Habitat Threat

Justin Nooker

When trying out new public hunting land I am often times disappointed. I’ve been hunting on public land many times. This mostly includes taking our beagles out to hunt rabbits around the Green Bay area. Often times lower, marshier public lands, good for rabbit hunting, are disastrously overtaken by invasive species. More than not, this means mats of reed canary grass. It frustrates me to see my dogs have to jump above or struggle to push through impenetrable mats. Not only do I hate hunting in lands infested with invasive species, especially reed canary grass, but imagine the natural habitat that has been destroyed. Am I the only one concerned about low quality hunting lands? Maybe I consistently pick bad spots?

For two of my past three summers I have worked for the Madison Audubon Society (MAS) working to maintain over 300 acres of high quality restored prairies around a 60 acre remnant prairie in Lake Mills, Wisconsin that Aldo Leopold helped preserve and wrote about in his essay Exit Orchis. The MAS prides themselves with restorations including over 200 native species in each restoration. Each year an intern crew is hired to keep any and all invasive species at bay. This is funding of over $30,000 a year, just for interns, to keep invasive species out of the prairies and remnant.

I have visited a 2,000 acre restoration completed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) right by Lake Mills and it is disappointing compared to the restorations the MAS have accomplished. The WDNR restoration includes many native species, around 50, and includes infestations of large reed canary grass patches and other aggressive invasives. I understand that 2,000 acres of land provides great habitat for wildlife and other beneficiaries, but 2,000 acres of high quality, intensively managed lands would provide tenfold the amount of food, nutrients, habitat, and quality homes for birds, wildlife, and other species.

The MAS is a nonprofit and thus can allocate its funds to whichever priority it deems necessary. I believe the WDNR needs to look at how others do things and adapt. Doesn’t there seem to be a lack of initiative to control invasive species on public land? Why isn’t this a priority? The WDNR has had to make many budget cuts and funding cuts. Why haven’t every day citizens that use the resource picked up the bill for something they feel dearly about? Should lay persons have to contribute that much more to our local resource? I believe if we want quality lands we should go above and beyond paying just our hunting and land access fees.

My brother worked for the WDNR around the Shawano area in Wisconsin and one of his main tasks for about a week or two during the summer was walking dikes to see if muskrats had made holes in them or if they were damaged. I can see how this is a priority for controlling water levels for water fowl populations and safeguarding initial investments to create the dikes, but I think there are bigger priorities out there. Wouldn’t it be better to have a high quality habitat for birds and other wildlife, instead of low quality habitat and high quality dikes?

My work with the MAS has made me very nitpicky about invasive species control and has influenced me to think negatively on the presence of invasive species. But have I made some points? Shouldn’t invasive species eradication or control be a priority for developing quality habitats? Yes, invasive species are here, will be here, and more are entering this country as you finish reading this, but if and when there is more funding available, will there be a push for managing invasive species? Can we gain control over some of these invasives? Is there a balance we can strive for? I hope so. It would significantly help native species, habitats, and ecosystems function properly.