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.

My Plan for Creating a Wild Game Meadow on My Property

Creating and maintaining a food plot should not be something that requires a lot of work. If left to mother nature a disturbed area will eventually transition into a meadow. So in theory if we can design a meadow made up of highly palatable and nutritious perennial and self-sowing grasses and forbs that mimic a natural meadow and that are adapted to the planting site then it should be possible to simply choose the right seed mix, plant it, possibly do some minimal maintenance and then reap the benefits with healthier wild game and an awesome hunting spot.

I think the key here will be in choosing the right seed mix. We will need to figure out species that fill all the niches that exist in a natural meadow. You'll likely need both grasses and broadleaf forbs, both perennial and self sowing annuals, as well as cool and warm season species. The plot will need to have as much dense growth on it as possible to prevent spaces for weeds to take hold. This is because weeds need sunlight and soil contact to germinate. If you can create shade with living plants and mulch with dead vegetation then weeds should not become a huge problem. And with less weeds means less weed seed and you will greatly reduce the seed source for weeds in the future. This also means we will most likely be using a pretty dense planting of desirable species. A lot of the seeds we plant will likely not make it, but it will also ensure that weeds will have a harder time as well.

So for my plot this is how I will go about setting it up. I will be starting it in an area which is mostly covered in dense perennial forage grass. This area was once an old cattle pasture and possibly a hay field as well so it is already in a meadow like state. I will need to get rid of as much of the grass as possible and try to prevent most of it from coming back. This gives me a few options. My first option would be to simply hoe or rip up the grass in order to til it under which would likely get rid of the vast majority of it. This however would expose a lot of the soil to sunlight and potentially create a perfect environment for weeds to germinate.  My other option would be to cut the grass to soil level several times during the growing season in spring and early summer to suppress it and that way the cut grass would act as a mulch in a way to somewhat cover the soil surface, keeping it shaded and allowing less weed seeds to germinate. This, however, would likely not kill all the grass which I'm not too worried about since this grass type is a preferred forage grass for wild game especially in the springtime, but I would just need to make sure it didn't take over the rest of the species I plant. So after I take care of the grass with either method my next step would be to start spreading seed. If there was a light mulch of dead grass left over I could likely just broadcast the seed and it would fall in between the mulch and make contact with the soil surface while also being somewhat shaded and protected from seed predators such as birds. If not then I would either lightly rake the seeds into the soil or add a thin layer of dead grass over the top of them. Depending on the species I would either plant in late summer, fall or early spring. I may even do multiple planting on the same plot in different seasons to make sure it is well seeded. After that I would monitor the plantings during the growing season and remove any weeds or grass that was too dominant. And that would likely be it for this initial planting.

I would probably start on a fairly small plot not much bigger than a large garden and if I saw it was a success then I could expand the area out every year until it was of the desired size. In the meantime my previous plantings would likely be maturing and ideally would be growing well enough and dense enough so that I wouldn't really need to worry about weeds.

This method if successful would likely be able to be replicated in practically any environment as long as the seed was well adapted to the property. Over time it is likely that this type of planting would mature into a mostly perennial dominated meadow, but if any small disturbance happened such as a mole hill etc then the seed bank would contain seeds from some of the self-sowing annuals that were originally planted. Also if enough disturbance was created at the edges of the plot then it is likely that it could gradually spread out across the property intermingling with the vegetation already established on the property creating even more food for wild game.

As I've stated several times doing your research and choosing plant species that are adapted to your site would be one of the most important aspects determining the success of your plot. After a lot of research I think I have a good base of possible species I could plant on my property. My property is a temperate dry summer climate with somewhat cold snowy winters, wet springs, and hot dry summers.  Some of the species I think might do well on my property are Alfalfa, Sanfoin, Red and White clover, Small burnet, Lamb's Quarters, Common Ragweed, Chickory, Prickliy Lettuce, Salsify, Aster's, Goldenrod's and Sunchokes. These are just a few of the species I'd like to create a mix of. One thing to notice is that I have both native and nonative species as well as some people would consider weeds. However, many species people consider weeds are actually excellent wild game forage, a good example being ragweed as a deer forage. That's why it's important to keep an open mind and let the research show what are the best forage species for your area.

So this is my basic plan for my experimental test plot on my property. As you can see it is extremely simple in terms of the type of work and maintenance I will do. I think this is important because if I can make this work than it will show that you don't need expensive equipment and loads of fertilizers and herbicides ect to make a productive food plot. This is the way nature does it. All it needs is a seed source, a disturbance and the right climate and soil conditions and a meadow will naturally form. We're just tweaking this natural process a little bit by choosing species that are attractive to wild game and will create an awesome food plot, or "wild game meadow".

In the future I will document and keep you updated on the establishment and progress of this plot. There's a chance it might not work the way I think it will and I might experience problems I didn't foresee, but even then I will be able to learn from my mistakes and come up with a better plan. Then on the other hand it might work out better than I expect and could become my best idea yet for creating awesome wild game habitat. I'm hoping I can share my successes and failures with everyone who is interested in creating better habitat for game animals on their property that way they too can be better set up to enjoy nature's bounty.

Managing Invasive and Unwanted Plants

One of the most important parts of managing a property for wild game is being able to produce a diverse amount of food sources. The more plant species your property has on it, especially highly palatable species, the more game animals you will be able to support. With a diverse amount of food sources the game animals on your property will be able to meet all their nutritional requirements through the seasons and allow them to grow and reproduce more effectively. However managing for a high amount of plant diversity can be somewhat complicated and there are many different factors that could come into play one of the major ones being how to manage invasive and overabundant plants.

Managing invasive woody plant species is somewhat straightforward. Basically you need to selectively cut anything that is outcompeting other tree and shrub species especially if it is not producing any real food source. For example if your property is covered in Tree-of-Heaven trees which are a pretty useless tree for wildlife as well as highly invasive, than you should continuously cut them back and plant other species until they either die out or are shaded out by other species. On the contrary if your property is covered in apple trees and nothing else then you should likely keep a large percentage of them, but still cut some out to allow room for other species as well. We want to aim away from any type of monoculture even if it is a productive one that provides a good food source for wild game. While apples are a great food, they are available only seasonally and will not give wild game their full nutritional requirements leading to fewer game over time.

Dealing with invasive trees and shrubs is relatively simple, however when it comes to grass and forb dominated habitats it can become quite difficult to manage them for a high diversity especially if it is already being overtaken by aggressive weedy species. There are both native and nonnative grasses and forbs that can completely take over open meadow type areas and can prevent plant species diversity. Many people know the common "weeds" in their areas. Out west a very common one and one that I am faced with on my property is yellow star thistle. This annual forb can completely take over some areas, especially in disturbed and degraded soils, preventing the establishment of any other plants as well as providing practically no food value to wild game. This is a type of plant I would like to be without, however it has essentially become naturalized in my area so it is best to learn how to manage it. Without using herbicides, which would also kill the plants I want, I will need to learn more about the plant and it's life cycle to determine the best way to manage it. After doing some research I figured out that if you can prevent it from going to seed then you can control it long enough to establish more desirable plants that will prevent it from taking over. To do this you need to cut it back to the ground such as with a weedeater right around the time it is beginning to flower which is usually around late spring and early summer. Once the first flowers start opening I will aggressively cut it back with the weedeater once and then again a few weeks later as new sprouts come back. This will essentially kill that years seed and help prevent future infestations. This will need to be done several years in a row due to seed stored in the soil, but eventually it will greatly reduce this plant almost to the point of elimination.  During this time it will also be necessary to spread desirable seed to establish and help provide a barrier to possible future infestations. This type of management is labor intensive for a few years, but once the right plants are growing, ideally a diverse mix of palatable forage species, then anymore starthistle that invades that area will have a hard time reestablishing itself to those high levels. Every plant will have it's weaknesses, whether it be frequent mowing, targeted seasonal weedeating, grazing patterns of livestock, plowing, shading out etc. But it will be up to you to research and figure out how to remove the invasive plants on your property.

One of the best things to prevent invasive species from taking over your property is to already have a healthy diverse amount of species established. This means you will need to plant and spread seed of many different plant species to not only give more food options to wild game, but to also provide that healthy barrier against aggressive monoculture forming plant species. There are many factors that will determine how successful you will be at establishing desirable forage plants, but it will likely take lots of trial and error to find something that works specifically for your property. Like always research is key and knowing the biology and ecology of your chosen plants will be important to figuring out the best method of establishment and management once established.  

One more point I'd like to make is that just because a plant is not native does not mean it will be bad for your property. A good example of this is the bienneal forb Salsify. This is a nonnative "invasive" weed that has become common in the west. In some instances on disturbed and degraded soils it can take over and become an unwanted weed. However in much of the west it has naturalized and become a part of the balanced ecosystem of the open grassland regions. This plant also happens to be excellent deer and elk forage and some studies have shown that some deer and elk preferred to eat this forb in spring and summer more than any other plant in that particular region. So I just wanted to point out that not all nonnative "weeds" are necessarily bad for your property and there are in fact many that are an excellent food source for wild game. And at the same time many natives are practically useless for wild game habitat and some will need to be managed so they don't take the real estate of more desirable species.

Many species of plants that have come from other countries are here to stay. Some of them are bad for wild game habitat and some are good. It is practically impossible to get rid of them at this point. But if one is able to manage their property carefully then they can make sure to have a wide variety of both natives and nonnatives that will lead to better habitat for the game on their property.