among all parties in North Carolinawith an interest or stake in prescribed fire. www.ncprescribedfirecouncil.org


A Work in ProgressCollaboration Effort Helps Restore Longleaf Pine Ecosystem

T he recently formed North CarolinaLongleaf Coalition is promoting col-

laborative efforts to restore the longleafpine eco system across its statewide range.Toward that end, the coalition’s steeringcommittee includes multiple state andfederal natural resource and forestry agen-cies, as well as military interests, conser-vation groups, foresters and landownerrepresentatives. This effort builds ondecades of interest in longleaf by thesestakeholders and was, in part, inspiredby a regional campaign known as Amer-ica’s Longleaf Restoration Initiative. Theregional initiative is guided by the first everRangewide Conservation Plan for Long -leaf Pine released in 2009 by a consortiumof agencies, conservation groups and long -leaf professionals from Virginia to Texas.

The Rangewide Plan established anambitious goal of restoring 8 million acresof longleaf, up from some 3.4 million acrestoday, over the next 15 years. That planalso identifies 16 “Significant GeographicAreas” for longleaf across nine states whileproposing a number of strategies and keyactions. Significantly, the ConservationPlan anticipates that on-the-ground im-plementation will be led by “local teams”of interested “longleafers” working at var-ious scales. The North Carolina LongleafCoalition is one of several such “localteams” emerging across the historical rangeof longleaf to lead restoration efforts.

The North Carolina Longleaf Coalitionis a work in progress. Its mission is “pro-moting the maintenance and restorationof North Carolina’s longleaf pine ecosys-tem, including its cultural and economicvalues, by forming a collaborative networkof diverse stakeholders to provide strategicleadership across the historical range whilealso supporting local restoration activities.”Following an organizational meeting inMarch 2010, the steering committee wasformed along with various teams focus-ing on such topics as restoring longleaf

By Susan Miller, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

on public and private lands, communica-tions and education, prescribed fire, eco-nomics of longleaf, and GIS mapping/datamanagement to support the overall effort.Based on the recommendations of theseteams, the coalition will establish morespecific goals and priorities later this spring.Meanwhile, coalition members are work-ing together on such threshold tasks asupdating and mapping the current inven-tory of longleaf.

Much of the longleaf restoration urgedby the coalition will occur on private lands.Fortunately, willing landowners can con-currently manage for forest products, wild -life, and conservation. Coalition partnersalso have made significant support andassistance available to private forestlandowners. For example, the Natural Re-sources Conservation Service (NRCS) setaside $281,000 for landowner assistancein 2010 and that commitment has jumpedto $800,000 in 2011. “Because of the mul-tiple resource values of longleaf, we wantto make sure that land owners interested

in longleaf get the assistance they need,whether to improve the quality of exist-ing longleaf stands through applicationof fire or by establishing new longleaf,”said Matt Flint, a coalition steering com-mittee member and assistant state conser-vationist with NRCS.

The longleaf resource in North Carolinahas dwindled to around 300,000 acres.Increasing its extent and improving eco -system values, including the native under-story where much of the biodiversity exists,is necessarily a long-term proposition. For-tunately, the new coalition is drawing theinterest and support of key stakeholders.The coalition is continuing outreach toconcerned individuals and to local part-nerships, including the Sandhills Con-servation Partnership and the OnslowBight Conservation Forum, to extend itsreach and effectiveness. An upgrade ofits website (www.nclongleaf.org) is alsounderway so that “longleafers” can learnmore about the coalition and get involvedin its activities.

susan miller

Pictured above is a longleaf pine stand in the Sandhills region of North Carolina.


North Carolina Forest ServiceBegins Native Understory Plant Production

Kim Shumate, NCDFR ARRA Longleaf Program CoordinatorJames West, NCDFR Nursery and Tree Improvement Program Head

T he North Carolina Division of Forest Resources’ ClaridgeNursery is helping to regenerate the longleaf pine, a tree of

historic importance and ecological necessity in the Tar HeelState. The longleaf pine, once a vital part of the state’s economyand home to unique wildlife, has been decimated over the yearsstarting with the growth of settlers in the new world and contin-uing to today’s suburban sprawl.

Throughout North Carolina’s history, longleaf pine has playedan important role. Indeed, our state toast proclaims North Car-olina as the “land of the longleaf pine.” In pre-settlement times,longleaf pine dominated most of the coastal plain forest. Earlyexplorers described the forest as a vast, open park-like savannaof long-needled pine over a diverse understory of grasses andforbs. Across the southeast, the longleaf forest once covered morethan 90 million acres, but today it is one of the most threatenedecosystems in North America with less than three percent of theoriginal forests remaining.

With settlement came 200 years of exploitation. Settlers har-vested expansive forests for the superior wood, collected resinfor turpentine, and used pitch and tar on ships. Much of theforestland was converted to farmland and used for free-rangecattle. These free-ranging cattle ate the slow-growing seedlings.In more recent times, longleaf forests have been consumed byurban sprawl or replaced with faster-growing loblolly pine.Fire, which is crucial for the continuation of these lush forests,was excluded with an efficient fire control program. With outfire, other more competitive pines and hardwoods begin to re-place longleaf pine. The culmination of all these factors, alongwith the fact that little was done to regenerate and managelong leaf pine, resulted in only about 300,000 acres remainingin the Tar Heel State.

The mismanagement of longleaf pine throughout history ledto a decline in one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world.The longleaf forest provides excellent habitat for many wildlifespecies and is home to several threatened and endangered species.The early-successional understory layer of legumes and herbs,maintained by periodic fire, produces lots of hard seed thatsupports a diverse wildlife population. Quail, turkey, deer, andnumerous songbirds such as the Bachman’s sparrow, pine war-bler, and bluebirds prefer the open, early-successional habitat.Quail and southeastern fox squirrels are particularly adapted tothe open and grassy habitat of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Many wildlife species need the longleaf pine ecosystem tothrive. Among them are the gopher tortoise in the Gulf Coastregion, the red-cockaded woodpecker (the only woodpecker inthe world to excavate its cavity in living trees), and the north-ern pine snake. The wet savannas and flat woods associated

with longleaf forests contain up to 40 different plant speciesper square meter including many rare plants. Some of theserare plants include the rough-leaf loosestrife and the uniqueinsectivorous plants such as Venus fly-trap and pitcher plants.Of the estimated 1,630 plants found in the southeast, morethan half of them are found only in the longleaf ecosystem.This astonishing biodiversity is second only to a tropical rain-forest. Across the south and here in North Carolina, efforts areunderway to restore this important tree and the plant commu-nities associated with it.

The importance of longleaf pine ecosystems led to a longleafpine initiative throughout the southeast. Building on decades ofinterest in longleaf pine, the North Carolina Longleaf Coalitionwas formed in early 2010 as a local implementation effort inspiredby the launch of America’s Longleaf Initiative. The coalition ismade up of a group of longleaf pine enthusiasts from state andfederal organizations, nonprofits, consulting foresters and land -owners, and academics. This group’s main mission is to work col-laboratively toward the maintenance and restoration of NorthCarolina’s longleaf pine ecosystems.

The launch of this coalition was sparked by a grant for $1.7 mil-lion awarded to North Carolina through the American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA stimulus) to restore long -leaf pine ecosystems. This funding has supported a host of longleafpine restoration efforts, including the expansion of the NorthCarolina Division of Forest Resources Claridge Nursery’s longleafpine seedling and understory species growing capacity. In 2010,four million longleaf pine seedlings were grown and sold, andthe understory species seed production areas were established.Due to the growing demand for longleaf pine, the nursery plansto increase production to eight million seedlings this year. In addi-tion to the tree seedlings, the understory plants are well on theirway. Last season 80,000 seedlings were sold. Demand is on therise, and next season’s crop will be significantly larger. Sales willbegin again on July 1, 2011 for understory plants from bothCoastal and Piedmont seed sources. Species currently beingcultivated include:

• Eastern reedgrass, Calamagrostis cinnoides• Maryland goldenaster, Chrysopsis mariana• Narrowleaf silkgrass, Pityopsis graminifolia• Little bluestem, Schizachyrium scoparium• Texas tickseed, Coreopsis liniofolia• Savannah meadowbeauty, Rhexia alifanus• Cutover muhly, Muhlenbergiia expansa• Shortbeard plumegrass, Saccharrum brevibarbe• Toothache grass, Ctenium aromaticum• Savannah blazingstar, Liatris spicata

continued on back panel


Tract Name Acres County Game Land AcquiredWoodville 383 Bertie Roanoke River Wetlands 2008Jessup Millpond 1,173 Bladen Suggs Mill Pond 2008Elam 72 Caldwell Pisgah 2008Whitehurst 430 Craven Neuse River 2008IP–Chowan River 8,682 Hertford Chowan Swamp 2008Coweeta Creek 48 Macon Needmore 2008Corbett 971 New Hanover Cape Fear River Wetlands 2008Kassab 55 Onslow Stones Creek 2008McCotter 440 Onslow Rocky Run 2008Quattlebaum 105 Polk Green River 2008Odom/McPherson 260 Scotland Sandhills 2008GMS 8,476 Tyrrell Alligator River 2008Myers Lot 0.5 Ashe Three Top Mountain 2009Whitehall Plantation 1,430 Bladen Whitehall Plantation 2009Lutz 650 Caldwell Pisgah 2009Bigelow 5 Caswell R. Wayne Bailey-Caswell 2009Turkey Quarter Island 1,465 Craven Neuse River 2009Little Rose Creek 500 Mitchell Pisgah 2009Odom Prison 1,063 Northampton Roanoke River Wetlands 2009Quaternary 1,443 Onslow Croatan 2009Diggs 1,600 Richmond Pee Dee River 2009Carpenter 688 Scotland Sandhills 2009Wilkes 115 Scotland Sandhills 2009Diaz 1 Ashe Three Top Mountain 2010Miller-Hufnagel 100 Ashe Three Top Mountain 2010Johnson 218 Ashe Pond Mountain 2010Peterson 1 Ashe Three Top Mountain 2010Pond Mountain 1,850 Ashe Pond Mountain 2010Maple Prison 615 Currituck North River 2010Morton 204 Onslow White Oak River 2010King Mountain 190 Randolph Uwharrie 2010City of Hamlet 19 Richmond Sandhills 2010Harmon 238 Richmond/Scotland Sandhills 2010Terry 245 Rutherford South Mountains 2010TOTAL ACREAGE 33,735.5

NCWRC Game Land Program Reaches 2Million AcresBy Isaac Harrold, NCWRC State and Private Lands Section Manager

T hanks primarily to North Carolina’s Clean Water Management and Natural Heritage Trust Funds, along with the support ofnumerous other conservation partners, the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) continues to acquire

land to protect critical wildlife habitats. At the same time, we provide our state’s sportsmen and sportswomen with public oppor-tunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, and other wildlife-related activities.

Since January of 2008, the NCWRC has acquired nearly 34,000 acres of new Game Land properties. This brings the total acreageallocated to NCWRC to approximately 500,000 acres. Combined with 1.5 million acres managed under cooperative agreementswith federal, state, corporate, and private landowners, the agency’s Game Land Program now totals more than 2 million acres, with89 individual Game Lands located in portions of 79 counties.

Below is a table showing additions to the Game Land Program over the last three years. We will highlight specific hunting andfishing opportunities available on some of these Game Lands in future issues of the Upland Gazette.

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Game Land Additions 2008–2010

11

Evergreen Shrubs Threaten Fall Color in Mountains


I didn’t know until last November that mountain laurel andrhododendron are killing our mountain forests. My enlight -

enment came while on a walk in the Linville Gorge area (I waslooking at the acorn crop). From ridge top to creek basin, lau-rel and rhododendron dominated the forest, from ground levelto 15 feet high or so. Laurel was mostly on the sunny side, andrhododendron on the shady side, but they were intermixed inplaces. Their branches intertwined, and the evergreen leaves formeda solid canopy. Mature oaks and other hardwoods stuck throughthe canopy, but hardwood seedlings and saplings were absent.The forest was old hardwoods, many with trunk decay, and lau-rel and rhododendron. That was it. There was no ground cover,and hardwood regeneration was being hampered by the evergreenshrubs. That was the first time I really noticed the impact on ourforests. The trees were dying and not being replaced. Over time,we should start noticing a decrease in fall color, not to mentiona decrease in wildlife and fish. The mountain ecosystem dependson tree leaves as the nutritional base and when the trees go, thewhole system is in trouble. After seeing the situation near Linville,I’ve been on the lookout, and I see the same situation all overthe mountains—it’s not an isolated event.

Mountain laurel and rhododendron have always been a com-ponent of the southern Appalachian forests. As a kid, my favoriteflower was mountain laurel – something about the white flowercup with red stripes. Just pretty. And everyone likes rhododendronblooms; they light up the mountains in summer. The shrubs alsohave value for wildlife, mainly by the thick cover they provide.

By John Wooding, NCWRC Small Game Biologist

The plants are toxic to most herbivores, but ruffed grouse anddeer feed on laurel during hard times and somehow process thetoxins and reap the little nourishment the leaves provide. Theleaves kill goats and cows. Bees that feed heavily on the flowersproduce a honey that some call “mad honey” because of thetoxins that can make you crazy. A house cat or yard dog thatfeeds on discarded grouse remains from a dressed bird that atelaurel leaves can be killed by the toxins.

Until 100 years ago, frequent fires kept the laurel and rhodo-dendron at bay. The mountain ecosystem depended on fire. Firebrought life. Then came Smokey the Bear—the most misguidedbear that ever lived—and we put the fires out and kept them out.Now, we’re seeing the consequences.

Better observers than I have known for years that rhododen-dron is especially bad for forest regeneration. In Britain, an intro-duced rhododendron is taking over large wild areas, and thereis a major effort to control the plant. In Turkey, a native rhodo-dendron is killing beech forests by hampering tree reproduction.

This is just now becoming common knowledge among biol-ogists in the southern Appalachians. I was on the slow side oflearning it—better late than never. As you travel the mountains,and walk the trails, look for yourself. Over the next few years,there will be a greater push to bring fire back to the mountains,in part to control laurel and rhododendron. Again, better late thannever. The end result will be a more healthy forest that will bebetter for wildlife and tourists alike. No one wants to see us loseour fall color—not even Smokey the Misguided Bear.

to legislators, and a prescribed burningworkshop for landowners was held at theMontgomery Community College firetraining center.

What can you do? For starters, join andsupport the N.C. Prescribed Fire Council(www.ncprescribedfirecouncil.org). Youneed not be a natural resource professionalnor have ever conducted a prescribed burn.Work to hold onto large tracts of mean-ingful land, if appropriate, and see that

they are burned. Educate your neigh -bors and friends about the benefits ofprescribed burning. Tell politicians thatyou think maintaining the ability tocon duct burns is important. Take yourchildren or some one else’s children intothe woods and let them learn and experi-ence for themselves the value of our wild -life habitat. The need for and beneficialeffects of prescribed fire will become moreevident with each trip.


Prescribed fire benefits many high priority and declining species such as these loggerhead shrikesphotographed in Craven County on a regularly burned landscape.

becky jones


Division of Wildlife ManagementN.C. Wildlife Resources Commission1722 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-1722

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Presorted StandardU.S. Postage

PAIDRaleigh, NC

Permit No. 244

This publication was printed on recycled paper. 5,500 copies of this

public document were printed at a cost of $2,066.13 or $0.38 per copy.

The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission is an Equal Opportunity Employer, and all wildlife programs are administered for the benefit ofall North Carolina citizens without prejudice toward age, sex, race, religion or national origin. Violations of this pledge may be reportedto the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Equal Employment Officer, Personnel Office, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606. Telephone(919) 707-0101.

Established 1996

The Upland Gazette is published twice a year by the N.C. Wild -life Resources Commission, Division of Wildlife Management.

Executive Director Gordon MyersWildlife Management Chief David Cobb, Ph.D.Communications Director Penny MillerEditor Jill S. BradenAssistant Editor Cay CrossGraphic Designer Carla OsborneSupervising Wildlife Biologist,

Private Lands Program Mark D. Jones

Subscriptions The Upland GazetteDivision of Wildlife Management, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission1722 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-1722

Report hunting violations 1-800-662-7137Seasons for migratory game birds 1-800-675-0263Purchase a license 1-888-248-6834 (2HUNTFISH)Questions and comments welcome.Contact [email protected]

• Wiregrass, Aristida stricta• Roundheaded lespedeza, Lespedeza spicata• Joe-Pye weed, Eupatorium purpureum• Big bluestem, Andropogon gerardii• Rattlesnake master, Eryngium yuccifolium

The understory species are an important consideration when establishing, restoring,or managing longleaf pine forests. Understory plants enhance aesthetics, biodiversity,and wildlife value. Whether you are a novice bird watcher or an avid hunter, thesespecies can bring new levels of enjoyment to your forest while promoting the expan-sion of a declining habitat. Technical and financial assistance for increasing wildlifevalue may be available to you through the North Carolina Natural Resources Conser-vation Service (NRCS), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). See your local NRCS district conser-vationist, NCWRC biologist, NCDFR county forest ranger, or USFWS biologist forinformation on these programs.

Superior longleaf pine understory plants are available for purchase as seeds or asseedlings. Claridge Nursery is more than happy to grow understory plants for yourspecific projects, or you can purchase from existing stock. For more information,contact James West, Nursery and Tree Improvement Program Head or Maxie Maynor,Claridge Nursery Manager with NCDFR at (919) 731-7988.


controlling predation without killing predators · the rest alone. you’ll be crazier than a...

Documents