Potential Plant Species for My Wild Game Meadow

When I came up with my idea for a "Wild Game Meadow" I did so with a few requirements in mind. First of all it would have to contain a large diversity of plant varieties that could provide great nutrition and be highly palatable to multiple game species throughout the year. It also needed to be made up of perennials and self seeding annuals that would be adapted to my local climate and be able to self propagate and compete against weeds so that it would need minimal maintenance and last many years without needing to be reestablished. And finally it would need to be made up of different plants adapted to different ecological niches such as grasses, legumes and broadleaf plants, cool and warm season plants as well as annuals, biennials and perennials. Once all of the niches in a meadow ecosystem were filled then I could reasonably assume that it would be able to keep out the vast majority of undesirable weeds because they would have no place to establish. So as of now,  after months of research, I have compiled a fairly extensive list of different plant species that I think will meet most of these requirements and I am now ready to start testing them on my property. And while I will likely continue searching for new species to include, I feel my list as of now is sufficient to go into the trial stage as I can always add new plant species later on.

Cool Season Perennials:

Cool season perennials are probably the most important types of plants I can establish on my property. This is because these are the types of plants that naturally dominate wild meadows in my area. Being perennial means they will persist for long periods of time and being cool season means they will grow during our wet season which is late fall through early summer. Some species I would like to test out include:

Legumes -

• Alfalfa
• Sainfoin
• White Clover
• Red Clover
• American Vetch
• Crown Vetch
• Cicer Milkvetch
• Palouse Milkvetch
• Utah Sweetvetch

Broadleaf -

• Small Burnet
• Little Sunflower
• Arrowleaf Balsamroot
• Common Camas
• Forage Chicory
• Forage Plantain
• Winterfat
• Forage Kochia
• Sticky Geranium
• Rocky Mountain Penstemon

Grasses -

• Idaho Fescue
• Bluebunch Wheatgrass

× I am deciding to not include common cool season perennial forage grasses (such as Meadow Foxtail, Smooth Brome, Orchardgrass, Timothy and Tall Fescue) because my property and surrounding properties are already dominated by these species, however they may make good recommendations for other properties in other regions depending on a land manager's goals. ×

Warm Season Perennials:

Warm season perennials will likely be of less importance, however they could provide green food during the summer when cool season plants have dried out and gone dormant. In order for warm season perennials to be able to grow in my area they will need to be particularly drought resistant in order to handle weeks without any precipitation during our hot dry summers. Some warm season perennials include:

Legumes -

• Round-headed Bush Clover
• Purple Prairie Clover
• Western Prairie Clover
• Birdsfoot Trefoil

Broadleaf -

• Jerusalem Artichoke
• Lewis' Flax
• Fireweed
• Western Goldenrod
• Missouri Goldenrod
• Perennial Sowthistle
• Cup Plant
• Showy Goldeneye

Cool Season Annuals/Biennials:

Cool season annuals and biennials could be of relative importance as long as they self seed relatively easily. One of the most common weeds in my area is a cool season annual called yellow-star thistle so it would be convenient if I could find some options that could outcompete this species on my property.  Some cool season annual and biennial options include:

Legumes -

• Sweet Clover
• Crimson Clover
• Hare's foot Clover
• Black Medic
• Hairy Vetch

• Balsana Clover

Broadleaf -

• Yellow Salsify
• Purple Salsify
• Forage Radish
• Forage Turnip
• Canola/Rapeseed

Grasses -

• Cereal Rye
• Winter Wheat

Warm Season Annuals/Biennials:

Warm season annuals and Biennials will probably be the least important type of plant for my area. This is because of our very dry summers. Even so, there are a few species that may be viable options.  These include:

Legumes -

• Cowpeas
• Lablab

Broadleaf  -

• Prickly Lettuce
• Lamb's Quarters
• Common Ragweed
• Annual Sowthistle
• Burdock
• Moth Mullein
• Buckwheat
• 
  
Sunflower

These are some of the plants I would like to experiment with on my property.  I do realize there is a high chance that some of these will likely not do well on my property,  however that is one of the main reasons for trying out a large diversity of different species. I believe that through trial and error I will be able to develop a seed mix that will be able to provide a very nutritious forage for multiple game species throughout the year as well as require very little maintenance over time. This is my main goal for my Wild Game Meadow and this idea fits perfectly into the rest of my Hunter's Eden system for creating the ultimate habitat for wild game.

The Case for Ending the Prohibition of Market Hunting

Most people who are aware of the term market hunting will generally connect it to the early days of America when hunting was completely unregulated and took place on unowned land especially in the American west. Back in those days settlers moving west largely wiped out most large game animals mainly for food as well as to sell on the open markets back east. The tragedy of near extinction of game animals like the bison led to strict game laws and banning the sale of wild game meat. I agree that for this time period these laws were probably a good idea that were helpful in protecting the vanishing herds of wildlife across the continent. However, I believe that for modern times i think legalizing the sale of wild game meat could actually help wildlife populations to thrive even more and potentially lead to a massive voluntary restoration of vital wildlife habitat.  I realize that this will be a very controversial idea to both hunters and non-hunters, but I ask that you hear me out and just contemplate what I am about to say.

To me it is all about the incentives. Most of America is made up of private lands, especially the most productive areas that could support high amounts and diversity of wildlife. These lands are used for many different reasons. People manage some to grow forests for wood products while other land is turned to urban lots and housing developments. The single largest private land use in America, however, is agriculture.  

Vast fields of corn, beans and wheat take up huge portions of America. Then there are also the pastures, cattle ranches and rangeland that seem to stretch on forever in areas that are not suitable for crop production. All these areas combined make up the vast majority of the private land in America.  These lands do still contain some wildlife, but these are only very hardy species that are adapted to the constant disturbances of the agricultural system. Species like whitetailed deer and raccoons do ok here, but this is despite the way the land is being managed, not because of it. These lands have the potential to be way more productive and support not only more wildlife numbers, but also a much higher diversity as well. But as it stands now most landowners, have no incentive to provide wildlife habitat.

The majority of landowners today make their money from selling the food that is grown on these properties and many would probably go broke if they tried to manage it just for wildlife. There are some people who make money by selling hunts for deer and other game, but there are only so many hunters willing to purchase this type of opportunity.  Most people would rather buy the food products grown on these lands so that is what most land owners focus on. However, I believe that if private landowners were allowed to sell harvested wild game then that would give them a huge incentive to turn their property into some amazing wildlife habitat. I believe most people, if given the option, would eat wild game more if it was as available as domestic meat sources are today. If one could go to a grocery store and grab a big, free-ranging elk steak off the shelf the same way they can do for beef, I think that would be an intriguing option. I think wild game meat could potentially be a very popular option for a lot of people. Wild game meat would be able to check off a lot of markers that people care about. It can be local, organic, free range, fed a natural diet, hormone free and encourage the restoration of wildlife habitat across the country. The fact is that wild game is a very healthy food and one could argue that this is exactly what humans are designed to eat.

Now some people might be concerned about an idea like this because they might believe it would lead to the decimation of wild game like what has happened in the past. However, if you think about the circumstances around wild game hunting today vs early in this country's history then you will notice some important differences. For example, back in the day hunting was completely unregulated and took place mostly on unowned lands. What this lead to was a common economic effect called "tragedy of the commons". This effect happens when a shared resource is depleted because people have little to no incentive to preserve it. In fact, the incentives are to deplete the resource as quickly as possible because if you don't use it then somebody else will. Today this is prevented from happening on public lands by strict regulations that only allow a predetermined amount of game to be harvested through the distribution of game tags. However on private lands, especially larger tracts, one could theoretically manage and control game populations the way they see fit because of property rights, allowing for the preservation of a renewable resource that can be harvested sustainably without having to worry If someone else will deplete it.

Another reason why market hunting would work much better in modern times is because much of the population has a value of wildlife conservation. Long gone are the days of the pioneer whose main value was to conquer nature instead of preserving it. Today most people would agree that more wildlife would be good for society and good for the earth so these ideas could be sustainable.  People today could encourage private landowners to manage their property for wildlife by buying wild game products and thus create additional acres of needed wildlife habitat, which could lead to more intact and productive ecosystems across the country. The incentives would all be in place. I would probably advocate for the ending of prohibition of market hunting only on private lands as I do believe the incentives wouldn't line up as well on most of the public land in the country. But either way that would open up much of the country to market hunting and could provide a new sustainable food source that could alter land use practices to benefit all wildlife. I believe if we really want to help increase wild game and nongame wildlife populations then people who are non-hunters need to see a direct benefit from intact ecosystems, otherwise hunters will have to carry the burden of conservation largely on their own as they have for the past 100 years or so.

Managing Nonnative Cool-season Perennial Grasses and Other Weeds

Nonnative cool-season perennial grasses are some of the hardest types of plants to get rid of on a property. If your property is made up of mostly old pasture or hayfield then there is a very high chance that you will have to come up with a way to deal with them. When designing a property for wild game getting rid of most of these grasses will likely be a high priority because the vast majority of wildlife will barely utilize them if at all and usually just during a short time of the year. And if you don't manage them they can spread and form a "carpet" of sod that will prevent more desirable plants from growing.

Some species of cool season perennial grasses you may encounter are smooth brome, timothy, meadow foxtail, Kentucky bluegrass, orchardgrass and perennial ryegrass to name a few. But there are many different types you might have on your property. The main problem with these grasses is that they tend to form dense monocultures over time with a thick sod "carpet" and prevent succession to more woody species if left undisturbed. We generally will want some open areas on most properties with meadow type herbaceous vegetation such as annual and perennial plants. It's ok to have some grasses especially if they are more of a bunchgrass instead of a sod forming grass. And a little bit of annual grass is ok too as long as it doesn't outcompete more desirable vegetation.  But in general we will want a high percentage of our open areas to be dominated by a high diversity of beneficial non-grass type plants.

I've been doing a lot of research on the topic of how to get rid of perennial cool season grasses ever since I came up with the idea for my wild game meadow and for the most part there is no magic solution. Every method will have its pros and cons, but hopefully I'll be able to give you some ideas if this is something you find yourself having to deal with on your own property. So let's look at some of the ways to remove this nuisance plant on your property.

Mowing is the first method one could use to get rid of these grasses, but for most it probably would not be the best solution. Perennial grasses are adapted to being grazed over and over again so in order to kill them with this method you will need to cut them basically all the way to the ground or as short as possible and then do this continuously throughout the growing season. This method basically mimics the guy who always cuts his lawn way too low to try and get that golf course look, but ends up with huge dead patches and lots of weeds because most grass species isn't designed to be able to handle that much mowing at that short of height. This method is very time consuming and takes a long time to do. The one upside to this method is that the vast majority of people have access to a weed eater or a lawn mower. It's likely that you will have some dead patches in only a few months of mowing, but it is unlikely you will ever kill all of it especially after just one growing season. That is why I generally don't recommend this method.

The next method is controlled burning.  This method pretty much won't work in the long term because the burn will only kill the aboveground portion of the grass. And unlike mowing once you do one burn and the grass sprouts you won't be able to burn again for at least a few years due to lack of fuel. This method however is pretty good at getting rid of the dead thatch layer and will expose bare soil providing an area where you could plant some seeds if you wanted to just overseed some variety into the existing grass. Alternatively you could burn first and then mow the rest of the season as the new grass started to sprout. Then by the end of the season the grass might be weak enough to where you could overseed some other plants to start growing and outcompete the grass during the fall. Just make sure to always keep safety in mind when doing a controlled burn and always use the help of professionals.

Another method that would be fairly easy for most people would be to buy some very large dark colored tarps or some black plastic that is used in some gardens in order to smother the grass and prevent photosynthesis by shading it out. I've read varying reports and it is said to kill grass in anywhere from 4 weeks to a couple growing seasons. I think it is likely that most would be dead after covering it for one entire growing season. The big downside for this is that it probably would only work efficiently on smaller properties unless you wanted to purchase thousands of dollars of black plastic.

Another, a bit more extreme, idea would be to set up an electric fence and put in some pigs. Pigs love to dig and root up lots of plants where they will eat the roots as well as insects and rodents they find. If you have a lot of pigs or someone who would let you pasture theirs on your property then you could set it up so that you put the pigs where you want them to dig up all the grass and then when that location is all dug up you move the whole pen over to the next section and continue doing this until all the grass has been dug up. This method could be time consuming because you would still have to supplement their diet as well as provide water and shelter so it could be a lot of effort, but could be a very rewarding experience especially if you were already wanting to raise pigs.

The next method is using a tractor and just plowing it up like you would prepare an agricultural field for crops.  This one is pretty straightforward, but in order to do this you would need a tractor and the right attachments, which are generally pretty pricey as in at the very least a few thousand dollars. If, however, you have a very large property this could be the best method because it is definitely the quickest and easiest especially for a large area. Another option would be trying to make a friend who's a farmer and maybe asking if you could borrow their tractor or just have them do it themselves. If you could make a deal like this you could save a ton of money. It's probably also possible to rent a tractor and the right attachments, but I'm still guessing it would be fairly expensive. It also might be possible to rent something like a skid loader to just scrape all the sod off an area and pile it up on the edge into a huge compost pile. But the big downside to this is that you would probably lose a lot of good topsoil as well depending on your site. This would also possibly be somewhat pricey.  

One last solution that might work would be renting a sod cutter. If your property is flat enough and there isn't any rocks or other debris and your sod is fairly even then a sod cutter could work pretty well.  After the sod is cut you can just flip it upside down from the spot it was cut from and this will kill the vast majority of it and you can plant directly into the upside down sod.

Some people would also recommend using herbicides to kill grasses and while they may do a pretty good job I personally would not recommend this method to anyone. This is because I personally believe, based on evidence that I have researched, that herbicides are not healthy for people, wildlife or the soil and there is some good evidence that many herbicides can persist in the environment for a very long time. If you are thinking about using herbicides on your property I would strongly encourage you to do some research on the possible downsides of using them. If you still decide to use them I would strongly recommend using the bare minimum necessary and to carefully read the labels because a lot of people tend to use way too much and end up suffering some undesirable consequences.

So now you've finally got rid of all or the vast majority of that annoying cool season perennial grass. Now what? Well the most important thing to do is to have a seed mix ready that can start turning you pasture into a wild game meadow. If you are worried about the grass resprouting or other weeds coming up I would recommend first planting a type of weed suppressing cover crop. In most areas of the U.S. buckwheat makes an excellent warm season cover crop that grows very fast and can usually outcompete weeds. Buckwheat is also pretty good forage for a lot of wildlife so it will not only outcompete weeds and grasses, but also provide some food for wild game. For a cool season weed suppressing cover crop there are a few good choices including crimson clover, hairy vetch and various annual grains like wheat and rye. These all also make good forage for game. After a growing season or two of these cover crops then most of the remaining grasses and weeds will hopefully be dead or suppressed enough that they won't be a problem for awhile and you can start to plant your main wild game meadow plant mix.

My method of developing a wild game meadow is meant to be a one time planting once the site is prepared. And once started you can always overseed other plant varieties in order to add diversity. Then once the desirable plants are finally established then competition from weeds should be minimal for a very long time. If your property is a healthy functioning ecosystem then it is likely, after so many years, that woody plants will likely start to seed themselves into your wild game meadow and will slowly transition it into a forest.  If this starts to happen and you want to keep it in it's herbaceous state you can cut back the trees and brush. However, I would recommend letting some areas turn brushy especially if they are from desirable shrub species as well as let any beneficial trees grow such as mast producing trees. I would let most areas go through succession as naturally as possible. And if you start wanting to turn a higher percentage of your property into open meadow habitat then I would choose on clearing areas that are in closed canopy forests and making small clear cuts and then planting your meadow mix directly into that soil. This is because a closed canopy forest will have very few weeds that you will have to deal with and can generally be directly planted into once the woody plants are removed. Over the long term this is the most sustainable way to manage succession on your property. Areas that are maintained as a wild game meadow over very long periods of time are more likely to have weedy species encroach in over time and thus starting with the blank slate of a closed canopy forest will reduce your need to control weeds.

Seed Source is Everything

The concept of seed source is a rather simple one yet it can have massive consequences for a piece of property.  What I mean by seed source is the historical survival and reproduction of the plants in a given area and the resulting current and potential future plant communities that result from their successful reproduction. Seed source, as I'll explain, is extremely important when designing a property for any specific plant community, including one geared for wild game habitat.

Seed source can dramatically affect what a landscape looks like. Two given areas could have the exact same climate, geography, and soil type, but could be ecologically very different from each other, looking completely different based on the existing plant communities. One area could have an old growth temperate rainforest with giant cedars and hemlocks with ferns and lichens and many other mesic plant species.  While 20 miles away in the exact same ecoregion an area could be covered with aspen, fire weed and other early successional plant communities. The difference? Maybe a volcano such as Mt St Helens could have exploded 100 years ago wiping out all of the rainforest vegetation and effectively destroying the seed sources of the temperate rainforest plant community. What grows in this highly distributed ecosystem now is only species whose seeds were able to be brought in such as from the wind or from animals scattering the seed from very far away. If one were to bring in and plant seeds from the rainforest such as the cedars and hemlocks then the area would gradually turn back into a functioning temperate rainforest because essentially it already has the right climate, soil, and geography for these species all that is needed is a seed source.

This is a very important concept to grasp when managing a property for wild game. You may have bought a property that looks like it wouldn't be able to support much game based on the types of plants that are currently growing on it. But in the long run what is currently there is somewhat irrelevant because we have the ability to manage the seed source to design a completely new ecosystem based on what we think will be good for wild game. The two main ways we can manage the seed source on our properties is to one introduce new desirable seeds and plants and two by preventing the reproduction of existing plants that we deem undesirable.  

While removing undesirable plants is important in order to manage plant communities for wild game, it is even more important to provide desirable species that will be able to support them. When introducing new seed sources to your property you need to research and find out the specific needs of each plant species.  Will they grow in your climate and soil type? Will they be able to compete with the existing vegetation? What management strategies will be needed to establish them to the point to where they will reproduce and sustain themselves on your property? These are all important questions that you will need to figure out for each plant species you want to grow on your property.  For example, on my property I wanted to plant American Chestnut trees. Through research and experience I have learned that they can grow in my climate and soil, but they could be negatively affected by drought and heat stress when they are young and could potentially die before a deep taproot has been established. In order to reduce this stress I found out that I could plant them in the partial shade of an existing rose shrub on my property and this would lessen the stress of the hot dry summer climate and allow them to survive long enough to establish a deep taproot. And once they are established then they will be growing above the height of the rose and will be able to handle more of the direct summer sun. Now that I have figured this out I can use this knowledge for this species and others with similar requirements and start planting many more trees in the partial shade of a rose bush. With this I am essentially altering the plant community by adding a seed source that in the future will reproduce and be able to spread and be self sustaining on my property.  

While adding desirable species is definitely the most important way to manage the seed source on a property it is almost as important to take away the seed source of undesirable plants that will take up space and resources that could be put towards more useful plants. When introducing new plants you will mainly be interested in how to nurture them to the point of being self sustaining, however when looking at getting rid of undesirable plants your main focus will be on their weaknesses that will prevent them from surviving and reproducing.  One example of this from my own property is my attempt to get rid of the perennial grass Meadow Foxtail. While this grass has some minimal forage value for wildlife mainly in the spring, it is one of the dominant plant species on my property and within the whole area and it is way more numerous than it needs to be to provide good habitat for the game species in my area. As a perennial grass it is very hardy and tough to get rid of. Unlike many plant species I can't just cut it once and be done. As a grass it is adapted to being grazed over and over and the only real ways to get rid of it is by continuously cutting it to the ground over and over, disturbing the soil enough by tilling or digging it out or by shading it out with trees and shrubs. I could design a closed canopy forest on my property and over time shade it out completely, but this would take a very long time and would not be best for creating optimal wild game habitat.  So my only other real options are continuously cutting it down to the ground until all it's nutrient reserves in the roots have been exhausted or I will have to dig it up. I am now in the process of experimenting with several different methods such as multiple cuttings to to ground level with a weedeater. Another method I will experiment with is by digging it up either with a large hoe called a "grub hoe" or by renting some sort of rototilling type of equipment. Either way once I find they quickest, cheapest and most sustainable method then I will adopt it to get rid of the majority of this grass on my property. At the same time once the soil is exposed I will seed it as quickly as possible with different herbaceous plants such as varieties of clover and many other species in order to create what I am calling a "wild game meadow". But I will not be able to successfully do this until I remove the competing vegetation which is mainly the meadow foxtail grass.

By learning what desirable plants need to thrive and also learning the weaknesses of undesirable plants you can greatly affect and alter the plant communities on your property by managing the seed source. Over time the knowledge you gain from research as well as trial and error will be immensely valuable and once you figure out the best, easiest and most cost effective ways to do this then all it will take is action to convert your property to a self sustaining wildlife paradise. And while some undesirable plants will be very difficult to eradicate just from the fact that their seed could be dormant in the soil or come from the wind over time if you manage your property in a sustainable way then these few weed seeds that happen to germinate will mostly be outcompeted by the high diversity of beneficial species that you have brought in. And over time it will be possible to even alter the long term soil seed bank so if a disturbance such as a fire or a plow breaks the ground then even those new plants that pop up will be descendants from your desirable plants that you established.  Once this point is reached then a real long term sustainable equilibrium will take place that could last hundreds, even thousands of years, especially if your neighbors were all doing the same kind of management. While this time scale is hard to grasp and somewhat unnecessary for our purposes it is still interesting to think about the possibilities of what could be achieved with proper management of the seed source.

Managing Predators: A middle ground solution

There are not a lot of topics that are more polarizing than that of predator management.  Generally you'll find two popular opinions that are complete opposites with not many people in the middle. On one side you have people that believe that any form of predator management is inhumane and evil and we should not only not control predators, but we should expand their ranges into evermore populated areas. On the other side you have people that believe that the eradication of all large predators is the best course of action .  I believe both points of view are flawed and in this post I will try to make a case for a middle of the road position.

One of the most controversial predators especially in modern times is the wolf. This canid is an apex predator usually living off ungulates such as deer, elk and moose and they can have a noticeable impact on big game populations.  Many people on the pro wolf side will say that wolves are an integral part of the environment and that without this keystone species then the ecosystem can degrade from overbrowsing by ungulates. And to a large extent they are right. The best example of this is yellowstone national park. Not long after wolves were reintroduced into the park the elk populations plummeted and much of the elk habitat started to recover from overbrowsing from an overabundant elk herd. Once this vegetation recovered it provided new habitat for many different animal species that needed that vegetation and the ecological diversity of the area improved.  

On the other side, many people, especially ranchers and hunters are saying that the wolves have become overabundant and are killing too many livestock as well as wild game. And this is true as well. In fact many ranchers in wolf country are seeing severe predation on their livestock sometimes wiping them out completely and costing them their livelihoods. Also some areas have seen elk populations reduced by more than half after wolves recolonized the area and hunting in these regions have pretty much collapsed.

I believe the key here in solving this highly charged issue is about striking a balance. One thing that I think is very important to point out is that wolves are at the top of the food chain and compete with other predators near the top. Many predators will hunt down and kill other predators because they represent a direct form of competition for food. Wolves kill coyotes and coyotes kill foxes. In Africa lions will often kill hyenas and other predators if given the chance. So it's very natural for predators to want to kill their competition. And the most important realization is that we humans are top predators as well competing for the same food source. So I believe we as humans have a natural role to kill other predators that we compete with.

Since we share the same prey with wolves, mostly big game and livestock, then it is our natural role to control wolf and other predator populations, especially in areas with higher amounts of people. This however does not mean we should eradicate them. Wolves still have a role to play and fill the role of predator where we cannot or will not fill that role such as Yellowstone national park. I also believe that many wilderness and backcountry areas should be left to the wolves to provide their predatory role there because it is often difficult for humans to keep game populations in check in these areas.

My management strategy for wolves would be to not allow them in any populated areas such as cities, towns, suburbs and other densely human populated areas. These areas are too dangerous to allow wolves as they could harm pets, livestock and possibly even people. In more rural, but still populated areas such as ranch and farm country I would allow a minimal amount of wolves but have a zero tolerance policy for livestock attacks. That is allow for any wolf seen attacking or stalking livestock be shot on sight. Over time I believe wolves in these areas would eventually get the picture that livestock is off limits and they would also learn to avoid people and become very shy and secluded. Lastly in wilderness or timber country I would leave these areas mostly for the wolves but would allow some wolf hunting to allow game populations to rise high enough to allow some big game hunting.

The bottom line is that wolves are in direct competition with people for food. They eat the same game and livestock we do and in areas of high human populations would not be able to integrate into those types of ecosystems without major problems. Wolves and people can coexist, but it is not a peaceful coexistence and one's presence will always be at the expense of the others. Wolves and humans both have a place, but they are largely separate with humans dominating civilization and wolves dominating wilderness. Where civilization meets wilderness there will always be a grey area where humans and wolves are fighting for dominance, but that I think is ok. If we are smart about it we can largely reduce conflicts by keeping wolf populations quite low in all but the most remote areas of the country. But I would let wolves largely be untouched in these wilderness areas so there is always a stock to expand out if we remove too many.

I believe the current range of wolves in America is a fairly good start. Possibly a few more remote locations in the southern Rockies or Sierra range could see an expansion, but I would not introduce them, instead I would let them get there on their own, even if it takes many years.

Humans largely can control game populations from overbrowsing their habitats in most areas. But where humans can't or decide not to fulfill this predatory role then it important to let wolves and other predators take up our slack. And if things would go my way much of our agricultural regions would be turned back into wildlife habitat that could be managed for a high calorie per acre of big game and other wild foods. And that way we could let the predators have the rugged peaks and we could claim the vast open restored prairie and savanna as our hunting grounds. I think that would be a pretty good compromise.

Looking at the Northwest as a Recovering Wasteland and it's Implications

One thing someone might notice if you're a tree nerd like me is that the Northwestern United States is not very diverse in the number of plant species found here especially trees. Most forests consist of a handful of conifer tree species and that's about it. In the eastern U.S. there is a much higher diversity of native trees and one can easily find over 10 different species walking through a small woodlot. For example there is only one species of oak in Washington state, the Oregon white oak and none in Idaho. Where as in Ohio for example there are many different species just from the genus Quercus. After years of research on the topic one will probably find out that there actually used to be many more tree species in the northwest based on fossil evidence including many deciduous species like oaks, chestnuts, hickories and basswoods. But due to likely catastrophic events many of these species were wiped out and all that remained or at least those that were able to recolonize the area were hardy conifers such as pines, firs and cedars. That is why I basically see the Northwest as a recovering wasteland with a lot of ecological niches that have yet to be recolonized.

But what were the events that made this area relatively dead when it comes to plant species richness? The first and possibly the most catastrophic was the huge lava flows that covered much of the area a few million years ago. The columbian basin is almost completely made up of super thick basaltic lava flows that could have easily pushed many plant species to extinction. But there are more catastrophic events that could have led to species extinction.  Another was the massive Missoula flood/floods that happened in the same region just a few thousand years ago. Supposedly a giant ice dam held back a glacial lake called lake Missoula in Montana and through possible multiple ice dam collapses released unheard of amounts of water through idaho Washington and Oregon and out through the Columbia river delta destroying everything in its path. Another more controversial explanation was that an asteroid or comet hit the ice cap in British Columbia during the ice age instantaneously melting the ice and sending catastrophic flooding and debris flows throughout the entire region as well as possible blast waves from the impact such as with an atomic bomb. Either way the Northwestern US has seen a lot of destruction and when compared to similar climates it is easy to tell from the lack of plant diversity that it is still in the process of recovering.

Another interesting aspect or consequence of this is that the lack of filled ecological niches means that invasive species can really take hold and dominate these landscapes. For example my property in idaho is almost completely dominated by invasive or naturalized species. The vast majority of the grass is nonnative perennial as well as annual grass species such as medusahead and meadow foxtail. Most of the perennial forbs are nonnative and most of the shrubs are nonnative roses. The only native tree is Ponderosa Pine, but I also have large sweet cherries and cherry hybrids that are part native bitter cherry and part nonnative sweet cherry. In my region there are also black locusts, common apple, common pear, cherry plum, american elm, silver maple, norway maple, black walnut, English walnut and many other tree species that are adding a huge amount of diversity to the local forests. Where as the only common native trees are Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir.

I've also noticed that this added plant diversity is speeding up plant succession. For example many areas of the Columbia basin area transitioning from desert scrub with little else but sagebrush and they are transitioning into grasslands dominated by cheatgrass and medusahead. These species are adapted for fire and they are increasing the fire frequency to a point that is killing off the desert plants and leaving only the grassland plants that are adapted to fire. I believe this will also over time build up the soil quicker adding a deep layer of organic matter and could eventually allow more moisture dependent species such as pines to grow in what was once just desert scrub. This could in theory change the climate of the region to one that is wetter because more moisture could be stored in the deep soils allowing for more trees and more transpiration and this could have a runaway effect that could turn the whole region into an area that could support forests. Obviously this would take a lot of time but that is the one major benefit I see from these invasive species is that they could improve the soil and climate to the point where forests could be grown even in the driest desert areas. I believe the real benefit though would be if deciduous trees such as Sweet Cherry and Norway Maple really took off and became a high percentage of the tree cover. That is because the soil under deciduous forests is much more fertile than that in conifer forests. In the area of Orofino, ID there is already a huge amount of sweet cherries and black locusts even on dry south facing slopes where the only native tree is Ponderosa Pine. This is pretty amazing to me and I imagine it will eventually lead to a mixed forest ecosystem that is more resilient to fires since the deciduous trees will better shade the ground than the pine and they generally will not burst into flames like most conifers do. This could change the fire regime leading to only infrequent understory fires which is generally the same fire regime across the eastern us. On my property I am planting many different deciduous trees, especially nut trees, with the hope that they will eventually shade out the grass and shrubs under a closed forest canopy creating somewhat of a protection against fires. Another thing about deciduous forests is that they generally only burn in late fall or early spring when the leaves are dead and dry, there is no snow on the ground and the leaves have yet to decay from the summer heat. That could work very well here considering the dry season is during summer and early fall. During this time the leaves on the trees would still be green and the leaves on the ground from the previous fall will likely already be decayed and turned into soil. At least in theory this could help prevent fires on my property and if mirrored throughout the entire northwest could significantly reduce the number and severity of fires. This may be a good strategy for fire prevention in urban areas and small towns is to surround the area with dense deciduous forests.

The Need for the Integration of Agriculture and the Natural World

Many people believe we need to separate ourselves from nature. They think that humans are an overwhelming source of harm against the natural world and thus we need to set aside sanctuaries and preserves where there is little to no human impact. These in and of themselves are not a bad idea. We do need to protect species against habitat destruction, pollution and other potential harms that people are creating for wild ecologies. However, this mindset can take a dark turn when people come to the conclusion that the only way to save the earth is to remove people from the equation completely.  Not only do they believe that human numbers should stop growing, but some believe we need to do things like sterilize people and even phase out human growth altogether leading to a controlled human extinction.

The main problem with this mindset is that they are looking at only one side of humanity which is it's destructive side. But there is another side that is often overlooked that can actually heal and restore natural ecosystems and make them even more ecologically productive than nature itself can.

Unfortunately this "good" side of humanity is not in control for the most part right now and it is evidenced pretty obviously in the dominant way we grow our food using conventional agricultural practices.  Annual tilling of the ground leads to depletion and erosion of the topsoil. Vast fields of monocrops creates largely lifeless areas that only support the hardiest and most adaptable wildlife. Large scale irrigation draws down reservoirs and aquifers leaving less water in rivers for fish such as salmon and steelhead. Frequent spraying of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides kills off the beneficial soil life leading to dead lifeless soils as well as chemical runoff into rivers and oceans creating huge dead zones. All of these practices are increasing slowly over time and as our need for more food grows to feed the growing population of earth they will destroy natural wildlife habitat and continue to pollute the earth.

So from a certain perspective it is easy to see why a lot of people have an overall negative view of humanity and think that the earth would be better off without us. I however do not hold this view. I think there is a way to prevent these problems and not only stop the destruction of the natural world, but actually improve it and make it even more productive than what nature can do on it's own. The key would be not to separate, but to integrate humans with the natural world.

What do I mean by this? Well basically there is only so much land on earth. We need land for our own settlements as well as for all the food we need to feed the world. We also need to protect and even restore the natural environments so that we can reverse environmental damage and prevent species extinction. The only way to really do this is to largely share the same space with the natural world. Our food production areas need to double as great wildlife habitat. Cities and towns can also be integrated with the natural environment to some extent and even the extraction of resources such as mining and logging can be done in a way that is largely sustainable or at the very least able to be restored after the extraction process is done.

But the largest areas on earth that will need this integration are our food producing regions.

So how then could we go about this integration of natural ecosystems and our agriculture? Luckily there are many different options for us to choose from. For large scale commercial agriculture one way might be what is referred to as restoration or regenerative agriculture.  This style of food production uses no till methods, polyculture plantings, natural forms of fertilization and pest control, cover crop plantings, livestock integration and many other methods that leads to very productive and resilient crop production that can often exceed the production of conventional crops. The other benefits of this type of system is less inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, etc which leads to lower overall costs and higher profits. It also will naturally build the topsoil over time and increase fertility leading to even more productive harvests down the road. The use of polyculture also supports a more diverse range of wildlife and leads to a healthier ecosystem. One person who is well known for this style is Gabe Brown and I would recommend googling some of his lectures if you're interested in learning more.

Another possibility is to use what's known as permaculture. Permaculture is a very broad category of agriculture and goes even beyond agriculture in a sense. The basic premise is to mimic nature in order to produce a sustainable and highly productive source of food. One well known method is to create what's known as a "food forest". With a food forest you mimic a natural ecosystem by planting edible plants for all the niches in the ecosystem.  For example you could have nut trees in the canopy, fruit trees in the subcanopy, berries for the shrub layer, grapes and kiwis for the vine layer, root vegetables for the root layer, etc. These types of systems are usually very diverse and since they grow and develop just like a natural forest would they tend to make excellent habitat for a huge variety of wildlife. Other things you can do with permaculture are make hugelbeds and earthworks that help store moisture underground lessening the need for irrigation especially in drier regions. Permaculture offers a huge amount of possibilities for the integration of human and natural ecosystems and some people who are popular proponents of this system include Geoff Lawton, Sepp Holtzer and Paul Wheaton. I would highly recommend checking them out.

The last food producing system I will talk about is the one I created this blog for which is my own wild game system that not only integrates the natural world with a human source of food, but it makes the resources of the natural world, wild game, into a sustainable food source.  With this system you are basically creating optimal habitat for multiple game species in order to produce a high amount of wild game calories on a per acre basis. So in practice this would mean planting the most optimal plant species that will be able to feed game species year round as well as produce plant based foods for people to harvest as well. This would look very similar to the concept of a food forest, but would likely be more open resembling more of a savanna ecosystem for the majority of the target game species in America, but could easily be altered depending on the species that you'd be managing for. A lot of these areas would include forbs and broadleaf browse species that would produce a high amount of optimal forage for various herbivorous game species such as deer and elk. A lot of the food species would double as cover providing everything needed by the game in a relatively small area. I believe that If done correctly a system like this could produce a very high amount of meat calories per acre as well as some plant calories and could potentially be more productive and with less inputs than more conventional food producing systems. This system would not only produce high numbers of game, but also a ton of other non-game wildlife that would benefit from the high production value of the managed ecosystem.

I believe that in order to solve the world's environmental problems as well as feed the earth's growing population then it will be completely necessary to integrate ourselves and our production systems with the natural environment.  Luckily for us there are several possible options to use to successfully produce this outcome. It will likely take a mix of these types of food producing systems as well as ones that have yet to be thought of in order to fulfill this integration.  And once these systems are implemented and refined then it's likely our quality of life and our health would greatly improve and we could once again see the positive side of humanity and its ability to live in balance with the natural world.

Common Weeds that make Excellent Deer Food.

What are the Deer Eating on Your Property?

When managing for game on your property it's important to know the preferred food sources. On my property I am mainly managing for White-tailed deer. Because of this I need to continually observe and determine which food sources the deer on my property are using. In this post I will show you how to figure out what game are eating on your property using my property as an example.

The main thing I am looking for when trying to determine what deer are eating is plants that have been browsed on. I will walk my property and look for the signs of browsing on certain plants as well as look at other general signs of deer such as beds, trails and droppings.  

Browsed plants will look like normal plants except the ends of the plant will be broken off abruptly. If it is fairly fresh the browsed tip will still be green and could be releasing sap, which can sometimes look milky such as with prickly lettuce and salsify. If it is not fresh then the tip will tend to be more brown and dried out while the rest of the plant will still be green. Once you have identified plants that have been browsed it becomes easier to spot them because you are training your eyes to pick them out.  Once you have learned to identify some plants that are known to be preferred browse species then you can more closely inspect them when you find them on your property and get a good idea of how much they are preferred compared to other plants on your property. Here are some plants that I've noticed are preferred browse plants by deer on my property.

This is Red Clover. It is a herbaceous cool-season perennial that is found throughout most of the country. This is a highly preferred species in most areas and on my property the majority of the red clover I find has been browsed on,  however it is somewhat uncommon on my property so it is probably not a staple in my area.

This plant is Yellow Salsify. It is a herbaceous cool-season biennial that is common in drier meadows, especially in the west. This is also a highly preferred food source for deer. It is very common on my property and in some areas it is almost the dominant forb. Probably about 30% of the individual plants of this species I find on my property have been browsed and because it is so common I believe it makes up a large bulk of the deer's diet during spring and summer.

This next plant is Prickly Lettuce. It is warm season annual that is common throughout most of America. It is a highly preferred food plant for deer and most individual plants I find have been browsed, however it is somewhat uncommon on my property so it likely is not a large percentage of the deer's diet.

This plant is called Campion. There are several varieties including White and Bladder Campion which I believe are herbaceous annuals. This species is fairly common on my property and seem to get a moderate amount of browsing from deer. It does not seem to be a highly preferred food source though.

This plant is Sulfer Cinquefoil. It is a herbaceous cool-season perennial. It is extremely common on my property and is the dominant forb on the majority of it. This species is known to have a high amount of tannin in it's leaves which make it mostly unpalatable to deer. However, I have noticed that when it is growing in mostly shaded areas that it receives a lot more browsing from the deer. It is likely that the shaded conditions makes the plants produce less tannins and this makes them more palatable to deer. In general though this is not a preferred food source and likely is browsed mostly because of it's sheer abundance.

This plant is known as Heal-All and is a herbaceous perennial forb. It is common across most of the US and is somewhat uncommon on my property. It seems to receive a moderate amount of browsing from deer on my property and likely has a moderate preference.

This last plant is a species of Dock which is in the Rumex genus and which I believe is a biennial. It is somewhat uncommon on my property and does not seem to be a preferred browse, however I was able to find a few that had been browsed on especially in shaded conditions similar to the Cinquefoil. It likely is a low food preference for deer.

As you can see there is quite a large variety of plants that deer will eat and I focused only on herbaceous species during late spring and early summer. During other times of the year and in other areas there are many many more plant species that deer will eat. But these are some good examples and can help you determine what deer are eating on your property.

Once you determine what the deer are already eating on your property then you can use this information to help determine how you will manage your property.  If you are planning on making a "Wild Game Meadow" like I talk about in my previous posts then this information will help you determine which plants you will want to allow and which ones you will want to get rid of. When you allow these preferred food sources to grow on your property as well as add seeds of other preferred foods then you will be able to make your property that much more attractive to the wild game on your property.