Date: 6/7/25 6:02 am From: 'McMullen, Catherine M [NREM]' via IA-BIRD <ia-bird...> Subject: Re: FW: [ia-bird] Bird habitat destruction in the name Invasive species removal for Prairie and Oak Savannahs.
One factor that can make a discussion about invasives difficult and/or confusing is that people use the term invasive in different ways. I don’t think anyone would argue that the introduced honeysuckles are not invasive … they can displace nearly everything.
Where it can get confusing is for species like white mulberry. It grows along woodland edges, in fence lines and in other disturbed areas, but I have never seen it in the woods (this may change if successful hybrids between red and white mulberry become widespread), and I don’t consider it invasive. It also has positive value for wildlife https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/tree/moralb/all.html. However, in her book “Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest (The University of Wisconsin Press 2005) Elizabeth Czarapata considers white mulberry invasive.
A few years back the city of Des Moines spent a lot of time and effort removing white mulberry from the edge of some west side bike trails. Water Works did the same, removing white mulberry from the edges of the woods. It was frustrating to see what I consider the waste of time and money to remove a tree that is not invading woodlands and has wildlife value (in addition to being a delicious edible for us), and I wonder if other trail users were distressed by this “invasive” control and would come away with a negative view of the practice.
Research from many different fields consistently show that more information is generally not effective in changing minds, while having on the ground conversations, being a good listener, and developing relationships is effective. To help people understand vegetation management practices and just what we do in general may require conversations outside of our comfort zone, as in this example:
Nalani M. Nadkarni, “Ecological Outreach to Faith-Based Communities,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6, no. 5 (2007):332–333.
Cathy McMullen
Department of Natural Resource Ecology
and Management
Iowa State University
From: <ia-bird...> <ia-bird...> on behalf of John T <crowlover49...>
Date: Friday, June 6, 2025 at 1:07 PM
To: Clayton Will <willcfish...>
Cc: Doug & Nina Harr <dnharr...>, IA-Bird ListServe <ia-bird...>
Subject: Re: FW: [ia-bird] Bird habitat destruction in the name Invasive species removal for Prairie and Oak Savannahs.
I guess I read the article more as "the standard methods used for invasive species control that are more effective at scale tend to not be As accepted socially by Americans" which you would need for something like this. As far as what was the best method and cost, that seemed to be tied more to needing to gather more evidence on specific levels of effectiveness because of, well, see your comments on aquatic plants. And then it would be a question from there of "how socially acceptable would a perhaps more effective way of doing it be." As for the Ring-necked Pheasants, well, that's down to whether there's evidence of if their presence is negative for other native species that we'd want to have and that's another evidence thing.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 12:26 PM Clayton Will <willcfish...><mailto:<willcfish...>> wrote:
Thank you for posting the article Doug. From what I read they are saying they don't know the right method, cause or effect. It reads they are looking for the method the public will accept. Also whether these efforts are worth the money spent. It asks many questions about what is being done but without answers.
This is just part of failed invasive policies. Millions of wasted dollars have been spent not only on vegetative invasives but also as referred to in the article about aquatic invasives. The DNR spent a lot of money to stop aquatic invasives by putting up signs at boat ramps, billboards, rinse stations and hiring staff to hand out stickers to put on our boat trailers so we could be charged if vegetaion was on a boat trailer with a sticker. There was never any way that would work without removing the boat from the trailer because of vegetation trapped between the boat and wooden bunks on the trailer. With folks coming in for tournamets it was just a matter of time and impacted by what brings in money. The birds we so much enjoy carry invasive seeds pond by pond, lake by lake. Now bird flu which is causing the poisoning of birds around CAFOs. There are now huge areas without Red-tailed Hawks. Should we eraticate the Ring-necked Pheasant too? Back to aquatic the much feared Zebra Mussel (produce millions of offspring "villagers") has turned out to have grown more and larger fish in Iowa supercharging the beginning of the food chain with minimal impact to water supplies.
Iowa counties were brought up in a post and Boone County has now taken out so much road vegetation they have taken out ads in newspapers offering to remove trees for free on private property and some wonder why I'm concerned. Counties do this to keep the men busy regardless of the effect. I stopped three Boone County trucks and eight men who had started to cut down a known Long-eared Owl habitat leading to Sugar Valley boat ramp a few years back. The foreman said he takes his family there and didn't like it either but the county engineer looks at a map without coming to look and gives them their work order. I calked the engineer and he came out and called them off. They were going to dig deep ditches on a B-level road to Sugar Valley boat ramp destroying prime habitat. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I'm glad we had this coversation and give nor take any personal offence toward Steve, IOU or the DNR where I have many good friends doing policy or what their told
Sincerely,
Clayton Will
Madrid
On Fri, Jun 6, 2025, 10:28 Doug & Nina Harr <dnharr...><mailto:<dnharr...>> wrote:
I must agree with Steve Dinsmore's message about the importance of removing invasive vegetation to many species of birds. And most interestingly, just today The Wildlife Society (a nationwide professional organization) happened to include a quite related article in its weekly newsletter. I would suggest that many of you might want to read the article, using the following link:
https://wildlife.org/qa-the-public-opinion-on-invasive-species-management/.
Doug Harr
TWS Certified Wildlife Biologist®
& Audubon Upper Miss. River Regional Office Advisory Board member
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:21 PM <aj...><mailto:<aj...>> wrote:
Posting for Steve Dinsmore who for some reason cannot access this group.
I continue to be surprised by comments like Clayton’s. As I said here a couple of years ago, these kinds of negative reactions to habitat management for birds (and other wildlife) are common, sometimes unfortunate, and demonstrate a short-sighted view of a very complex situation. Clayton’s email references two main issues, (1) oak savannah restoration, and (2) non-native honeysuckle removal. Here are some perspectives to consider on these issues:
* I strongly disagree with the notion of “destruction of bird habitat” as used more than once in Clayton’s email. Such comments demonstrate an ignorance of what habitat management is all about and promote the notion that management equals destruction. Alteration is a more appropriate term. Restoring to its native state is even better. And while these alterations are bad for some species they are also good for others.
* The site at Cherry Glen that Clayton references is being restored to native oak savannah. Personally I am thrilled at all the oak savannah restoration efforts at Saylorville and elsewhere. This is great for birds. This particular restoration site is full of Red-headed Woodpeckers and Great Crested Flycatchers, is great for migrant warblers (and I can see them better now that the forest is more open), hosts breeding Summer and Scarlet tanagers, etc. We need more of these efforts to restore native forests in Iowa.
* Clayton’s comments about Big Creek State Park seem to reference efforts to combat invasive honeysuckle. For lots of reasons the spread of honeysuckle is bad for native wildlife. True, there are some examples of benefits, but on balance there are far more costs. Keeping it contained through aggressive removal is the best tool we have right now. Surely we can agree that removing non-natives like honeysuckle is a good thing?
* Contrary to Clayton’s comments, management is not all about oak savannah and prairies. Wetland restoration and management (the Shallow Lakes effort is a great example), restoring river oxbows, restoring sandbars on the Missouri River, and managing flood control reservoirs for waterbirds are a few that come to mind. I’ll note that some of Clayton’s favorite birding locales benefit from these management efforts.
* Clayton’s comment about the lack of edges is baffling. Edge habitat is everywhere and in a highly fragmented landscape like Iowa it will always be that way.
* I applaud ALL efforts by management agencies to restore native habitats for wildlife. This includes the tree removal at Bays Branch, honeysuckle removal EVERYWHERE, oak savannah restoration, and similar efforts. We need more of these efforts.
* The IOU does not need to get involved. At the 2025 spring meeting in Sioux City the membership approved a new mission statement as follows: “The purpose of the Iowa Ornithologists' Union (hereafter I.O.U.) shall be to develop birders to encourage bird observation, identification, and reporting and share a consistent, historical snapshot of birds in Iowa.” Nothing about habitat management. I heartily agree with what others have said about the need to help, and we can all do this in our own way. But IOU involvement is unnecessary.
* Lastly, I am disturbed by Clayton’s seemingly selfish attitude towards public lands where he has always seen birds and seems to feel this should never change. Public lands are for everyone, not single birders. And the lands to which Clayton refers are at least in part intended to help preserve our natural resources, including birds. Comments suggesting that an individual’s access to see birds is more important than conserving native birds is therefore offensive to me. Enough said.
As always, thank you for reading this email.
Steve
**********
Stephen J. Dinsmore
Professor and Chair
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
Interim Director, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Iowa State University
209 Science II
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 515-294-1348
E-mail: <cootjr...><mailto:<cootjr...> Web: https://faculty.sites.iastate.edu/cootjr/
From: <ia-bird...><mailto:<ia-bird...> <ia-bird...><mailto:<ia-bird...>> On Behalf Of Clayton Will
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2025 10:33 AM
To: IA-BIRD <ia-bird...><mailto:<ia-bird...>> Subject: [ia-bird] Bird habitat destruction in the name Invasive species removal for Prairie and Oak Savannahs.
Hi everyone,
I have held off on writing this because I know it will not be accepted by some but have in the past spoke with The Army Corp, Iowa DNR and the Naturalist for Big Creek. All relating to the destruction of bird habitat such as seen most recently at Lost Lake Trail - Ledges State Park at Cherry Glenn a couple years ago. Big Creek State Park every year even to the point of girdling, chemical spraying, then removing mature trees along with invasives on as small as one acre plots to turn into prairie.
When I was young the Iowa DNR promoted the positive impact that "edges" had on wildlife. Today it is all about prairie and oak savannah, nothing else.
I could go to Cherry Glenn and sit in one spot and see twenty species of birds including Warblers, Tanagers and Cuckoos. After the area was cleared of all undergrowth there has been none of these because the edges are gone. The same way with the walking path at Lost Lake Trail -Ledges which was a go to spot for me and others to see warblers in the Spring. This year they were few and far between after a group that thought they were doing the right thing cleared all the forest floor.
I think IOU should get involved with input on what works for birds but when I was on the board told "Oh no, we can't get involved with that".
Many of you have been taught in college that it's all about prairie and Oak Savannah but there has to be a reasonable acceptance that we are observing negative changes in our parks with these methods.
I recently visited numerous parks such as Lacey-Keosaqua and you don't see the Brush Hog destruction along roadways in the parks that lay there for years as at Big Creek and Army Corp property. I hope they don't follow suit at DNR directive.
When asked about large tree planting projects I'm told "We don't have funds for that". Yet there is plenty of money for equipment to destroy habitat. When asked if they were going to replant with native species to replace as they call "low value" berry bearing bushes, "We don't have funds for that". There's plenty of money for burning prairie which I don't have a problem with but there has to be a return to tree planting and "Edges". I don't understand how trees around the edges would negatively impact the prairie. The North end of Bays Branch in Guthrie county once had a very large woods/prairie area that once a Prairie Warbler was reported there. Now it's nothing but stumps and very few birds.
IOU could have some input on this if the board would be willing to be proactive and ask these organizations to consider the edges we need for birds.
