A MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN

By

Ryan Bounds

A SENIOR THESIS

m

GENERAL STUDIES

Submitted to the General Studies Council in the College of Arts and Sciences

at Texas Tech University in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

BACHELOR OF GENERAL STUDIES

Approved

DR. RONALb SOSEBEE-Department of Range, Wildlife, and Fisheries Management

Chair of Thesis Conm1ittee

~~~PEEK Departm t SociOlogy

Accepted

DR. DALE DAVIS Director of General Studies

DECEMBER 1997

Ac

rz ALCSi/0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Ronald Sosebee and Dr. Charlie Peek for their time and for

their help. The information that they provided to me was invaluable. 1 also wish to thank

Dr. Dale Davis for the input that he provided for helping me to see the light at the end of

the tunnel. And, finally. I am grateful to my wife and parents, who gave both moral and

financial support. Without their encouragement and support, 1 could not have finished.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Vital Statistics 1

Habitat Needs 2

Original Home Range 3

Current Status 3

II. CAUSES OF POPULATION DECLINE 6

Industry 6

Hunting 10

Predation 14

III. HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN 17

Land Management Tools 17

Hunting Regulations 23

Predator Control 23

Conservation Reserve Program 24

IV. CONCLUSION, 26

Short Term Goals 26

Long Term Goals 27

LITERATURE CITED 28

111

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Current Range of the Lesser Prairie Chicken

2.1 Predators and Season of Impact

5

16

IV

££^oaElfiM-H>

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Vital Statistics

The lesser prairie chicken {Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) is a small gallinaceous

game bird of the grouse family (Tetraoninae). The adult male is 16 inches long and is 1.5

to 2.0 pounds in weight. The back feathers have brown stripes with black lines on either

side. The voice of the lesser prairie chicken likens to the gobbling turkey call. The sides

of the neck consist of pinnae (long feathers). These pinnae can be raised above the head

to expose loose patches of bare skin that expand during the mating ritual. These air sacs

have a rose-red coloration. Bare patches of yellow skin are also present above the eyes.

Feathers are present on the lower legs, which is a characteristic that is distinguishes all

grouse. The color and condition of the 9 and 10 primaries (outer most flight feathers on

the wing) determine the age of the lesser prairie chickens. Light spotting on the anterior

portion of the vanes is characteristic of the juveniles. Different color patterns on the

under tail coverts aid in the determination of sex. (Sell, 1979)

The males enact colorful displays during the courting ritual to attract females. The

male performs his gobbling or booming activity on flat, raised, or rolling areas that are

sparsely vegetated. The females observe the males, and they also watch for approaching

enemies. During the months of March through May, the males gather at the gobbling

grounds in the early morning and evening hours. The gobbling activity is greater in the

morning than in the evening. By mid-March, the females begin to appear at the gobbling

grounds. The hens stay for longer periods of time during the month of April. Females do

not participate in the gobbling activities and do not seem to show much interest in the

displaying males.(U.S.D.A., 1989) Each male will claim an area on the display grovmds.

A male will defend his area against other displaying males.

An area consisting of native mid-grasses or other medium dense stands furnishes

prime nesting cover in late April to early May. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), little

bluestem {Schizachyrium scoparium), indiangrass {Sorghastrum nutans), and sideoats

gramma {Bouteloua curtipenduld) provide good nesting cover for the lesser prairie

chicken (Litton et al., 1994). The average clutch consists of 11 to 12 eggs at the rate of 1

egg laid per day. Incubation periods last from 23 to 24 days. After all of the eggs have

been hatched, insects are the primary meal for the brood. The young birds will not join

the flock for a period of 8 to 10 weeks, after which they separate according to sex.

According to the U.S.D.A. (1989), one year is the average life span for the lesser prairie

chicken.

Habitat Needs

The food intake for the lesser prairie chicken varies by the season. In the spring

and summer months, insects and native prairie plant seeds are a major food source.

Acorns from shinnery oak {Quercus havardii) make up 52 percent of the diet. The

shinnery oak is also an important summer cover species. The lesser prairie chicken is also

associated with the sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) in the plains of Texas and eastern

New Mexico. A major portion of the bird's diet consists of grasshoppers. (Sell, 1979) In

the fall and winter months, cultivated crops provide food for the population. Corn,

sorghum, and wheat are the most common food item during this time of the year.

Drinking water is not a limiting factor, for existing sources such as dew and succulent

vegetation can be used. (U.S.D.A., 1989) During periods of drought, stock ponds provide

a source of water for the lesser prairie chicken.

A prerequisite for maintaining a viable population of lesser prairie chickens

would be a minimum 250-acre block of native rangeland. This conclusion is drawn from

studies using radio telemetry in 50 to 250 acre tracts containing shinnery oak as well as

cultivated crops interfused within this area. Shinnery oak serves as the primary cover and

food source in these areas and is not a desirable plant species for the ranchers. In most

cases, however, the oak is treated with herbicides, thus adversely affecting the habitat for

the prairie chicken.

Original Home Range

Before the time of settlement of European man, the lesser prairie chicken

inhabited southeastem Colorado, southwestem Kansas, eastem New Mexico, west Texas,

and the western part of Oklahoma. Bones have also been found in Oregon dating back to

the Pleistocene era, suggesting a wide-ranging population at one time (Crawford, 1974).

The populations of the prairie chicken were never abundant during their history. The

latter part of the nineteenth century was the time when the populations were at their

highest numbers. It has been suggested that the patchwork type of farming used in this

time period was beneficial in terms of providing a fall and winter food source (Sharpe,

1968). But even with this increase in the population, the home range of the lesser prairie

chicken never altered.

BtwmiinHimHKmmtuKmmKsiwmim

Current Status

The lesser prairie chicken is now limited to a small home range. In the Texas

Panhandle and the Southern High Plains, there are two separate populations of the lesser

prairie chicken. One runs along the Texas-New Mexico boundary from Bailey County

down to Andrews County. The other population occurs on the Texas-Oklahoma border

from Lipscomb County to Collingsworth County. Figure 1.1 shows the current home

range of the lesser prairie chicken. According to Doerr (1980), 95% of the home range

for the lesser prairie chicken is privately owned land. Because private ownership resulted

in converting the land into crops and cattle pastures, the lesser prairie chicken's

inhabitable home range has decreased by 92% (Doerr, 1980). This reduction of habitat

reduced the lesser prairie chicken's chance for survival.

According to Taylor and Guthery (1980), the populations have suffered a 90%

decline since the late 1800's. This drop in numbers as well as the limited habitat left

available to the lesser prairie chicken has stemmed from several factors. In 1937. legal

hunting of the lesser prairie chicken was put to an end by the Texas Legislature. Surveys

conducted in 1967 showed a population of lesser prairie chickens that was large enough

to sustain a limited harvest (Litton et al., 1994). There is now a two-day hunting season

on the lesser prairie chicken in the two areas of the Panhandle and Southem High Plains

that contain the sufficient population sizes.

This paper will examine the possible causes of the lesser prairie chicken's decline

in numbers. It will also give recommendations for management strategies of the lesser

prairie chicken.

Figure 1.1. Current Range of the Lesser Prairie Chicken

CHAPTER 11

CAUSES OF POPULATION DECLINE

Industry

The turn of the century brought many advances in the farming industry. With the

aid of tractors, farmers were able to cultivate larger tracts of land than ever before.

Likewise, at the turn of the century, ranchers also benefited from advancements such as

using herbicidal treatments. The ranchers were able to clear out large tracts of land by

root plowing and chaining to remove bmshy and woody plant species that were a

nuisance to them, but were a necessity to many forms of wildlife. According to

Krausman, Bolen and Crawford (1996), intensified farming practices resulted in the loss

of available habitat, and many wildlife populations frequently declined. Moreover,

lending agencies encouraged converting rangeland into farmland. Many farmers had to

do so in order to secure agriculture loans (Sosebee). Additionally, Crawford (1974) found

that areas with more than 37 percent cultivation were not able to carry a viable population

of the lesser prairie chicken. With a requirement of at least 250 acres of imdisturbed

rangeland for the lesser prairie chicken's habitat, the boom of the farming industry

contributed acutely to the loss of habitat for the lesser prairie chicken.

Historically, many different forms of habitat were created due to agricultural

practices. In the early part of the century, small family farms consisted of diverse crops

(odd areas interspersed around the farm), hedgerows, as well as shelterbelts. After the

1940's, the switch to intensive fencerow-to-fencerow farming contributed to the loss of

habitat as well as a decline in the wildlife populations (Payne and Bryant, 1994). The

conversion of small farms to large farms also resulted in an impact upon the land by

increasing the production of crops and reducing the amount of unused land on the farm.

According to Prose (1987), agricultural practices occurring in the months of April

through early June disturb the nesting activities. Such practices include plowing, disking,

burning, introduction of livestock for grazing, and mowing.

The lesser prairie chicken depends upon fall crops such as sorghum for a source

of food in the winter. But tillage after the harvest places the waste grain under the soil

and decreases the available food supply for the species. The tillage of grasslands in North

America has occurred to such an extent that only a remnant of the original habitat

remains. This has resulted in the blotting out of grassland life forms in these ecosystems

(Scalet, Flake and Willis, 1996). The increase in the number of passes made by the

farming equipment due to improved machinery also reduces the amount of potential

cover and food sources for the wildlife. The post-harvest stubble, which is often plowed

under, is necessary as a source of cover and food for the lesser prairie chicken (Prose,

1987).

Ground nesting birds like the lesser prairie chicken prefer grasses for nesting

sites, and some cultivation practices reduce the nesting success of these as well as other

species of birds. Some of these cultivation practices include using a mowbar set lower

than 25 inches in hay pastures, which is destructive to nesting sites; but setting the

mowbar higher than 25 inches results in a loss in the amount of harvested crops.

Therefore, an incentive must be presented to the farmers for them to agree to set their

cutters to the recommended height. Mowing during the nesting season has also proven

detrimental to the ground nesting birds.

The dates of the first hay cuttings have shifted to earlier dates over the past three decades,

resuhing in fewer ground nests being disturbed. (Warner and Etter, 1989)

In the ranching industry, using herbicides to treat undesirable plants has also had a

tremendous impact upon the environment. In many cases, it will completely change the

composition of the land that has been treated. Tebuthiuron (N-[5-(l,l-dimethylethyl)-

l,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N'-dimethylurea), a urea based herbicide, is used for converting

rangeland dominated by sand shinnery oak to a mid-grass or tall grass prairie. According

to Doerr (1980), sand shinnery oak densities have decreased by 85 percent (where

treated), and grass production has increased 3-9 times. Ranchers wanting to increase their

livestock production use these treatments to augment the ratio of desirable grasses to

shrubs. According to Olawsky (1987), areas without the presence of sand shinnery oak

can contain populations of lesser prairie chickens. But, even though using herbicides such

as tebuthiuron can benefit an area by increasing nesting cover, abmpt changes from an

eco-community that is shmb-dominated to a community of grass-dominated plants could

negatively impact the populations of lesser prairie chickens (Olawsky, 1987). Doerr

(1980) noted that thermal cover during the summer months was reduced due to the loss of

shinnery oak in the treated areas. Doerr (1980) also stated that this thermal cover

provided by the shinnery oak is crucial in periods of drought and, therefore, could result

in a decline in the populations of the lesser prairie chicken. Using herbicides during a

time of drought also could lead to the loss of winter food for the lesser prairie chicken.

This is especially important in times when grass production is low. When herbicide

programs are used on a large-scale basis, they can result in the elimination of native food

plants. In the event that the native habitat is converted to grassland, the food supply is

reduced and only nesting cover remains. (Litton et al., 1994)

The amount of grazing pressure put forth upon the land also has an impact upon

the lesser prairie chicken. Overgrazing could lead to the reduction of grassland, resulting

in the invasion of forbs and shinnery oak. This would result in the reduction of the

available nesting cover. Payne and Bryant (1994) define grazing overuse as "grazing that

leads to excessive removal of the current year's growth." They also define overgrazing as

"continued ovemse which results in a regressive change in plants and soils." Exhaustive

overgrazing has reduced the amount of tall and mid-grasses used as cover by the lesser

prairie chicken. In the shortgrass prairies, the timing of the grazing (season) has more of

an impact upon the breeding birds than does the intensity (stocking rate) of the grazing

(Wiens and Dyer, 1975).

Habitat fragmentation has also induced the decline in species populations that

would normally be indigenous to a specified area. For instance, the lesser prairie chicken

requires tracts of at least 250 continuous acres in order to remain viable in that habitat. In

a tract of land that is this size or larger, cultivation or any other form of disturbance will

fragment the habitat, thus making the habitat unsuitable for the lesser prairie chicken. In

fragmented or isolated tracts of land, the genetic stmcture and persistence of plants are

also affected by creating monoculture stands of plants (Meffe, Carroll and contributors,

1997). Isolation results from the lack of willingness of the species to travel from one plot

of intrinsic habitat to another. Habitat fragmentation, therefore, can result in population

declines or the inability of a species to inhabit the area in question.

Hunting

It is indisputable that hunting has had a major impact upon the wildlife. Many

species have been sent to the brink of extinction due to hunters' actions in the past. Even

during the time period of the settlers, a need for hunting regulations was seen. The first

closed deer-hunting season was established in Massachusetts in 1694 (Nester, 1997). A

fish and game bureau existed in every state by 1880. But enforcing the laws proved to be

a lot harder than writing them. Lack of funding, manpower, and cormption were all

hindrances to the agencies that had been instituted (Nester, 1997).

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the federal government tried to act as an

overseer of fishing and hunting. By 1871, the Agriculture Department estabUshed the

U.S. Fisheries Commission due to a concern for the drop in fish stocks. The year 1885

saw the creation of the Bureau of Biological Survey, which later became the Fish and

Wildlife Service. But the problem was not solved by the inception of these agencies. In

1896, the Supreme Court reinstated the jurisdiction over hunting to the states in the case

of Geer v. Connecticut (Nester, 1997). But jurisdiction of the federal lands still remained

in the hands of the federal government. The government sought to establish wildlife

refuges on these public lands.

A major influence in the establishment of these refuges for wildlife was President

Theodore Rooseveft. In 1903, Roosevelt started the National Wildlife Refuge system.

Just off the Florida coast, Roosevelt created the Penguin Island Refuge. The Grand

Canyon National Game Preserve and the National Bison Range in Montana were created

within the following year. Additional Wildlife refuges across the nation with a total of

435,000 acres had been established by the time that Roosevelt left office. (Nester, 1997)

10

By 1937, Texas had laws protecting the lesser prairie chicken. But even with the

protection from legal hunting, the counts on the gobbling grounds dropped by 50 percent.

According to Crawford (1974), a severe drought in the 1950's may have had an influence

on this population decline. But another earlier cause may also have been related to this

population decline. According to Bowdoin (1997), southem settlers made the prairie

chicken an important part of their diet in the early 1900's. It was not uncommon for

groups of hunters to wipe out entire flocks of the prairie chickens. In the spring, the

breeding habits of the lesser prairie chicken made it a prime target for the hunters. The

male birds would be so engrossed in their courtship that they would not be alert to the

approaching hunters (Bowdoin, 1997). After the institution of hunting regulations, the

numbers of the lesser prairie chicken were so low that, combined with the factors of the

drought, their populations could not recover.

Human behavior in relation to hunting patterns has also affected the populations

of the lesser prairie chicken as well as other species. Through the centuries, development

of new and better technology has produced less reliance on hunting as a food source.

Most people can now go to the local store and pick up meat without any type of

"struggle." This advancement in humans' abilities to produce food has led to sport

hunting.

Sport hunting, for many people, is a time for fellowship with fi-iends and family as

well as for the enjoyment of nature. For wildlife managers and ecologists, it is a means of

effectively regulating the population numbers. But when himters take more than the

season bag limit, hunt out of season, or use illegal means of trapping or killing, then it

becomes poaching. Poaching seems to be motivated more by pleasure than by any

11

instmmental values. In a study by Forsyth and Marckese (1993), the poachers saw the act

of taking game illegally as exciting. In fact, all the respondents in their study show all but

one of the values in Walter Miller's 1958 study of lower class cultures as reasons for their

activities. The first value, trouble, was seen as important because not getting caught by

the authorities elevated one's status. The second value, excitement, spawned from the

thrill of not being captured. Forsyth and Marckese (1993) even had a respondent state

that the illegal game had a better taste, for he viewed the consumption of it as a victory

ceremony. The third value shown was smartness. Knowledge of guns, hunting tactics,

and special equipment is seen as gratifying to poachers. Outsmarting the wardens is a

goal of the poachers. The fifth value is toughness. Since poaching is illegal and

dangerous, it makes the participants feel tough if they can face the dangers of being

caught. Autonomy is the last value shown in the Forsyth and Marckese (1993) study. The

people in the study also liked to play by their own rules. In the Forsyth and Marckese

(1993) study, the respondents had been isolated from society. They were using means of

hunting that have been used for several generations. The laws that said what they were

doing was illegal had been, in their view, imposed upon them by outsiders. While they

challenged these laws by poaching, their major motivation was pleasure, derived from the

risk of poaching.

The reasons for poaching are not the same in all instances. In a study by Curcione

(1992), which looked at party-boat poaching, the idea of fim, differential association, and

folk crime were key concepts in explaining the poaching of fish in California. The study

also found that the skippers of the party-boats that chartered fishing expeditions would

lose business if they did not have the highest quota offish caught. So they encouraged the

12

anglers to catch as many as possible and "throwbacks" were a rarity (Curcione, 1992).

This type of encouragement sets forth an attitude of noncompliance to the laws that are

set forth to regulate the bag limit for an individual.

Motivation for poaching other game may be similar to the motivations that led to

poaching lesser prairie chickens. In 1937, when laws were created to protect the prairie

chicken because of its declining populations, they may not have been agreed upon by the

hunters who had been hunting this game bird all of their lives. During this time period,

some people in rural communities as well as those who lived on farms and ranches may

have still depended upon the lesser prairie chicken as a part of their food source. Even

though they may have seen their use of the bird as utilitarian, it was still classified as

poaching.

The sport of hunting birds, such as the lesser prairie chicken, is performed in most

cases by a group of people. It can be a time of camaraderie between friends. It also can

cause competition in many cases. 1 have heard of many cases, and have been involved in

a few, when people will say: 'The person with the fewest number of birds in their bag at

the end of the day buys dinner." Fortunately, 1 have always been able to hunt with other

ethical hunters, which meant that we would not go over our bag limit. But, in many cases,

people get caught up in the competition and do not want to lose. So they keep shooting

until they run out of shells or daylight, whichever comes first. This type of behavior can

lead to the total annihilation of groups of prairie chickens on their breeding grounds.

Hunters could approach the area where large groups of birds would be congregated and

open fire, wiping out entire groups of breeding prairie chickens.

Predation

Most species have to deal with predation in one form or another. Evolving with

predators has been necessary for the lesser prairie chicken. The lesser prairie chicken has

developed strategies for defending itself against and avoiding predators. But with the

introduction of people to the habitat, things changed drastically for the lesser prairie

chicken. Landscape modifications by humans have increased the vulnerability of the

prairie chicken to predators. The introduction of telephone poles as well as planting trees

in areas that were lacking vertical stmcture before has increased the number of raptors in

an area (Robinson and Bolen, 1984).

People have also created rock piles, debris piles, and abandoned stmctures that

provide denning sites for different mammals such as striped skunks {Mephitis mephitis)

and raccoons {Procyon lotor). Of the mammalian predators, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)

have one of the highest impacts upon the prairie chickens (Burger, 1988). According to

Burger (1988), nest success rates are lower in red fox dominated areas than in areas

dominated by coyotes {Canis latrans). Figure 2.1 shows predators and the season of

impact upon the prairie chickens.

The spring has been found to be a period of higher mortality due to raptors

(Burger, 1988). Burger (1988) found that, during the nesting period, females are more

likely to be susceptible to predation. This time period of predation is highly damaging to

populations due to the fact that both the hen and her potential production are lost. The

males also have a greater exposure during the spring and consequently have slightly

higher mortality rates (Burger, 1988). The great horned owl {Bubo virginianus) and red-

tailed hawks {Buteo jamiacensis) are not ordinarily common predators on the prairie, but

14

the vertical structures either planted or built by man provide perching and nesting places.

The great horned owl is one of the most noteworthy avian predators of the prairie chicken

because it is a highly effective predator where perches exist.

According to Haukos (1988), just prior to the hen's arrival on the leks, peak raptor

migration occurs. The lesser prairie chickens are harassed by rough-legged hawks {Buteo

lagopus). Cooper's hawks {Accipiter cooperii), golden eagles {Aquila chrysaetos),

fermginous hawks {Buteo regalis), and red-tailed hawks (Haukos, 1988). The raptors fly

over the lekking sites and flush the males from the area. This could cause lek instability

due to the harassment by the raptors. As a result of lek instability, the breeding success

rate could decrease, causing lower birth rates. Raptor predation has also been shown to be

greatest prior to the maturation of the sand shinnery oak leaves (Haukos, 1988).

The presence of radio transmitters on the lesser prairie chickens can also have an

effect upon the prairie chickens ability to avoid predation (Haukos, 1988). Studies using

radio transmitters to track the lesser prairie chickens have experienced high rates of

mortality (Taylor, 1978; Sell, 1979; Haukos, 1988). According to Haukos (1988), the

lesser prairie chicken depends upon cryptic coloration to avoid predation. The presence

of the radio transmitter could make it easier for them to be seen by predators due to the

alteration of the color patterns that camouflage the bird. Although studies showed

mortality rates due to predation upon radio-marked prairie chickens, it is believed that

this has not had a marked effect upon the overall populations of lesser prairie chickens.

15

Species

Great horned owl

Bubo virginianus

Red-tailed hawk

Buteo jamaicensis

Swainson's hawk

Buteo swainsoni

Fermginous hawk

Buteo regalis

Coyote

Canis latrans

Red fox

Vulpes vulpes

Badger

Taxedia taxus

Raccoon

Procyon lotor

Striped skunk

Mephitis mephitis

Winter Spring

X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

Summer

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Fall

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Figure 2.1. Predators and Season of Impact

16

CHAPTER III

HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN

Land Management Tools

One of the major concerns in managing for lesser prairie chickens is the use of

tebuthiuron. This herbicide has proved to be very effective in treating sand shinnery oak.

Many ranchers use tebuthiuron to convert shrub-dominated rangeland into grass-

dominated rangeland in order to increase forage production for cattle (Olawsky, 1987).

Shinnery oak is capable of superseding grasses in rangeland due to its extensive root

system (Olawsky, 1987). According to Olawsky, because the leaves are toxic to cattle in

the spring, it is considered to be undesirable by many ranchers. Therefore, it has been

treated with herbicides to reduce its presence on the rangelands.

Control of the shinnery oak increases the grass production on range sites. Studies

have shown that nest production of the lesser prairie chicken increases proportionally

with grass production (Olawsky, 1987; Haukos, 1988; Doerr, 1980). The lesser prairie

chicken prefers grass for loafing, nesting, and escape cover (Crawford, 1974). Olawsky

(1988) found that lesser prairie chicken densities were higher in treated plots than they

were in untreated plots during both the winter and the summer months. The grasses

provide superior cover for the prairie chickens during the winter because the shinnery oak

loses its leaves leaving the substrates bare.

The lesser prairie chickens food habits also change between untreated and treated

sites. In treated plots, the lesser prairie chickens have a diet that is more fibrous and lower

in quality than in areas that have not been treated. (Olawsky, 1987) The untreated sites

17

provide acorns, which provide a good source of lipids for the prairie chicken. Olaswky

(1987) found that the prairie chickens were repeatedly found near untreated shinnery oak,

even within treated plots containing abimdant cover. Conversely, in untreated sand

shinnery oak habitat, the preferred nesting habitat was residual grass cover.

During the summer months, the body condition of the lesser prairie chicken is

poorer on treated plots than it is on untreated plots (Olawsky, 1987). The acoms produced

by the sand shinnery oak are high in lipids and, therefore, are beneficial. In treated areas,

the prairie chickens have higher energy expenditures due to increased feeding habits.

This increased feeding occurs so that they can compensate for the lack of proteins and

lipids in treated areas. Molt, thermoregulation, and reproductive activities are all stressful

situations affected by the poorer body condition. (Olawsky, 1987)

It is obvious that lesser prairie chickens can benefit from both treated and

untreated habitats. The treated areas provide an increase in nesting cover, and the

untreated areas provide better thermal cover and food sources. Management for both

areas can greatly benefit the lesser prairie chicken. Haukos (1988) gives two

recommendations for providing nesting cover in both treated and untreated plots. The

first recommendation is to implement a grazing schedule with moderate intensity to

provide vertical screening cover and residual grasses for nest sites. The second is to

identify the oldest leks and leave the greatest amount of nesting cover there because the

leks are the places where the hen visitation rates are highest.

Payne and Bryant (1994) also suggest managing strategies for areas that contain

both treated and untreated sites. Deer {Odocoileus spp.), scaled quail {Callipepla

squamata), northern bobwhite quail {Colinus virginianus), and lesser prairie chickens

would benefit from the protection of shinnery oak mottes. (Payne and Bryant, 1994)

Treating blocks of land (150 to 300 ha) on a rotational basis with tebuthiuron would

maintain adequate cover and food sources for prairie chickens (Doerr, 1980). Doerr also

suggested a period of 5 years to complete the rotation of 4 to 5 blocks. Sand shinnery oak

would still remain in untreated sand dunes (Doerr, 1980). Ranch management plans

would easily be able to incorporate treatment of different blocks in different years.

Grazing can also be an effective tool for managing rangeland for lesser prairie

chickens. Overgrazing has been proven to have detrimental effects not only on the lesser

prairie chickens, but also on the range as well (Payne and Bryant, 1994). Undergrazing is

not beneficial either. Light to moderate grazing systems in deferred rotation programs

have proven advantageous for both prairie chickens as well as cattlemen (Litton et al.,

1994). Moderate grazing and light stocking rates also create more small-scale plant

heterogeneity (Payne and Bryant, 1994). A period of pasture rest enhances the food

species and nesting cover for the lesser prairie chicken. Litton et al. (1994) found that

areas considered to be marginal habitat due to overgrazing could be revived as the

grazing pressure is decreased.

Environmental protective grazing (EPG) entails cautiously managing livestock to

prohibit overuse of wildlife habitats and to protect delicate environments (Payne and

Bryant, 1994). EPG suggests several guidelines, whose intent is to ensure that

rangelands:

a. are stocked conservatively,

b. receive sufficient rest from grazing.

19

c. implement grazing tactics that are carefiilly timed around wildlife cycles and

phenological augmentation of plants,

d. are rigorously monitored to disallow ovemse of key plants and areas for

wildlife, and

e. are managed to maintain a certain amount of residual cover for wildlife.

In particular cases, livestock may be excluded from wildlife areas that are deemed to be

"key" to wildlife survival.

Strategic grazing can be very instmmental in improving lesser prairie chicken

habitat and food sources. This process involves the use of livestock as a manipulative tool

to create specific habitat conditions in wildlife habitat management. According to Payne

and Bryant (1994), some benefits of this plan for prairie chickens could be to:

a. establish weedy patches for use as feeding sites for birds,

b. uphold sites of tall residual grass and nesting cover through planned rest

periods.

c. promote regeneration of grasses,

d. create bare ground as display sites for prairie chickens, and

e. augment shrub production by eliminating competing undergrowth.

Grazing systems provide planned grazing and periods of reprieve so that grazed plants

can yield seed and allow seedlings to become established (Payne and Bryant, 1994). With

a few exceptions, any type of grazing system is more beneficial for wildlife than allowing

continuous grazing.

There are some agricultural practices that can be beneficial to prairie chickens.

Tillage can be detrimental if performed during the nesting season. Payne and Bryant

20

(1994) suggested waiting until after July 15"̂ to mow or till. This practice will reduce

nesting losses. Tillage during the fall and winter can also remove sources of food for the

prairie chicken. Moreover, if farmers make fewer passes across a field with machinery, it

could reduce the amount of nest destmction. The stubble left behind after harvest

provides food and cover for prairie chickens. Allowing standing grain crops such as corn

or sorghum to remain after harvest provides a source of winter food. Prose (1987)

suggested that planting cropland with specially formulated grass/forb seed mixtures

would increase nesting cover as well as brood-rearing cover. However, Crawford (1974)

found that plots of land with more than 37% cultivation of acreage could not support

lesser prairie chicken populations.

Planting permanent, rapidly growing grasses and legumes in narrow strips

between fields and around the perimeter establishes vertical and horizontal diversity in

farmland operations (Payne and Bryant, 1994). These field borders can also reduce

erosion as well as pollution of riparian areas. Planting alfalfa in these field borders would

also provide the birds with nesting cover.

Planting food plots would supplement the limited food supplies in the Great

Plains during winter and early spring months (Payne and Bryant, 1994). These food plots

can be an alternative to providing nutrient supplements to animals at critical times of the

year. Increases in prairie chicken distribution and dispersion as well as ensuring healthier

birds are additional benefits of food plots. Food plots need to be rectangular or linear

where possible to maximize edge and interspersion. (Payne and Bryant, 1994) Prairie

chickens can benefit from small winter food plots that are about five acres in size (Litton

21

et al., 1994). The plants most useful to all wildlife are cereal grains, legumes, and grain

sorghum (Payne and Bryant, 1994).

In many areas, existing water supplies are a limited resource for the lesser prairie

chicken. Early April through the end of June and again in late August showed the most

use of water sources by the lesser prairie chicken. Stock tanks are visited regularly by

females in the early stages of incubation while males use water sources throughout the

lekking period. (Sell, 1979) Stock tanks could also enhance the chances of survival for

prairie chickens during periods of drought.

When planning developments for water, sources need to be placed strategically in

relation to food and cover sources. Do not place artificial water sources in gullies, on

sandy soils, in an unnatural place like a ridge, near a natural water source, trails or roads,

or areas of human activity (Payne and Bryant, 1994). It is also inadvisable to create water

sources in areas where the prairie chicken would have to compete with livestock or feral

animals.

Prescribed burning land management practices can be beneficial for prairie

chickens as well as for the land. Burning enhances grass production, which provides

nesting habitat for the prairie chicken. Because the technique of buming must be

followed by rainfall, a certain degree of risk is involved. (Litton et al , 1994) According

to Litton et al., severe wind erosion can occur if areas of deep sands are burned.

Therefore, care should be taken in these areas.

Implementation of prescribed burning should occur in the early spring (late

March), around the time of last frost just as the grasses begin to turn green (Litton et al.,

1994). There should be adequate soil moisture present at this time. According to Litton et

11

al., a bum rotation of 3-4 years through all pastures increases palatability and is ideal for

enhancement of lesser prairie chicken habitat. Fire can also reduce litter on travelways

and booming grounds. Buming could also reduce the number of parasites. Fire was a

natural part of the ecosystem before man settled the Great Plains, and it needs to remain

as a management tool to ensure higher quality rangeland.

Hunting Regulations

Today, there is not much hunting pressure on the lesser prairie chicken. Currently

there is a two-day hunting season falling on October 18-19. The bag limit for lesser

prairie chickens is two per day. The season is also limited to a few counties in west

Texas. As long as people hunt within the requirements of the law, hunting will not have a

negative effect upon the populations of the lesser prairie chicken. Using programs such as

the "Hunter Safety Course" to educate people about species that are threatened or

endangered may reduce poaching of these species. Strict enforcement of hunting laws

and harsh penalties may also deter poaching. It is likely that the laws put in place in 1937

protecting the lesser prairie chicken may have helped to protect it from extinction.

Predator Control

Specific predator control is a costly procedure and requires carefiilly focused

treatment programs. Therefore, it is not always a practical method. A management

approach to controlling predators might prove to be more beneficial as well as more

productive. Increasing nesting cover will aid the prairie chickens by allowing the eggs

and hen to stay hidden. Reducing predator access trails in the nesting cover, and

decreasing predator denning/nesting sites safeguards the nesting hens. Because foxes are

effective nest predators, favoring coyotes in an area displaces the foxes, thereby

increasing nest success (Burger, 1988).

Predators and prey are an important part of every ecosystem. Each habitat has a

carrying capacity that it can support. Predators and prey keep this ecosystem in balance.

If humans were to wipe out this predator "link," it would have an adverse affect upon the

ecosystem. The populations of the prey species would soar beyond the land's carrying

capacity. A lack of a sufficient food source to support the higher populations would then

result in the starvation of the animals. Even though it is unlikely that removal of the

animals that prey upon the lesser prairie chicken would result in a population explosion,

it would have an effect upon other species. The rise in populations of other species would

increase the competition for food sources between other species and the lesser prairie

chicken. This change would adversely affect the populations of the lesser prairie chicken.

Conservation Reserve Program

A potential for restoring the habitat and range of the lesser prairie chicken

occurred with the inception of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which is a part

of the Food Security Act in 1985 (Litton et al., 1994). This is a voluntary program

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that lasts for a period often years. It

was designed to conserve and improve soil resources. This is accomplished by removing

land that is considered to be highly erodible from crop production activities. Of the 1.7

million hectares of CRP lands in Texas, 80% are in the High Plains Region (Payne and

Bryant, 1994). This land is prime habitat for the lesser prairie chicken. Unfortunately, the

24

majority of these lands were planted with monoculture grass stands. In fact, the land I

myself own, which is enrolled in CRP, is dominated by lovegrass {Eragrostis spp.).

Optimum CRP habitat would consist of a mixture of warm-season perennial bunch

grasses, legumes, forbs, and woody plants (Litton et al., 1994).

Benefits of the CRP program on the southem high plains include improved

nesting as well as higher distribution of bird species (Payne and Bryant, 1994). It will

also secure winter cover for the lesser prairie chicken as well as for other species of

ground nesting birds. However, for this program to have long-reaching benefits, the

federal government will not only have to make the program renewable, but also provide

incentives for farmers to keep their land out of production the year after CRP is

terminated (Payne and Bryant, 1994). The amount and longevity of the payments will

also play a role in encouraging farmers to keep their land in CRP.

25

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION

Short Term Goals

Implementing management goals for the lesser prairie chicken will require a

combined effort among the government (both state and federal), farmers, ranchers,

hunters, and wildlife managers. The key is to effectively communicate the needs of the

lesser prairie chicken on a habitat basis. Farmers and ranchers need to be educated about

the practices that they can implement that will be beneficial not only to the lesser prairie

chicken, but also to themselves and to mankind as well. Teaching proper grazing

techniques and crop rotation techniques will improve their production as well as the

habitat available to wildlife. Hunter safety courses are an excellent means of informing

hunters of the consequences of poaching as well as the detriments it causes to the

wildlife. Teaching our children good ethics while they are young will hopefully ensure

ethical hunting practices later, as well as encouraging positive attitudes and behaviors

towards nature.

Lobbying for the CRP program and making sure that it will remain economically

feasible for people in the agriculture industry will be of tremendous benefit to the lesser

prairie chicken as well as to the ecosystem generally. Providing informational resources

for farmers and ranchers on how to manage their CRP lands for the benefit of wildlife

will improve understanding of the program as well as its benefits. The CRP program has

tremendous potential in terms of land and wildlife benefits.

26

Long Term Goals

Ensuring that we, as caretakers of the land in which we live, can provide a habitat

in which the lesser prairie chicken can survive is a goal that is attainable with work. If we

can implement these practices, it will not only benefit the lesser prairie chicken but other

wildlife as well. Learning how to manage our land and educate consumers of the natural

resources will hopefully ensure the survival of many species by keeping them from

extinction. To be able to effectively use our natural resources, yet at the same time allow

nature to replenish itself, is a great goal to achieve.

Effective management and restoration of the lesser prairie chicken is symbolic of

humankind's ability to coexist with a delicate part of our environment. With proper

management, the lesser prairie chicken can sustain its populations and hopefully begin to

thrive once again. This is a goal that we should all want to achieve.

27

LITERATURE CITED

Bowdoin, Julia M. "Texans Flock to Save a Native Grouse: The Attwater's Prairie Chicken Recovery Plan." American Zoo and Aquarium Association Online. 12 November, 1997.

Burger, L.W. Movements, Homerange, and Survival of Female Prairie Chickens in Relation to Habitat Pattern. Thesis (M.S.). U. of Missouri, 1988.

Crawford, John A. The Effects of Land Use on Lesser Prairie Chicken Populations in West Texas. Thesis (Ph.D.). Texas Tech U., 1974.

Curcione, N. "Deviance as Delight: Party-Boat Poaching in Southem California." Deviant Behavior 13 (1992): 33-57.

Doerr, Ted B. Effects of Tebuthiuron on Lesser Prairie Chicken Habitat and Food Supplies. Thesis (M.S.). Texas Tech U., 1980.

Forsyth, Craig, and Thomas A. Marckese. "Thrills and Skills: A Sociological Analysis of Poaching." Deviant Behavior 14 ri993): 157-172.

"Habitat Management for the Prairie Chicken in Kansas." Kansas:U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, 1989.

Haukos, David A. Reproductive Ecology of Lesser Prairie Chickens in West Texas. Thesis (M.S.). Texas Tech U., 1988.

Krausman, P.R., E.G. Bolen, and J.A Crawford. "The Birds of Rangelands" Rangeland Wildlife. Ed. P.R. Krausman. Denver, CO: The Society of Range Management, 1996. 15-28.

Litton, George W., Robert L. West, David F. Dvorak, and Gene T. Miller. The LesserPrairie Chicken and its Management in Texas. Federal Report Series; no. 33. Austin:Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Fisheries and Wildlife Division, 1994.

Meffe, Gary K., C. Ronald Carroll, and contributors. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1997.

Miller, Walter. "Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency." Journal of Social Issues 14 (1958): 5-19.

Nester, William R. The War for America's Natural Resources. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997.

28

Olawsky, Craig D. Effects of Shinnery Oak Control with Tebuthiuron on Lesser Prairie Chicken Populations. Thesis (M.S.). Texas Tech U., 1987.

Payne, Neil, and Fred Bryant. Techniques for Wildlife Habitat Management of Uplands. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.

Prose, Bart L. Management Techniques for the Greater Prairie Chicken. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987.

Robinson, William L., and Eric G. Bolen. Wildlife Ecology and Management. New York: Macmillian Publishing Co., 1984.

Scalet, Charles G., Lester Flake, and David Willis. Introduction to Wildlife and Fisheries, An Integrated Approach. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1996.

Sell, Darwin L. Spring and Summer Movements and Habitat use by Lesser Prairie Chicken Females in Yoakum County. Texas. Texas: n.p., 1979.

Sharpe, R.S. The Evolutionary Relationships and Comparative Behavior of Prairie Chickens. Thesis (Ph.D.). U. of Nebraska, 1968.

Sosebee, Ronald. Personal interview. 02 December, 1997.

Taylor, Maple A. Fall and Winter Movements and Habitat use of Lesser Prairie Chickens. Thesis (M.S.). Texas Tech U., 1978.

Taylor, Maple A., and F.S. Guthery. Status, Ecology, and Management of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-77., 1980.

Warner, R.E., and S.L. Etter. "Hay Cutting and the Survival of Pheasants: a Long Term Perspective." Journal of Wildlife Management 53 (1989): 458-461.

Wiens, J.A., and M.l. Dyer. "Rangeland Avifaunas: Their Composition, Energetics, and Role in the Ecosystem." In D.R. Smith, tech. coord. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Forests and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds. U.S. For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1, 1975. 146-182.

29