NR 1.14NR 1.14 Upland game birds. Upland game birds are pheasants, quail, Hungarian (gray) partridge, grouse and wild turkey. While these species depend primarily upon upland sites, most species also utilize wetlands to meet part of their habitat needs. The following needs and actions are essential for effective implementation of the upland game bird program.

NR 1.14(1)(a)(a) The maintenance of existing habitat and, where necessary, improvement or restoration of critical components of habitat are the preferred methods of management. Management recommendations for upland game bird habitat will become an integral part of land-use plans on all public lands.

NR 1.14(1)(b)(b) Prairie grouse (prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse) habitat is constantly threatened by natural forest succession and development of land for intensive agricultural and forestry uses. Positive efforts shall be made to assure that free-living populations of these species and their necessary habitat will be perpetuated.

NR 1.14(1)(b)1.1. Prairie grouse management and habitat restoration programs shall be accorded high priority on all publicly-owned lands designated by the department. Where remnant flocks of sharp-tailed grouse occur, associated with habitat on public lands, the emphasis in land-use plans will be on maintenance or improvement of this habitat.

NR 1.14(1)(b)2.2. The maintenance of huntable populations of sharp-tailed grouse shall be the management objective where suitable continuity of habitat makes this feasible. Cooperative agreements, including leases where necessary, shall be executed with other public and private owners of lands where it is deemed practicable and essential to prairie grouse management by the department.

NR 1.14(1)(c)(c) Much of the remaining habitat for upland game birds is the result of land-use decisions made by owners of private property. Therefore, programs that will promote the conservation and improvement of upland game bird habitat and improve access to private lands will be supported. In addition to the technical advice supplied by department wildlife managers, the board recognizes the contribution of wildlife management assistance given to private landowners through cooperative forest management, U.S. department of agriculture and university of Wisconsin-extension programs. However, much more must be done to offset losses of wildlife habitat in predominantly agricultural areas. Cooperative wildlife habitat management programs, including the “acres for wildlife” program, which offer additional incentives and management assistance to landowners shall be developed. Conservancy district zoning as well as other programs and policies of local and federal agencies which conserve upland game bird habitat will also be supported.

NR 1.14(2)(2) Harvest. Harvest regulations must have as their objective to take no more than the harvestable surplus of each species within broad areas of range. Regulations must also, to the extent of the law, have as their objective reasonable minimum standards of conduct for hunters and equitable distribution of hunting opportunities.

NR 1.14(3)(3) Stocking and transplanting. There are 3 basically different objectives to the artificial introduction of upland game birds. The first is to restore a species which has been extirpated, the second to speed recovery of severely depleted numbers as a result of catastrophe, and the third to provide birds for hunting recreation on areas where the demand exceeds the capacity to produce wild birds. The first 2 are ordinarily short-term efforts involving wildtrapped stock, which are aimed at establishing or increasing wild populations which sustain themselves. The third is an annual effort which does not have lasting benefits and which often masks the continued deterioration of the habitat base necessary to sustain wild populations.

NR 1.14(3)(a)(a) Stocking of state wildlife areas to supplement wild populations for hunting recreation will be confined primarily to cock pheasants. However, stocked hens as well as cocks can be harvested on state wildlife areas in submarginal pheasant range. While stocking can usually put additional birds in the field at a lesser cost than habitat improvement, it yields only short-term, single-purpose benefits reaped primarily by the participants who hunt them. Therefore, user fees should be the primary means of support for pheasant stocking on designated state-owned areas. In order to assure the opportunity for a quality hunting experience on heavily hunted wildlife areas stocked with pheasants, (as was the case in s. NR 1.12 (2) (d) relating to waterfowl projects) a reduction in excessive hunter densities will be pursued by every available means.

NR 1.14(3)(b)(b) Cooperative game bird stocking (pheasant) programs will be used as necessary to supplement wild populations on privately-owned land in areas where the demand for upland game bird hunting exceeds the supply of wild birds. All game birds reared under cooperative programs continue to be the property of the state until released and harvested under general hunting regulations provided in ch. NR 10. The department will provide chicks and a specified amount of feed per chick to individuals or groups who care for the birds and provide rearing facilities that meet state standards. When the cost-sharing program is not elected, all game birds reared by private individuals or groups shall be released on lands which are accessible to the public for hunting without charge.

NR 1.14(3)(c)(c) Game birds shall not be stocked on lands to which the public is denied access for hunting unless a percentage of chicks fixed by the department is returned to the state at 8 or more weeks of age as specified in a written cost-share agreement. When cost-share birds are to be released, a percentage of the birds representing in total value the state’s investment in chicks and feed shall be returned to the department and released on state wildlife areas. Cost records from the Poynette game farm will be used to determine the value at release age. The balance of the cost-share birds may be released by the individual or group on private lands, posted as desired, except that none may be released on private shooting preserves or private game farms.

NR 1.14(4)(4) Research and surveys. Statewide or regional surveys and investigations shall have high priority. Their primary objective is the establishment of base information regarding population densities, harvest, range and habitat quality or quantity. Periodic reassessment of these same bases will yield trend information necessary for management.

NR 1.15(1)(a)(a) Forest diversity. A planned program of maintaining forest diversity including shade-intolerant cover types, particularly aspen, oak and forest openings, is required to slow or halt this decline in habitat quality and to maintain deer populations at established population objectives.

NR 1.15(1)(b)(b) Summer range. Habitat conditions are deteriorating most rapidly on summer deer range. Forest maturation, conversion from sun-loving tree species to shade tolerant species and loss of grassy openings are reducing the quality of summer deer range and with it, the deer carrying capacity in northern Wisconsin. The habitat management objective is to provide an adequate mixture of aspen, oak, upland brush, jack pine and sodded openings in connection with regular forest management practices.

NR 1.15(1)(c)(c) Winter range. Winter habitat may be increasing as a result of expanding coniferous cover and implementation of deer yard plans on public lands. However, winter deer survival is largely dependent on fat acquired on the summer range. Deer have evolved physiologically and behaviorally to survive in northern forest habitats under average winter conditions. Occasional severe winters will result in deer mortality. These periodic losses are considered normal for northern deer and will occur irrespective of winter habitat quality. Severe deer losses can be mitigated most effectively by maintaining quality summer habitat. Direct feeding of hay, corn or other agricultural crops is seldom effective and even detrimental if not introduced gradually over time. While browse cutting does provide natural feed, it is largely ineffective. Specially formulated feed in pelletized form has been demonstrated to benefit malnourished deer. However, the cost and logistics of feeding enough deer to produce a measurable result in subsequent years precludes feeding as normal public policy. The department recognizes public concern for malnourished deer, public desire to feed stressed deer regardless of cost or measurable results and the benefits to individual animals which are properly fed. Therefore, the following policy is adopted for wintering deer in the northern forest.

NR 1.15(2)(a)(a) Deer population objectives. The department shall seek to maintain a deer herd in balance with its range and with deer population and sustainable harvest objectives that are reasonably compatible with social, economic and ecosystem management objectives for each deer management unit. Deer population objectives are to be based on: