|
||||||||||||||
| Home | FAQ's | Site Index | Contact Us | Our Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | |||||||||
|
About
GFP |
Wildlife Behavior - Do grouse and dogs get along together?Spatial Ecology, Production, Habitat and Land Use, and the Effect of Dog Training on Sympatric Greater Prairie-Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse in Central South DakotaConcern over the potential effects of dog training on prairie grouse survival and behavior (making grouse “more wild”) has been at the fore-front of attention for many years of grouse enthusiasts. Heightened awareness, concerns, and the continued popularity of training dogs with the use of horses on national grasslands in South Dakota climaxed, resulting in a study by the Division of Wildlife to determine the impacts of these activities and to provide recommendations on future dog training on these grasslands. At the same time data was collected on training activities, the opportunity to collect additional information on grouse ecology (assisted by South Dakota State University) was seized and used to provide management recommendations for both public and private land.
A female prairie chicken with a necklace style radio transmitter. These transmitters weighed 11 grams and allowed researchers to follow and gather information for a 6 month time-frame.
Back-pack style transmitters were sutured to prairie grouse chicks at the age of 2-3 weeks. These radios allowed researchers to gather survival and habitat use information. Each radio weighed <2 grams. Information collected from radio locations of nesting grouse indicated that both grouse species nested on average 2,000m (1.2 miles) from the dancing or booming ground captured on during the spring mating season. Sharp-tails and prairie chickens each averaged home range areas of about 175 ha (432 acres) to raise their broods. Home ranges increased the most during the first 6 weeks as hens moved broods from nesting areas to desired brood-rearing habitats. Prairie grouse survival and production was very high during this three year study on the FPNG. Nest success of prairie grouse (sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chicken combined) was above 0.72, and hen survival at minimum 0.80. In respect to production, brood survival (at least one chick survives to independence from hen) was also quite high with survival rates of at least 0.83, and chick survival of radio-marked birds at least 0.34.
Grouse nest found on the FPNG. Both grouse species showed selectivity for pastures that were not grazed the previous year to those grazed, suggesting residual cover that provides necessary habitat components for nesting and brood-rearing hens is sought out by prairie grouse. Selection of non-grazed pastures was quite obvious for nest site selection as 40 of 69 nests of radio-marked birds chose these areas. Individually, brooding sharp-tailed grouse had a stronger affinity to non-grazed pastures than prairie chickens, however both preferred areas that were not grazed the prior year. Habitat evaluations in 2004 and 2005 showed prairie chicken broods used habitats that had an average vegetation height of 32-38 cm (12-15 inches). Sharp-tailed grouse broods used areas with average vegetation heights of 43 cm (17 inches).
Aerial photo showing the difference of habitat conditions in pastures that are not grazed (left side) compared to those grazed. Both grouse species preferred certain habitat types while raising their young. Prairie chicken used areas where the habitat was primarily composed of grass plant species such as western wheatgrass, green needlegrass, and Japanese brome. On the other hand, sharp-tailed grouse preferred habitats dominated by forb species such as sweet clover and areas with green needlegrass. The one habitat avoided by both species was smooth brome grass. The impact of dog training activities on grouse survival and behavior appeared to be marginal, with no one prominent result indicating that this activity should cease. Our evaluations of chick survival, brood break-up, predator avoidance characteristics (flushing distance and run effect), differences in movements, and the proportional area shared resulted in recommendations that suggest dog training by horseback is not negatively effecting grouse to the extent that these activities need to cease under the current level of training and restrictions in place. Concern that dog training activities were causing high levels of mortality in the young of the year segment of prairie grouse populations was not detected. In fact, over the 3 year study, only 8 of 105 radio-marked chicks suffered mortality during the dog training timeframe, 4 of which occurred on areas where dog training activity was not allowed. Although no significant results were found, an interesting trend was determined in the sharp-tailed grouse data which may help explain why some hunters feel grouse are “more wild”. Results indicated that adult sharp-tailed grouse tend to run more than young of the year, hence years where production is low and the grouse population is comprised of more adults than young of the year, the “more wild” characteristic may be apparent. Spatial, reproductive, and ecological data obtained from this study provided supporting information that grouse populations can do well on a landscape managed for livestock, with wildlife management as a second priority. The management of the Fort Pierre National Grasslands provides an exemplementary model of grassland management that shows prairie grouse positively respond to grazing systems which include areas of annual rest, providing essential nesting and brood-rearing cover the following year. Although dog training from horseback has the potential of negatively impacting grouse, especially a distressed population with limited habitat, this study ascertained that these activities have minimal impacts where prairie grouse populations are relatively stable, habitat conditions are of higher quality, and where the number of trainers, dogs, and timing are restricted. Conclusions and recommendations drawn from this study should help with the management of grouse across South Dakota. Areas of undisturbed grassland appear to be selected by breeding grouse, often times well over a mile away from spring breeding grounds. Grassland acres such as Game Production Areas, Waterfowl Production Areas, and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land may be essential for prairie grouse in areas of more intensive agricultural landscapes like eastern SD. Also, it may be important to position CRP acres within close proximity to areas with known leks or to link known satellite populations. In central and western SD where range-land is still the dominant land-use, grazing management should attempt to include a rotation which has a rest portion component. In respect to dog training, it is suggested that the level of activity be kept minimal, begin training activities no earlier than August 1, and continued monitoring to assure these activities do not cause undo harm to grouse populations, especially if training activities become concentrated due to access and high grouse numbers. For additional information, contact Sr. Wildlife Biologist Chad Switzer at Chad.Switzer@state.sd.us or (605) 353-8477. More information on Prarie and Ruffed Grouse and Prairie Chicken
|
To obtain the data needed for management recommendations; both Sharp-tailed grouse and Greater Prairie Chicken hens and chicks were fitted with radio transmitters to gather biological and behavioral information on the Fort Pierre National Grasslands (FPNG) in central South Dakota during the summers of 2003-2005. Hens were captured using walk-in traps during the spring on dancing and booming grounds, and additional hens located by dragging chains between ATV’s and captured the following day with a hoop net positioned at the nest site. Grouse chicks were captured during the middle of the night by locating the brooding hen, dropping a 15m X 15m net over the hen and brood, and marked by suturing a small back-pack transmitter.
