The Greater Prairie Chicken 
A National Look 
W. Daniel Svedarsky, Ross H. Hier, Nova J. Silvy 
editors 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
University of Minnesota 
Saint Paul, Minnesota 
The University of Minnesota, including the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, is committed to the policy that 
all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, 
religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 
The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of numerous authors and associates to this 
publication: (alphabetically) R.D. Applegate, R.K. Anderson, R.S. Bergland, R.W. Cannon, D.M. 
Christisen, B. Crouch, T.L. Esker, L.F. Fredrickson, D.E. Gawlik, K.M. Giesen, C.P. Griffin, S. Gough, 
G.L. Heismeyer, G.J. Horak, R.E. Horton, J.R. Keir, G.D. Kobriger, M.A. Lockwood, L.M. Mechlin, 
M. Moe, M.E. Morrow, M.J. Peterson, M.A. Schroeder, S.A. Simpson, J.E. Toepfer, W.L. Vodehnal, 
R.L. Westemeier, B. Winter, D.H. Wolfe, T.J. Wolfe. 
Cover illustration by Karen A. Smith. Used with permission. 
Editorial assistance, publication design and production management was provided by experiment 
station senior editor Larry A. Etkin, in the Communication and Educational Technology Services 
unit of the University of Minnesota Extension Service. 
Commercial Products Disclaimer 
Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no 
discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
or the University of Minnnesota is implied. 
Availability 
This miscellaneous publication of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station is intended for a 
very specialized audience, and only a limited number of copies are available, at $25 each, for 
distribution to the public. Inquiries as to the availability of these copies ashould be addressed to 
W. Daniel Svedarsky, Northwest Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Crookston, MN 
56716. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the text of this publication is 
available in alternative formats upon request. 
Copyright© 1999. Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. 
Printed on recycled paper containing a minimum of 10 percent post-consumer material. 
Foreword 
It was indeed a pleasure to bring greetings to the 25th annual meeting of the Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society and to welcome readers to the compilation of papers detailing the national 
status of this unique prairie bird. Once before, in April of 1976, I addressed this meeting and 
good friends at Rothsay when that community celebrated its Bicentennial and was dedicated 
as the "Prairie Chicken Capital of Minnesota." Those sorts of events where farmers, biologists, 
local citizens, community leaders, educators, and politicians get together to have a little fun 
and commemorate a symbol of good land stewardship is rural America at its finest! 
I have fond memories of this bird- and its cousin, the sharp-tailed grouse - having grown up 
in rural Minnesota near Roseau. I will always remember hunting sharptails with my dad in the 
1950s on or near Soil Bank land southwest of Roseau. The birds were abundant, although we 
weren't sure why. When high grain prices came in the early 1970s, the Soil Bank land was 
plowed and the sharptails all but disappeared - then I knew why. These prairie grouse are 
a product of the land and their presence is a sign that the land is healthy. Prairie chickens, in 
particular, and perhaps people as well, do best when there is a mixture of cultivated agriculture 
and grassland on the landscape. 
As these papers document, current prairie chicken populations are a mere sprinkling of their 
former range due to a wide array of limiting factors. But one of the major factors was too in-
tensive land use which sent too much of our precious topsoil to the sea. Along with this irre-
placeable soil goes nutrients and agricultural chemicals which can foul our waters. We have 
returned much of the erodible lands to grass cover through the Conservation Reserve Program 
and we have continued to diversify planting mixtures to improve wildlife habitat values for prai-
rie chickens and other imperiled grassland species but there is more to do. We are witnessing 
a major exodus of farmers leaving the land and a noble way of life behind. We must reverse 
these forces by diversifying rural America in a sustainable fashion that celebrates wild areas 
alongside agriculture and healthy families connected to the land. 
I salute the efforts of the many people working, in their own way, to study and support wildlife 
like the greater prairie chicken. You point the way on how good biology can be integrated with 
wise land use so we can move forward with pride into the new century enjoying the benefits 
of modern society and the pleasures of wild things. 
Robert Bergland 
University of Minnesota Regent 
and former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Preface 
In the winter of 1972-73, a couple of wildlife 
managers and a college instructor got togeth-
er over coffee and donuts and brainstormed 
on how the prairie chicken was doing in Min-
nesota and if more should be done - by peo-
ple. A lot had already been done - by agency 
field people who had acquired the "good 
grass" in various programs that provided the 
all-important habitat base. A bunch of meet-
ings later, and a prairie chicken organization 
was launched- inspired by the Wisconsin 
model of the Society of Tympanuchus Cupido 
Pinnatus and Fred and Fran Hamerstrom. 
Twenty-five years later, the Board of Directors 
of the Society met to plan the Silver Anniver-
sary meeting and decided to really broaden 
the scope to include not only a look at our 
own history, but the national scene as well. 
A number of status papers for states had pre-
viously been prepared for a book that was to 
include greater and lesser chickens and sharp-
tailed grouse and would be published by the 
Prairie Grouse Technical Council. Nova Silvy, 
of Texas A & M University, organized that 
effort which resulted in early versions of most 
greater prairie chicken papers. Authors of 
those papers were contacted and invited to 
update and submit them for this publication. 
Several were able to attend the meeting at 
Crookston and present their papers on 25 
April1998. 
It was a time for celebration as well as 
thoughtful reflection. In the 25-year span, prai-
rie chickens had held their own for the most 
part in Minnesota but such was not the case 
in some states. We were fortunate in Minne-
sota to have had a healthy land base to focus 
management on, in addition to expanded 
acquisition efforts. It is instructive to see what 
works and what doesn't in the conservation 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
of a species distributed over a wide range 
of habitats and climates. A species recovery 
effort is apparently working in Illinois where 
greater prairie chicken numbers and genetic 
fitness had declined to perilous lows but were 
"rescued" by the introduction of new genes 
in transplanted birds. This project was made 
possible by advances in genetic analysis tech-
niques as well as the meticulous, long-term 
field work of Ron Westemeier. A paper by 
Westemeier and co-workers was recently 
published in the prestigious journal, Science, 
in recognition of the landmark nature of their 
findings and potential applications. We are 
grateful to Ron for bringing his many years 
of working with prairie chickens to develop 
the symposium summary paper herein, along 
with Sharron Gough of Missouri. 
A case history on the Attwater's prairie chick-
en in Texas is included to profile an "against 
all odds" scenario described by Nova Silvy. 
It is hard to imagine a current conservation 
setting with more challenges than Attwater's 
chickens, and yet their status 25 years ago, 
although endangered, certainly did not seem 
dismal. Let us learn from this example, fine 
tune and adjust our research and manage-
ment efforts in species conservation, and 
above all, never get complacent as we help 
a species experience success. 
Ross Hier provides a glimpse of the storied 
past of prairie chicken hunting traditions in 
his paper. Prairie chickens have many values 
- as profiled by Grady Mann - and they have 
a solid place in the early settlement, socio-
cultural history of the prairies. It was suste-
nance, certainly, but chicken hunting was 
much more. It defined community events, 
get-togethers of family and friends, and com-
merce in some cases. We will never again see 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
ii 
those days of great chicken abundance but 
it is stirring to see and hear a misty-eyed 80-
year-old say he would "like to just see one, 
once again." 
From the outset, an underlying goal of the 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society was to 
have some fun while saving a species. Again, 
our model was the Wisconsin Society of 
Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus, where the 
annual meeting is a cocktail party! And we 
heed an admonition by the late Fred Hamer-
strom that, "Good works do not need to be 
done in a sepulchral atmosphere." Indeed, 
you will even find Ross Hier cartoons sprin-
kled amidst the serious scientific papers with-
in this publication. 
Fred and Fran Hamerstrom were inspirational 
reference points for many segments of con-
servation - not only in their counsel but in 
their work and how they lived their lives. 
We humbly dedicate this publication to their 
memory for they clearly pointed the way for 
conservation of prairie chickens in North 
America. 
More on reference points. When folks know 
you work with prairie chickens, the welfare 
of the bird is often the lead-in for conversa-
tion; perhaps more so than the old standby 
of the weather. "Well, how are the chickens 
doing?" is commonly the second statement 
after "Hello." It's as if it is a measure of how 
the world is doing in general; the end point 
of some sort of biotic equation where grass 
condition +predation + weather at hatching + 
disease + winter food, etc. = x prairie chickens. 
Certainly, there is an anxious anticipation of 
the spring censusing season when chicken 
counters fan out in the Minnesota range to 
see, "how the world is doing," according to 
the chickens. 
A number of people and organizations helped 
to make this publication a reality. The many 
authors who searched for, dusted off, and 
revised old manuscripts or in some cases 
wrote new papers. The organizations provid-
ing funding include: the Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society; the Northwest Experiment 
Station and the Minnesota Agricultural Experi-
ment Station of the University of Minnesota 
located at Crookston and St. Paul, respective-
ly; Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus, 
Ltd. through president William Schallert; the 
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Texas 
A&M University, College Station; and the 
Pembina Trail Resource Conservation and 
Development Association. Karen Smith, ref-
uge manager at the Lostwood National Wild-
life Refuge in Kenmare, North Dakota, provid-
ed the artwork used on the cover as well as 
on Society note cards, and for a belt buckle 
and brochure. Cartoons and other sketches 
are by Ross Hier, assistant wildlife manager 
with the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources based at Crookston. And, a big 
thanks goes to Larry A. Etkin, senior editor 
with the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment 
Station, who guided the publication process 
and understood delays by the editors. 
As this publication goes to press, the Minne-
sota Prairie Chicken Society has just been 
informed that it will receive the 1999 Group 
Achievement Award of The Wildlife Society. 
This prestigious national award commemo-
rates an organization's "outstanding wildlife 
achievements while advancing the objectives 
of The Wildlife Society." This is humbling and 
capstone recognition to a bunch of people 
who set out to have some fun while helping a 
prairie bird that does an outrageous courtship 
dance in the spring. 
Enjoy the proceedings. 
Dan Svedarsky, proceedings co-editor 
Brian Winter, president, Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society 
Apri/1999 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Contents 
W.O. Svedarsky and B. Winter- Preface ............................................................................... i 
R.K. Anderson and D. E. Gawlik- A tribute to the Hamerstroms ...................................... 1 
W.O. Svedarsky- An overview of the Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society ....................... 9 
W.O. Svedarsky, T.]. Wolfe, and ].E. Toepfer- Status and management 
of the greater prairie chicken in Minnesota ...................................................................... 25 
R.K. Anderson and ].E. Toepfer- History, status, and management of 
the greater prairie chicken in Wisconsin ............................................................................ 39 
].R. Keir- Prairie chicken management in Wisconsin: An agency perspective ............ 59 
G. D. Kobriger - Status and management of the greater prairie 
chicken in North Dakota ...................................................................................................... 63 
L.F. Fredrickson, B. Crouch, and G.L. Heismeyer- Status and 
management of the greater prairie chicken in South Dakota ......................................... 75 
W.L. Vodehnal- Status and management of the greater prairie 
chicken in Nebraska ............................................................................................................. 81 
K.M. Giesen and M.A. Schroeder- Population status and distribution 
of greater prairie chickens in Colorado ............................................................................. 99 
R.E. Horton and D. H. Wolfe - Status and management of the 
greater prairie chicken in Oklahoma ............................................................................... 105 
R.D. Applegate and G.]. Horak - Status and management 
of the greater prairie chicken in Kansas ........................................................................... 113 
M. Moe - Status and management of the greater prairie chicken in Iowa ................. 123 
L.M. Mechlin, R. W. Cannon, and D.M. Christisen - Status and 
management of the greater prairie chicken in Missouri ................................................ 129 
R.L. Westemeier, S.A. Simpson, and T.L. Esker- Status and management 
of the greater prairie chicken in Illinois ..........................•................................................ 143 
N.j. Silvy, C.P. Griffin, M.A. Lockwood, M.E. Morrow, and M.j. Peterson 
- Attwater's prairie chicken: A lesson in conservation biology research .................... 153 
R.H. Hier- History and hunting the greater prairie chicken: A rich tradition ........... 163 
R.L. Westemeier and S. Gough - National outlook and conservation 
needs for greater prairie chickens .................................................................................... 169 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Frederick and Frances Hamerstrom. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
A Tribute to The Hamerstroms, 
Raymond K. Anderson, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin, 
Stevens Point, WI 
Dale E. Gawlik, Everglades Research Systems, 330 1 Gun Club Road, West Palm 
Beach, FL 
The number of people who truly have a 
singular effect on one's life and career are 
few. We are privileged to have been so influ-
enced by Frederick and Frances Hamerstrom 
and this is our tribute to these remarkable 
people. 
Dr. Frederick N. Hamerstrom, Professor of 
Wildlife, and a "quiet scientist" of internation-
al repute, died near Idleyld Park, Oregon, on 
28 March 1990, in a place of his choosing, 
a cabin on the Umpquah River. His last 
experience in life, as he considered it, was 
shared with Dr. Frances Hamerstrom, his wife 
and life-long research colleague of similar 
fame, in a manner that was typical of their 
59 years of marriage. Dr. Hamerstrom was 
an idealistic model for wildlife professionals 
throughout this life; his moment of death was 
no exception. 
Fred, known as "Hammy" to his close friends, 
began his wildlife career at the Game Conser-
vation Institute, Clinton, New Jersey, in 1931 
learning artificial propagation of game birds 
after having earned an A.B. degree at Harvard 
1 Portions of this combined tribute appeared in the Wildlife 
Society Bulletin (1991. 19[1]:119-122 and 19[4]: 378-379) 
and the Proceedings of the 18th Prairie Grouse Technical 
Conference Proceedings for Frederick Hamerstrom. A me-
moriam for Frances Hamerstrom was in the Journal of Raptor 
Research (1998.32: ii-iv). 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
College and marrying Frances Carnes Flint 
that same year. Thus was forged one of the 
most remarkable wildlife research teams 
known to the field of wildlife ecology. 
Fred was a Research Fellow under Dr. Paul 
L. Errington at Iowa State College from 1932 
to 1935 where he and Fran (pronounced, 
"Fran") studied pheasant nesting, winter ecol-
ogy of bobwhite quail, and raptor food habits. 
Their paper, "The great horned owl and its 
prey in the north-central United States," co-
authored with P.L. Errington, won The Wildlife 
Society's first Terrestrial Publication Award in 
1940. The first cooperative Wildlife Research 
Unit was established at Iowa State in 1932; 
Dr. Errington was its first leader and Frederick 
Hamerstrom, its second graduate student, 
earned a M.S. degree and Frances a B.S. 
degree there in 1935. 
The Hamerstroms made their first research 
contact with prairie chickens in 1935 when 
Fred became Project Game Manager for the 
U.S. Resettlement Administration's Central 
Wisconsin Game Project near Necedah, Wis-
consin. Although the prairie chicken was to 
become their major focal point in succeeding 
years, they also dealt with sharp-tailed grouse, 
ruffed grouse, sandhill cranes, furbearers, 
deer, food habits of great horned owls, winter 
feeding, food and cover plantings, and devel-
opment of water areas. 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
2 
The Hamerstroms were Research Fellows 
at the University of Wisconsin under Aldo 
Leopold from 193 7 to 1941. Fred earned a 
Ph.D. degree in 1941, and Fran an M.S. de-
gree in 1940. Frederick is 1 of only 3 to earn 
a Ph.D., and Fran is the only woman ever 
to have earned a graduate degree under 
Leopold. They continued their research on 
prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse in 
Wisconsin during the spring seasons of 1941 
through 1943, and then again in 1947 and 
1948 while Fred was Curator of the Edwin 
S. George Reserve in Michigan. They also 
studied prairie chickens and sharptails in 
Michigan and predators and deer on the 
Reserve during this time. Fred served in the 
U.S. Air Force from 1944 through 1946 as an 
Aviation Physiologist and Fran was a medical 
technician at the U.S. Army Beaumont Gen-
eral Hospital in El Paso, Texas. 
Hamerstrom's research on prairie chickens 
provided tools for other ornithological studies. 
They were among the first to color-mark wild 
birds by using the falconer's technique of imp-
ing colored feathers into the pinnae and tails 
of prairie chicken cocks, discovering that 
cocks were territorial on booming grounds. 
Fran irreverently wrote, to Aldo Leopold's 
delight, this poem about the episode: 
The prairie hen will wonder soon, 
but not because her love goes boom. 
Consider with what joy, she'll hail 
the colored feathers in his tail. 
Fred was instrumental in creating a prairie 
grouse trapping cooperative with Jack Man-
weiler. Curiously, trapping prairie chickens 
for banding was extraordinarily difficult in the 
1930s and 1940s. His trapping and banding 
program saved money by showing that prairie 
chicken food patches could be 5 miles apart 
rather than 1 per square mile. 
Fred was employed by the Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (WDNR) from 
1949 through 1972 as Project Leader of the 
Prairie Grouse Management Research Unit 
headquartered in Plainfield; Fran was Assis-
tant Leader. Early in this period, the Hamer-
stroms and Os Mattson, WDNR land manager 
for the project, formulated a management 
plan to "save the prairie chicken" in Wiscon-
sin. This was published as "A guide to prairie 
chicken management," a WDNR Technical 
Bulletin that received The Wildlife Society's 
Wildlife Publication Award in 1958. The scat-
ter-pattern plan of land management intro-
duced a new concept which has been applied 
for other species, including some in the rain-
forests. The plan was designed for the Buena 
Vista Marsh area where the Hamerstroms 
concluded that the chicken had the best 
chance of being maintained for a variety of 
reasons. Land values were low, the chicken 
population was still in good shape because 
of the existing habitat, and there was little 
competition for uses of the land. 
After the plan was designed and presented, 
2 foundations, The Society of Tympanuchus 
Cupido Pinnatus and The Prairie Chicken 
Foundation, competed- in a friendly manner 
- to buy lands needed to save the chickens. 
About 12,000 acres were bought in roughly 
the pattern recommended in A guide to prai-
rie chicken management. The Hamerstroms 
and Mattson were also actively involved in 
implementing the first management efforts to 
maintain grasslands in the face of ever-present 
natural succession of shrubs and trees that 
were persistently reclaiming the area. Land 
acquisition and subsequent management 
stopped the decline of the prairie chicken 
population on the Buena Vista Marsh and 
fostered its resurgence to the 1950 level by 
1981. 
The Hamerstroms continued their chicken 
population research on the Buena Vista and 
published their population and management 
data in 1973 in another WDNR Technical 
Bulletin, "The prairie chicken in Wisconsin: 
highlights of a 22-year study of counts, behav-
ior, movements, turnover, and habitat." They 
retired from the WDNR in 1972 but main-
tained an active interest in the population 
dynamics and management of the prairie 
chicken as Faculty and Research Associates 
(1972-1982) and Adjunct Professors (1982 
until their respective deaths) at the University 
of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 
Virtually all of the main range of the greater 
prairie chicken and some of the range of the 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
lesser and Attwater's prairie chicken in the 
United States, and most of the range of the 
sharptail races campestris and jamesi, plus 
some of the range of 3 of the other 4 races 
in the United States and Canada, were exam-
ined by the Hamerstroms. They made 5 trips 
to Europe (Germany, Austria, Finland, Lapp-
land, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark) to 
study grouse in particular, and to study red 
and roe deer, hunting traditions and ethics, 
and general conservation, and to speak at 
several universities and meeting of ornitholog-
ical societies. They were members of 7 Inter-
national Ornithological Congresses and were 
invited speakers at 6 of them. They spent 1 
month in Australia's outback and visited India, 
Iran, Siberia, and Sri Lanka for conservation-
oriented purposes. They initiated a continuing 
study of Harris' hawks in Texas and of an 
osprey population in Sonora, Mexico. 
By 1990, the Hamerstroms had published 168 
papers and articles, 1 0 books, and about 50 
reviews between them. Fred was a highly 
skilled technical writer and editor. In addition 
to editing 10 books that were published 
by Fran, the last one only 2 days before his 
death, he refereed technical papers for several 
journals and was the Principal Referee for the 
journal, Raptor Research. He served on sever-
al graduate committees at UW-Stevens Point 
and thus was a mentor for wildlife students 
in areas of research planning, design, execu-
tion, analysis, and writing. He also shared his 
wealth of knowledge and experience with 
numerous other wildlife apprentices in his 
home which was a classroom, library, labora-
tory, dormitory, research headquarters, and 
social center that often echoed with good 
music and laughter. Dr. Hamerstrom's philos-
ophy of life included his admonition that..." 
Good works do not need to be done in a 
sepulchral atmosphere." 
He was a charter member of The Prairie 
Grouse Technical Council and, in 1992, that 
group initiated, "The Hamerstrom Award" 
to recognize an individual or organization 
who made exemplary contributions to prairie 
grouse conservation. Fred was an active mem-
ber of the following conservation-oriented 
societies and committees: American Institute 
of Biological Sciences; British Ecological Soci-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
ety; Prairie Grouse Cooperative (Secretary); 
Saskatchewan Natural History Society; Tall 
Timbers Association; American Ornithologists' 
Union (Chair, Emergency Committee for Re-
lief of European Ornithologists); Chihuahuan 
Desert Research Institute (Board of Scientists); 
Citizens' Natural Resources Association 
(Councilor); Deutsche Ornithologen-Ges-
selschaft; Ecological Society of America; The 
Nature Conservancy; National Wildlife Feder-
ation; Raptor Research Foundation (Principal 
Referee); The Wildlife Society (Editorial Board, 
Leopold Award Committee); Wisconsin Acad-
emy of Science, Arts and Letters (Co-Vice 
President for Science); Wilson Ornithological 
Society (Chair, Conservation Committee, As-
sociate Editor); Wisconsin Society for Orni-
thology (President, twice; Co-Chair Research 
Committee). 
Professor Hamerstrom's distinguished public 
service and high quality research did not go 
unrecognized, though he was a very modest 
man. Fran called him "a quiet scientist." 
Fred Hamerstrom was recognized with the 
following Honors and Awards: The American 
Ornithologists Union-Fellow; Dane County 
Conservation League-Distinguished Coopera-
tive Wildlife Research Unit--Certificate of Rec-
ognition; Phi Kappa Phi; Sigma Xi; and jointly 
with Fran, Citizens Natural Resources Associa-
tion-Silver Acorn Award; College of Natural 
Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens 
Point-Environmentalist of the Year, 1978; 
National Wildlife Federation-Wildlife Conser-
vation Award; United Peregrine Society-Con-
servation Award; The Wildlife Society-Wildlife 
Publication Award, 1940 (with P.L. Errington 
for "The great horned owl and its prey in 
north-central United States") and again in 
1958 (with O.E. Mattson for "A guide to prai-
rie chicken management''); Wisconsin Chap-
ter, The Wildlife Society-Wisconsin Award for 
Wildlife Research, 1980; Wilson Ornithologi-
cal Society-Edwards Prize (with C.j. Burke); 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources-
Bureau of Research Award; Wisconsin Out-
doors Communicators Association-Honorary 
Life Members; Wisconsin Society for Ornithol-
ogy-Silver Passenger Pigeon Award for Ser-
vice to WSO, and Honorary Life Membership 
Award for distinguished ornithology. 
3 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
4 
Dr. Hamerstrom left an indelible wildlife lega-
cy that can be realized each spring when prai-
rie grouse greet the sunrise with their boom-
ing, dancing, strutting, and when they take 
wing from cover during the fall hunting sea-
son; whenever the eye is privileged to the 
sight of a soaring buteo, hunting harrier, div-
ing osprey, stooping falcon, or darting accipi-
ter; or when one gets that unique tingle in the 
nape of the neck while treading grasslands 
with "buena vistas." His scholarship, ethical 
research standards, unselfish dedication to the 
conservation of natural resources, all flavored 
with the modest character of a gentleman, 
provided a model for wildlife scientists that 
inspires emulation. He was a Professor of 
Wildlife and Conservationist of the highest 
order. "I am grateful for having had the oppor-
tunity to be one of his students, a relationship 
that never ceased--/ sensed that I was in the 
presence of greatness" (Ray Anderson). 
Frances Hamerstrom died 29 August 1998 
at age 90 in Port Edwards, Wisconsin. She 
published over 150 scientific papers (many 
with Fred), dozens of popular articles, and 12 
books. She once remarked that "if you are the 
kind of person who wakes up every morning 
wanting to make the world a better place, 
it gives a certain zest to everything you do". 
Those who knew Fran will agree; there was 
a certain zest to everything she did. 
Despite the societal stuffiness of her privi-
leged childhood, Fran was drawn to wild ani-
mals at an early age. Her fondness for raising 
young wild animals and nursing sick ones to 
health reinforced in her mind that she was 
different from other people in her social set-
ting. It also laid the foundation for a "hands-
on" style of wildlife research that emphasized 
personal contact with the animals of study. 
To Fran, bringing free-flying rap tors into her 
household to study them just made good 
sense. It seemed odd to her to think that a 
scientist could ask meaningful research ques-
tions without having first-hand knowledge 
of an animal's daily needs. 
Fran's research style and personality compli-
mented those of her husband and teammate, 
Frederick, who preceded her in death by 
8 years. This exceptional life-long team was 
appropriately labeled a"super organism" by 
an anonymous apprentice. Thus, it is virtually 
impossible to refer to them individually in 
their wildlife careers. That is not to say that 
they behaved alike. Fran was often spontane-
ous and impulsive whereas Fred was methodi-
cal and meticulous. Fran was sometimes out-
spoken and prone to embellishment whereas 
Fred was the quiet master of understatement. 
Both were fiercely committed to saving our 
natural heritage. They accomplished so many 
things together because their differences 
strengthened their sum. 
Fran was in the vanguard of "equal opportuni-
ty" for women in wildlife biology long before 
it was popular or even considered. The male-
oriented profession precluded specific em-
ployment in her early professional life and 
significantly limited it later on. Fran was keen-
ly aware of the male chauvinism associated 
with the embryonic wildlife profession and 
would subtly call attention to this fallacy by 
physically out-manning men in the field. Her 
relatively recent book, "Is she coming too?" 
is testament to this historic awareness. When 
Fred gained an educational appointment, or 
employment, Fran accompanied him and 
participated as a volunteer, or pursued com-
plimentary avenues. Her efforts were soon 
recognized and occasionally rewarded with 
a token salary, but more often the agency got 
2 highly qualified people for the price of 1 as 
they conducted field research on a number 
of species. 
While working under Paul Errington at Iowa, 
Fran received an award for "the woman most 
likely to succeed in research" and later was 
awarded an honorary doctorate degree from 
Carroll College in Waukesha, Wisconsin in 
1 961. The lifetime achievements of Fred and 
Fran are even more remarkable when one 
considers that they conducted exhaustive 
field studies on harriers, osprey, kestrels, Har-
ris' hawks, and several other species coinci-
dent with their tenure on other official pro-
jects. They were stellar role models. 
Although Fran's research on grouse was more 
noteworthy to many, she always held a spe-
cial fascination with raptors. Her first major 
scientific paper (co-authored with Errington 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
and Fred) was on the food habits of great 
horned owls. Ironically, the paper was a disap-
pointment to her. As a woman in a male-ori-
ented profession, she felt a strong need to 
prove herself by publishing her first significant 
paper as the sole author. Errington just as-
sumed she would want her relatively small 
contribution to become part of his major pa-
per. She went on to publish 70 papers on 
birds of prey and to receive The Wildlife Soci-
ety's publication award (as a co-author with 
Fred and Os Mattson) a second time in 1957 
for her work on prairie chicken management. 
One of Fran's most exhaustive studies was a 
long-term project on the breeding ecology of 
northern harriers in central Wisconsin. From 
the 1950s to 1980s, she and co-workers band-
ed close to 300 adult and 650 nestling harri-
ers, and conducted over 20,000 small mam-
mal trap nights. She documented that food 
abundance was the mechanism regulating 
harrier mating systems and local population 
densities. She also noted that those relation-
ships changed during the years that the pesti-
cide DDT was used. The 25-year harrier study 
was published in a book by Fran entitled, 
"Harrier, hawk of the marshes: the hawk that 
is ruled by a mouse." Keeping with her habit 
of maintaining several research projects simul-
taneously, Fran also conducted a long-term 
nest box study of American kestrels. 
Raptors held more than a scientific interest for 
Fran. She was an accomplished falconer who, 
at age 12, took her first quarry with a male 
kestrel. Later she helped pioneer artificial in-
semination techniques with golden eagles. 
It was not uncommon for Fran to apply tradi-
tional falconry techniques in her raptor re-
search projects. She maintained close ties to 
falconers throughout her life and was a mem-
ber of the North American Falconers Associa-
tion, the British Falconers Association, and the 
Great Lakes Falconers Association. 
Her lifetime interest in raptors also made Fran 
an early supporter of the Raptor Research 
Foundation. She received the President's 
Award from the Foundation and was the Cen-
tral Director in 1975 and 1976. In 1990, the 
Foundation created the "Frederick and 
Frances Hamerstrom Award" given to individ-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
uals who made significant contributions to the 
understanding of raptor ecology or natural 
history. In 1992, the Journal of Raptor Re-
search dedicated a special issue to the Ham-
erstroms' contribution to science. 
After Fred's death, Fran journeyed to tropical 
rainforests, a region that apparently always 
intrigued her but which Frederick had little 
desire to visit because of the heat and humidi-
ty. She initially traveled to the Congo where 
she "hunted with the pygmies" as she put it. 
She made at least 5 consecutive trips to the 
Amazon basin, always traveling alone and 
training physically for the ordeal beforehand. 
She was initially interested in the hunting 
practices of rainforest societies and started 
to collaborate on a book on that subject with 
a native. But, like the birds she studied, Fran 
returned to Wisconsin each spring to contin-
ue her research on kestrels. 
Few people in the profession of wildlife bio-
logy have earned so many awards from such 
a breadth of organizations. She received the 
Josselyn Van Tyne Award from the American 
Ornithologist's Union, the Chapman Award 
from the American Museum of Natural Histo-
ry, the United Peregrine Society Conservation 
Award, the Edwards Prize from the Wilson 
Ornithological Society, and was the first recip-
ient of The Hamerstrom Award from the Prai-
rie Grouse Technical Council. A sample of 
other organizations that bestowed awards 
include, the Raptor Research Foundation, The 
Wildlife Society, National Wildlife Federation, 
International Crane Foundation, Citizens Nat-
ural Resources Association, Deutschen Orni-
thologen-Gesellschaft, Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Society 
for Ornithology, and Wisconsin Academy of 
Sciences, Arts and Letters. Fran was a mem-
ber of over 20 scientific societies including all 
the major North American and several Euro-
pean ornithological societies, The Wildlife 
Society, Raptor Research Foundation, Ecologi-
cal Society of America, and the American 
Society of Mammalogists. She also was a 
member of several wildlife conservation soci-
eties and writers associations. In the last 20 
years of her life, Fran devoted more time to 
writing popular books and preferred to be 
defined as a writer rather than an internation-
5 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
6 
al wildlife biologist. Her book, "Strictly for the 
chickens" won the August Derleth Award. 
One of Fran's least-recognized contributions 
to the field of science was her service as an 
educator and role model. The Hamerstroms 
employed a European model of apprentice-
ship whereby they allowed qualified individu-
als to live in their home and become part of 
their daily lives. The 1 00 or so apprentices 
were called "gabboons." The term means 
slaves that conduct the lowest form of labor. 
During the banquet at a Raptor Research 
Foundation annual meeting, Fran looked 
around the room and pointed out the large 
number of Foundation officers and meeting 
attendees who had been through the Hamer-
strom household. It was a testament to the 
influence the Hamerstroms have had on the 
field of raptor research. 
The gabboon system ensured that science 
was only part of an apprentice's learning 
experience. Gabboons were treated to intro-
ductions with visiting professionals from all 
over the world. Since before World War II, 
the Hamerstroms had strong connections to 
European scientists. Gabboons were schooled 
in subjects as diverse as proper table man-
ners, correct English, and carpentry. They 
also enjoyed Fran's fine cuisine, which was 
the subject of her wild foods cookbook. Any-
one who washed dishes and put the antique 
china back in the cupboards quickly realized 
that every piece had its place and it was not 
negotiable. 
Certain strict household rules evolved as a 
defense against legions of houseguests each 
year. Like Leopold, the Hamerstroms imparted 
on gabboons a strong appreciation for fine 
art and disdain for the trappings of technol-
ogy. The walls of their unpainted pre-civil war 
construction farmhouse in rural central Wis-
consin were adorned with original art work. 
The house had no indoor plumbing but each 
person was allowed private bathing time at 
"the pond" where they had a chance to see 
a green heron or a brood of wood ducks. 
Fran's model for a biologist was one with 
more field sense than statistical prowess or 
experimental design skills. This view was also 
evident in most of her publications, which 
often lacked statistical rigor but were rich with 
high-quality data. Her thoughts on statistics 
were that if a pattern wasn't obvious from a 
look at the raw data, it either wasn't real or 
more samples were needed to know for sure. 
She lamented the fact that contemporary stu-
dents often knew very little basic biology 
about the animals they were studying even 
though they may have had a good grasp on 
the scientific process. 
The Hamerstroms set the standard for a dedi-
cated work ethic. They used their home as a 
research center, they brought gabboons into 
their daily lives, and they believed that if ani-
mals did not recognize weekends and 8-hour 
days, it didn't make sense for researchers to 
do so either. 
It was obvious that wildlife research was 
far more of a passion for the Hamerstroms 
than a job. This philosophy stemmed from 
Leopold's expectations of his graduate stu-
dents and was the basis for the "Hamerstrom 
rule of thirds." The rule is that researchers 
should spend one-third of their time on the 
bureaucratic folly required by their employer. 
Another one-third of their time should be 
spent on tasks both the employer and the 
researcher want to do, and one-third of their 
time should be spent doing exactly what the 
researcher pleases. Fran was quick to note 
that this last one-third was beyond a regular 
40-hour week, and she maintained it was that 
portion of their time that made the prairie 
chicken work a success. Even while in Michi-
gan from 1943 to 1946, she and Frederick 
took personal time to visit the booming 
.grounds in central Wisconsin each year to 
monitor their marked birds. 
Fran also was a model in her advocacy of 
keeping wild pets. She believed that if the 
public was to really appreciate wild animals 
they must be allowed to experience them first 
hand, much as she had done as a child. She 
believed the risk of harm to an individual wild 
pet was less than the benefit of letting a child 
feel the wonder and responsibility of caring 
for that pet. Although Fran rehabilitated many 
injured wild animals over her lifetime, she 
realized in mid-life that emphasizing the wei-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
fare of an individual animal over that of the 
population was misguided. In her book, 
"Strictly for the chickens," Fran tells the story 
of capturing a hen prairie chicken with a nasty 
infection. Fred was ready to end the bird's 
suffering and make a study skin from it. Fran 
intervened and cleansed the wound, stitched 
it up, and released the bird. Years later she 
recaptured the same hen and thus became 
somewhat of a heroine for saving its life. 
Of that incident Fran wrote, "But year after 
year I watched the range of our prairie chick-
ens disappear under the plow and drainage. 
And I began to grow up. I came to realize that 
the saving of one individual for sentimental 
reasons is nothing compared to preservation 
<Ou.pi,5 
lDisco!Utt Jcmpi 't 
I•~ Impel Fir ~TaM!" 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
of habitat for a species. Frederick knew this all 
the time." 
Even in death Fran was a role model. She saw 
countless life and death cycles through harrier 
and meadow vole population highs and lows. 
Better than most people she knew that in 
nature, death was necessary and healthy for 
the good of the population. As with her hus-
band, Frederick, and former professor, Aida 
Leopold, there was no funeral so that death 
would be mourned; funerals are for the living 
and the commercial enterprises that material-
ize out of the death event. Instead she slipped 
quietly away to become part of that natural 
cycle she spent her live preserving. 
7 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
8 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
An Overview: The Minnesota 
Prairie Chicken Society 
W. Daniel Svedarsky, Northwest Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, 
Crookston 
I had never seen a prairie chicken before I 
accepted a position at the Crookston campus 
of the University of Minnesota in the fall of 
1969. I had heard of them though. When I 
was a student at the University of Missouri, 
Missouri Department of Conservation biolo-
gist, Don Christisen gave a stirring talk to the 
Wildlife Club about prairie and prairie chick-
ens. I can still see in my mind's eye, one of his 
slides showing a displaying male silhouetted 
against a red sunrise. 
Gerald Maertens was the wildlife manager 
with the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources based at Crookston and intro-
duced me to displaying prairie chickens and 
sharp-tailed grouse east of Crookston near 
Marcoux Corner. It was a memorable early 
morning as we watched the "orange bal-
loons" inflate and produce the odd booming 
sound. I'm sure, at the least, I said, " Wow!" 
I immediately began taking my students out 
to enjoy the spring spectacle. Maertens had 
worked in the Crookston area for a number 
of years and had grown to be a passionate 
supporter of the prairie. He not only celebrat-
ed the aesthetics of prairie, through excellent 
photography and talks, but worked hard and 
effectively to purchase remnant prairie tracts 
in the 1960s and early 1970s. 
Maertens then transferred north to the Thief 
Lake Wildlife Management Area and was re-
placed at Crookston by Terry Wolfe. I was 
aware of the prairie chicken conservation 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
effort in Missouri and later of the Wisconsin 
program led by Fred and Fran Hamerstrom 
and the group which they helped found, The 
Society ofTympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus. 
Noteworthy, too, was the work in Illinois co-
ordinated by Ron Westemeier and Glen Sand-
erson of the Illinois Natural History Survey in 
conjunction with The Nature Conservancy. 
Maertens, Wolfe and I met for a brainstorm-
ing session in mid-winter of 1972 to discuss 
what could be done on the Minnesota scene 
for prairie chickens. They were still here, but 
where and how many? Were their numbers 
secure or were they in need of a specific con-
servation effort? Maertens had personally wit-
nessed a steady decline in prairie habitat and 
disappearing booming grounds in his work 
area, but was this occurring range-wide? It 
seemed that some sort of organization could 
be helpful and a status-assessing meeting 
would be the logical first step. 
Thus, the idea of a conference was born 
("hatched?") and we identified possible speak-
ers to cover various topics: population and 
habitat trends, land acquisition, management 
approaches, and reports on the programs in 
Wisconsin, Illinois, and North Dakota. Maer-
tens suggested that Grady Mann, recently 
retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetlands 
manager, was the clear choice to speak on 
why the bird was worth caring about in the 
first place. Grady's slightly edited, stage-set-
ting presentation of 28 April 1973 follows: 
9 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
10 
A SPECIES WORTHY OF PRESERVATION 
On a blustery day in mid-january I received 
from Dan Svedarsky a letter which outlined 
a tentative program for a Minnesota prairie 
chicken conference- a conference to be held 
in April, 1973, at the Crookston campus of 
the University of Minnesota. 
This to me was a particularly bright spot as it 
represented an important task and one, not 
yet (as of that date) completed for Minnesota. 
Today is the day that Dan was shooting for. 
We are here. With it, we are grateful for this 
leadership from the northwestern part of Min-
nesota, for Dan's efforts, and for his commit-
tee's actions. Long-term, I suspect that the 
prairie chickens will be grateful and per-
sonally, I'm grateful to this committee for the 
easy topic which they have assigned to me 
-"A Species Worthy of Preservation." 
Now, just in case my conclusions get lost in 
the shuffle, I have shifted them to the next 
paragraph and they are: 
1. That the greater prairie chicken of western 
Minnesota is a species we// worthy of 
preservation. 
2. That this is a species worthy of the best 
collective action of this group today and 
into the immediate future to ensure its 
preservation and proper management. 
With these conclusions as a starting point, let 
me fill in to see how I worked toward them. 
Let me back up a little. While working from 
the Fergus Falls, Minnesota, field base from 
1954 through 1972, it was not uncommon to 
hear of the frequent prairie chicken hunts via 
horse-drawn wagons. Much of this hunting 
took place a few miles west of Fergus Falls in 
Wilkin and Otter Tail counties. These glowing 
reports came from fellows who had grown 
up in the area, and those memories were still 
fresh in their minds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service field forces during this period worked 
steadily throughout western Minnesota, large-
ly on wetland delineation, marshland acquisi-
tion, and wetland management. Through this 
widespread coverage we witnessed a steady 
disappearance of wild haylands throughout 
this zone. Over this western Minnesota re-
gion, shallow marshes were ditched by the 
thousands, and the plow advanced steadily 
into the existing prairie lands - prairie lands 
known to be occupied by prairie chickens. 
Ed Weiland's "upside-down prairie", contin-
ued to expand and blackened lands mush-
roomed across western Minnesota. 
During the spring of 1955, Norm Ordal, biolo-
gist with the Minnesota Department of Natu-
ral Resources, introduced me to the widely 
scattered booming grounds of the prairie 
chicken along the beachlines of Glacial Lake 
Agassiz. These early trips stimulated a special 
interest in this species for me ... an interest 
that has grown over the years. Prairie life on 
and adjacent to these booming grounds was 
a sight that could stir even the "least alert." 
Godwits, sandhill cranes, pintails, jacksnipe, 
and all the rest were certain to put on a show. 
Through the intervening years it seemed that 
the western Minnesota prairie chicken popu-
lation was hanging on not because of a major 
effort directed for it but because of a chain 
of physical circumstances which, by accident, 
resulted in the preservation of chicken habi-
tat. The scattered wetland projects of the Min-
nesota Department of Natural Resources and 
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, although 
not planned specifically for prairie chickens, 
had been playing an important part in their 
survival. However, that population always 
seemed on a "shaky edge." 
We could see where a quote from Aldo Leo-
pold applied when we contemplated the de-
clining range of this species: 
A little repentance just before a species 
goes over the brink is enough to make us 
feel virtuous. When the species is gone we 
have a good cry and repeat the perfor-
mance ... (Leopold 1970: 194). 
The greater prairie chicken in western Minne-
sota was making it ... but it was rapidly losing 
ground, its range, and its possibilities for 
long-term survival. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Another key point: this habitat decline was 
happening in our own backyard- or within a 
few miles of it. It continued to bother me that 
we didn't have much of anything specifically 
going for it- an effort designed within which 
the prairie chicken would be the central figure 
of a preservation objective. It's true we had 
made token efforts. As one example I recall, 
for about every plan that came by for western 
Minnesota, Gordy Nielsen and others out-
lined the prairie chicken range and inserted 
that range as a part of those plans. 
These were "hit and miss" recommendations. 
Yet, throughout these and other efforts, the 
"selling power" of the prairie chicken stood 
out as a key argument for preserving prairie 
wildlands. 
By way of a sidelight, in the wildlife manage-
ment field, it's often considered an important 
task for the U.S. wildlife investigator to head 
to Africa (or some other remote place) to 
study the threats to species in those zones. 
That foreign action is newsworthy, attracts a 
lot of attention, and is necessary for perspec-
tive. But there is something in my makeup 
that says, "let's look closely at what we have 
right here." Let's consider the beauty and utili-
ty of those natural resources close by. Then, 
inasmuch as those in the immediate area col-
lectively know the people, the needs, and the 
possibilities that exist, let's proceed to handle 
those resources well. This brings us back to 
Chairman Dan's noteworthy actions of last 
january. 
Permit me to draw upon a few personal 
experiences to help make my point that the 
prairie chicken is truly "A Species Worthy of 
Preservation." 
Over the past 3 decades I have had the good 
fortune of spending a lot of pleasant days 
afield and many of those days were highlight-
ed with observations, memories of which are 
exciting, spectacular, and inspirational in their 
own right. A few of these: 
... in the spring of 1949 - with Merrill Ham-
mond on the flooded Lower Souris Refuge -
recording for 6 days a record pintail flight, a 
pintail flight of magnitude never observed 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
before, since, or possibly into the future. 
... in April of 1955- with Morris Paterson, 
from the cattails of a marshy edge -watching 
large flocks of whistling swans against the 
spring winds, dropping like leaves into the 
White Rock Area on the South 
Dakota-Minnesota border. 
... and timber wolves- on that cold day in 
january- under full chase of the white-tailed 
deer from back of the island on Rams head 
Lake in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. 
... of black ducks, up out of the jungly, 
woody ponds of the Quetico Superior. 
. .. and ptarmigan, within six feet, pecking 
at the sedges above the timberline in the 
Rockies. 
All outstanding wildlife memories that were 
striking, memorable, and remarkable in their 
own right. But even with the special qualities 
of each of these experiences, none have 
topped the quality of watching the display of 
the greater prairie chicken on the booming 
grounds of western Minnesota. None of the 
cited cases, whether on the prairie, in the 
woods, or mountains, have provoked the 
imagination, appeal, historical significance, 
precarious state, and future consequences of 
a species, as has the "booming" of the prairie 
chicken. To me, if it has this attribute, as it has 
to many, it is just a part of our stewardship 
responsibility to make sure that this species is 
maintained for the future. 
Today we will have a wide variety of well doc-
umented technical details provided by a base 
of field workers -workers with a wealth of 
experience and background. Information from 
them, combined with contributions and ques-
tions from the panel members, will give us the 
starting point for action of the future. 
We are meeting today. More information than 
we can handle will come out today. To make 
sure that this is only the starting point, the 
planning committee will name an action com-
mittee (from a wide cross-section of interests) 
to digest the ideas, proposals, and thoughts 
from this conference ... all directed to help 
11 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
12 
translate these into action - action that can 
be well based technically and moved adminis-
tratively and politically to do the right job by 
this important wildlife resource. 
Enough now. Back to my topic title, "A Spe-
cies Worthy of Preservation." And my conclu-
sions again: 
The 1973 conference was a good meeting, 
attended by 100 or so enthusiasts from across 
Minnesota, as well as a few from North Da-
kota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. AI Grewe and 
Dan Frenzel brought a contingent of students 
from St. Cloud State University and the St. 
Paul campus of the University of Minnesota, 
respectively. Keith Harmon, field representa-
tive of the Wildlife Management Institute, 
provided the summary or the "What next?" 
paper at the conference. Terry Wolfe and I 
edited the proceedings (Svedarsky and Wolfe 
1973) and distributed it to attendees, various 
agency offices, and libraries. A number of 
newspapers picked up on the excitement and 
ran articles; Craig Borck for the St. Paul Pio-
neer Press, john Lohman for the Fargo Forum, 
articles in the Detroit Lakes Becker County 
Record. 
Andrew Malcolm, a reporter from the New 
York Times, spent a morning in a blind with 
Terry Wolfe and did a follow-up article. In-
stead of using "Crookston" as the location, 
he apparently thought "Climax, Minnesota" 
was more intriguing to list as a location for 
watching the courtship ritual of prairie chick-
ens (and so the article read). 
A key part of the 1973 conference was the 
outlining of the prairie chicken range in north-
west Minnesota along with remaining grass-
lands, mostly native prairie. This effort was 
coordinated by Gerald Maertens as he gath-
ered information from other state and federal 
resource managers. Geoff Barnard, Minnesota 
Director of The Nature Conservancy, was 
an enthusiastic visionary and soon proposed 
"The Minnesota Prairie Chicken Preserve Sys-
tem" to his Board which became a major ini-
tiative. Significant purchases of prairies were 
1. That the greater prairie chicken of the 
western Minnesota range is a species well 
worthy of preservation. 
2. That it is a species worthy of the best col-
lective action of this group today and into 
the immediate future to ensure its preser-
vation and proper management. 
(Mann 1973) 
made in the mid-1970s by The Nature Conser-
vancy and while prairie chickens are not total-
ly dependent on native grasslands, they make 
a terrific "star of the show" for prairie biota. 
After the conference and production of the 
proceedings, the "prairie chicken group" 
worked on the "What next?" phase. Some-
time in the winter of 1973-74, Grady Mann 
and I decided to visit the Hamerstroms in 
Wisconsin to learn, first-hand, what had been 
key to the successful launching of the Society 
of the Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus. It was 
a memorable trip. We eventually found the 
Hamerstrom's large farm house and frankly 
thought it was abandoned until we spotted 
their Volkswagen van around back. No indoor 
plumbing, wood heat from pot-bellied stoves, 
free-flying raptors inside, and dust-covered, 
prestigious conservation awards made for a 
unique setting. 
After a delicious evening meal, we talked into 
the night about wildlife research, building 
public and private support, and about having 
fun with conservation work! That was one of 
the keys- having fun. Fred Hamerstrom said 
it this way, "Good works do not need to be 
done in a sepulchral atmosphere." The annual 
meeting of the Society of Tympanuchus Cupi-
do Pinnatus is basically a cocktail party with 
a very short business meeting thrown in for 
legitimacy. Some years later, I would have the 
pleasure of presenting an award to Fran at 
this annual meeting (called a "Gathering of 
the Flock") and it was a delightful affair. 
Grady and I slept upstairs in the "ballroom," 
which was used for dancing in the glory days 
of the big house built in the pre-Civil War 
period by the first judge of Waushara County. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
We slept in the same bunks where countless 
prairie chicken watchers had overnighted for 
some 30 years. It was cold. The recent insulat-
ing was only in the floor which kept the heat 
downstairs! After breakfast we departed for 
Minnesota, memory-rich, with the assurance 
that the Hamerstroms would keynote the first 
official meeting of the Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society in the spring of 1974. They 
did and it was grand. 
In the early organizing days, I would cross 
trails with many memorable people. One of 
these was Oscar Thorbeck. Originally from 
northwest Minnesota near Gonvick, I first 
heard from Oscar on 15 April1974: 
Dear Mr. Svedarsky 
Enclosed find two checks for promo-
tion and preservation of the prairie chicken. 
I was raised at Gonvick. I have a cou-
ple of farms up there and north of Gully. If 
you know of any (prairie chickens) in that 
area I sure would like to see one again. 
Last saw one in the late 50s. 
Wishing you great success. 
Sincerely, 
Oscar Thorbeck 
Oscar would become a key supporter of the 
budding Society and was a wonderful story 
himself (Svedarsky 1995). Later, in 1993, I 
would meet him when I launched a wildlife 
research project on the wild rice farm of his 
son-in-law, Paul lmle, near Gonvick. The man 
was a dynamo, with many passions - family, 
community, farming, sports, hunting, and, 
lucky for us, prairie chickens! I don't think 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
MPCS first president Grady Mann (right), with Fred and Fran 
Hamerstrom at the first annual meeting in Fergus Falls in 1974. 
Oscar ever did see a prairie chicken after that 
first letter to me in 1974 but it was apparently 
enough for him to just know that they were 
out there and that he was helping out with 
their conservation. 
In 1993, Chuck Vukonich of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, asked Grady Mann to re-
count the beginnings of the Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society on the occasion of the twen-
tieth anniversary meeting. I include the follow-
ing text of that article (Mann 1998), as it cap-
tures the essence of the early years of the 
Society. {Grady is overly generous regarding 
my contributions to the effort which I liken to 
kicking a snowball down a hill which then 
took off on its own head of steam as others 
joined in the party.) 
MPCS, IT'S BACKGROUND, ORIGIN, AND HIGHLIGHTS OF ITS FIRST 4 YEARS 
It was with pleasure that I took on Chuck 
Vukonich's request for a recollection of high-
lights from the early days of the Minnesota 
Prairie Chicken Society. It comes down to 
people - those that did not let an idea die. 
Here goes, even at the inevitable risk of omit-
ting many (to these my apologies). 
As the prime mover of the early Society, Dan 
Svedarsky tops the list. His early interest, ener-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
gy, direction, attention to detail, and low-key 
effective drive headed things down the track. 
Leo Kirsch, Carol Buckmann, Terry Wolfe, AI 
Farmes, and AI Grewe were right there in the 
early day formation, all the while making 
things move. Others assisted in many different 
ways: Gordy Nielsen, Bob Farmes, Arland 
"Bud" Anderson, Bill Marshall, Steve Oney, 
Karen Smith, AI Berner, Dan Frenzel, Morris 
Patterson, Glen Sherwood, Marv Mansfield, 
13 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
14 
Richard Pemberton, Elsie Welter, Melvin 
Ouse, and all the clerical personnel that kept 
up the flow of information. 
The official start of the Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society came on 8 December 1973. 
From the minutes of the first meeting of the 
society: 
"ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING MINUTES 8 
DECEMBER 1973 
Seventeen 'prairie chicken friends' met at 
the Quarter Deck Supper Club on Gull Lake 
near Brainerd for the final organizational 
meeting of the 'Minnesota Prairie Chicken 
Society.' (Gordon Neilsen and Bud Ander-
son, Fergus Falls were unable to make it as 
their car went into a ditch on the way.) Dan 
Svedarsky opened the meeting by showing 
a film, Prairies Should be Forever, pro-
duced by Charles and Elizabeth Schwartz, 
Missouri Department of Conservation. 
The meeting was conducted by AI Farmes, 
acting coordinator, and Carol Buckmann 
was temporary secretary. Bylaws and 
minutes of the September meeting were 
distributed." 
For this new group, the title of "Minnesota 
Prairie/and Preservation and Restoration 
Society" was originally suggested. This title 
was abandoned as it looked quite heavy 
and academic. Thus, in its place appeared 
the Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society. This 
name and group continues in 1993 and is 
thriving well after its launching 20 years 
ago. My compliments to all who contribut-
ed steadily and made this movement head 
toward stated goals. 
Elected initially as Minnesota Prairie Chick-
en Society officers were: Grady Mann, Presi-
dent; AI Farmes, Legislative Chairman; Terry 
Wolfe, Communications Chairman; AI 
Grewe, Finance Chairman; Leo Kirsch, Re-
search and Management Chairman; and 
Carol Buckmann, Education Chairman. 
At this first meeting, it was agreed that mem-
bers could do whatever necessary for the 
prairie chicken, but there should be constant 
Society flexibility. This, in retrospect, was a 
good move as it helped to prevent administra-
tive hang-ups before getting off the ground. 
Inflexibility comes quickly enough with nearly 
all organizations. 
Glen Sherwood, wildlife biologist, and at that 
time a Representative in the Minnesota Legis-
lature, mentioned he would attempt to get 
something introduced in january but warned 
that this would be an off year session and 
doubted the necessary funds would be avail-
able. He asked that the film, Prairies Should 
Be Forever, and 1 or 2 Society representatives 
aid in making a presentation to the Legisla-
ture. He said the bill should include money for 
(1) acquisition- $500,000, and (2) manage-
ment thereof. 
Legislation drawn should state that acquisition 
and management of these areas would be in 
the best interests of all historical, cultural, aes-
thetic reasons, plus preservation of an endan-
gered species. Representative Sherwood 
agreed to check into the possibilities of ac-
quiring prairie chicken habitat under the Criti-
cal Areas Act and the Scientific and Natural 
Areas Act (State Parks administration). Other 
areas where assistance might be possible 
were the Great Plains Program (Soil Conserva-
tion Service) and the Endangered Species Act 
which could be a significant boost to the pro-
gram if it gets out of Congress. So, even at the 
outset, realities of legislation, funds, and all 
problems were being met head-on; all direct 
moves to help the greater prairie chicken pop-
ulations of Minnesota. 
Not all aspects of the Minnesota Prairie Chick-
en Society met with favor statewide. Terry 
Wolfe reprinted the following from the Sleepy 
Eye Herald Dispatch in the April 1973 Minne-
sota Prairie Chicken Society Newsletter: 
"Pure folly," says jim. 
The status and future of Minnesota's prairie 
chicken will be the subject of a conference 
in Crookston. 
jim Putnam, editor of the Granite Falls Tri-
bune, thinks it's pure folly to call such a 
meeting. He says there has been no open 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
season on prairie chickens since 1942. The 
population began to decline sharply as the 
acreage of cultivated land increased, grass-
lands disappeared and land owners con-
verted their wheat fields to corn and soy-
beans. 
Putnam said he grew up with a .410 shot-
gun and has never killed or even seen a 
prairie chicken. Said he: "We haven't seen 
any zebras running around the acres either. 
The chickens have flown the coop and the 
meeting at Crookston is just another reason 
why Minnesota taxes are among the highest 
in the world." 
I'm not sure of the thinking in the last sen-
tence but despite all- the Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society in 1993 moves on. 
Early in the Society's work, Leo Kirsch served 
as research and management chairman and 
from that position kept all organization move-
ment focused on the land, it's use, wetland 
preservation, and all natural resources essen-
tial for prairie chicken maintenance. He point-
ed out 2 things he believed to be of utmost 
importance: 1) make a concentrated effort to 
assess spring prairie chicken numbers through 
booming ground counts, and 2) intensify man-
agement of lands that were available for 
chicken management. 
At the same 1973 meeting, Dan Svedarsky 
commented," ... Minnesota prairie chicken 
publicity is far-reaching. Letters have come in 
from as far as California and British Columbia, 
and quite a number have come from through-
out Minnesota. There is much interest in rais-
ing and restocking prairie chickens and proba-
bly we should point out in future articles that 
restocking chickens is extremely difficult and 
that our first efforts should be directed to-
wards securing the habitat of existing birds." 
By 197 4, sufficient organization had tran-
spired to plan the first official meeting of the 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society. AI Berner 
was named as chairman to organize this first 
meeting to be held at the Fergus Falls Com-
munity College, 27-28 April1974. As usual, 
when AI picked up a job to do, it was done 
completely. That's what he did in this case. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
An MPCS field trip on a prairie ridge near Fergus Falls in 1974. 
Sermon on the Mount? 
As a result, AI and his committee assembled 
many of the Wisconsin and Minnesota "big 
guns" for the program. Fergus Falls Mayor 
Tom Donoho, Minnesota DNR Commissioner 
Robert Herbst, Drs. Fred and Fran Hamer-
strom, and Steve Oney of The Nature Conser-
vancy were all there. Clarence Swenson from 
Fertile, Minnesota, presented interesting ac-
counts with his reflections from the past. And 
always, the early morning tour of the boom-
ing grounds to keep foremost in member's 
minds the reasons for all the human activity. 
Goals of the Society were clarified in the 
1974 Newsletter: 
The primary purpose of the Society will be 
to engage in and encourage all activities of 
benefit to prairie chickens, including man-
agement, research, education, and land 
acquisition. 
GOALS OF THE SOC/E1Y INCLUDE: 
1. Increase public awareness of prairie 
chickens and their natural habitat require-
ments. 
2. Support efforts to preserve prairie chick-
en habitat. 
15 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
16 
3. Encourage State and Federal/and man-
agement agencies to reestablish prairie 
chickens upon their lands after grassland 
habitat has been restored. 
4. To develop and disseminate information 
to private land holders concerning methods 
by which grazing and cropland manage-
ment might be modified to benefit prairie 
chickens. 
5. Undertake and support legislation that 
would favor the above goals. 
Research and management chairman, Leo 
Kirsch constantly cautioned that although a 
considerable acreage of grasslands had been 
acquired in Minnesota, there was no cause 
to feel at all complacent about the security 
of chickens. Leo went on to outline the fate 
of chickens on several national wildlife refug-
es where they disappeared because of lack 
of proper management. In eastern refuges, 
plant succession eliminated chicken habitat 
and in the western refuges, grazing and mow-
ing and plant succession diminished the pro-
per habitat. 
To keep track of the prairie chicken popula-
tions, a booming ground·census of male prai-
rie chickens was completed in the spring of 
1974 throughout the Minnesota range. In a 
cooperative effort between the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the Department of Natural 
Resources and a number of college people, 
72 booming grounds were located. Approxi-
mately 873 birds were counted for an average 
of just over 12 prairie chickens per booming 
ground. Booming grounds were found with 
sometimes only I or 2 birds, but over 30 birds 
on 1 area. 
The editor of the fall1974 edition of the Soci-
ety Newsletter had obvious pleasure as he 
reprinted an exuberant notice from the Min-
nesota office of The Nature Conservancy. 
He reprinted it untouched: 
HURRAH!!! HURRAH!!! HURRAH!!! 
HURRAH!!! 
ANNOUNCEMENT 
Alack! Brethern and Cistern, Praise and be 
praised! The winged dove, the white mes-
senger hath descended with the news! 
We've DONE IT! The fund drive is com-
pleted. Yep, that's right. In less than one 
year. Yes siree! Let the heavens open, let 
the thunder roll, let the skies abound with 
a resounding sound, let the valleys echo, 
let the good times roll. Turn up the volume 
on your hi-fi. Let the multitudes rejoice in 
all manner and form of hoopla! 
HURRAH!!! HURRAH!!! HURRAH!!! 
HURRAH!!! 
The newsletter editor followed up this unusual 
notice with these comments: 
And rejoice they should for in setting out to 
raise $309,362, the Minnesota Chapter 
raised $326,269.55! (And that ain't hay ... 
Well, prairie hay maybe). This pays for a lot 
of prairie chicken habitat which The Nature 
Conservancy has acquired throughout the 
range and other unique natural areas in 
Minnesota. 
One of the most significant contributions 
was from Katherine Ordway for the 1440-
acre Pembina Trail Preserve in Polk County. 
This beautiful expanse of aspen parkland 
and prairie is situated on a beach ridge of 
glacial Lake Agassiz and provides habitat for 
prairie chickens, yellow rails, marbled god-
wits, prairie orchids including the white 
fringed, and a variety of other prairie trea-
sures. A 1-mi/e segment of the historic Pem-
bina Trail is also located on the east edge of 
the Preserve. 
This effort is most timely due to rapidly 
inflating land values. Field workers report 
the doubling in price of prairie lands in 1 
year to say nothing of the decreasing supply 
of prairie. It's going under plow discourag-
ingly fast. 
Great work, Geoff Barnard, Steve Oney and 
staff of the Midwest Office and to the Min-
nesota Chapter. You're a great bunch of 
hustlers! 
From the 197 4 inaugural spring meeting these 
especially noteworthy quotes were recorded: 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
"In no way can I be complacent about the 
status of the prairie chicken in Minnesota. 
There were probably more chickens in 
eastern North Dakota 1 0 years ago than 
there are in Minnesota today. These virtu-
ally vanished in 1 0 years, and there are 
probably no more than 300 to 400 chick-
ens in North Dakota today." Leo Kirsch, 
Woodworth, North Dakota. 
"Prairie chicken fascination? People from 
New York or other states in the east have 
come in large numbers (to the Rothsay 
area) to watch prairie chickens since at 
least 1945." Melvin Ouse, farmer, Rothsay, 
Minnesota. 
• "Prairie Chicken War! Some years ago, 
small town politicians attempted to run 
us out of the country. It was stated by pol-
iticians then, 'All you need to save the 
chickens is get rid of the Hamerstroms and 
the foxes!' " Fran Hamerstrom, Plainfield, 
Wisconsin. 
An executive board meeting was held at St. 
Cloud State College- 1 February 1975. Leo 
Kirsch, research and management chairman, 
remarked, "The only way to keep a finger on 
the pulse of the population is to keep up the 
booming ground surveys." Wildlife personnel 
would be involved in the 1975 count to take 
place from late March through April and into 
May. 
Other highlights of this 1975 meeting follow: 
• Some members wanted to see a fall popu-
lation figure projected from the booming 
ground census but a discussion indicated 
that wide discrepancies would be inherent 
in any projected population figure. It was 
decided to report only the number of birds 
counted on booming grounds. 
• The second major goal of the research and 
management committee was to encourage 
more intensive management of agency 
and The Nature Conservancy lands. Kirsch 
noted that the major problem on these 
lands now is plant succession and fire is 
the cheapest and most effective tool to 
deal with it. Morris Paterson mentioned 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
that a lot of groundwork is necessary to 
carry out a controlled burn. State Forestry, 
weather and local people must be reck-
oned with. 
• Dan Frenzel suggested that certain areas 
be studied to note changes in plant succes-
sion and relate these to changes in bird 
numbers. Booming grounds can change 
from year to year in location and occasion-
ally birds break into smaller groups. As 
management intensifies we should note 
gross changes in chicken numbers. 
• An excellent drawing of a prairie chicken 
was made available to the Society by 
Karen Smith of the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice. This was used as a means of fund 
raising by selling prints, note cards, and 
belt buckles. 
• In a review of overall goals of the Society, 
it was noted that the Society was making 
progress on nearly all goals. Overriding 
concern at this time should be to stop the 
downhill slide of prairie chicken numbers 
in Minnesota. Dan Svedarsky, Dan Frenzel 
and Terry Wolfe were to review the Socie-
ty goals and offer suggestions for changes. 
• In 19 7 4, Svedarsky commenced a 3-year 
study of nesting and brood-rearing ecology 
as it related to habitat use and equipped 
females with radio transmitters to follow 
movements. The principal study area was 
the 1440-acre Pembina Trail Preserve of 
The Nature Conservancy with several DNR 
prairie tracts located on the periphery. 
Controlled burning in particular would be 
evaluated on these tracts as a means of 
managing grassland nesting and brood-
rearing habitat. 
Dan Svedarsky did not go to another part of 
the world for his research. If not in his own 
back yard, it was the next thing to it. The title 
of his project was Spring and summer ecology 
of female greater prairie chickens in northwest-
ern Minnesota. By radio tracking he was able 
to accurately pinpoint uses of various habitats 
by the chickens. A few greatly abbreviated 
points from the summary of his Ph.D. disserta-
tion (Svedarsky 1979): 
17 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
18 
1. Lowland areas dominated by sedge are 
preferred roosting sites. 
2. Trees appear to serve as raptor am-
bush perches. 
3. Any practice safeguarding early nests 
would likely benefit reproduction since 
those chicks tend to hatch before the an-
nual precipitation peak. 
As a sideline to this intensive field research, 
Dan was singled out as a key contact as one 
who knew specific points about prairie 
chickens. 
We met in the field once. While looking over 
his study area it appeared that Dan was little 
more tense and harried than his usual self. 
But with a full teaching load and long, irregu-
lar hours of field research, this was to be ex-
pected. The key factor of his tenseness was 
none of these. The big one? His field project 
kept him constantly in the field. As Svedarsky 
conducted his research, he was observing on 
all edges of the Agassiz beach-line the steady 
encroachment and loss of similar habitat; the 
same habitat he was doing his field studies 
on. This was the key factor taking its tempo-
rary toll. 
This incident is mentioned as an example of 
the pressure that all field men have to deal 
with. That's the way it is with all major re-
source issues. As you move ahead on your 
preservation duties, you note losses here and 
there. But out of it all, you do what you can, 
where you are, with what you have, and do 
the best you can with it. 
The summer "Brood edition" of the Minneso-
ta Prairie Chicken Society Newsletter (July 
1975) summarized highlights from this second 
annual meeting of the Society. A few of these 
follow: 
• Max Partch of St. Cloud State University 
was elected President of the Society. And 
Max, in true Partch style, coined a phrase, 
"Ask not what the prairie chicken can do 
for you, instead ask what you can do for 
the prairie chicken." 
• Steve Oney, of The Nature Conservancy, 
offered much philosophy after working 
with prairie acquisition in northwestern 
Minnesota. Steve observed, "The ship of 
the prairie has already sunk- we are just 
trying to save a few of the life boats." 
• The Nature Conservancy had not given 
up by any means though and were fast 
forging ahead. As Steve said, "We're still 
looking for a few good prairie chickens." 
In looking for chickens, they bought the 
240-acre Audubon Prairie 1 made possible 
through a grant by the National Audubon 
Society, took an option on the 720-acre 
Burg Prairie near Buffalo River State Park, 
and were making contacts on other tracts 
throughout the prairie chicken range. 
• Of course, not all is roses in land acquisi-
tion work. Steve told of one 320-acre tract 
he once tried to buy. With no luck in ac-
quisition attempts, he watched as many 
thousand years of nature's work was lost 
in 1 year - the prairie was plowed last fall. 
• Grady Mann, outgoing president of the 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society, re-
viewed Society activities of the previous 
year. He noted how just increasing peo-
ple's awareness of prairie chickens has had 
beneficial effects. As he quoted, "It is easy 
to beat a drum for protection of some dis-
tant form of wildlife, but not easy to en-
thuse people to protect their own local 
troubled wildlife." 
On the subject of controlled burns, newsletter 
editor, Terry Wolfe provided an excellent 
summary: 
No doubt one of the most important man-
agement techniques to benefit prairie chick-
ens is controlled burning of grasslands. This 
does not mean the wholesale burning of all 
available winter and nesting cover on an 
annual basis. It does mean a rotational type 
burning where a portion of the grassy cover 
is burned each year in a local area. The rest 
is left for nest cover. 
1 Editors' note: The Audubon Prairie purchase was instigated 
by Minnesota DNR Wildlife Manager Terry Wolfe contacting the 
regional office of National Audubon and inviting them to do 
something to join the prairie chicken parade. They did respond. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Fires and prairies have always been natural 
partners. Prairie fires maintained the prai-
ries. This is especially true in much of Min-
nesota where brush and tree encroachment 
could soon have eliminated the prairie if it 
wasn't for fires. Prairie chickens are adapted 
to prairie burning- it has always been a 
part of their way of life. Fire has the follow-
ing effects: 
• Controls brush and timber encroachment 
on prairies. Notice the word 'controls'; fire 
doesn't completely eliminate brush and 
trees- it keeps them down in height, so 
that the prairie is open. 
• Stimulates seed and berry production. 
We pick strawberries and raspberries on 
burned over areas that formerly produced 
mostly stems and leaves, but few berries. 
Seeds and berries are high in food value 
and provide food for a wide variety of 
wildlife. 
• Removes grass and leaf litter which cov-
ers the ground, reducing stem density and 
ties up nutrients. With litter removal the 
ground warms up more quickly in spring 
and 'green-up' occurs earlier. Nutrients are 
readily available. 
• Provides 'edge effect.' Frequently, prairie 
chicken nests occur near field edges or 
boundaries of roads, clumps of brush, etc. 
This seems to be true of other nests as well. 
• Also reduces wood ticks - an observa-
tion recently related to me by an amateur 
botanist who discovered this while observ-
ing wild flowers on a spring-burned wildlife 
area." 
The fall edition (October 1975) of the Minne-
sota Prairie Chicken Society Newsletter noted 
that, " the Rothsay Bicentennial Committee 
extended an invitation for the Society to hold 
its annual meeting in Rothsay next spring in 
conjunction with an official dedication of the 
town as the 'Prairie Chicken Capital of Minne-
sota.' Local townspeople are constructing a 
new chicken that may be 15-20 feet high that 
will be displayed along the exit from Interstate 
94. An excellent way to help get the chicken 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
on the map! (Can you imagine the boom that 
would issue forth if prairie chickens were real-
ly 15 feet tall? That would be enough to rattle 
dishes and crack windows 1 0 miles away!)" 
The "big chicken" at Rothsay, Minnesota. The community lays 
claim to the name, "Prairie Chicken Capital of Minnesota. " 
Editor Terry Wolfe also included the following 
in the October 1975 Newsletter: 
We are reprinting the following letter which 
we received from john Lasniewski. It 
warmed our heart and thought it would 
yours, too. Mr. Lasniewski is in his eighties 
and donated the first dollar to the Society. 
August 10, 1975 
Greenbush, Minnesota 
Thanks a lot for sending me the prairie 
chicken pamphlet- nice and interesting 
information and reading. 
Tho [sic] I am too advanced in age to 
play an active part, am enclosing one hun-
dred pennies to prove that I am still one 
hundred percent for restoration of the prai-
rie chicken population, altho [sic] there are 
none left here no more, where they at one 
time were numerous. I wish I once could 
see and hear them again. 
Yours for a grand success in your ven-
ture in restoring the birds. 
john Lasniewski 
19 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
20 
The Bicentennial dedication of Rothsay as the 
"Prairie Chicken Capital of Minnesota" high-
lighted the third annual meeting of the Minne-
sota Prairie Chicken Society, and was held on 
24 April 1976, at the Rothsay High School. 
Commissioner Robert Herbst of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, made the dedica-
tion, commenting on Rothsay's welcome 
commitment "to one species in Minnesota." 
He noted how interest in prairie chickens is 
growing again in Minnesota after wildlife 
managers in 1942, with a closing of the hunt-
ing season, had given up on them. The in-
creasing number of people coming to watch 
prairie chickens every spring was also noted. 
Herbst thanked the Rothsay people for their 
firm support and interest, and stated, "We 
have a good start, I hope you will continue 
the commitment." 
U.S. Congressman Bob Bergland also spoke 
at the dedication and addressed issues 
of wise land use; good soil conservation, 
grass on erodible soils, healthy wildlife pop-
ulations, and prosperous local communities. 
Bergland would later be named Secretary 
of Agriculture. 
The internal anatomy of the 'great chicken' 
was shown with photos in the April 1976 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society Newslet-
ter. Guts of the 'big chicken' were a maze 
of wire, rods, and welding- all the result 
of careful planning and workmanship. Its 
chief architect was Art Fosse and the other 
chicken creators were Randy Weise and Alan 
Haugrud; truly a work of art. Since its comple-
tion the big chicken has attracted untold num-
bers of curious visitors and tourists through 
the area. My compliments to the builders 
and the thoughts that prompted this symbol. 
The "Boomer Award" was presented to Dan 
Svedarsky for his "undaunted efforts to find 
the last chicken" during spring booming sea-
son counts. As Rollin Siegfried, who prepared 
the traveling trophy, noted, "This award is 
presented to the individual who has shown a 
determined effort to census all known prairie 
chicken booming grounds; hence the name of 
the award - 'Boomer' or perhaps it should be 
more aptly named the 'Bummer Award.' The 
individual receiving the award this year has 
been consistently late for meetings. He ex-
plains his tardiness by mumbling such phrases 
as, "I got stuck," or "I ran out of gas." We 
were going to present him with a gas can but 
for some reason we could not imagine him 
displaying that type of award on his office 
wall." 
On a more serious note, Steve Oney, Field 
Representative for the Minnesota Chapter of 
The Nature Conservancy, commented in a 
1976 Society newsletter: 
In 1972, the Conservancy embarked on an 
active campaign to secure tracts of native 
prairie along the ancient beach line of Gla-
cial Lake Agassiz to protect critical habitat 
needed for the greater prairie chicken's 
survival. The population of prairie chickens 
in Minnesota has dwindled from literally 
millions to just 3,000 birds, according to 
the 1975 state census. Working with the 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society, con-
cerned local citizens, and with the help of 
the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources, the Conservancy has acquired over 
6,000 acres of prairie within the range of 
the prairie chicken. Purchase of the Blazing 
Star Prairie Preserve with a $25,000 grant 
from the Red River Valley Sugarbeet Grow-
ers Association (coordinated by AI Bloom-
quist, Executive Director) is an outstanding 
contribution from the residents of Clay 
County towards preserving a part of the 
county's own natural heritage. 
Now, by date, my highlights are outside the 
limits of the "early days" of the Minnesota 
Prairie Chicken Society- up to january 1977 
- 4 years since its official start on December 
8, 1973. It is fitting that I close with 2 points: 
First, a direct challenging letter by Max Partch, 
President of the Minnesota Prairie Chicken 
Society, to Bob Bergland, who had just been 
named Secretary of Agriculture. Partch's letter 
in the january 1977 Society Newsletter was 
thought provoking and hit strongly on land use: 
Chickens, Grass, and Snirt- an open letter 
to Bob Bergland, the new Secretary of 
Agriculture 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Congratulations on a most deserved ap-
pointment. With a great deal of pride, we 
remember your welcome to all those as-
sembled last spring when Rothsay was des-
ignated as the Prairie Chicken Capital of 
Minnesota. That group represented a mix-
ture of land-use preferences all drawn to-
gether on that occasion by a common inter-
est in prairie chickens. Prairie chickens 
need grasslands. The land needs grasslands. 
The headlines that spanned the front page 
of the St. Cloud Daily Times for 20 Decem-
ber 1976, said, "Bergland tapped for cabi-
net." The headlines of the adjoining article 
stated, "This winter looks bad for snow, 
but fine for snirt." Yes, some land needs 
grasslands. 
We have read that you are a vigorous expo-
nent of the family farm, a conciliator of 
competing agricultural interests, and that 
you are aware of the vagaries of weather 
and its devastating impact. You recently 
asserted that the big issue before the nation 
is global hunger but you also said that you 
do not believe that the United States can 
feed the world. We agree. All these things 
suggest that there may be more to rural life 
than maximum production. 
Man does not live by bread alone. The 
quality of life depends on more than black 
dirt from fence to fence. 
You have promised to be a farmer's advo-
cate. The decisions you make in the years 
ahead will be many and difficult. We of the 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society hope 
that in some of your decisions you can also 
be an advocate for the total landscape 
where farmers live. In prairie areas, we be-
lieve that native grasslands added to the 
quality of the landscape, and that the prai-
rie chicken may be an index to the health 
of that landscape. 
Even with the chance of sounding like a 
heretic, completely out of touch with reali-
ty, I will predict that when horses again 
tend to replace the large gas-guzzling behe-
moths, then more grasslands will return, 
farming will be a way of life and not just an 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
industry, and man will be in better harmony 
with his environment. 
What does it profit a man if he gains the 
whole world market and loses his own soil? 
Mr. Secretary, we wish you well. You have 
our support in the task ahead. 
Max Partch, President, 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society 
And last, a few additional thoughts: What 
does all of this attention to the greater prairie 
chicken mean? 
It means that the prairie chickens know- as 
you and I know - that they conduct their 
booming rituals on only a bare remnant of the 
prairie land that existed less than a century 
ago. This ancient ceremony pricks our con-
science. It pricks our conscience because it is 
symbolic of our Nation's broader land use 
and environmental issues. 
Issues ... 
• that question whether we have plowed all 
too many lands, lands that should never 
have been disturbed early in our history, or 
even now. 
• that question whether we have drained all 
too many vitally important potholes and 
marshes - losing not only their margins 
and essential values but making interven-
ing uplands vulnerable to the plow. 
• that recognize diversity on the land is be-
ing lost; and that means lost diversity of 
bird and animal life. 
• that remind us, via this ancient ritual, that 
we are adapting many land management 
priorities to machines rather than to natu-
ral long-term capabilities of the land. 
• that, in all too many cases, greed exceeds 
need - as we manage land and other re-
sources for short-term gain rather than 
long-term survival. 
• that the strict principles of stewardship are 
often lost, or at best, shoved farther and 
21 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
22 
farther into the background. 
With these closing comments, trips to the 
booming grounds of the greater prairie chick-
en provide not only a viewing of an ancient 
ritual, but a strong reminder (with a few mo-
Over the years, the Society's practice has 
been to rotate the annual meeting's location 
to increase the visibility of the organization, 
bring it occasionally closer to all of the mem-
bership, and sponsor field trips in local areas 
to develop a familiarity with state-wide habitat 
conditions. Commencing in 1976, with the 
..,... ......... 
--- ~~./ -
~.e4/IJ 
--
ments on prairie sod) that we all have major 
responsibilities for the land, the water, and the 
total environment. 
That's why we are here. 
(Mann 1998) 
dedication of Rothsay as the "Prairie Chicken 
Capital of Minnesota," the Society meets 
there about every 5 years and at least 1 board 
member is from Rothsay. Roberta Ouse, jan-
ice Rudh, Art Fosse and Richard Lysne have 
all assisted from the community which has 
developed unique prairie chicken T-shirts, 
,..,_-----~ .... -· ---··-
---~-·- "'---~ ... ~·--. ____ ......... ____ ----
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
pins, post cards, caps, place mats, and a small 
version of the giant prairie chicken statue that 
is taken on a trailer to area parades. 
A variety of memorabilia and art work has 
been produced for fund and fun raising at 
annual meetings. Karen Smith, artist/refuge 
manager from Kenmare, North Dakota pro-
duced the first original prairie chicken print 
for use by the Society. Others have included 
donated paintings by the Wisconsin artist 
Jonathan Wilde, the Minnesota artist/wildlife 
manager/Society vice president- Ross Hier, 
and the wood carver/wildlife manager/Soci-
ety treasurer, Earl Johnson who also imple-
mented a collector belt buckle project featur-
ing the Karen Smith chicken. Typically, each 
community hosting the annual meeting devel-
ops a unique T-shirt, pin, or cap to commemo-
rate the event. 
Essential to the continuity of any organization 
that meets infrequently is a newsletter of 
some sort to maintain communication, give 
notice to the membership that all is well, and 
provide tangible evidence of what folks are 
getting for their money! It is lots of work to 
produce a quality newsletter that is timely. 
In recent years, the newsletter has attained 
a new level of quality under the editorship of 
Peter Buesseler, Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources Prairie Biologist. 
Harold Dubbert, retired Fish and Wildlife 
Service biologist, has a penchant for history 
and digs up obscure and fascinating historical 
articles which present glimpses of the early 
days of chickens on the prairie. Ross Hier, 
a frequent contributor of articles and prairie 
chicken art work has developed several clever 
cartoons to adhere to Fred Hamerstrom's 
admonition about good works not needing 
to be conducted in a sepulchral atmosphere! 
And the group is a diverse bunch. Few organi-
zations, that I am familiar with, have such a 
broad spectrum of members- farmers, pro-
fessors, housewives, photographers, teachers, 
wildlife managers, writers, artists, welders, 
bird propagators, students, medical doctors -
all drawn to a plump prairie bird that lives in a 
rich landscape and does a funny dance in the 
spring. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
In addition to annual meetings, a newsletter, 
and support of related prairie conservation 
efforts, the Society sponsored the production 
of a slide-tape program in 1985 which was 
made available to schools and agencies at 
cost. A general information booklet on prairie 
chickens was also produced and distributed 
free to the general public through agency 
offices. Three environmental education 
"trunks" loaded with props crafted by Ross 
Hier and naturalist, Joe Gartner, have been 
sponsored by the Society for use in Minneso-
ta and North Dakota. The Society coordinates 
watching of the spring courtship dance from 
observation blinds at Bluestem Prairie east 
of Moorhead and hosts visitors from across 
the country. A number of equipment items 
for prescribed burning have been donated 
to agencies and University groups to assist 
in getting the critical habitat management 
work done. Another major task coordinated 
by the Society is the annual booming ground 
census, the official "pulse taking" to see how 
the population is doing. 
Society president, Brian Winter, has been 
instrumental in bringing the Society up to a 
another level in recent years. His enthusiasm, 
natural history and organizational savvy, and 
sense of humor have been key. He facilitated 
the Society attaining tax exempt status in 
1995 which paved the way for donations to 
be officially tax-exempt, resulting in a signifi-
cant increase in donations. With additional 
funds in the treasury, the Society was able to 
encourage and partially support prairie chick-
en research and restoration. John Toepfer and 
his students have been coordinating research 
on winter prairie chicken ecology and restora-
tion/transplant research in Minnesota, North 
Dakota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Illinois. 
More recently, Toepfer's work has been spon-
sored by the Wisconsin Society of Tympanu-
chus Cupido Pinnatus. 
At this writing, the Minnesota Prairie Chicken 
Society has a $60,000 grant proposal in the 
final approval stages with the Minnesota Leg-
islative Commission on Minnesota's Resourc-
es and is likely to be funded in late spring of 
1999 with funds available on 1 July 1999. This 
project would fund the restoration of prairie 
chickens to the Upper Minnesota River Valley 
23 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
24 
area including the Lac Qui Parle Wildlife Man-
agement Area and the Big Stone National 
Wildlife Refuge of western Minnesota. The 
Society has truly come of age in its 25-year 
history. 
Literature Cited 
Leopold, A 1970. A sand county almanac-
with essays on conservation from Round River. 
Ballantine Books, New York, New York, USA 
Mann, G.E. 1973. A species worthy of preser-
vation. Pages 1-4 in W.O. Svedarsky and T.J. 
Wolfe, editors. The prairie chicken in Minneso-
ta. University of Minnesota, Crookston, Min-
nesota, USA 
Mann, G.E. 1998. So why not a prairie chick-
en society? Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society 
Newsletter 25:1, 4-11. 
Svedarsky, W.O. 1979. Spring and summer 
ecology of female greater prairie chickens in 
northwestern Minnesota. Dissertation, Univer-
sity of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Da-
kota, USA 
Svedarsky, W.O. 1995. A tribute to Oscar 
Thorbeck. Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society 
Newsletter 21:1, 3. 
Svedarsky, W.O., and Wolfe, T.j. 1973. The 
prairie chicken in Minnesota. University of 
Minnesota, Crookston, Minnesota, USA 
1-1~ !j"'f'le - !oJ - /i.J>e-
thicl<.er, -/riide.$ leu/ n/;lrl- infr 
Oh llrd .... ye.Ut, lila>~-~ 
f1pi's l}ew-/~fed .flu~. ~ 
/m/f if n!J: ¥~ he ~ 6d 
odd • snm no$! '/ cz ri.s/1 .,b hts ~sm ..... 
Nanni~· 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of the 
Greater Prairie Chicken in 
Minnesota 
W. Daniel Svedarsky, Northwest Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, 
Crookston 
Terrance J. Wolfe, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Crookston 
john E. Toepfer, Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus, Ltd., Waukesha, 
Wisconsin 
Historical Review 
DISTRIBUTION 
Reports are unclear as to the presettlement 
distribution of the greater prairie chicken 
(Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) in Minnesota 
but Partch (1973) reviewed early records 
which suggested its presence along the south-
ern edge of the state in the early 1800s 
(Fig.1 ). Hatch (1892) recalled conversations 
with Chaplain Gear at Fort Snelling (now the 
site of the Twin Cities) in about 1839: "He 
stated that the prairie hens (chickens) were 
seldom seen at the first, but after the country 
began to become settled considerably, they 
increased in numbers perceptibly from year 
to year." Breckenridge (1998) watched 3-4 
males on a small booming ground in the 
spring of 1929 only 6 miles (9.6 km) southeast 
of the Metrodome in downtown Minneapolis. 
This is incredible to imagine today with the 
extent of development. Later, "well into the 
1940s," Breckenridge took ornithology classes 
1 Revised and updated from Svedarsky eta/. (1997). 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
to watch chickens on a "much larger booming 
ground" at the Carlos Avery Wildlife Manage-
ment Area 15 miles (24 km) north of St. Paul. 
Spreading urbanization, and the attendant 
increase in people, pets, buildings, fire con-
trol, tree plantings, etc. eventually displaced 
these remnant populations. Prairie chickens 
apparently persisted in the Minneapolis-St. 
Paul area for about 100 years. 
As agriculture moved northward onto the 
prairies, so did prairie chickens at the rate of 
about 10 miles (16 km) a year (Partch 1973). 
By 1880, prairie chickens had reached ex-
treme northwest Minnesota and had also 
moved a considerable distance into the forest-
ed part of northeastern Minnesota as logging, 
land clearing, and recurrent fires created 
"grasslands." The maximum extent of the 
range was probably reached around 1900 
when prairie chickens occurred over most 
of the state where suitable grassland habitat 
was present (Fig. 1 ). 
Two factors- intensified agriculture and plant 
succession -were primarily responsible for a 
steady reduction in the prairie chicken range 
25 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
26 
Figure 1. Presettlement vegetation and approximate prairie chicken range in Minnesota at selected 
times. 
after 1900. Concurrent with maximum range 
expansion to the north, a decline in chicken 
numbers was commencing in the southern 
counties due to intensified agriculture. Great-
er mechanization facilitated large-scale drain-
age, cleaner farming (especially the shift from 
threshing machines and straw stacks to com-
bines), and the consolidation of the patch-
work of pastures, wild hayfields, croplands, 
undisturbed grasslands, and wetlands into 
larger fields. This trend moved northward and 
by the 1960s prairie chickens were found 
primarily in northwest Minnesota along the 
beach ridges of glacial Lake Agassiz (Erickson 
and Farmes 1960). The droughty nature of the 
beach ridge soils and the presence of large 
rocks made it uneconomical to cultivate much 
of the grasslands and they were used for wild 
hay production, grazing, or left idle. Prairie 
chickens declined in the forested part of the 
state as "created grasslands" were lost to nat-
ural plant succession and tree planting. A key 
factor in this change was fire suppression. To 
an extent, this was necessary to safeguard 
tree plantations, human lives, and property, 
but it greatly hastened plant succession. 
In the early 1970s, high grain prices coupled 
with relatively low prices for prairie land 
($100-150 per acre [$250-370 per hectare]) 
stimulated increased conversion of native 
prairie and other idle lands to croplands 
throughout the range in northwest Minnesota 
(Fig. 1 ). This increased grassland habitat loss 
was slowed by declining grain prices in the 
early 1980s and the enactment of the 1985 
Farm Bill with its "sodbuster" and "swamp-
buster" provisions. This penalized landowners 
for converting grasslands (if occurring on high-
ly erodible soils) and wetlands to commodity 
crop production. Also, many fields with highly 
erodible soils were enrolled in the Conserva-
tion Reserve Program (CRP) of the Farm Bill 
and planted to cover crops for a 1 0-year con-
tractual period. 
A small, isolated (separated by 70 miles [112 
km] and a zone of deciduous forests and 
lakes from the main chicken range) popula-
tion of prairie chickens also persists in the 
mostly forested, north central part of the state 
(Fig. 1 ). Soils and climatic factors favor forest 
vegetation but grassy lowlands are periodical-
ly burned by private individuals to retard 
brush invasion and allow harvesting of wild 
hay. Sandy soils predominate on upland sites 
and support fire-prone jack pine (Pinus banksi-
ana) savannas which are periodically burned 
by wild fires and temporarily provide prairie 
chicken habitat for 4-5 years thereafter (Sve-
darsky et al. 1982). 
POPULATION TRENDS 
The number of prairie chickens in the early 
years can only be inferred as "abundant" 
based on accounts of the numbers shot. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Swanson (1940) indicated that it was not un-
common for a single hunter to bag 1 00 birds 
a day in the late 1800's. According to Pater-
son (1973), hunters typically shot a wagon 
box of chickens during a day's hunt in the late 
1800s and early 1 900s. Harvest data collect-
ed by the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources (MNDNR) from 1921-50 indicated 
a peak harvest of 328,914 in 1923, falling to 
a low of 10,547 in 1929, and then rising to 
58,000 in 1942; the last prairie chicken hunt-
ing season in the state (Table 1 ). Interestingly, 
the season remained open during the early 
1930s, when harvests were low, but was 
closed when populations were apparently 
higher. 
The first prairie chicken censusing was carried 
out in Minnesota by C. Edward Carlson and 
Vince Reid in the late 1930s and early 1940's 
(R.E. Farmes, MNDNR, personal communica-
tion). Erickson and Petraborg (1952) reported 
the earliest attempts to systematically census 
prairie chickens were in Norman County in 
1941 and 1942 when 13 booming grounds 
with a mean of 11 males were counted each 
year. They also noted 399 rural mail carriers 
recorded prairie grouse along mail routes in 
northern Minnesota. In March of 1946, 1 prai-
rie chicken was observed per 205 miles (328 
km) traveled and 1 sharp-tailed grouse (Tym-
panuchus phasinellus) per 134 miles (214 km). 
In 1947, the same number of prairie chickens 
were recorded but nearly 3 times as many 
sharp-tailed grouse were seen. 
Based on these mail carrier questionnaires, 
populations were best in Kittson, Marshall, 
Pennington, Polk, Red Lake and Roseau 
Counties in those years. Farmes and others 
later conducted census routes near Thief Riv-
er Falls in northwest Minnesota from 1951 to 
1956 and in 1964 and 1965. The number of 
booming grounds was recorded but the num-
ber of birds present on grounds was "vague" 
(Paterson 1973). Preliminary censusing of the 
primary range (excluding the north central 
portion) was made in 1971 and 1972 when 
41 booming grounds were located with an 
average of 16 birds (sexes not separated) per 
ground. Annual censuses coordinated by the 
Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society (MPCS) 
began in 1974 in the northwest and 1977 in 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
the north central range. Chicken numbers 
have fluctuated in recent years, with highs 
of 1,648 and 1,913 spring males in 1982 and 
1992, respectively (Fig. 2). Swanson (1940) 
summarized prairie chicken abundance peri-
ods for the late 1800s from newspapers and 
sportsman accounts. Mid-points of these peri-
ods were 1863, 1871, 1880-81, and 1894-
95, suggesting that historic peaks occurred 
in years ending in 1, 2 or 3. Hamerstrom and 
Hamerstrom (1973) found peaks occurred in 
their Plainfield, Wisconsin study area in 1940, 
1950 and 1951, and again in 1970 and 1971. 
To some extent, census data reflect yearly 
variations in access conditions, censusing 
weather, and turnover of personnel but we 
believe they are reasonable estimates of mini-
mum numbers and general population trends 
Table 1. Calculated harvest of prairie 
chickens and sharp-tailed grouse in Min-
nesota, 1921-50. (Adapted from Erickson 
and Petraborg 1952). 
Prairie Sharp-tailed 
Year chicken grouse 
1921 176,637 
1923 328,914 14,409 
1924 Closed 15,849 
1925 411,971 a 
1927 103,929 a 
1929 10,547 a 
1931 14,125 a 
1933 29,216 8,084 
1934 25,444 13,310 
1935 36,498 6,822 
1940 125,000 a 
1941 135,000 a 
1942 58,000 42,100 
1948 Closed 13,687 
1949 Closed 153,637 
1950 Closed 82,726 
a Kill not broken down by species - includes 
both prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse. 
27 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
28 
160 2000 
140 1800 
"C 1600 c: 
:I 
~ 120 
Dl 
-rn 
1400 
"' "C iii 100 
"' E 1200 'E 
"C :I c: 0 ca u 
rn 80 1000 Zl "C 
c: iii :I E ~ 
Dl 800 iii 
Dl 60 ~ c: 
-{}-No. of booming ground 
·e 600 0 
--+--No. of males per ground 0 
.Q 40 
_..._Total males counted ~ 400 
~ 
20 200 
• • 
._. ..... .._. 
• • .._ . • • • • ~ • • • . .... 0 0 
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 
YEAR 
Figure 2. Total prairie chicken booming grounds and mean numbers of males per ground in rela-
tion to total males counted statewide, 1974-98. 
(Fig. 2). The statewide counts parallel those 
in a Polk County study area near Crookston 
which has been intensively censused since 
1974. The approximate spring density in the 
Polk County area ranged from about 1 male 
per section (2.6 km 2 ) overall or 1 per 62 acres 
(25 ha) of preserved habitat during low years 
to over 2 males per the same area during the 
high population years of 1982 and 1992 (Sve-
darsky et al. 1997). 
The number of booming grounds per year 
tended to vary more than the average number 
of males per ground (Fig.2) and was more 
correlated with the total number of males 
censused (r=0.89 vs. r=0.57). The mean num-
ber of males per booming ground for the 25-
year period was 10.1 (s.d.=1.9) with a high of 
75 recorded on a ground in Clay County in 
1992 (Brian Winter, The Nature Conservancy, 
personal communication.) 
HABITAT ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 
As land use intensified on private lands with 
the attendant reduction of habitat values, 
there was a need for conservation agencies to 
purchase and manage lands as wildlife habi-
tat. In 1951, the "Save the Wetlands" program 
of the MNDNR was launched, and by 1973 
there were 24,107 acres (9,760 ha) of state 
wildlife management areas in the northwest 
prairie chicken range (Nielsen 1973); these 
totaled 39,515 acres (15,998 ha) by 1996 
(Table 2).1n 1961, the U.S Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) initiated the wetland acquisi-
tion/easement program in western Minnesota 
and the Dakotas. This program and the Ham-
den Slough National Wildlife Refuge totaled 
31,784 acres (12,868 ha) of waterfowl pro-
duction and refuge areas in the northwest 
chicken range by 1996. While these programs 
were directed primarily towards the protec-
tion of wetlands within the "prairie pothole 
country," approximately 60% of the units 
were grassland habitat useful to prairie chick-
ens and other wildlife. 
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) began pur-
chasing land of natural uniqueness in the late 
1960s and, encouraged by the emphasis 
placed on the prairie chicken at a conference 
held at Crookston in 1973, launched the 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
"Minnesota Prairie Chicken Preserve System" 
in 1974. By 1996, MNDNR, USFWS, and TNC 
had acquired 80,939 acres (32,769 ha) of 
habitat in the northwest chicken range and 
continue to do so but at a slower rate. These 
lands are complemented by approximately 
148,200 acres (60,000 ha) of erosion-prone 
lands which were in grass cover in 1996 un-
der the Conservation Reserve Program. 
About 21% of the land within the north cen-
tral range (Fig. 1) is public (county or state). 
Most is presently managed as forest land, but 
494 acres (200 ha) of brushland were convert-
ed to grassland and 1,976 acres (800 ha) 
were acquired for prairie grouse from 1990 
to 1993 (Rob Naplin, MNDNR, personal com-
munication). The future of this prairie chicken 
population is closely tied to private land-use 
practices unless more public lands are desig-
nated and actively managed as prairie chicken 
management units. 
TRANSLOCATION PROJECTS 
Minnesota has been involved in 4 prairie 
chicken translocation projects. In 1977, 29 
birds were trapped in western Minnesota dur-
ing spring and summer and released at the 
Crex Meadows Wildlife Area in northwestern 
Wisconsin to supplement earlier releases of 
pen-reared and wild birds from central Wis-
consin (Toepfer 1988). Three releases of pen-
reared prairie chickens from the MNDNR 
Carlos Avery Game Farm were made from 
1977-80 at the Lac Qui Parle Wildlife Man-
agement Area in extreme west central Minne-
sota (Arlin Anderson, MNDNR, personal com-
munication). Birds were released in 
September of 1977 (n=35), 1979 (n=24), and 
1980 (n=35) in an area containing good up-
land cover and planted food plots. Birds were 
leg-banded but not radio-tagged so their fate 
is unknown. In 1983, no booming cocks were 
reported but some birds were observed dur-
Table 2. Grassland habitat in acres (hectares) within the northwest Minnesota prairie 
chicken range by ownership in 1973, 1983, and 1996. a 
Ownership 1973 b 1983 1996 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 24,117 31,135 39,531 
(9,760) (12,600) (15,998) 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6,820 14,332 31,797 
(2,760) (5,800) (12,868) 
The Nature Conservancy 1,048 6,683 9,644 
(424) (2,300) (3,903) 
Conservation Reserve Program 0 0 148,260 c 
(60,000) 
Total 31,985 52,150 148,260 
(12,944) (20,700) (92,769) 
a Some area increases between time periods may reflect prairie chicken range expansion onto previ-
ously acquired lands as well as additional purchases within the range. 
b From Nielsen 1973. 
c Estimate based on enrollment contracts as of 7 July 1989. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 29 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
30 
ing the summer (Rick Johnson, The Nature 
Conservancy, personal communication). Pos-
sible reasons for the Lac Qui Parle failure are: 
1) the use of pen-reared rather than wild 
birds, 2) releases during the fall raptor migra-
tion, and 3) the presence of ring-necked 
pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) in the area. 
In 1983, Minnesota became involved in a 
translocation project with North Dakota. The 
goal was to substitute Minnesota prairie 
chicken eggs for sharp-tailed grouse eggs in 
nests located on or near the Arrowwood Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge in east central North 
Dakota. Due to difficulty in locating chicken 
nests, additional eggs were provided by Clif-
ford Steinhauer, a private propagator in Holt, 
Minnesota. This project was unsuccessful. 
In April, 1992, a translocation project directed 
by Toepfer was initiated with the North Dako-
ta Game and Fish Department. In this effort, 
birds were captured on Minnesota booming 
grounds, radio-marked and then retrapped 
and translocated during summer to extreme 
east central North Dakota near Manvel within 
the Kelly's Slough Wildlife Management 
Project. Twenty-nine birds ( 12 cocks and 1 7 
hens) were translocated in 1992, 25 (14 cocks 
and 11 hens) in 1993, and no birds in 1994. 
In the summer of 1995, a booming ground of 
14 cocks was supplemented with the release 
of 49 Minnesota birds (25 cocks, 19 hens, 5 
unknown sex), including 2 brood hens with 3 
chicks each. Beringer (1995) summarized the 
results of the North Dakota translocation 
project for the period 1992-95. In 1996, 32 
cocks were translocated from Minnesota to 
North Dakota; 2 in mid-April, 2 in early June 
and 28 during July and August. Fifteen of 
these birds were released near known boom-
ing grounds to supplement existing numbers. 
The rest were released at new sites to estab-
lish new grounds. The release of cocks translo-
cated during the July and August molt appears 
to be a reliable way to hold translocated prai-
rie chickens near a release site and establish 
booming grounds nearby. Movements are 
generally reduced at this time and food re-
sources are plentiful (Toepfer et al. 1990). 
During the North Dakota project, birds were 
also translocated from Minnesota to Illinois to 
increase the genetic diversity in a population 
which had dwindled to about 40 birds. In 
1992, 15 birds (all hens) were moved and 12 
(6 cocks and 6 hens) in 1993. Birds translocat-
ed to Illinois included a radioed hen and her 
pair of 4-week old male chicks. 
Both the Illinois and North Dakota transloca-
tion efforts have yielded positive results. The 
Illinois population has increased as has the 
egg hatchability rate (Westemeier et al.1999) 
In North Dakota during April 1996, 5 boom-
ing grounds totaling 23 cocks were located 
within a S-mile (8 km) radius of the original 
1992 release site. Two grounds had 7 and 9 
cocks while several smaller grounds had 2-3 
cocks. All booming grounds were within 1 
mile (1.6 km) of a previous year's release. In 
the spring of 1998, 12 booming grounds with 
83 males were located in the release area. 
Since 1992, 360 prairie chickens have been 
released in North Dakota; 140 originating 
from Minnesota. Most were captured on 
booming grounds and translocated during the 
breeding season to the booming ground com-
plex surrounding the original 1992 release. It 
is believed the presence of existing booming 
grounds and associated birds reduces the 
tendency for translocated birds to move away 
from the release site (Toepfer 1976). 
EFFECTS OF REMOVAL 
A total of 167 prairie chickens (approximately 
40 birds per year) were translocated to North 
Dakota (83 cocks, 52 hens, and 5 unknowns) 
and to Illinois (6 cocks and 21 hens) in the 
early 1990s. In 1993, the cock population in 
western Minnesota from which birds were 
removed in 1992 declined approximately 
50%. Cock counts for individual booming 
ground counts indicated that the removal of 
birds from western Minnesota in 1992 did not 
contribute to this decline. A comparison of 
booming ground counts between grounds 
where birds were removed in 1992 (Twin 
Valley area) with those where none were tak-
en showed the latter declined 59% (157 to 
65, n=S) while the former declined 43% (150 
to 85, n=S). The Twin Valley area was select-
ed for comparison because it had the most 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
~ -~-~---~~ -~ ---------------------
complete booming ground counts for both 
years. Toepfer (1988) also found the removal 
of prairie chickens in 1977 from central Wis-
consin had no adverse effects on the cock 
population the following April. Heavy rains, 
cool weather and the influences of the 10-
year cycle probably better explained the drop 
in prairie chicken numbers from 1992 to 1993 
in western Minnesota (Fig. 2). 
RESEARCH SUMMARY 
Except for periodic census efforts, no inten-
sive research was conducted on Minnesota 
prairie chickens until 1975. Three graduate 
students from the University of North Dakota 
conducted studies in the northwest range 
southeast of Crookston in Polk County. Jor-
genson (1977) compared land use in the Min-
nesota study area with an area near Manvel, 
North Dakota which had recently (1973) sup-
ported prairie chickens, and monitored move-
ments of radio-tagged males during spring and 
summer in Minnesota. Svedarsky (1979) con-
ducted a 3-year study of female reproductive 
ecology which evaluated spring and summer 
movements, nesting, and brood rearing. Spar-
ling (1979) did a comparative study of the 
reproductive behavior of prairie chickens and 
sharp-tailed grouse to better understand fac-
tors contributing to, and the consequences of, 
hybridization. Their ranges overlap near 
Crookston and Sparling studied mixed display 
grounds occupied by both species. In 1992, 
the previously discussed North Dakota trans-
location study of John Toepfer and his stu-
dents was initiated and included studies on 
the winter and reproductive ecology of prairie 
chickens in both states and their use of CRP 
lands (Beringer 1995, Rosenquist 1996). 
Census Procedures 
Although some booming ground counts were 
conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, the most 
thorough effort to census the northwest range 
was commenced in 1974 by the MPCS and 
is on-going. Cooperators included MNDNR, 
USFWS, and TNC personnel, university re-
searchers, students, and bird-watchers who 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
attempted to count males on each ground 
twice during the mid-April peak display peri-
od. Some experimental winter aerial counts 
were conducted in Wilkin and Clay counties 
(Paterson 1973). Also, the census areas of the 
Crookston and Buffalo River State Park Christ-
mas Bird Counts include some prairie chicken 
habitat. 
Hunting 
Prairie chicken hunting was a long-standing 
tradition in the prairie country of Minnesota 
until the last hunting season in 1942. Swan-
son (1940) cited an 1883 newspaper article 
from Fergus Falls (west central Minnesota) 
which noted that in August there were "ten 
thousand dogs and as many hunters ready for 
the prairie chicken season." As recently as 
1924, prairie chickens were so numerous in 
Minnesota that no legislation to control their 
shooting was considered necessary (Minneso-
ta Conservation Department 1924). Accord-
ing to older residents of the prairie chicken 
country, prairie chickens were the main 
source of "red" meat during the winter and 
early spring of the Depression years. 
The prairie chicken is presently listed as a 
species of "special concern" in Minnesota 
(Coffin and Pfannmuller 1988) which means 
it is not currently threatened with extinction 
but is a "watch closely" species, dependent 
on a habitat which could change rapidly. 
However, many biologists feel the population 
could support a conservative hunting season. 
Two possible frameworks are: 1) issue a speci-
fied number of permits for a 9-day season 
with a 1 or 2 bird limit and a success rate 
regulated by the season dates, or 2) allow 
a 1-bird limit for an unrestricted number of 
hunters for 1 weekend in November (R.E. 
Farmes, MNDNR, personal communication). 
Required registration of kills and reports of 
crippling would be desirable. 
A hunting season could create more interest 
in the bird and its habitat, and affirm that 
hunting is not a threat to populations in good 
habitat. Possible negative aspects are: the 
over-harvest of isolated habitats, adverse pub-
31 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
32 
lie reaction from people accustomed to the 
bird not being hunted, trespass violations, and 
costs of administering the hunting season. 
Public Needs 
The prairie chicken has considerable educa-
tional and recreational potential and has been 
an effective selling point in prairie acquisition 
programs in Minnesota because of its histori-
cal significance and the special dimension it 
adds to the prairie fauna. Booming ground 
census data are used by the Minnesota State 
Planning Agency (1998) as a general indicator 
of the "amount and health of native prairie 
and other grassland." Similarly, sharp-tailed 
grouse are used as an indicator of brushland 
health. 
Observing booming grounds from blinds and 
vehicles draws many people to the prairie in 
spring and could be promoted even more, 
provided sufficient personnel were available 
to regulate viewing and minimize disturbance. 
Presently, blinds for the public are made avail-
able on a word-of-mouth basis by personnel 
from MNDNR, TNC, and the University of 
Minnesota; photographers occasionally have 
their own blinds. Buffalo River State Park east 
of Moorhead is well-suited to develop the 
interpretive potential of prairie chickens with 
a TNC field station located nearby and the 
proximity to population centers of Moorhead, 
Minnesota and Fargo, North Dakota. Inter-
pretive brochures on prairie chickens are 
available, and cooperative programming 
could be developed between MNDNR, TNC, 
and nearby educational institutions; particu-
larly, the Science Center of Moorhead State 
University. At present, the field office ofTNC 
coordinates viewing from blinds on a reserva-
tion basis. 
An important focal point for prairie chickens 
is Rothsay, dedicated in 1976 as the "Prairie 
Chicken Capital of Minnesota." It has long 
been known as a prairie chicken viewing 
area by Minnesota bird watchers and is now 
marked with a 16.5 foot (5 m) high prairie 
chicken statue along Interstate 94. An inter-
pretive kiosk could be developed at this site. 
The Minnesota Prairie Chicken Society 
(MPCS) was organized in 1974 to promote 
the prairie chicken through educational pro-
grams and support management and research 
projects (Svedarsky 1999). An annual meeting 
and program is held in different locations in 
the state for the public to learn about prairie 
chickens. A slide-tape cassette program and 
brochure were prepared in 1985 by the Soci-
ety as an educational aid for schools and con-
servation organizations. Three prairie chicken 
learning trunks were sponsored for use with 
educational groups and events in Minnesota 
and North Dakota. Prescribed burning equip-
ment has been donated to agencies and uni-
versity personnel for habitat management. 
The MPCS has been actively involved in fund-
raising to co-sponsor field research and trans-
location projects. In 1999, a$ 60,000 propos-
al to sponsor the reintroduction of prairie 
chickens to western Minnesota is under con-
sideration by the Legislature and funding ap-
pears likely. 
Management Needs 
The Minnesota prairie chicken range lies 
along the edge of the continental forest-prai-
rie transition where grassland is essentially a 
subclimax community, maintained in the past 
by a combination of fire (in particular) and 
grazing. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and 
willow (Salix spp.) are the primary woody in-
vaders and can rapidly lower the value of a 
grassland as prairie chicken habitat. The vigor-
ous grassland acquisition program in recent 
years (Table 2) has now exceeded the man-
.agement capability of conservation agencies. 
Presently, agencies annually burn a small por-
tion of their holdings within the primary chick-
en ranges; MNDNR (8%), USFWS (1 0%) and 
TNC (26%). Ideally, about 25% of grassland 
tracts should be managed annually by burn-
ing, mowing, or grazing. Spring and fall burn-
ing are the most feasible management practic-
es, with opportunities for haying and grazing 
by private cooperators somewhat limited due 
to reduced numbers of livestock operations. 
Pasture and hayland adjacent to acquired 
preserved grassland is increasingly being con-
verted to grain crops which receive limited 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
use by prairie chickens, especially broods. 
Consequently, acquired grasslands have to 
provide more than nesting and roosting cov-
er. Svedarsky (1979) found nesting occurred 
in undisturbed cover but broods consistently 
used recently disturbed cover. He found 
brood mortality to be quite high and conclud-
ed that brood-rearing success was as impor-
tant as nesting success in determining recruit-
ment. Most acquired grassland tracts within 
the Minnesota prairie chicken range are large 
(x=370 acres [150 ha]) and we suggest that 
the Hamerstrom et al. (1957) concept of 
"ecological patterning" be applied to the units 
themselves to facilitate birds meeting all of 
their habitat needs within short radius, espe-
cially during summer when movements are 
reduced. 
More recently, Toepfer (unpublished data), in 
a continuing long-term prairie chicken ecolo-
gy study, found that of 289 prairie chicken 
nests in western Minnesota, 66.1% were in 
CRP grasslands and 33.9% in grasslands domi-
nated by native species. Nesting success, 
however, was higher in native than CRP grass-
lands. The reason for this difference is not 
known, but CRP grasslands generally lack 
species diversity and often consist of only 1 
or 2 species; either switchgrass (Panicum virg-
atum), brome (Bromus inermis), or brome/ 
alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Large CRP fields of 
dense switchgrass were rarely used by hens 
for nesting in contrast to fields dominated by 
brome or brome/alfalfa. Native grasslands 
support a greater diversity of species but may 
include patches of non-native species as well. 
The pattern of more nests but lower nesting 
success in CRP grasslands has been consistent 
since the study started in 1992. This suggests 
that the quality of grassland habitat, especially 
the diversity of species, plays an important 
role in nest success. It would appear that prai-
rie chicken hens do not necessarily "select" 
the best available habitat. CRP grasslands, 
because of lower nesting success occurring 
there, could be a population sink for nesting 
prairie chickens. Even though there is much 
more CRP grassland habitat, native prairie 
areas produced a greater portion of young. 
The management potential of the approxi-
mate 148,00 acres (60,000 ha) of CRP land 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
within the chicken range is significant; it is 
double the combined acreage of MNDNR, 
USFWS, and TNC lands (Table 2), but habitat 
values tend to generally decline about 5 years 
after establishment unless it is managed. Sve-
darsky et al. (1998) supported increasing the 
species diversity of CRP plantings but also the 
implementation of a 4-year rotational distur-
bance program using burning, grazing, hay-
ing, and mowing; in that order of priority. 
Prescribed burning is currently allowed on 
CRP land in Minnesota but rarely practiced 
due to limitations in manpower, expertise, 
and equipment. 
Preserved grasslands may exist as "habitat 
islands" within intensive agriculture. This likely 
increases predation, particularly during the 
nesting and early brood season. Svedarsky 
(1988) found December red fox (Vulpes 
vulpes) fur prices (a trapping pressure indica-
tor) highly correlated (r=0.82, p<0.01) with 
booming ground counts 2 springs later over 
an 11-year period (197 4-84). This assumes 
that heavy trapping pressure during fall and 
winter results in lower mammalian predator 
populations and more successful nesting and 
brood rearing the following summer, which 
would be reflected in higher booming ground 
counts the subsequent spring. Sargeant et al. 
(1995) found a hatch rate of only 8.6% for 
156 waterfowl nests on waterfowl production 
areas in west central Minnesota from 1987 to 
1990. This included the southerly portion of 
the prairie chicken range. On comparable 
experimental areas with intensive predator 
control, they found a hatch rate of 15.4 %, 
which was at the low end of the 15-20% 
threshold considered minimal to maintain 
population stability for the waterfowl species 
in the study. They concluded that, even with 
predator control, predation of ground nests 
can be quite high where there are diverse 
mammalian predator communities present. 
Since predator control programs can be diffi-
cult, costly, and often have low public accept-
ability, predator management through habitat 
manipulation is generally more desirable. This 
can include cover management to provide 
good chicken concealment, reduce litter accu-
mulation (and possible associated predator 
attraction), and impede predator travel; re-
33 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
34 
moval of denning sites such as rock piles, old 
buildings and bulldoze piles; and cutting large 
trees which serve as raptor hunting perches. 
Eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) are 
attractive to raptors and are common along 
ditch banks often used as loafing sites by 
chickens. Svedarsky (1979) found raptor-
killed, radio-tagged prairie chickens associated 
with trees and suggested their removal in ar-
eas where prairie chicken management is a 
priority. Because it is difficult to kill trees over 
5 inches (12.5 em) dbh by fire, we recom-
mend girdling in April or May or clearcutting 
in late June, when carbohydrate reserves are 
low, to reduce resprouting. 
Prairie chicken identification signs have been 
developed by the Minnesota Prairie Chicken 
Society to warn hunters that chickens are 
protected. These are posted around public 
hunting areas where chickens are present and 
this practice should continue. 
Supplemental winter food through food plots 
(sunflowers, corn) or baled grain (oats, wheat, 
corn) may be important to prairie chickens in 
areas where fall plowing reduces available 
waste grain and in winters with significant 
snow cover. This need may be alleviated 
somewhat by minimum tillage practices which 
are gaining acceptance on private land. Also, 
winter food plots could serve as attractive 
brood areas if left standing for an additional 
year and develop a growth of weedy forbs 
which promotes insects. 
Research Needs 
As land use continues to intensify around 
acquired grasslands, managers need to know 
what is the minimum "island" size needed to 
maintain chickens assuming that all needs are 
to be met on the unit. Also, what is the opti-
mum proportion and distribution of habitat 
types and land uses on a unit to meet the 
varied life history requirements of prairie 
chickens? 
Woody plant invasion is a critical problem on 
several prairie tracts. Burning and summer cut-
ting are currently used but alternative brush 
control methods, including herbicides, need 
study, but must be cost-effective and environ-
mentally acceptable. Burning in combination 
with rotational grazing is currently under in-
vestigation and appears to have significant 
potential as another management tool. 
The impact of climate and predation on nest-
ing success and brood survival needs to be 
better understood as well as ways these ef-
fects could be modified by habitat manage-
ment. In Wisconsin, a scattering of smaller 
sanctuaries throughout private land was gen-
erally felt to be more desirable and feasible 
than fewer, larger grassland units (Hamer-
strom et al. 1957), but Minnesota has relative-
ly large tracts. If these areas are large enough 
to hold coyotes (Canis latrans), fox predation 
could be reduced (Larry Hanson, USFWS, 
personal communication). Svedarsky (1992) 
found apparent success of ground nests in a 
study area near Crookston increased from 8% 
(n=12) in 1991 to 61% (n=31) in 1992, pre-
sumably in response to coyotes becoming 
more common. Sargeant et al. (1987) in 
North Dakota demonstrated that resident red 
foxes were excluded from the large central 
portions of coyote family territories which 
were centered in relatively large roadless ar-
eas where cropland was least abundant. More 
recently, Sovada et al. (1995) found nesting 
success nearly double (32%) in coyote-domi-
nated landscapes compared to fox-dominated 
areas (17%). Also, from an overall ecosystem 
integrity standpoint, larger prairie tracts are 
considered superior to small sites (Brian Win-
ter, The Nature Conservancy, personal com-
munication). 
The winter ecology of prairie chickens was 
poorly understood until the study by Rosen-
quist (1996). He documented the winter use 
of CRP lands (which accounted for a third of 
all winter locations) and recommended a rota-
tional disturbance regime and the planting of 
"hardy" forbs to improve cover values. Recent 
CRP signups have generally incorporated 
more diversity in planting mixtures which pro-
vides an opportunity to compare winter prai-
rie chicken use of different planting mixtures. 
Most of the research in Minnesota has been 
conducted in the northwest prairie chicken 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
range. We know very little of habitat use and 
limiting factors in the north central range 
which was primarily forest in presettlement 
times and is now a mosaic of forest, brush, 
lowlands, cropland, and grasslands. 
There is recurring interest in reintroducing 
prairie chickens elsewhere in Minnesota; how-
ever, reintroduction sites require relatively 
large acreages of open grassland and the pro-
cess is labor and cost intensive. In general, we 
place a higher priority on research and man-
agement efforts directed towards making ex-
isting prairie chicken populations more secure 
and expanding their distribution before mov-
ing birds into other areas. There is, however, 
substantial grassland habitat available in Big 
Stone, Lac Qui Parle, and Yellow Medicine 
counties in western Minnesota, including the 
Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge and the 
Lac Qui Parle Wildlife Management Area. 
With this habitat base, improved knowledge 
of translocation techniques, and with substan-
tial legislative funding appearing likely, the 
chances of a successful reintroduction in this 
area appear good and a project is planned to 
commence in 1999. 
Recommendations 
Habitat is the major factor limiting the greater 
prairie chicken in Minnesota, with nesting and 
brood habitat being the most critical. Addi-
tional habitat areas must be acquired when 
available within the prairie chicken range, but 
the importance of managing existing public 
grasslands cannot be overemphasized (Maer-
tens 1973, Kirsch 197 4). 
In 1990, a long-range plan was developed by 
the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources and included the following section on 
"Habitat Needs" which serves as a guide to 
field managers: 
An ideal prairie chicken management unit 
should be one-third to one-half in native 
(preferred) or tame grasslands. Sedge mead-
ows and lowland brush should comprise 
about 25%. The remainder can be made up 
of a combination of cropland, pasture and 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
hay/and, with no more than 10% of the unit 
containing tree groves that exceed 20 ft 
(6. 1 m) in height. 
Although unburned grasslands provide nest-
ing and brooding habitats, periodic burning 
is a practical management tool needed to 
maintain the vigor of the prairie communi-
ty. Alfalfa fields cut for hay, lightly-grazed 
pasture, and first-year legumes following 
small grains also provide quality brood cov-
er. If left undisturbed, grass-legume seeded 
areas can also provide desirable nesting 
habitat. Brood habitat should be adjacent 
to nesting habitat whenever possible. 
Preferred roosting areas are somewhat wet 
and consist of lowland brush and sedge 
meadows with less than 10% in willow or 
other shrubs. These areas are also used to 
some extent for nesting, and brood rearing 
during years immediately following burning. 
Prescribed burning of lowland brush and 
sedge meadows is necessary to maintain 
the shrubs in early stages of development. 
Natural foods for the prairie chicken consist 
of wild rose hips and buds of birch, aspen, 
willow, dogwood, hazel, cottonwood and 
oak. If surrounding crop fields are not fall 
plowed, waste grains usually provide an 
additional source of winter food. Where fall 
plowing is extensive, strategically located 
food plots may be beneficial. No-till, ridge-
till or other types of farming that reduce fall 
plowing should be encouraged whenever 
possible. (MNDNR 1990} 
The research of Toepfer and his students 
(Beringer and Rosenquist) generally supports 
the above plan but studies of the winter ecol-
ogy of prairie chickens by Rosenquist (1996} 
provided quantitative data on the importance 
of private land and associated land uses (agri-
cultural activity and CRP) within the complex 
of public grasslands. He found survival was 
reduced when deep snow necessitated winter 
movements to search for food resources and 
recommended that food be planted close to 
adequate roosting habitat. Even in winter, 
Rosenquist found booming grounds to be 
important focal points around which to orient 
management practices for year-round needs. 
35 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
36 
The maintenance of high quality habitat is not 
as dramatic and newsworthy as when a new 
area is acquired but they are equally impor-
tant. Maintaining a tradition of chicken use on 
an existing area is of higher priority than rees-
tablishing birds on a new area. Prescribed 
burning is being carried out on an approxi-
mate 6-year rotation in the northwest range, 
but this may stimulate rather than control 
those woody species adapted to periodic fire 
(Svedarsky et al. 1986). An aggressive pro-
gram involving prescribed burning, rotational 
grazing, brush control through summer clear-
cutting, girdling, and possibly herbicides, is 
needed to maintain high quality grassland 
habitat for prairie chickens and their associ-
ates. Predation should be reduced with the 
following practices: removing raptor ambush 
trees and mammalian den sites whenever 
possible, maintaining good nesting cover, and 
promoting mammalian predator trapping. 
General information on prairie chickens and 
their management should be provided to pri-
vate landowners throughout the prairie chick-
en range. Incentive programs, such as state 
wetland and prairie tax credits, Prairie Bank, 
Reinvest-in-Minnesota, and the Conservation 
Reserve Program should be promoted to 
maintain grassland cover on private land. 
Management-oriented research should be 
carried out to better understand brood mor-
tality factors, winter movements, the ecology 
of predation effects on "habitat islands," and 
brush control strategies which are cost effec-
tive and consistent with long-term manage-
ment of diverse prairie tracts. 
The interpretive potential of prairie chickens is 
presently underutilized. Increased public sup-
port for public and private programs could be 
gained by additional tours of booming 
grounds and prairies using prairie chickens as 
the focal point; a biological indicator of prai-
ries that are healthy for chickens as well as 
people. 
Acknowledgments 
We wish to pay a special tribute to field per-
sonnel of the Minnesota Department of Natu-
ral Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
and The Nature Conservancy for their tireless 
efforts in acquiring and managing grasslands 
within the prairie chicken range. Without their 
dedication, prairie chickens would probably 
be near extirpation in the state and the wealth 
of prairie plants and animals now enjoyed by 
Minnesotans would be scarce indeed. Special 
recognition to the Northwest Experiment Sta-
tion, University of Minnesota, Crookston for 
support of the senior author in prairie chicken 
research and promotional activities. Larry 
Hanson and Rick julian (USFWS), Brian Win-
ter (TNC), and Rob Naplin, Earl johnson, 
Doug Hedtke, and Doug Wells (MNDNR) 
provided land acquisition and management 
data for their respective organizations and/or 
reviewed a draft of this paper. Appreciation is 
expressed to the late Robert E. Farmes, Ger-
ald H. Maertens, and William E. Berg of the 
MNDNR for their review of this paper and to 
the many members of the Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society for responding to the needs 
of the chicken. 
Literature Cited 
Beringer, P.S. 1995. Movements, habitat use, 
and survival of translocated greater prairie 
chickens in North Dakota. Thesis, University 
of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA. 
Breckenridge, W. 1998. Greater prairie chick-
ens at Radisson South. Loon 70: 229-230. 
Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller. 1988. Minneso-
ta's endangered flora and fauna. University of 
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 
USA. 
Erickson, A.B., and R.E. Farmes. 1960. Nesting 
distribution of the greater prairie chicken and 
sharp-tailed grouse. The Flicker 32:60-61. 
___ __, and W.H. Petraborg. 1952. Pin-
nated grouse- prince of the prairie. Conser-
vation Volunteer 15:6-11. 
Hamerstrom, F.N., and F. Hamerstrom. 1973. 
The prairie chicken in Wisconsin: highlights of 
a 22-year study of counts, behavior, move-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
----------- ----------------------
ments, turn-over, and habitat. Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources Technical Bul-
letin 64. 
____ _, O.E. Mattson, and F. Hamer-
strom. 1957. A guide to prairie chicken man-
agement. Wisconsin Conservation Depart-
ment Technical Bulletin 15. 
Hatch, P.L. 1892. Notes on the birds of Min-
nesota-First report of the State Zoologist. 
Geographical and natural history survey of 
Minnesota. Harrison and Smith, Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, USA 
jorgenson, J.P. 1977. Pinnated grouse (Tympa-
nuchus cupido pinnatus) movements and habi-
tat utilization in the Northern Great Plains. 
Thesis, University of North Dakota, Grand 
Forks, North Dakota, USA 
Kirsch, L.M. 19 7 4. Habitat management con-
siderations for prairie chickens. Wildlife Soci-
ety Bulletin 2:124-129. 
Maertens, G. H. 1973. The status of the prairie 
chicken in Minnesota: habitat management 
practices. Pages 89-91 in W.D. Svedarsky 
and T.j. Wolfe, editors. The prairie chicken in 
Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Crook-
ston, Minnesota, USA 
Minnesota Conservation Department. 1924. 
Biennial report of the State Game and Fish 
Commissioner of Minnesota. Minnesota De-
partment of Natural Resouces, St. Paul, Min-
nesota, USA 
____ ,. 1990. Greater prairie chicken. 
(Long range plan). Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wild-
life, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA 
Minnesota State Planning Agency. 1998. Min-
nesota Milestones 1998: Measures that matter. 
Minnesota State Planning Agency, St. Paul, 
Minnesota, USA 
Nielsen, G.F. 1973. Land acquisition pro-
grams. Pages 86-88 in W.D. Svedarsky and 
T.j. Wolfe, editors. The prairie chicken in Min-
nesota. University of Minnesota, Crookston, 
Minnesota, USA 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Partch, M.C. 1973. A history of Minnesota's 
prairie chickens. Pages 15-29 in W.O. Svedar-
sky and T.j. Wolfe, editors. The prairie chicken 
in Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Crook-
ston, Minnesota, USA 
Paterson, M.L. 1973. Population and habitat 
trends. Pages 80-85 in W.D. Svedarsky and 
T.j. Wolfe, editors. The prairie chicken in Min-
nesota. University of Minnesota, Crookston, 
Minnesota, USA 
Rosenquist, E. L. 1996. Winter aspects of prai-
rie chicken ecology in northwest Minnesota. 
Thesis, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, 
Minnesota, USA 
Sargeant, A.B., S.H. Allen, and j.O. Hastings. 
1987. Spatial relations between sympatric 
coyotes and red foxes in North Dakota. jour-
nal of Wildlife Management 51:285-293. 
___ __, M. A. Sovada, and T.L. Shaffer. 
1995. Seasonal predator removal relative to 
hatch rate of duck nests in waterfowl produc-
tion areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:507-
513. 
Sovada, M.A., A.B. Sargeant, and j.W. Grier. 
1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red 
foxes on duck nest success. journal of Wildlife 
Management 59:1-9. 
Sparling, D.W. 1979. Reproductive isolating 
mechanisms and communication in greater 
prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido) and 
sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus). 
Dissertation, University of North Dakota, 
Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA 
Svedarsky, W.O. 1979. Spring and summer 
ecology of female greater prairie chickens in 
northwestern Minnesota. Dissertation, Univer-
sity of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Da-
kota, USA 
____ . 1988. Reproductive ecology of 
female greater prairie chickens in Minnesota. 
Pages 193-239 in A.T. Bergerud and M.W. 
Gratson, editors. Adaptive strategies of north-
ern grouse. Vol. 1. Population Studies. Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, USA 
37 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
38 
_____ . 1992. Biological inventory of a 
multi-purpose flood control impoundment in 
northwest Minnesota and potentials for non-
game and game bird management. Northwest 
Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, 
Crookston, Minnesota, USA. 
____ _, 1999. An overview of the Minne-
sota Prairie Chicken Society. Pages 
9-24 in W.D. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and N.J. 
Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chicken: a 
national/oak. Minnesota Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, University of Minnesota, St. 
Paul, Minnesota, USA. 
___ _, R.J. Oehlenshlager, and T.D. Ton-
sager. 1982. A remnant flock of greater prairie 
chickens in north central Minnesota. Loon 
54:5-12. 
----1 T.J. Wolfe, M.A. Kohring, and LB. 
Hanson. 1986. Fire management of prairies in 
the prairie-forest transition of Minnesota. Pag-
es 103-107 in A.L. Koonce, editor. Prescribed 
burning in the Midwest: state of the art. Sym-
posium Proceedings, Stevens Point, Wiscon-
sin, USA. 
____ _, _____ , and J.E. Toepfer. 
1997. The greater prairie chicken in Minneso-
ta. Minnesota Department of Natural Resourc-
es Wildlife Report 11 . 
____ _, J.E. Toepfer, F. Kollman, and W.E. 
Berg. 1998. CRP opportunities for prairie 
grouse in Minnesota. Page 18 in N.J. Silvy, 
editor. Proceeding of 22nd Prairie Crouse Tech-
nical Council Conference, Texas A&M Univer-
sity, College Station, Texas, USA 
Swanson, E.B. 1940. The use and conservation 
of Minnesota game, 1850-1900. Dissertation, 
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, USA. 
Toepfer, J.E. 1976. Movements and behavior 
of transplanted radio-tagged prairie chickens in 
central Wisconsin. Thesis, University of Wis-
consin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA. 
____ . 1988. Ecology of the greater 
prairie chicken as related to reintroductions. 
Dissertation, Montana State University, Boze-
man, Montana, USA. 
____ _, R.L. Eng and R.K. Anderson. 
1990. Translocating prairie grouse -what 
have we learned? Transactions of North Ameri-
can Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-
ence 55:569-579. 
Westemeier, R.L., S.S. Simpson, and T. Esker. 
1999. Status and management of the greater 
prairie chicken in Illinois. Pages 143-152 in 
W.O. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and N.J. Silvy, edi-
tors. The greater prairie chicken: a national 
look. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minne-
sota, USA. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
History, Status, and 
Management of the Greater 
Prairie Chicken in Wisconsin 
Raymond K. Anderson, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin, 
Stevens Point 
john E. Toepfer, Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus, Ltd., Waukesha, 
Wisconsin 
This treatise on the greater prairie chicken 
(Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) was originally 
written at the request of Dr. F. N. Hamer-
strom, Jr., who was approached in the late 
1980s to do the same for an anticipated book 
which was later cancelled. The first version of 
this paper was completed in 1991, revised in 
1993, and again in 1999 for this publication, 
except the section treating management of 
the Buena Vista, Paul Olson, and Leola Areas 
covered by j. Keir, Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources (WDNR) manager of those 
areas. 
Professor Fred Hamerstrom (RKA's graduate 
supervisor) died in 1990. Dr. Frances Hamer-
strom, the second member of that inseparable 
prairie chicken research team, died in Septem-
ber 1998. This paper is dedicated to them. 
Historical Review 
The greater prairie chicken, one of 4 species 
of grouse native to Wisconsin, was common 
throughout the original tallgrass prairie re-
gions of southern Wisconsin in pre-settlement 
times. The sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
phasianellus) shared some of the chicken 
range although it was associated with the 
brushy, oak-savanna ecotone between prairie 
and deciduous forest. The ruffed grouse (So-
nasa umbel/us) resided in the deciduous forest 
edge, and northward to the boreal forest, 
home of the spruce grouse (Dendragopus 
canadensis). These 4 species are still present 
in Wisconsin today although all but the ruffed 
grouse exist as small populations. 
Schorger {1944) outlined the probable origi-
nal breeding range of the prairie chicken 
based on historical accounts from newspa-
pers, popular publications, and scientific liter-
ature (Fig. 1 ). Hamerstrom et al. (1957), 
refined Schorger's map on the basis of pre-
settlement vegetation (Finley 1951, Fig. 2). 
Schorger (1944) also cites numerous accounts 
of the chicken being "very numerous" or "su-
perabundant" as early as 1821 and continuing 
to be so in many localities until about 1875. 
Haraszthy, traveling from Madison to Lake 
Winnebago in 1840, reported" ... thousands 
upon thousands of prairie chicken, partridges, 
and pheasants flew up before us continuous-
ly .... " (Schorger 1944:312). Other accounts, 
reported by Schorger (1944:324-326) in-
39 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 1. Probable original breeding range of the prairie chick-
en in Wisconsin (Schorger 1944). 
40 
elude: "1884- 2 men shoot 100 prairie chick-
ens near Milwaukee; 1849 - the average bag 
for 2 men and a dog was 60-80 chickens; 
1854 near Madison - man shot 43 prairie 
chickens in a few hours, 2 men bagged 128 
chickens in 1 day, 1 man shot 143 chickens 
during a 2-day hunt." Prairie chickens were 
"common fare" in the Milwaukee markets 
during this time, selling at $0.25/pair in 1842. 
Farmers commonly supplemented their in-
come by shooting or trapping prairie chick-
ens. Between April 1847 and April 1848, a 
market hunter sold 2,420 prairie chickens in 
Chicago. Railroad lines connected Milwaukee, 
Madison, Beloit, and Chicago between 1853 
and 1864, thus providing an expanded market 
for prairie chickens and other game. In 1853, 
a farmer from the Beaver Dam area brought 
to Milwaukee " ... 1 00 dozen quails, 200 prairie 
chickens, and 1 00 partridges that had been 
shot and snared by his son." 
Prairie chicken numbers and distribution in-
creased with the spread of agriculture into the 
Figure 2. Original range of the prairie chicken 
in Wisconsin (Hamerstrom, et al. 1957; adapt-
ed from Schorger 1944, Finley 1951, and Cur-
tis 1950). 
original prairie region but it was a relatively 
short-lived phenomenon. Significant portions 
of the original range had been converted to 
agriculture by 1875 and the grassland habitat 
essential to survival of the bird gave way to 
cow and plow. Leopold (1931 :167) referred 
to a decline in chicken populations in its origi-
nal range beginning about 1885. At this same 
time however, new range was being created 
in northern Wisconsin coincident with hard-
wood logging. The chicken expanded its 
range into the new habitat created by lumber-
ing, subsequent fires, and agriculture. They 
were present in northernmost Forest County 
and were reported to be "plentiful and much 
hunted in Superior" in 1885 (Schorger 
1944:357). In 1896, 25,000 chickens were 
shipped to market from Spooner in northwest 
Wisconsin (Leopold 1949). Chickens were 
present in every northern Wisconsin county 
by 1920. The statewide population of chicken 
in the late 1800s probably never equaled that 
of the original prairie range in the south but it 
was at the zenith of its distribution. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The open grassland habitat in northern Wis-
consin began to disappear quickly with the 
advent of efficient fire detection and suppres-
sion in 1927, the abandonment of farms on 
the rocky soils and rolling terrain, and forest 
regeneration through natural plant succession 
and planted conifers. Habitat within the origi-
nal range to the south continued to be lost to 
clean farming. The prairie chicken population 
in Wisconsin declined from both ends of the 
successional continuum in direct proportion 
to the loss of grasslands. 
A. Leopold and F.j.W. Schmidt, in the first 
serious attempt to inventory the prairie chick-
• ~ 
0 
Resld•• 
C:OIWIIftOft 
Resident, 
lnt~mediote 
D 0 Smoll rHldenf rloclts reported 
A 
s 
X 
Autumn reports, 
1-3 birds eoctl 
Sprii'IQ 01 summer, 
1-3 birds eodl 
Winter reports, 
1- 14 birds eoctl 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
en population in Wisconsin, estimated Wis-
consin's prairie chicken population to be 
54,850 in 1929 (Gross 1930:26-27). How-
ever, Leopold (1931 :170-171) believed that 
figure to be" ... a little optimistic. I doubt 
whether there are that many." By 1950, the 
chicken had essentially disappeared from its 
original range in southern Wisconsin. It was 
common only in central Wisconsin with scat-
tered populations surrounding a core area in 
Portage, Wood, Waushara, and Adams coun-
ties (Fig. 3). 
In the early 1900s, far-sighted individuals in 
Wisconsin became concerned about the 
Figure 3. Distribution of the prairie chicken in Wisconsin, 1948-53 (Hamerstrom et al. 1957) 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 41 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
chicken's future and initiated early manage-
ment and research efforts. The first manage-
ment was the Van Wormer-Jones Program 
in 1928 which established buckwheat food 
patches and grain shocks for prairie grouse 
winter food in the Babcock area of central 
Wisconsin for 5 consecutive years (Grange 
1948). The first research began when M.L. 
Jones, chief of the Wisconsin Conservation 
Department (now Wisconsin Department 
of Natural Resources) Research Bureau, com-
missioned A. 0. Gross of Bowdoin College 
in Maine, to conduct a study of Wisconsin 
prairie chickens in 1929 and 1930. Gross 
had considerable experience with the heath 
hen (T. c. cupido) of the northeastern United 
States. He set the stage for management and 
studies of the prairie chicken in Wisconsin 
by recommending "restoration of the marsh-
lands," "the acquisition of land for refuges and 
winter feeding stations," and stricter hunting 
regulations (Gross, 1930). 
F.J. Schmidt, an assistant to Gross, continued 
Wisconsin prairie chicken studies under A. 
Figure 4. Location of prairie chicken management units and 
outlying populations in Wisconsin, 1990. 
42 
Leopold from 1931 to 1935 at which time he 
died in a house fire that also consumed most 
of his research data. 
Frederick and Frances Hamerstrom began 
their prairie chicken research in central Wis-
consin under A. Leopold in 1935. They con-
tinued this research under various auspices, 
with a 3-year break in continuity from 1944 
through 1946, until1971 (Hamerstrom and 
Truax 1938; Hamerstrom 1939, 1940; Hamer-
strom and Morgan 1941; Hamerstrom et al. 
1941 ). Their most intensive prairie chicken 
ecology studies were focused on the Buena 
Vista Marsh and the Plainfield Area (now 
called the Leola Area) between 1948 and 
1971 (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1949; 
Hamerstrom 1950, Hamerstrom and Hamer-
strom 1955; Hamerstrom et al. 1957; Hamer-
strom and Hamerstrom 1960, 1961; Berger 
and Hamerstrom 1962; Hamerstrom and 
Hamerstrom 1963; Berger et al. 1963; Hamer-
strom and Hamerstrom 1964; Hamerstrom 
and Mattson 1964; Hamerstrom et al. 1965; 
Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1966, 1967; 
Anderson and Hamerstrom 1967; Hamer-
strom and Hamerstrom 1968; Anderson 
1969a, 1969b; Westemeier 1969, 1971; 
Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1970, 1973; 
Hamerstrom 1977). 
By 1950, prairie chickens were common resi-
dents in only 4 areas in central Wisconsin, the 
Leola Area in Adams and Waushara counties, 
the Buena Vista Marsh in southwestern Por-
tage County, the Paul Olson Prairie Chicken 
Management Area in west-central Portage 
and east-central Wood counties, and the 
Mead Wildlife Management Area in south-
central Marathon County (Fig. 4). There were 
a few scattered, intermediate or low density 
populations in some outlying areas immedi-
ately adjacent to these units. 
Hamerstroms identified the Buena Vista 
Marsh as being the logical area to concen-
trate prairie chicken management efforts be-
cause of the existing habitat, the lack of con-
flicting land uses, and the low land values. The 
Buena Vista Area is a 50,000-acre (20,250 ha) 
pseudo-prairie composed mainly of intro-
duced grasses and native forbs. It was origi-
nally a tamarack (Larix laricina) swamp in the 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
------------- ------------~---------------
lakebed of Glacial Lake Wisconsin with exten-
sive portions of open marsh and speckled 
alder (Alnus rugosa) shrubs (Zedler, 1966). 
The tamaracks gave way to sedge meadows 
(Carex spp.) by the late 1800s following fre-
quent and intensive burning of the marsh dur-
ing drought years. This fostered large stands 
of marsh grass dominated by bluejoint (Ca-
lamagrostis canadensis). Prairie chickens were 
numerous in this wet grassland with wide 
horizons. A drainage district was formed and, 
beginning in 1903, the marsh was drained for 
agriculture by a series of ditches. Farming 
generally failed because of a short growing 
season, defective drainage, and the acid peat 
soils that were deficient in potash and phos-
phorous (Westemeier 1971 ). Many farms 
were abandoned and the drainage district 
became inactive but was not dissolved. 
The prairie chicken population increased to 
a peak during and shortly after the drainage. 
Leopold ( 1931) estimated the prairie chicken 
population in Portage County to be 4,000 
birds in 1930. Hamerstroms (1955) reported 
the Leola Area population to be relatively 
stationary at 260 and 238 booming cocks 
in 1940 and 1950, respectively. Westemeier 
(1971 ), extrapolating from the Hamerstrom 
data, estimated the Buena Vista population 
to be 600 booming cocks between 1940 and 
1950; Hamerstroms (1973) determined it to 
be 550 cocks in 1950. 
A bluegrass (Poa sp.) seed industry gradually 
replaced the dairy and grain farming on the 
Buena Vista, starting in the 1920s and con-
tinuing into the early 1960s when it failed 
because of foreign competition. Bluegrass 
farming was compatible with prairie chickens 
because of the timing of associated rotational 
burning, mowing, and grazing practices that 
maintained the bluegrass, and the method 
of seed harvest that stripped only the seed-
heads, leaving the stems and leaves for cover. 
The approximate boundaries of the now inac-
tive drainage district became the prairie chick-
en management area on the Buena Vista 
Marsh and Hamerstroms and Mattson de-
signed an ecological scatter-pattern manage-
ment plan for the area (Hamerstrom et al. 
1957). The plan called for the acquisition of 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
key, small (40-80 acres [16.2-32.4 ha]) par-
cels of land scattered strategically throughout 
the entire area (Fig. 5). This pattern incorpo-
rated existing land-use practices of bluegrass 
and dairy farming, and cattle ranching, both of 
which were compatible with prairie chicken 
needs for wide horizons and permanent grass-
lands. The Wisconsin Conservation Commis-
sion, in keeping with its historic commitment 
to the preservation of prairie grouse, adopted 
a Prairie Grouse Management Policy in 1953 
which called for restoration and management 
of habitat. 
A program to purchase a scatter-pattern of 
grassland reserves was initiated in the early 
1950s. The first parcel (63 acres [26 ha]) was 
purchased in 1954 by Mr. and Mrs. Gordon E. 
Kummer. In 1955, The Wisconsin Society of 
Ornithology and Mr. and Mrs. Clarence jung 
each purchased 40 acres (16 ha). These be-
ginnings were enormously important but the 
pace had somehow to be stepped up. In 
1958, Paul Olson set up the Prairie Chicken 
Foundation within the Dane County Conser-
vation League and, with the help of William 
H. Pugh, things began to move. Then in 1960, 
the Society ofTympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus 
(STCP) was established by Willis G. Sullivan, 
Sr., john Best, and Ferdinand Heinrichs and 
the program of private purchase reached full 
stride (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1973). 
The Prairie Chicken Foundation made its first 
purchase of land in 1959; by 1973, they had 
purchased 1,641 acres ( 665 ha). The Society 
of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus, a startlingly 
vigorous, Milwaukee-based organization, pur-
chased 1,200 acres (486 ha) in 1961 and ulti-
mately bought 7,000 acres (2,835 ha). By 
1973, 10,806 acres (4,376 ha) within the Bue-
na Vista Area had been purchased by private 
organizations and individuals and leased to 
the WDNR for prairie chicken management. 
Land purchase continued on the Buena Vista 
(total: 11,800 acres [ 4,779 ha] by 1980, Fig. 
6) and was extended to key areas in the Leola 
Area (900 acres [365 ha]) and the Paul Olson 
Area (1,790 acres [725 ha]). 
The Wisconsin Conservation Commission 
declared in 1955 that it stood ready to lease 
and manage suitable lands which were pri-
vately purchased for prairie grouse. The nomi-
43 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
44 
N 
.~ 
One Mile 
Section Line 
Township 
T21N 
LEGEND 
0 40 Acres 
• 
Propose~ for 
grassland reserves 
~ Already pnvately purchased 
0~ Seed company lands F Poor nest - brood 
D cover. or none, on . 
seed co. lands ( 1954) 
Figure 5. Scatter-pattern of grassland reserves for the Buena Vista Marsh Management Area need-
ed to ensure the continuity of breeding units throughout the Area (Hamerstrom et al. 1957) 
nallease money was equivalent to the 
amount of the local taxes which were' then 
paid to local governments. The WDNR would 
manage these long-term (99 years), leased 
lands for prairie chickens. The leases were to 
remain in effect as long as the lands were 
managed for prairie chickens. 
The WDNR commenced managing the ac-
quired lands upon acquisition and lease. Initial 
management efforts, designed and imple-
mented by Mattson, consisted of practices 
that would restore lands that had been invad-
ed by trees and shrubs through natural suc-
cession to permanent grasses, establishing 
winter food patches, and maintaining existing 
grasslands by mowing, burning, controlled 
grazing and using herbicides. Aspen (Populus 
tremuloides) was the principal tree invader, 
and spirea (Spirea tomentosa, S. alba), and 
willow (Salix spp.), the chief shrubs. Mature 
aspen stands were costly to convert and 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
hence land purchases with large stands of 
these species were avoided or, except for key 
parcels, not converted to grasslands. 
J. Berkahn, WDNR wildlife manager who suc-
ceeded Mattson in 1966, designed a manage-
ment plan for the Buena Vista that divided the 
11,800-acre (4,779 ha) reserve lands into 40 
units (Fig. 7). Each unit was further divided 
into 20-acre (8 ha) strip-parcels to facilitate 
treatment on a 4 or 5-year rotation. This pat-
tern was followed and slightly modified by 
B. Gruthoff, Berkahn's successor, between 
1973 and 1982 during which time he incorpo-
rated results of research conducted by Toep-
fer and Tesky (Toepfer 1988) and Halvorsen 
(Halvorsen and Anderson 1983) into the man-
agement program. J. Keir assumed manage-
ment responsibilities in 1982 and continues 
today as WDNR prairie chicken manager on 
the Buena Vista, Leola, and Paul Olson Areas. 
The chicken population on the Buena Vista 
declined 50% in the mid-1950s (Table 1, Fig. 
8) coincident with the downside of the 10-
year cycle of other grouse species in the Lake 
States (Keith 1963). It continued to decline an 
additional 46% and stabilized at a mean of 
151 cocks (range= 1 04-183) throughout the 
1 960s as other grouse populations rose and 
fell on schedule with the cycle (Thompson 
and Moulton 1981 ). The chicken population 
increased to 234 cocks by the next cyclic 
peak in 1972, presumably in response to the 
land acquisition program and subsequent 
management. The subsequent cyclic trough 
in the mid-1970s was slightly higher than the 
preceding one and the following peak of 550 
cocks in 1981 equaled the high point of 
1950-51. In 1951, booming grounds were 
distributed over a 100 square mile (256 km2) 
area. In 1981, the chicken population density 
doubled with that same number of cocks oc-
cupying booming grounds within a 50 square 
mile (128 km2) area. (Here, we refer to the 
communal breeding area of the prairie chicken 
as a booming ground in keeping with it being 
uniquely descriptive for that bird [Toepfer 
1991 ]). The population declined since 1981 
to a mean of 231 (range= 182-281) cocks 
between 1984 and 1991. The expected re-
bound at the beginning of this decade did not 
materialize but the population in the subse-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
quent trough of the mid-1980s was 86% high-
er than the lowest recorded population of 104 
booming cocks in 1969, precariously close to 
the minimum level of 1 00 booming cocks for 
a healthy population (Toepfer 1988). 
Row-crop farming with center-pivot irrigation 
was initiated on private lands on the Buena 
Vista Marsh in the 1960s. Principal crops 
were potatoes, snap beans, peas, and sweet 
corn. This agricultural venture was immediate-
ly successful because of the huge aquifer that 
underlies the area, the availability of chemical 
fertilizers, new agricultural chemical technolo-
t..EGEND• 
@l PRAIRIE CHICKEN FOUNDATION 
~ SOC. TYMPANUCHUS PINNATUS 
mJ OTHER 
- MANAGEMENT AREA 
....__: MARSH BOUNDARY 
Figure 6. Land privately purchased for prairie chickens on the 
Buena Vista Marsh, Portage County, through 1971 (Hamer-
strom and Hamerstrom 1973) 
45 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 7. Buena Vista Marsh grassland reserve management 
units designed by ]. Berkahn (WDNR). 
46 
gy, and the advent of short-season row crops. 
The drainage district was reactivated and the 
original ditches were re-dredged. Hundreds of 
acres of permanently sodded lands associated 
with dairy farms and cattle ranches were con-
verted to irrigation farming. 
By 1968, 680 acres (275 ha) of private grass-
lands had been converted to irrigation farm-
ing (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1973). At 
least 11,000 acres (4,455 ha) were in irrigated 
row crops in 1998. In addition to the loss of 
habitat, the concomitant use of aerially ap-
plied pesticides associated with irrigation 
farming, poses an additional potential threat 
to prairie chickens and other wildlife on the 
management area. 
Land values increased dramatically with the 
advent of irrigation farming and local taxes 
increased proportionately. Management lands 
were originally purchased for $17.50 per acre 
in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and taxes 
were $1.00 per acre. Better land is now sell-
ing for up to $2,500 per acre (Portage Coun-
ty, UW-Extension, personal communication) 
and taxes and associated lease costs to 
WDNR have increased proportionately. The 
total lease cost in 1989 was approximately 
$100,000. Another $3-$4,000 was paid annu-
ally for assessments by the drainage district. 
At that time, the WDNR offered to purchase 
the lands from private owners. A major land-
owner, STCP, agreed to sell their 7,000 acres 
(2,835 ha) to the state of Wisconsin for $1 
million, approximately half of the appraised 
value, with the stipulation that the lands con-
tinue to be managed for prairie chickens. 
Sales of other private lands are being negotiat-
ed at the present time. 
The amount of prairie chicken habitat within 
the Leola Area fluctuated dramatically be-
tween 1941 and 1969 because 3 landowners 
controlled 47%,32%,51% and 18% of the 
area in 1941-42,1947,1956-57 and 1969, 
respectively (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 
1973). Land-use practices changed several 
times since 1969. At times, the land was fal-
low and supported grassland wildlife. Cattle 
ranching and other forms of agriculture nega-
tively modified the grasslands at other times. 
The chicken population mirrored these chang-
es (Fig. 8, Table 1 ). 
The status of prairie chicken habitat on the 
entire Paul Olson Area is unknown today 
although a portion of it was inventoried in 
1991-92 (WDNR 1993). The population here 
increased significantly from 54 booming 
cocks at the first census in 1962 when small 
farms failed and 1,700 acres (688.5 ha) were 
acquired for chicken management. It has fluc-
tuated in a pattern generally similar to that 
of the Buena Vista since then; from a high 
of 302 cocks in 1981 to lows of 56 in 1992, 
and 129 in 1998. The recent partial inventory 
of this area reported prairie chicken nesting 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
600 
-
500 
400 
~ 
~ 300 
E 
"' z 
200 
100 
Leola Buena Vista 
I 
I 
I 
~ 
f\ I\ /'./ 
I\ I V 
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 
Year 
Figure 8. Prairie chicken cocks on central Wisconsin booming grounds. 
cover having increased from 22% to 24% 
between 1962 and 1991 but that "woods, 
brush, and miscellaneous" also increased 23% 
to 40% of the area during the same time. 
Dairy and grain farming is still a significant 
activity on the heavy soils of this area. Al-
though 1,700 acres (689 ha) were purchased 
and are being managed for prairie chickens, 
there are indications that recently intensified 
grain farming on private land and the increase 
in "space-destroying" trees and shrubs, may 
be influencing chicken populations. 
The Mead Wildlife Area is publicly owned 
with about two-thirds of the 27,000 acres 
(1 0,935 ha) being managed principally for 
waterfowl; the remainder is forested. Prairie 
chickens benefit from the wide horizons and 
the maintenance of grass-forb communities 
adjacent to managed impoundments, the 
sharecropping programs, and nearby private 
agricultural lands. A significant portion of the 
chicken population in this area resides on 
the dairy and grain farming areas adjacent to, 
and south of the Mead Wildlife Area. The soils 
and farming practices are similar to those of 
the Paul Olson Area, approximately 15 miles 
(24 km) farther south with a band of forested 
land between them. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
There is considerable interchange of prairie 
chickens between the 4 major areas. Hamer-
stroms (1973) documented 13 instances of 
chickens, leg-banded on the Buena Vista, 
being recovered in the Paul Olson Area (1 0) 
or Mead Wildlife Area (3) between 1950 and 
1969. Telemetry studies also revealed inter-
change between the Buena Vista and Leola 
areas during the winter months (Toepfer 
1988) and current studies by Toepfer have-
documented several additional interchanges. 
Prairie chickens existed in the Crex Meadows 
area of northwest Wisconsin and in Douglas 
County, until 1947. Original prairie habitat 
in that area was gradually invaded by oak 
(Quercus spp.) forest with the cessation of 
fires. A vigorous habitat management pro-
gram, using prescribed burning under the 
direction of Norman Stone, then WDNR Wild-
life Manager at Crex Meadows Wildlife Area, 
restored much of the native prairie communi-
ty. Pen-reared and wild prairie chickens were 
reintroduced there in 19 7 4-78 and moni-
tored by Toepfer (1988). Habitat deterioration 
was again largely responsible for a second 
decline in chicken abundance. Two cocks 
were present in 1990, 3 in 1991, none there-
after. 
47 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 1. Number of prairie chicken cocks on booming grounds in central Wisconsin by 
census unit. 
Year Buena Vista a Leola Paul Olson Mead McMillan Outlying Total 
1950 550 232 b 
1951 550 183 
1952 265 132 
1953 344 146 
1954 256 162 a Names of census units, 
1955 305 110 "Outlying" = combined 
1956 299 109 adjacent outlying areas. 
1957 239 114 
1958 297 126 b Blank spaces = census 
1959 169 72 not conducted; prairie 
1960 157 56 chickens may have been 
1961 135 46 present. 
1962 157 44 54 
1963 150 37 50 
1964 175 38 38 
1965 165 21 43 
1966 183 20 62 
1967 141 10 66 
1968 139 12 71 
1969 104 28 57 43 
1970 141 78 62 54 
1971 198 77 47 102 
1972 234 88 76 108 
1973 155 46 94 121 
1974 126 46 116 96 
1975 138 52 135 118 
1976 131 45 114 119 
1977 213 75 145 154 
1978 365 82 186 212 
1979 438 53 189 211 
1980 480 79 228 187 
1981 550 75 302 180 14 1121 
1982 535 69 256 163 13 1036 
1983 359 49 188 97 4 697 
1984 245 22 152 
1985 275 68 175 144 7 670 
1986 194 47 152 
1987 193 56 194 110 25 578 
1988 269 65 206 101 31 672 
1989 182 64 124 128 37 56 591 
1990 281 80 110 129 60 49 709 
1991 216 84 91 101 64 70 626 
1992 239 63 56 58 30 60 506 
1993 265 65 93 65 24 45 557 
1994 247 70 91 53 19 30 510 
1995 275 87 83 38 24 31 538 
1996 277 74 87 44 20 39 541 
1997 334 97 100 59 9 22 621 
1998 327 70 129 79 14 30 649 
48 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Low numbers of prairie chickens are present 
immediately adjacent to the 4 central Wiscon-
sin management areas (Fig. 4). A few small 
outlying populations still exist to the west and 
northwest of the Mead Wildlife Area. One of 
these populations resides immediately adja-
cent to another state-owned wetland manage-
ment area, the McMillan Marsh. This area has 
been censused by WDNR personnel since 
1981. The remaining outlying populations are 
along the Marathon-Clark-Taylor county lines 
from Marshfield to Medford. Chickens have 
probably existed in this area since at least the 
1950s. There were 60 and 45 booming cocks 
on 14 booming grounds in these outlying 
areas in 1992 and 1993, respectively. WDNR 
(1993) reported that approximately 65% of 
this area was in some form of agricultural use 
and that 26% was potential prairie chicken 
nesting cover. The composition and extent of 
prairie chicken habitat, and the dynamics of 
the populations in these areas, have not been 
determined. 
Census Procedures 
Hamerstroms censused Buena Vista and Leola 
areas from 1950 to 1971. Censuses of the 
Buena Vista since 1971 and the Paul Olson 
Area since 1963, were conducted by person-
nel from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens 
Point. R. K. Anderson censused the Paul 
Olson area from 1963 through 1993 and the 
Buena Vista from 1971 through 1993. L. Nau-
man and E. Merrill continued the censuses 
on the Buena Vista and the Paul Olson areas 
from 1994 through 1998 with substantial par-
ticipation by j. Toepfer in 1997 and 1998. 
We closely followed the procedures outlined 
by Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom (1973) to 
maintain census continuity and integrity for 
these 2 areas with significant historical data. 
This involved finding all booming grounds 
and counting all cocks on each ground. The 
peak of mating activity occurs on 21 April, 
plus or minus 3 days in central Wisconsin. 
Each area is searched twice between the last 
week in March and 30 April. Searches are 
conducted for 1.5 to 2.0 hours beginning 
about 45 minutes before sunrise, by listening 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
for booming cocks which can be heard with 
optimum weather conditions (clear skies, tem-
peratures at 25-40°F, and no wind) for at 
least 2 miles (3.2 km). Booming ground loca-
tions are determined by triangulating boom-
ing calls from known positions and by sight. 
Winds influence the direction and distances 
from which booming can be heard and thus 
dictate listening point intervals. All cocks on 
each booming ground are counted at least 
3 times during the peak display period in the 
spring. Booming grounds that are completely 
visible are counted with spotting scopes and 
binoculars. These counts are verified by flush 
counts when hens are not present as indicat-
ed by the absence of whooping and flutter-
jumping by the cocks. Others are counted by 
observers in blinds on the edges of the boom-
ing grounds. 
The Mead, McMillan, and Leola areas are 
censused by WDNR personnel. Censuses in 
these areas are not as intensive as those on 
the Buena Vista and Paul Olson areas but are 
consistent between years and basically follow 
Hamerstroms' procedure with variations im-
posed by time and budget constraints. Outly-
ing areas are censused by volunteer individu-
als and local birding organizations with 
variable intensity. 
Harvest and Hunting 
Pressure 
The prairie chicken program that began in 
1928 in Wisconsin" ... was originally pointed 
toward the management of huntable popula-
tions" (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1973). 
At that time, the chicken was an important 
game bird in the State. The objectives of the 
program gradually changed to one of prevent-
ing extirpation. Although Wisconsin's chicken 
population still faces threats, the danger of 
extirpation has been significantly ameliorated. 
A reasonable goal at this time should be to 
bring the population to a huntable level. Ham-
erstrom et al. (1957) discussed the circum-
stances under which prairie chickens could be 
hunted in Wisconsin. Those speculations are 
still valid. 
49 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
50 
Prairie chickens have not been hunted in 
Wisconsin since 1955. Hunting seasons were 
open statewide from 1938 through 1942 
when chickens were still present in every 
county of the state. Seasons were closed in 
1942 until 1950 when they were opened in 
select counties, or parts thereof, until 1956 
when they were closed again throughout the 
state. Chicken populations rose and fell irre-
spective of hunting during the irregular sched-
ule of open and closed seasons between 
1938 and 1955 (Hamerstrom et al. 1957). 
A well-regulated hunting season that would 
not increase the natural mortality rate of the 
prairie chicken is feasible. However, it would 
require delisting the prairie chicken from its 
current threatened status in Wisconsin and 
legislation that would permit regulation of 
hunter density in designated areas within ap-
propriate diurnal and seasonal time frames. 
Control of hunter density is now authorized 
only for turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and 
black bears (Ursus americanus), and for re-
search purposes within the Sandhill Wildlife 
Management Demonstration Area. 
Public opposition to a prairie chicken hunting 
season can be expected from some of those 
who watch the booming of chickens from 
blinds each year for recreation and those who 
contributed money to "save the prairie chick-
en" from impending extirpation in the past. 
This presents a challenge and opportunity to 
design a quality hunt that would be compati-
ble with the population dynamics of the chick-
en, would not demean the resource, and 
would be socially acceptable. Such a hunt 
could be a model for hunting other species 
and thus begin to restore the quality and 
sportsmanship that is steadily disappearing 
with increased hunter density and the advent 
of gadgetry. 
Potential Harvest 
The possibility of a spring hunt of prairie 
chickens could be considered. Very few spe-
cies lend themselves to a highly regulated 
hunt as do prairie chickens. Booming ground 
locations and numbers of cocks can be deter-
mined with a high degree of accuracy. Small 
grounds could be protected and the trophy 
harvest of cocks directed to larger grounds 
when hens are not present as indicated by 
cock behavior. Allowable harvest could be 
set and easily monitored for specific booming 
grounds. This concept could also be applied 
in the fall of the year when some booming 
grounds are attended during the autumnal 
display period or during spring evenings when 
few hens are present. A hunting season of 
this nature would be difficult to administer 
on private lands. The Mead Area would hold 
the greatest potential for controlled hunting 
because, of the 4 major areas in central Wis-
consin, it has the highest percentage of boom-
ing grounds (65%; 14 of 22) on public lands; 
the Buena Vista has 29% (9 of 31) on public 
land, and Paul Olson has 6% (1 of 16). Chick-
ens are attracted to the bare soil and grazed 
or mowed areas adjacent to grasslands for 
booming and most of these are on private 
land in the Buena Vista and Paul Olson Areas. 
The Leola population is too small to be hunt-
ed at this time. 
The largest negative aspect of a highly con-
trolled hunt of this nature is that it precludes 
the hunter from participating in the total hunt 
essentially relegating the experience to one 
which borders on being only a "shoot." This 
has happened in hunts of many other species 
in North America when unlimited hunter den-
sities precludes a complete hunt. It is unfortu-
nate that an increasing number of hunters 
have not had the opportunity to participate 
in a complete hunt and thus consider their 
"shoot" to be a "hunt;" they are not to be 
blamed for they know not of a hunt. In many 
instances, wildlife agencies foster a "shoot" 
through management practices and strategies. 
Specific Needs 
Circular irrigation farming has converted 
much (a minimum of 11,000 acres [4,455 ha]) 
of the permanently sodded private lands with-
in the management boundaries and currently 
threatens prairie chicken populations on the 
Buena Vista Area. Hamerstrom et al.'s (1957) 
original ecological scatter-pattern manage-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
ment plan was based upon the premise that 
private lands (about 75% of the area), adja-
cent to the lands secured for maintenance of 
permanent grass-forb habitat, would remain 
as such and thus provide some of the neces-
sary habitat components, viz wide horizons, 
brood-rearing habitat, and winter cover. Sub-
sequent conversion of much of this private 
land to irrigation agriculture has eliminated a 
significant amount of these habitat types from 
the landscape. Irrigation has also lowered the 
water table and thus changed the ecology of 
the area. Prairie chicken land management 
strategies may need modification in light of 
current conditions resulting from these chang-
es in land use since the original plan for the 
Buena Vista was formulated. 
Other areas in Wisconsin that have potential 
prairie chicken habitat should be evaluated 
for possible reintroduction programs. This 
would expand the range of the chicken and 
provide security that accrues with dispersed 
populations. Areas of greatest potential in 
Wisconsin would include large wetland areas 
that are being managed primarily for water-
fowl. Those complexes that are near agricul-
tural lands have the greatest potential for sat-
isfying chicken habitat needs. Prairie chickens 
and upland nesting ducks are compatible with 
similar habitat requirements. Undisturbed, 
upland grasslands are essential for dabbling 
ducks and prairie chickens and are often a 
limiting factor for both species. Wetland vege-
tation, in the form of sedges is prime winter 
cover for Wisconsin prairie chickens. Winter 
food can be provided in adjacent agricultural 
uplands and the space factor is usually 
present in wetland situations. Areas consid-
ered for reintroduction should contain a mini-
mum of 3,500 acres (1,418 ha) of grassland 
habitat (Toeper et al. 1990). 
By the same token, some grasslands that are 
managed for prairie chickens in Wisconsin, 
with water tables near the surface, could be 
modified to create conditions for dabbling 
ducks by providing breeding and brood-rear-
ing waters that would have little negative im-
pact on chicken habitat. This would increase 
the biodiversity of these areas by creating 
habitat for other species associated with 
grass-wetland complexes. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Public Needs 
Watching the courtship display of the prairie 
chicken is very popular in Wisconsin. The 
booming of prairie chickens, like the cry of 
loons, howl of wolves, bugle of elk, and goose 
music, is a classic wildlife sound. Approxi-
mately 900 persons view the mating ritual 
of chickens each spring through a program 
at The University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. 
Six 4-person blinds and numerous 2-person 
blinds, strategically placed on the edges of 
booming grounds, accommodate an average 
of 28 viewers each day during April. Viewers 
are briefed on prairie chicken life history, sex 
determination, behavior, census methods, and 
blind-sitting deportment prior to being guided 
to blinds. They are requested, and instructed, 
on how to record observations on field forms 
to assist with the annual census of the Buena 
Vista and Paul Olson areas. Those who are 
viewing prairie chickens specifically for census 
purposes, are debriefed after the morning 
show to clarify their observations. Viewers 
from Finland, England, Germany, France, Aus-
tralia, China, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, 
Canada, and most of the United States have 
been hosted during the past 15 years. Many 
universities, colleges, and high schools from 
Wisconsin and adjacent states have also 
availed themselves to this viewing opportunity 
as a learning experience for related classes 
each spring. A modest fee of $5.00 per adult 
and $3.00 per student helps defray the cost 
of guide transportation and salaries, blind 
dispersal, retrieval, and maintenance, briefing, 
and scheduling. 
There is a greater need for education about 
the value of prairie chicken habitat to all or-
ganisms associated with grassland ecosys-
tems. Undisturbed grassland habitat, because 
of its value for agriculture and rangeland, is 
now one of the rarest habitat types in this 
hemisphere. It is becoming scarcer as greater 
demands are placed upon it for human use. 
The value of permanent, undisturbed grass-
lands as wildlife habitat, natural ecosystems, 
outdoor laboratories, and demonstration ar-
eas to educational institutions and the general 
public, needs recognition and promotion. 
51 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
52 
Management 
BUENA VISTA, PAUL OLSON WILDLIFE 
AREA, LEOLA 
(originally submitted in 1990 by J. Keir, 
WDNR manager of these areas. For an 
update, see Keir 1999). 
Approximately 13,000 acres (5,265 ha) are 
managed specifically for prairie chickens on 
these areas; mostly on Buena Vista. Current 
techniques include burning, mowing, grazing, 
herbicide use, and sharecrop farming. The 
management goal is to create the maximum 
amount of undisturbed nesting cover. 
Burning is conducted on a 5-year rotation, in 
early spring, after snowmelt. Approximately 
1,000 acres (405 ha) are burned each year 
with a typical size of burned parcel being 80 
acres (32 ha). Fire at this time of the year re-
moves residual herbaceous vegetation and 
the duff layer but has limited or no effect on 
controlling encroachment of woody species. 
There are some indications that the limited 
mid-summer burns on the heavy soils of the 
Paul Olson Area do control woody vegeta-
tion. Summer burns on the organic soils of the 
Buena Vista and Leola units are not feasible 
because of the likelihood of peat fires. 
Controlled grazing has effectively controlled 
woody vegetation on the Buena Vista (Fas-
bender 1987). Woody vegetation within a 
prescribed grazing unit is mowed during the 
dormant season; it is then grazed during the 
following growing season between mid-May 
and late September. Cattle browse, and thus 
control, the growth of new shoots of woody 
vegetation. Heavy stocking of about 0.3 to 
0.4 animal units per acre is currently encour-
aged. Approximately 500 acres (203 ha) are 
grazed each year on 120-acre (49 ha) units 
with a 6-year rotation on the Buena Vista 
Area. 
A corn-oats-hay farming rotation of 20-acre 
(8.1 ha) parcels is conducted annually within 
12, 160-acre (65 ha) units on the Buena Vista 
Area on a 16-year rotation. Corn is planted on 
and hay is cut (between 15 july and 1 August) 
annually from 20-acre (8 ha) parcels within 
each unit. The specific use of each 20-acre 
(8 ha) parcel consists of corn in years 1 and 
2, oats over grass/legume seeding in year 3, 
hay in years 4 and 5, and undisturbed grass-
legume for the remaining 11 years. Four acres 
of the 20-acre (8 ha) corn parcels are left 
standing as winter food patches. The 3 suc-
cessive years of plowing is expected to pre-
clude the encroachment of woody vegetation 
on the farmed units. Approximately 500 acres 
(203 ha) of management lands are farmed 
annually through this program. 
Between 60 and 100 acres (24 and 41 ha) of 
project lands are treated each year by plow-
ing and disking to fragment large monotypic 
stands of Canada goldenrod (Solidago cana-
densis) on the Buena Vista. This treatment 
was experimentally initiated to increase the 
diversity of herbaceous vegetation and pre-
sumably habitat quality. 
Broadleaf herbicides were used extensively 
in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, 
during the early years of prairie chicken man-
agement on the Buena Vista. Herbicide use 
has been greatly reduced in the past few 
years as non-chemical controls received great-
er emphasis; chemicals were not used in 1989 
and 1990. 
MEAD WILDLIFE AREA 
(By T. Meier, WDNR manager of this area.) 
Approximately 500 to 1,000 acres (203 to 
405 ha) are treated annually with spring burns 
on this area although it varies considerably 
with weather and flood conditions that influ-
ence management of this wetland area. Fall 
burns are being tested to determine their 
effect on woody vegetation after an early 
October 1996 wildfire revealed considerable 
potential for killing willow and alder. 
Brush mowing is undertaken in the wetland 
sedge meadow habitat during dry summers 
and winters of thick ice. When these condi-
tions exist, up to 100 acres (41 ha) may be 
annually treated. The potential for this tech-
nique being used extensively is low because 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
ideal conditions exist only once in 5 to 7 
years. Herbicide treatment of upland grass-
lands and sedge meadow areas has been 
used more extensively over the past 8 years. 
This technique is very cost effective ($65 to 
$1 DO/acre) and has the potential to arrest 
woody vegetation encroachment for 1 0 to 15 
years. Approximately 100 acres (405 ha) are 
annually treated. 
Roller-chopping of a dry sedge meadow area 
in 1987 produced positive results in control-
ling willow, alder, and aspen. The equipment 
used in this operation, a 08 or larger bulldoz-
er with a roller-chopper drum, is so heavy that 
near drought conditions are necessary for 
operation in a wetland environment. An op-
portunity to use this technique again has not 
materialized since 1987. 
Approximately 450 acres (182 ha) of upland 
is cropped annually by 13 share-croppers who 
maintain approximately 220 acres (89 ha) 
in shrub-free hayland. This is a reduction from 
1,300 acres (527 ha) being share-cropped in 
1986. Approximately 1,275 acres (516 ha) of 
upland is maintained in permanent grass. The 
reduction was implemented to address the 
scarcity of secure nesting habitat for all spe-
cies of grassland-nesting birds. A portion of 
the annual corn crop is left standing at key 
locations to provide winter food for prairie 
chickens and other species. In recent years, 
food patches, consisting of 2 acres (1 ha) of 
corn and 2 acres (1 ha) of a sorghum-millet 
mixture, have been planted where traditional 
farming was removed. This practice was initi-
ated to provide, along with approximately 
1,275 acres (516 ha) of permanent grasslands 
on upland sites, a stable fall and winter food 
source for prairie chickens. 
MCMILLAN WILDLIFE AREA 
Booming grounds are present only on private 
lands adjacent to this 6,500-acre (2,632.5 ha) 
wetland area which is managed primarily for 
waterfowl. Some brush mowing is conducted 
on an irregular basis. The presence of purple 
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) within the wet 
environment of this area precludes the use of 
most standard vegetation control techniques. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Management Needs 
The greatest management need is for an eco-
nomical, effective, and environmentally ac-
ceptable means of controlling the natural suc-
cession of woody plants that are constantly 
converting grasslands to shrubs and trees. 
Willow, speckled alder, steeplebush (Spiraea 
tomentosa), and aspen are the dominant and 
persistent invaders of the managed lands. 
A prescription for optimum, seasonal habitat 
components, and methods of creating the 
same, is needed as a guideline for manage-
ment units that have booming grounds as the 
focal point and are composed of lands within 
a 1-mile (1.6-km) radius (Hamerstrom et al. 
1957, Toepfer 1988, Toepfer et al. 1990). A 
quick and accurate field method of evaluating 
habitat quality (i.e. optimum grass-forb height, 
density, and distribution) is needed for man-
agers and field technicians instead of time-
consuming procedures of counting stems/unit 
area or similar quantitative methods. 
Research Needs 
The primary role of wildlife research is to pro-
vide information that can be incorporated 
into effective management. Initial research 
results provide facts that beg corroboration 
that can only be forthcoming through long-
term field studies. 
There is a pressing need for management-
oriented, applied research at this time when 
wildlife habitat is generally dwindling or being 
seriously threatened by conversion to other 
uses in the face of an ever-increasing human 
population. Permanent grasslands are most 
vulnerable to conversion or modification be-
cause of their potential for providing sites for 
human facilities and food production. Land 
acquisition to create grassland reserves com-
manded the attention, efforts, and financial 
resources of concerned citizens, and agencies 
to stem this tide. Little surplus remained 
of these resources that could be directed 
towards the determination of optimum sea-
sonal needs of prairie grouse or the design 
53 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
54 
of procedures and techniques that would fa-
cilitate fine-tuning of management efforts to 
produce and maintain habitat components. 
Consequently, prairie grouse populations 
struggled along at low densities, and some 
disappeared in North America. In spite of 
these limitations and challenges, monumental 
research and management efforts have main-
tained viable populations of prairie grouse 
that present new and greater challenges for 
preservation. 
Prairie chicken research in Wisconsin and 
other states has historically focused on nest-
ing and brood-rearing habitat because they 
are primary management factors that affect 
productivity. Attention now needs to be fo-
cused more sharply on other limiting factors 
that may be dampening chicken population 
growth and expression of optimum density. 
Many prairie chicken research needs in Wis-
consin are currently being addressed by a 
management-oriented research project enti-
tled "Prairie Chicken Grasslands: 2000 and 
Beyond" (PC-2000). Initiated in 1996, this en-
terprising 5-year project, is sponsored by The 
Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus and 
directed by Toepfer. The study is based in 
Wisconsin with adjunct study areas in Minne-
sota and North Dakota. Survival, general habi-
tat use, dispersal, and nesting success are 
monitored to provide contemporary informa-
tion which, combined with that of past stud-
ies, can provide a life history/habitat model 
for prairie chickens. 
The study is focused on the habitat and land-
scape surrounding booming grounds on the 
premise that cocks and hens have an affinity 
to that site and hence will be the key to man-
agement. Toepfer (1988) documented that 
90% of 35,000 non-booming ground, prairie 
chicken locations were within 1.2 miles (1.9 
km) of a booming ground but the all-season 
influence of that site on the movements of the 
chickens has yet to be clearly defined. Specif-
ic objectives for each state study area are: 
• Wisconsin - document present distribu-
tion, movements, survival, habitat use, nest 
and brood-rearing success, and dispersal of 
prairie chickens 1996-2001. 
• Minnesota - 1) document habitat use, 
nesting and brood-rearing success and 
dispersal during the presumed cyclic in-
crease, 1996-2001, and 2) re-establish a 
prairie chicken population in southwestern 
Minnesota, 1999-2001. 
• North Dakota - 1) re-establish a second 
viable prairie chicken population in east-
central North Dakota by translocating 
birds, 1992-99 and 2) develop guidelines 
for future reintroduction efforts. 
Preliminary results from this comprehensive 
study indicates that nest and hatch success do 
not appear to be negatively affecting produc-
tivity. Therefore, mortality factors, their timing 
and relationship to habitat, emerge as possi-
bly limiting current productivity. These include 
disease, parasites, accidents, predation, poor 
nutrition, pesticides, and adverse weather. 
The interaction of these factors and their 
relationship to genetics and habitat creates 
a complex research problem that will require 
several years of effort and much financial sup-
port. Establishing baseline data, in quest of 
a productivity-limiting factor, will facilitate 
assessment of the health and status of chicken 
populations at any future date. 
Several of the above potential limiting factors 
are currently being addressed within the 
broad framework of the PC-2000 research 
project. Recruitment, brood break-up and 
dispersal are receiving an emphasis of time 
and effort because little is known about this 
important aspect of upland game bird ecolo-
gy. Dispersal distances may be related to 
habitat quality in the vicinity of a booming 
ground and the associated nesting and brood-
rearing areas. The relationship of dispersal to 
Hamerstrom et al.'s (1957) original ecological 
scatter-pattern management concept, and the 
basic needs of chickens for wide horizons and 
grasslands, needs to be revisited. 
Other priority factors that have received rela-
tively little research attention in the past in-
clude: 1) night roost habitat, where chickens 
spend 8-12 hours each day in one place and 
at least a third of their entire life, and 2) the 
philosophy, variety, nutrition, and subsequent 
management of winter foods in relation to 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
their being emergency, supplemental, or 
maintenance in nature. The possible negative 
aspect of soybeans as a winter food for prairie 
chickens needs early attention. Raw soybeans 
have been found to inhibit digestive enzymes 
and thus depress fat absorption in some up-
land birds (Bogenschutz et al. 1995). 
Effective methods of controlling shrub and 
tree encroachment on grasslands in this tem-
perate climate need to be developed. The 
effectiveness and timing of periodic distur-
bance of chicken habitat by spring burning 
and cattle grazing need evaluation relative to 
the nesting, brood-rearing, and night-roosting 
behavior of the birds. 
The composition, abundance, and ecological 
role of all inhabitants of the prairie chicken 
grassland ecosystem needs documentation 
and study. Some yet unknown living compo-
nent may be a sensitive and reliable indicator 
of the system's environmental health. 
The impact on all grassland wildlife, of pesti-
cides and herbicides applied to agricultural 
lands adjacent to chicken management lands, 
needs attention. Pesticides have been shown 
to drift a minimum of 0.9 miles (1.5 km) from 
target areas on the Buena Vista Area and may 
have depressed brain cholinesterase levels of 
songbirds (Deeley 1980). 
Potential sites for expanding Wisconsin's prai-
rie chicken range need identification and eval-
uation. Some waterfowl management areas 
in Wisconsin appear to have considerable 
potential for supporting chicken populations. 
Similarly, lands on the Buena Vista, Leola, and 
Paul Olson areas that are currently being 
managed for prairie chickens, have potential 
for improving habitat for waterfowl and other 
wetland wildlife species. This could enhance 
the support base for chicken management 
without materially affecting the status of the 
population. 
Land-use maps are valuable for documenting 
the distribution, quantity, quality, and changes 
in prairie chicken habitat over time. Today, 
land-use mapping has been enhanced by high-
resolution photography and computerized in 
a very powerful Geographic Information Sys-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
tem (GIS) which lends itself nicely to land 
management modeling for prairie grouse 
(Merrill et al. 1999). However, the base data 
for the maps must be accurate and verified in 
the field. The resulting maps can only be as 
accurate as the least accurate data and many 
are not as accurate as they could, should, or 
need to be (Wilmore 1996). 
Recommendations 
1) Initiate the projects identified above in 
"Research Needs." 
2) Continue thorough annual censuses on all 
areas to obtain reliable indices to habitat 
conditions, and status and distribution of 
the chicken. 
3) Gradually and cautiously expand spring 
prairie chicken viewing opportunities to 
other management areas using the Buena 
Vista program as a model. 
4) Design and conduct a quality, controlled, 
experimental, spring/fall hunt of prairie 
chickens on the Mead Area if the popula-
tion rises to 200 booming cocks and on 
the Buena Vista Area if that population 
reaches approximately 500 booming cocks 
in the future. These areas have the largest 
amount of public lands to facilitate a tight-
ly controlled, ethical hunt. 
5) Secure additional habitat for chickens in 
the Leola Area to increase and provide 
for the stability of that population. Do the 
same for the Buena Vista, Paul Olson, and 
Mead areas if research shows that such 
is needed with the changing land-use prac-
tices on adjacent private lands, and that 
existing lands are managed to provide a 
maximum of quality prairie chicken habi-
tat. This will require a careful evaluation 
of current burning, grazing, and share-
cropping practices. 
6) WDNR should continue to pursue the pur-
chase of lands that are currently leased 
from private organizations as was done 
recently with the 7,000 acres (2,835 ha) 
55 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
56 
owned by STCP. This would recycle funds 
to the several organizations and enable 
them to expeditiously purchase key parcels 
of additional land if they so chose. 
7) Continue the current management funding 
level with periodic increments to offset 
inflation. Provide for replacement of worn 
equipment to eliminate dependence upon 
private funding for the same. 
8) Lines of communication between research 
and management segments of the prairie 
chicken program need to be improved and 
maintained in order that applicable re-
search results can be quickly incorporated 
into management programs. The time lag 
between obtaining meaningful results and 
ultimate publication in professional jour-
nals is much too great because of the nec-
essary peer-review process and subse-
quent revisions of manuscripts. In addition, 
many valuable research projects do not 
qualify for publication in professional jour-
nals because of their provincialism. Similar-
ly, we recommend that the Prairie Grouse 
Technical Council increase its mission of 
communicating ideas and information be-
tween prairie grouse managers and re-
searchers in North America on a more 
frequent and regular basis. 
Acknowledgments 
Thomas Meier and Brian Peters (WDNR) pro-
vided data on the current management pro-
gram and censuses for the Mead and McMill-
an Areas. james Keir (WDNR) provided an 
outline of the management strategies on the 
Buena Vista and Leola areas and census data 
for the Leola and outlying areas. 
Literature Cited 
Anderson, R.K. 1969a. Mating and interspecif-
ic behavior of greater prairie chickens. Disser-
tation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis-
consin, USA. 
_____ . 1969b. Prairie chicken responses 
to changing booming ground cover type and 
height. journal of Wildlife Management 
33:636-643. 
____ _, and F. Hamerstrom. 1967. Hen 
decoys aid in trapping cock prairie chickens 
with bownets and noose carpets. journal of 
Wildlife Management 31 :829-832. 
Berger, D.O., and F. Hamerstrom. 1962. Pro-
tecting a trapping station from raptor preda-
tion. journal of Wildlife Management 2 7:778-
791. 
____ _, ____ _, and F.N. Hamer-
strom, Jr. 1963. The effect of raptors on prai-
rie chickens on booming grounds. journal of 
Wildlife Management 27:778-791. 
Bogenschutz, T. R., D.E. Hubbard, and A.P. 
Leif. 1995. Corn and sorghum as a winter 
food source for ring-necked pheasants. journal 
of Wildlife Management 59:776-784. 
Curtis, j. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. 
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis-
consin, USA. 
Deeley, G.M. 1980. Pesticide drift and its 
effects on cholinesterase levels of birds in non-
target areas in the Buena Vista Marsh. Thesis, 
University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wis-
consin, USA. 
Fasbender, P.j. 1987. Cattle grazing as a 
management tool to control brush encroach-
ment. M.S. Research Project Report, Universi-
ty of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, 
USA. 
Finley, R.W. 1951. The original vegetation 
cover of Wisconsin. Dissertation, University of 
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 
Grange, W.B. 1948. Wisconsin grouse prob-
lems. Wisconsin Conservation Department, 
Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 
Gross, A.O. 1930. Progress report of the Wis-
consin prairie chicken investigation. Wisconsin 
Conservation Commission, Madison, Wiscon-
sin, USA. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Halversen, H.H., and R.K. Anderson. 1983. 
Evaluation of grassland management for wild-
life in central Wisconsin. Pages 267-279 in 
C.L. Kucera, editor. Proceedings of 7th North 
American Prairie Conference. Southwest Mis-
souri State University, Springfield, Missouri, 
USA. 
Hamerstrom, F. 1950. Range, habits, and food 
requirements of prairie chicken. Wisconsin 
Conservation Bulletin 15:9-11. 
____ _, D.O. Berger, and F.N. Hamer-
strom, Jr. 1965. The effect of mammals on 
prairie chickens on booming grounds. journal 
of Wildlife Management 29:536-542. 
Hamerstrom, F.N., Jr. 1939. A study of Wis-
consin prairie chicken and sharp-tailed grouse. 
Wilson Bulletin 51 :105-120. 
_____ . 1940. A study of Wisconsin prai-
rie grouse (breeding habits, winter foods, en-
doparasites and movements). Dissertation, 
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 
USA. 
_____ . 1977. New threat to Buena Vista 
chickens. Wisconsin Natural Resources Bulle-
tin 1:607. 
____ _, and F. Hamerstrom. 1949. Daily 
and seasonal movements of Wisconsin prairie 
chickens. Auk 66:313-337. 
____ _, _____ . 1955. Population 
density and behavior in Wisconsin prairie 
chickens (Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus). 
Proceedings of International Ornithological 
Congress 11 :459-466. 
___ _, ____ . 1960. Comparabili-
ty of some social displays of grouse. Proceed-
ings of International Ornithological Congress 
12:274-293. 
____ _, _____ . 1961. Status and 
problems of North American grouse. Wilson 
Bulletin 73:284-294. 
___ _, ____ . 1963. The (grouse) 
symposium in review. journal of Wildlife Man-
agement 27:868-887. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
____ _, _____ . 1964. Grouse. Pag-
es 343-345 in A.L. Thompson, editor. A new 
dictionary of birds. Nelson, London. 
____ _, _____ . 1966. Stove in the 
poppies. Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin 
31:3-5. 
____ _, _____ . 1967. Biologists at 
work; trapping and banding. Wisconsin Con-
servation Bulletin 32:14-15. 
____ _, _____ . 1968. Water and 
the prairie chickens. Wisconsin Academy Re-
view 15:10-11. 
___ _, ____ .1970. Not on the 
far side of the earth. Wisconsin Academy Re-
view 16:33-34. 
____ _, _____ . 1973. The prairie 
chicken in Wisconsin: highlights of a 22-year 
study of counts, behavior, movements, turn-
over, and habitat. Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 64. 
____ _, F. Hopkins, and A.J. Rinzel. 
1941. An experimental study of browse as a 
winter diet for prairie chicken. Wilson Bulletin 
53:185-195. 
____ _, and O.E. Mattson. 1964. A num-
bered, metal color-band for game birds. jour-
nal of Wildlife Management 28:850-852. 
____ _, ------' and F. Hamerstrom. 
1957. A guide to prairie chicken management. 
Wisconsin Conservation Department Techni-
cal Bulletin 15. 
____ _, and B.B.Morgan, 1941. Notes on 
the endoparasites of Wisconsin pinnated and 
sharp-tailed grouse. journal of Wildlife Man-
agement 5:194-198. 
____ _, and M. Truax. 1938. Traps for 
pinnated and sharp-tailed grouse. Bird-banding 
9:177-183. 
Keir, J. R. 1999. Wisconsin prairie chicken 
management: an agency perspective. Pages 
59-62 in Svedarsky, W. D., R. D. Hier, and N. 
J. Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chicken: a 
57 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
58 
national/oak. Agricultural Experiment Station, 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999, Universi-
ty of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA 
Keith, L.B. 1963. Wildlife's ten-year cycle. Uni-
versity of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wiscon-
sin, USA 
Leopold, A 1931. Report on a game survey of 
the north central states. Sporting Arms and 
Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute, Madi-
son, Wisconsin, USA 
_____ . 1949. A sand county almanac. 
Oxford University Press, New York, New 
York, USA 
Merrill, M.D., K.A Chapman, K.A Poiani, and 
B. Winter. 1999. Land-use patterns surround-
ing greater prairie chicken leks in northwest-
ern Minnesota. journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 63:189-198. 
Schorger, AW. 1944. The prairie chicken and 
sharp-tailed grouse in early Wisconsin. Trans-
actions of Wisconsin Academy of Science, 
Arts, and Letters 35:1-59. 
Thompson, D.R., and j.C. Moulton. 1981. An 
evaluation of Wisconsin ruffed grouse surveys. 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
Technical Bulletin 123. 
Toepfer, j.E. 1988. The ecology of the greater 
prairie chicken as related to reintroductions. 
Dissertation, Montana State University, Boze-
man, Montana, USA 
____ . 1991. What the heck is a 
lek?(abstract). Page 11 in B. Waage, editor. 
Proceedings of 19'h Prairie Crouse Technical 
Council Conference, Billings, Montana, USA 
____ _, R. L. Eng, and R. K. Anderson. 
1990. Translocating prairie grouse: what have 
we learned? Transactions of North American 
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 55: 
569-579. 
Westemeier, R.L. 1969. History and ecology of 
prairie chickens in central Wisconsin. Thesis, 
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 
USA 
____ . 1971. The history and ecology of 
prairie chickens in central Wisconsin. Universi-
ty of Wisconsin, College of Agriculture and 
Life Sciences Resource Bulletin 281. 
Wilmore, S.L. 1996. Analysis of greater prairie 
chicken open space requirements using a geo-
graphic information system. Thesis, St. Cloud 
State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA 
Wisconsin Department Natural Resources. 
1993. A survey of land uses within the prairie 
chicken range of Wisconsin. Publication 
JGWM-14993. 
Zedler, J. 1966. Buena Vista Marsh in historical 
perspective. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 
Madison, Wisconsin, USA 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Wisconsin Prairie Chicken 
Management: An Agency 
Perspective 
james R. Keir, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Friendship 
Background 
The greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus 
cupido pinnatus) is a grouse species native to 
Wisconsin. Prior to settlement it was found in 
the prairies and savannas of the southern third 
of the state. Large-scale logging, subsequent 
fires, and pioneer farming in the latter half of 
the 191h century created temporary open land, 
and the range of the chicken expanded north-
ward. Around the turn of the century, prairie 
chickens were actually present in every coun-
ty, but losses of both native grasslands in the 
south and newly created habitat in the north 
were occurring rapidly. Agriculture, tree plant-
ing, fire control and natural succession all 
took their toll. By the middle of the 20th centu-
ry, the prairie chicken population had plum-
meted. The bird could then be found only in 
central Wisconsin. 
Wisconsin's commitment to prairie chickens 
began in 1928 with the very first wildlife re-
search project in the state. This project was 
conducted by the newly formed Wisconsin 
Conservation Commission, now the Wis-
consin Department of Natural Resources 
(WDNR). Known as the Wisconsin Prairie 
Chicken Investigation, this work was com-
pleted under the direction of Dr. Alfred 0. 
Gross from Bowdoin College in Maine. Subse-
quent studies by Aida Leopold, Franklin j.W. 
Schmidt, and Wallace Grange also increased 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
knowledge of Wisconsin prairie chicken num-
bers and habitat needs. 
The stage was then set for the pioneering 
work that would form the basis for future prai-
rie chicken management in Wisconsin. Freder-
ick and Frances Hamerstrom began graduate 
student research under the direction of Aida 
Leopold in the late 1930s and 1940s. They 
continued their prairie chicken research from 
1949-72 working for the Wisconsin Conser-
vation Commission. Together with Oswald 
Mattson, they published their recommenda-
tions for prairie chicken management in 
Wisconsin (Hamerstrom et al. 1957). The 
resulting "Guide" outlined the basics for the 
beginnings of a management program in Wis-
consin and warned that the effort must begin 
within 5 years or the prairie chicken would 
be lost forever. 
Four years before publication of the Guide, 
the Wisconsin Conservation Commission af-
firmed its commitment to the prairie chicken 
by adopting the "Wisconsin Prairie Crouse 
Management Policy" (14 May 1953). This poli-
cy statement called for the management and 
restoration of habitat for prairie grouse in the 
state. 
The prairie chicken would make its stand in 
central Wisconsin where the best habitat and 
populations remained. It was here that large-
59 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
60 
scale agricultural drainage, beginning in 1905, 
allowed development of a private land use 
which prairie chickens found suitable- prima-
rily pasture and an extensive bluegrass (Poa 
pratensis) seed industry. 
As a result of the Hamerstroms' work and 
encouragement, the private sector stepped 
forward and provided the capital to purchase 
land specifically for prairie chicken manage-
ment. The majority of land purchases was 
made by 2 private organizations committed 
to the chicken- the Society of Tympanuchus 
Cupido Pinnatus, Ltd. (STCP) of Milwaukee 
and the Dane County Conservation League 
(DCCL) of Madison. These 2 groups did their 
jobs well. Initial purchases earmarked for prai-
rie chicken management were made in 1954, 
and land acquisition was in full swing by 
1961. Through the 1960s and into the 1970s 
nearly 14,000 acres (5,600 ha) of land were 
purchased in central Wisconsin for grassland 
management based on Hamerstrom's "eco-
logical patterning" proposal outlined in the 
"Guide." This proposal called for ownership 
and management of scattered parcels ofgrass-
land rather than 1 large contiguous block. 
Habitat Management 
Research, the management commitment, and 
land acquisition were then combined into the 
beginnings of Wisconsin's Prairie Chicken 
Management Program - a program that has 
successfully preserved the prairie chicken in 
Wisconsin. Oswald Mattson became the 
project's first manager, and the program be-
gan to implement the recommendations from 
the "Guide." Management was geared to pro-
vide permanent grassland for nesting and 
brood rearing as well as dependable winter 
food and cover to support the prairie chickens 
year-round. 
Management in the early 1960s concentrated 
on newly acquired acreage that had been 
reverting to brush and timber. Bulldozers, 
chainsaws, rotary mowers and broadleaf her-
bicides were all used to restore grasslands. By 
the mid-1960s, prescribed fire was also being 
used to stimulate grass and retard brush inva-
sion. As additional acreage was purchased, 
the management effort was expanded to keep 
pace. Throughout the late 1960s and early 
1970s, a major grassland restoration effort 
was accomplished largely with bulldozers and 
herbicides. By 1975, a large portion of the 
land acquisition had been completed and 
work on the acreage needing grassland resto-
ration had been done. Management then 
moved into a second phase - one of grass-
land habitat improvement and maintenance 
to be accomplished through a rotational 
pattern of disturbance. This disturbance phase 
forms the basis for the current grassland man-
agement program. 
One of the original goals of prairie chicken 
management in Wisconsin was the prevention 
of brush invasion into the grassland habitat. 
This remains an important goal, and manage-
ment techniques are designed to control 
woody vegetation. Without management, 
most acreage on Buena Vista Grasslands 
would quickly change to brush and timber 
and prairie chicken habitat would be lost. 
However, we can no longer be satisfied with 
simply maintaining a certain acreage of pub-
licly owned property in "grass." Changes on 
surrounding private lands will continue, and 
management practices that were adequate 
yesterday may not be adequate tomorrow. 
Our goal is to make every grassland acre of 
managed property as productive and benefi-
cial for the prairie chicken as possible. This 
requires knowledge of grassland habitat and 
proper techniques for maintenance and im-
provement. It also requires knowledge of the 
prairie chicken and its habitat needs through-
out the year. 
The prairie chicken in Wisconsin has been 
described as "probably the most intensively 
managed grouse in North America" (Bergerud 
and Gratson 1988). Much has been learned 
from research that began in the 1920s and 
from previous grassland management efforts 
that began in Wisconsin with initial land pur-
chases in 1954. The habitat management pro-
gram has been fine-tuned from the early years 
and has incorporated some new techniques, 
but the principles outlined in the "Guide" still 
apply. Periodic disturbance of grassland acre-
age remains as the basic underlying concept. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Native grassland habitats evolved with natural 
and periodic disturbance. This disturbance 
had a much needed and positive effect on 
plant diversity as well as the productivity of 
plant and wildlife species. Several manage-
ment practices, applied at appropriate inter-
vals, are now utilized to simulate effects of 
natural disturbances. These practices include 
burning, grazing, planting, mowing, disking, 
and haying. Broadleaf herbicides continue to 
be used for additional control of woody vege-
tation encroachment, but at a level much re-
duced from that of the past. 
The size of each disturbance (management 
operation or practice) is kept to the minimum 
that is practical. For example, prescribed fire 
and grazing are implemented on 80 to 120 
acre (23-49 ha) units. Farming operations are 
conducted within 20-acre (8 ha) parcels. Dis-
turbance is distributed throughout the proper-
ty, and each type of disturbance is also scat-
tered. This assures that habitat benefits are 
distributed and available throughout the 
range. 
An annual spring census of males on booming 
grounds is conducted throughout the prairie 
chicken range. The goal is to obtain a 100% 
count of all displaying males. Over time, this 
count provides a gauge to population levels 
and distribution, as well as a check on effects 
of habitat management and surrounding pri-
vate land use changes (Table 1 ). 
We use known locations of prairie chicken 
booming grounds (primary breeding sites) as 
Table 1. Displaying male prairie chickens 
on Buena Vista and Leola Grasslands in 
central Wisconsin {Merri111997). 
Year 
1968 
1979 
1985 
1989 
1997 
Buena Vista 
139 
438 
275 
182 
324 
Leola 
12 
53 
69 
64 
97 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
Total 
151 
491 
344 
246 
421 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
focus points for habitat management. In gen-
eral, females will find nesting habitat within 
a 1-mile (1.6 km) radius of booming grounds. 
Ideally, brood habitat should also be available 
close by, as should all other habitat require-
ments". Our investment to provide quality 
grassland within this radius is a priority. We 
can presume that if adequate habitat was 
not available, there would be no hen activity 
and, therefore, no booming ground in that 
location. 
Today the Prairie Chicken Management Pro-
gram includes 3 wildlife areas in central Wis-
consin; Buena Vista Grasslands, Leola Grass-
lands, and the Paul j. Olson Wildlife Area. 
Two other WDNR properties, the George W. 
Mead and McMillan Marsh Wildlife Areas, are 
managed primarily for waterfowl, but because 
of extensive sedge meadow habitat and asso-
ciated uplands, they offer significant prairie 
chicken benefits as well. 
The WDNR purchased lands owned by STCP 
(largely on Buena Vista Grasslands) in 1988, 
and deed restrictions require that these lands 
continue to be managed for prairie chickens. 
Funds received by STCP from this purchase 
have been designated for continued support 
for management and research of prairie chick-
ens and other threatened and endangered 
species in Wisconsin. Land acquisition has 
continued with the purchase of 940 acres 
(381 ha) on Leola Grasslands in 1992. An 
additional 920 acres (373 ha) have been pur-
chased on Buena Vista Grasslands during 
1996-98. Today, over 16,000 acres (6,480 
ha) are managed on these 3 properties for 
prairie chickens in central Wisconsin. 
These managed lands in central Wisconsin 
provide diversity by maintaining grassland 
habitat in an area of the state that is primarily 
forested or agricultural. Further, the large 
block sizes and total acreage of grassland 
established and managed for prairie chickens 
have been a great benefit to many other 
grassland wildlife species. Although most of 
these grasslands are not composed of native 
plant species (they are actually referred to as 
"surrogate" grasslands), they do provide the 
vegetative structure needed by many birds 
and small mammals whose numbers are of 
61 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
62 
serious concern in Wisconsin. For example, 
the eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), 
upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), and 
Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) 
are found in abundance in these grasslands. 
In 1997, the regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria 
idalia), a Wisconsin endangered species, was 
also found. 
The challenge that has been accepted in ap-
plying the Wisconsin Prairie Chicken Manage-
ment Program is two-fold. First, to blend the 
available budget, the habitat needs of the 
prairie chicken, our knowledge of grasslands, 
and the impacts of management practices on 
this increasingly rare ecosystem. The result of 
this blend must be a workable management 
effort. Secondly, to maintain management 
flexibility dictated by constant change in the 
surrounding landscape, to incorporate appro-
priate new ideas as they arise, and to contin-
ue to improve the effort to provide the best 
possible grassland habitat for our remnant 
prairie chicken population. It is believed that 
the current level of population security can 
be maintained for the immediate future with 
today's grassland management program. 
However, additional grassland acreage may 
be needed to maintain this level of security 
for the long-term. Lack of suitable grasslands 
beyond the boundaries of the present range 
prevents population expansion. 
One new potential involves an attempt to 
develop, improve, and maintain grassland 
habitat on private lands. To date, all efforts 
have been focused on publicly managed 
grasslands. Targeting privately owned proper-
ty through the use of financial incentives for 
landowners contained in the 1995 Farm Bill 
may provide suitable habitat for prairie chick-
ens where none presently exists. Partners in 
this new venture include the Natural Resourc-
es Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the WDNR. 
While states east of Wisconsin have lost their 
prairie chickens, we are "holding the line" 
against the westward march of extirpations. 
Our ultimate goal is to maintain a viable pop-
ulation of prairie chickens in this state through 
the most appropriate and cost effective 
means available. The work is not done. New 
threats to long-term habitat security will 
present constant challenges to the survival of 
the species. As long as these challenges are 
met, these wide horizons hold a genuine fu-
ture for Wisconsin's prairie chickens. 
LITERATURE CITED 
Bergerud, AT., and M.W. Gratson. 1988. 
Adaptive strategies and population ecology of 
northern grouse. University of Minnesota 
Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 
Hamerstrom, F.N. Jr., O.E. Mattson, and F. 
Hamerstrom. 1957. A guide to prairie chicken 
management. Wisconsin Conservation Depart-
ment Technical Bulletin 15. 
Merrill, E. 1997. Central Wisconsin prairie 
chicken census- Final Report. College of Nat-
ural Resources, University of Wisconsin, 
Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of the 
Greater Prairie Chicken in North 
Dakota 
jerry D. Kobriger, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Dickinson 
Historical Review 
Long-term residents of North Dakota wit-
nessed the nearly complete history of greater 
prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido pinna-
tus) in the state. The rise and fall of this ele-
gant immigrant species took place in less than 
80 years. All accounts of "prairie chickens" 
prior to 1870 were in reference to sharp-tailed 
grouse (Tympanuchus phasinellus) because 
prairie chickens were not present in the state 
at that time. 
The range of the prairie chicken has been 
unstable during the past 200 years. A native 
of tallgrass prairies, and more truly a grassland 
species than the sharptail, it was found in 
great numbers in eastern sections of the Unit-
ed States in the early 1800s. As human settle-
ments sprang up in midwestern sections of 
the continent, prairie chicken populations 
showed remarkable increases. When there 
were large populations of chickens in eastern 
states, birds were scarce or absent farther 
west. By the time prairie chicken populations 
built up in the Midwest, birds were already 
decreasing along the East Coast. 
The exact date of the prairie chicken's arrival 
in North Dakota is not known but appears to 
have coincided with destruction of the im-
mense bison herds and establishment of the 
first white settlements. Since the bird followed 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
man's agricultural activities, there were hu-
man observers nearby when prairie chickens 
moved into the state. Coues (187 4) reported 
that he did not find the prairie chicken at 
Pembina in 1873 but did relate that between 
Yankton and Fort Randall both chickens and 
sharptails were present. Above Fort Randall all 
grouse were sharptails and he wrote; "I have 
no reason to believe that it (the prairie chick-
en) occurs at all in northwestern Minnesota 
or northern Dakota where the other species 
(sharptail) is so abundant. Its progress upon 
the Missouri River has been traced by Dr. 
Hayden farther than by myself to the Nio-
brara; and that writer adds that it may pro-
ceed to the White River." 
A few years later, Cooke (1888) mentioned 
that the prairie chicken was 40 miles (64 km) 
from the southeastern corner of North Dakota 
at Herman, Minnesota in 1879, and, by the 
early 1880s, the species was occupying a strip 
30-60 miles (48-96 km) wide along the Red 
River over the whole eastern edge of North 
Dakota. Spring booming of prairie chickens 
was reported as early as 1884 at Barton, 
North Dakota, a considerable distance west 
of the "strip," so some birds were already 
extending beyond the recognized range. 
Thus it appears the prairie chicken first 
showed up in notable numbers in North Da-
kota along the Red River Valley in the early 
63 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
1880s. In 15 to 20 years, this species spread 
across the state with the Badlands being the 
only area where chickens were not sighted at 
one time or another during the past 100 
years. Present ( 199 7) estimated spring breed-
ing populations of prairie chickens in North · 
Dakota are about 300 with most living on or 
near the Sheyenne National Grasslands (SNG) 
in southeastern North Dakota or the vicinity 
of the Prairie Chicken Wildlife Management 
Area (WMA) in Grand Forks County. 
Table 1. Prairie chicken harvest in North Dakota, 
1938-42. 
Year 
1938 
1939 
1940 
1941 
1942 
Birds per 
hunter 
1.2 
1.2 
1.2 
.8 
.7 
Number of Total estimated 
grouse harvested population 
29,000 
45,000 
47,000 
40,000 
36,000 
300,000 
350,000 
450,000 
420,000 
400.000 
Table 2. Prairie chicken census, Sheyenne Grasslands, 
1961-70. 
Ground number 
Total 
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 males 
1961 * * * 1 4 * 5 
1962 0 * 0 1 6 0 2 * 9 
1963 * * 9 * * 9 
1964 
1965 4 4 
1966 3 0 3 
1967 
1968 0 0 0 
1969 7 0 7 
1970 2 1 3 
* Booming ground was heard or plotted, but not censused. No 
counts were made in 1964 or 1967. 
64 
Now that the prairie chicken is gone from 
many places, practically everyone, in retro-
spect, proclaims it to be one of the finest of 
game birds. There were numerous attempts to 
restock this species in the East before 1900 
and many chickens were transported and 
released in foreign countries. All early at-
tempts at stocking and restocking were unsuc-
cessful. At the present time, the prairie chick-
en plays practically no role to the sportsman, 
farmer or nature lover of North Dakota. Prai-
rie chickens arrived, thrived, and faded into 
obscurity all in a period of about 60 years. 
Large, spectacular harvests of this bird in 
North Dakota were a thing of the past before 
anyone attempted to estimate annual har-
vests. North Dakota Game and Fish Depart-
ment (NDGFD) files show only 5 years of 
harvest figures for prairie chickens covering 
the period 1938-42 (Table 1 ). 
Many factors which influence sharptail popu-
lations also affect prairie chickens. In fact, 
changes in specific land-use practices affected 
chickens more directly than sharptails. The 
prairie chicken was an immigrant species and 
declined more rapidly and markedly when 
land-use changes took place. 
Like the bison, it has often been repeated, the 
prairie chicken was a species exterminated by 
hunting. While year-round hunting helped 
reduce chicken populations, land-use changes 
(burning, plowing, and grazing) were more 
important in the long-term population decline. 
Undoubtedly, the biggest hunting harvest of 
prairie chickens occurred in the period 1890 
to 1930. Probably more birds were killed per 
hunter during the early part of the period. As 
time went by, greater numbers of hunters 
with better methods of transportation and 
more efficient weapons increased the overall 
harvest. 
The last open season for this bird in North 
Dakota was in 1945. Before that time seasons 
and regulations were the same as for sharp-
tailed grouse. Because prairie chickens did 
not immigrate into North Dakota until the 
1880s, seasons and regulations pertinent to 
the species covered a period of about 60 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
years, or from 1885 to 1945. Since prairie 
chickens did not become common in the 
western half of the state until about 1900, 
regulations there were important for less than 
50 years. Small areas in the eastern portion of 
the state have been completely closed to all 
grouse hunting since 1942, with the excep-
tion of 1965-67. 
When the great populations of prairie chick-
ens began to decline during early settlement 
days, it was understandable that seasons and 
regulations were employed in an effort to 
stop the decline. Many people believed that 
once hunting was stopped birds would repro-
duce and return to their former large num-
bers. But there were other important consider-
ations. Seasons and regulations are always 
intangible items left up to individual judge-
ment. All too often, promiscuous killing con-
tinued. Secondly, and more important, human 
populations were rapidly increasing and, with 
this increase, chicken habitat changed greatly. 
Man was constantly altering the habitat to fit 
his needs; as a result the grouse population 
declined. 
Many changes in seasons and regulations 
were introduced in an attempt to stop this 
decline. Market hunting, use of nets and traps, 
and large gauge guns were outlawed. Bird 
dogs were prohibited. Shooting hours were 
reduced to daylight and sometimes to only a 
few hours each day. Nonresident hunters 
were restricted or closely regulated. Many 
local, specialized regulations were enforced. 
And finally, the state was completely closed to 
hunting prairie chickens. 
Census Procedures and 
Reintroductions 
Annual spring booming ground counts are 
made to census all known prairie chickens in 
North Dakota. Currently the census is concen-
trated in 4 areas: SNG; Prairie Chicken WMA; 
Englevale WMA; and southwestern Sargent 
County. 
A census has been conducted on the SNG 
since 1961. From 1961 through 1970 not all 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 3. Prairie chicken census, Sheyenne Grasslands, 
1971-97. 
Active 
Grounds grounds Total 
Year visited counted males 
1971 6 5 20 
1972 15 12 68 
1973 20 14 89 
1974 17 14 78 
1975 25 23 139 
1976 29 20 139 
1977 33 24 188 
1978 31 22 195 
1979 48 36 338 
1980 49 38 410 
1981 29 17 137 
1982 37 28 223 
1983 40 34 396 
1984 28 26 313 
1985 43 27 262 
1986 22 22 173 
1987 39 24 220 
1988 50 35 257 
1989 55 27 190 
1990 57 28 206 
1991 48 25 171 
1992 48 25 205 
1993 42 26 142 
1994 55 18 84 
1995 56 21 95 
1996 41 19 144 
1997 31 11 69 
grounds were visited, some were merely plot-
ted, and in 2 years, no census was conducted 
(Table 2). The census has been more com-
plete since 1970; at least it was conducted 
each year (Table 3). Complete coverage was 
lacking in some years, particularly in 1981. It 
is evident the population reached a peak in 
1980 but declined since that time and, in 
1997, the population had fallen back to the 
1972 level. 
A population of sharp-tailed grouse also exists 
on the SNG (Fig. 1 ). Unfortunately, a com-
Males/ 
active 
ground 
4.0 
5.7 
6.4 
5.6 
6.0 
7.0 
7.8 
8.9 
9.4 
10.8 
8.1 
8.0 
11.7 
12.0 
9.7 
7.9 
9.2 
7.3 
7.0 
7.4 
6.8 
8.2 
5.5 
4.7 
4.5 
7.6 
6.3 
65 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
plete census of this species has never been 
made, but enough grounds have been count-
ed to show a population trend. Counts of 
sharptails were started in 1970 but were very 
incomplete until 1979. Trend lines (Figs. 2, 4) 
from the beginning of counts of both species 
show an increasing trend; however this is due 
to extremely low, incomplete counts during 
the first 10 to 16 years of census (Fig. 4). The 
trend of prairie chickens over the last 20 years 
is down significantly (Fig. 3). The sharptail 
trend is also down over the last 19 years, but 
not significantly (Fig. 5). 
A small population of prairie chickens exists 
in southwestern Sargent County, but most of 
the birds in this vicinity are in South Dakota. 
However, 1 ground in North Dakota has been 
active for the past 6 years with males varying 
from 2 in 1992 to 8 in 1996. A greater census 
effort could result in more grounds being 
found in this area. 
A spring release of 55 wild-trapped prairie 
chickens from Nebraska was made in 1993 
near the Englevale WMA. These birds have 
been censused and radio tracked since that 
time. Some nests were found in the immedi-
ate vicinity, but some radio-marked birds 
moved long distances including at least 5 
females that moved to the SNG more than 20 
miles (32 km) away. Radio tracking ceased as 
radios failed but a spring census indicated 
some prairie chickens remained in the area 
until 1996. No prairie chickens were seen 
here in spring 1997. 
Our greatest effort in reestablishing prairie 
chickens in North Dakota has been on the 
Prairie Chicken WMA. Prairie chickens were 
present on this area in 1968 when the first 
land purchase of 160 acres (64 ha) was made 
by the NDGFD. By 1977, more than 3,150 
acres (1,260 ha) had been purchased. Acquisi-
tion has been slow since that time with only 
320 acres (128 ha) acquired in the last 20 
years. There are additional acres in wildlife 
habitat and, while not acquired or managed 
for prairie chickens, provide some prairie 
chicken habitat. These include 1,300 acres 
(520 ha) managed by the State Land Depart-
ment and 7,766 acres (3,1 06 ha) administered 
Figure 1. Male prairie grouse counted on Sheyenne National Grasslands, North Dakota, 1963-97. 
500 
• Sharp-tailed Grouse 
4- Prairie Chicken 
400 
""0 
11) 
···········-----------------------------------------------------------~i ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66 
c 
:::l 
0 
0 
Ill 
!11 (tl 
~ 
(ij 
0 
1-
300 
200 
100 
0 
63 65 
64 
• Incomplete census in 1981. 
67 69 
66 68 
73 75 77 
72 74 76 
-------------------------------
78 
1 
79 81~ 83 
80 82 
Year 
85 
84 86 
87 
88 
89 91 
90 92 
93 
94 
95 97 
96 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 2. Male prairie chickens counted on Sheyenne National Grasslands, North Dakota, 1963-97. 
500 
400 
300 
200 
100 
0 
-+- Males Counted 
•Trend 
63 65 
64 
67 
66 68 
69 71 73 
70 72 
• Incomplete census in 1981. 
75 77 
74 76 78 
79 81* 
80 82 
Year 
83 85 87 
84 86 88 
89 91 
90 92 
93 95 
94 
97 
96 
Figure 3. Male prairie chickens counted on Sheyenne National Grasslands, North Dakota, 1978-97. 
500 
400 
300 
200 
100 
0 
-+- Males Counted 
•Trend 
63 65 
64 
67 69 
66 68 70 
• Incomplete census in 1981. 
71 73 75 
72 74 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
76 
77 79 81* 
78 80 
Year 
82 
83 85 87 
84 86 88 
89 91 
90 92 
93 95 
94 96 
97 
67 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
68 
Figure 4. Male sharptails counted on Sheyenne National Grasslands, North Dakota, 1970-97. 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
-+- Males Counted 
•Trend 
63 65 
64 66 
67 69 71 
68 70 
• Incomplete census in 7987. 
72 
73 
74 
75 77 79 
76 78 
81 
80 82 
Year 
83 85 87 
84 86 88 
89 91 
90 
93 
92 94 
95 97 
96 
Figure 5. Male sharptails counted on Sheyenne National Grasslands, North Dakota, 1978-97. 
200 
150 
100 
50 
0 
-+- Males Counted 
•Trend 
63 65 
64 
67 
66 68 
69 71 
70 72 
*Incomplete census in 1987. 
73 75 77 
74 76 
79 
78 80 
81 83 85 
82 84 
Year 
87 
86 88 
89 91 
90 92 
93 95 97 
94 96 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
A census of the Prairie Chicken WMA actually 
began in 1954 when 11 males were counted. 
An annual census was begun in 1965 and has 
continued until 1997, even though prairie 
chickens disappeared in 1980. An annual cen-
sus was continued because sharptails were 
also present. Sharptails first appeared on cen-
sus sheets in 1972 but were certainly present 
before that year since 52 males were counted 
in 1972. Sharptails peaked in 1981, 1 year 
after the prairie chicken disappeared, but by 
1992, sharptails were also gone. 
Though both species of grouse have vanished, 
it was felt that this area had the potential to 
support prairie grouse. First; Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) acres reached a peak 
of nearly 34,000 acres (13,600 ha) within a 
6-mile (9.6-km) radius of the Prairie Chicken 
WMA, providing excellent grassland habitat. 
Second; management of NDGFD acres was 
intensified (burning, grazing, brush control, 
food plots). And third; the Fish and Wildlife 
Service formulated the Kelly Slough Manage-
ment Plan which included habitat manage-
ment for prairie chickens and funds for rein-
troduction. This area seemed to have all the 
ingredients for a successful transplant; habitat 
management was underway, a past history of 
resident prairie chickens, a viable population 
only 30 miles (49 km) away in Minnesota; and 
several willing cooperators ready to lend 
funds and support materials. 
The first transplants were made in summer, 
1992. Recent releases have been in spring 
with the final release planned for spring 1998 
(Table 4). A spring census has shown a steady 
increase in both male prairie chickens and 
number of booming grounds (Table 5). An 
annual spring census will continue but no 
intensive brood surveys have been conducted 
and none are planned. 
Hunting 
Habitat for greater prairie chickens in North 
Dakota is limited and the species is listed as 
state threatened. It is not hunted, thus there 
are no hunter bag checks or harvest surveys. 
It is listed as an upland game bird and may be 
Table 4. Summary of prairie chicken transplants to North Dakota. 
Prairie chickens released 
Year Season Origin Release site Males Females Uknown1 Total 
1992 Summer Minnesota Grand Forks 12 17 29 
1993 Spring Nebraska Englevale 27 272 54 
Summer Minnesota Grand Forks 14 16 30 
1995 Summer Minnesota Grand Forks 24 19 6 49 
1996 Spring Minnesota Grand Forks 4 0 4 
Summer Minnesota Grand Forks 28 0 28 
Summer South Dakota Grand Forks 6 12 10 28 
1997 Spring Nebraska Grand Forks 36 55 91 
1998 Spring Nebraska Grand Forks 1003 
Total birds transplanted 151 146 16 313 
1. Chicks, sex unknown. 
2. Five of these hens were moved to Grand Forks during Summer 1993. 
3. Proposed transplant, not included in total. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 69 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 5. Recent results of prairie grouse census, Grand 
Forks, North Dakota, 1993-97. 
Ground 
1 
2 
3 
41 
5 
61 
7 
8 
91 
101 
11 1 
Totals 
1993 1994 
4 6 
4 7 
1995 
12 
12 
1996 
9 
5 
7 
2 
23 
1997 
11 
4 
4 
Q2 
7 
11 
6 
1 
4 
52 
Q2 
53 
1. These grounds are outside the established census area. 
2. These grounds also had sharptail males present. 
70 
hunted on a limited permit basis in the future, 
provided the population increases sufficiently. 
Species Needs 
When a wild species takes a drastic dip in 
numbers and does not recover, as occurred 
with the prairie chicken in North Dakota, we 
hear a score of reasons offered for the de-
cline. Each critic is convinced their pet belief 
is the primary limiting factor for the species. 
Huge flocks dwindled because man simply 
went about the business of making a living 
and intensifying land use. As the country was 
settled, areas of the nation - east to west -
went through a period of high prairie chicken 
populations. There was a certain point in utili-
zation of the land when habitat and food sup-
ply were in balance for prairie chickens. The 
prairie chicken has been called more of a 
grassland bird than the sharptail and flour-
ished with some farming, but when the in-
tensive farming stage was reached and few 
grassland areas remained, the prairie chicken 
diminished rapidly. Promiscuous hunting may 
have speeded up the process, but, like the 
buffalo, the prairie chicken was doomed by 
man's intensifying land use. 
Trained game managers agreed that the most 
important prerequisite for prairie chickens, as 
for all wild species, is suitable habitat. There 
was a difference of opinion as to what was 
proper habitat and management in the 1800s. 
Roosevelt (1885), Cooke (1888), and Hatch 
(1892), among others, stated that the prairie 
chicken kept pace with settlement of the 
country and tolerated more grain farming 
than the sharptail. 
Fire has long been condemned as a decimat-
ing factor on prairie chickens. The prairie fire 
was described as the pinnate's "most deadly 
enemy" particularly in spring when it "de-
stroys every nest within its sweep" (Judd 
1905). However, early spring burning, before 
birds nested, was permissible. Fire during the 
nesting season was a major problem in con-
servation of the birds and fall burning de-
stroyed food supplies and winter cover. 
Modern research has shown that burning is 
not necessarily destructive to the prairie chick-
en and, in fact, has proven to be an important 
management tool in reestablishing many 
plants utilized by prairie chickens as food 
and/or cover. Completely undisturbed areas 
of grassland which grow tall and dense over 
a period of years do not furnish all the neces-
sary food and cover requirements. 
Observers who have rated weather an impor-
tant factor in reducing prairie chicken popula-
tions are quick to condemn a cold, damp 
spring, or heavy rains at hatching time, to 
cause few and/or small broods. 
Many observers have stressed that prairie 
chickens do not renest as commonly as phea-
sants, partridge and other species. This was 
one reason that first nesting attempts were 
believed so important to reproduction for a 
given year and those who observed chickens 
hoped for favorable weather in spring. 
There are few references to winter losses 
of prairie chickens in North Dakota. Black 
(1929) mentions homesteaders who endured 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
unusually cold winters in the 1880s. One 
old timer spoke of a bitterly cold 26 April (in 
1884 or 1885) when they "found a number 
of prairie chickens frozen" along with other 
birds. He did not state whether the mortality 
was caused simply by the cold itself or a layer 
of ice that sometimes entraps ground roosting 
birds. 
Since this bird feeds largely on the ground 
and is not known as a "budder" like the sharp-
tailed grouse, it is possible that chickens may 
have suffered from a lack of food in North 
Dakota in the past. However, it is important 
to realize that prairie chickens migrated south 
from northern states in the fall. These migra-
tions were more obvious when there were 
large populations. Reasons offered for migra-
tions were that birds were traveling to reach 
areas of greater food supply and to escape 
the cold. Several observers using trapping 
records found that longest flights were made 
by females and young of the year. There 
is little evidence of fall migrations in North 
Dakota during the past 50 years (Bent 1963). 
In addition to widely publicized deficiencies 
of food and cover, many other decimating 
factors have been blamed for the decline, 
including over-hunting and predation. The 
overall population of predators may not have 
changed much the past 50 years but the pro-
portion of certain ones has changed. Con-
demned as limiting prairie chicken popula-
tions have been the coyote, bobcat, fox, 
weasel, mink, hawk, owl, and feral dogs and 
cats. Nest robbers implicated were raccoons, 
skunks, crows, and other species. Because the 
coyote was so common at the time chicken 
populations were rapidly declining, much criti-
cism in the past was directed to it. 
Young observers today may not have thought 
much about the pheasant as a strong compet-
itor with prairie chickens, but many old-timers 
firmly believed the pheasant had much to 
do with limiting chicken populations. Others 
considered their competition a minor factor 
(Shrader and Erickson 1944). 
Many outside factors such as cycles, inbreed-
ing, and others, were condemned from time 
to time as reducing populations. But the chief 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
cause recognized by most persons is the 
same one recognized today- prairie chicken 
populations declined because of destruction 
or alteration of their environment. 
The greater prairie chicken, a tallgrass prairie 
species, will never expand its range signifi-
cantly in North Dakota. North Dakota is a 
semi-arid, short to midgrass state and the hab-
itat will never be suitable for prairie chickens 
except in isolated tracts, primarily in the east-
ern part of the state. Since the species was 
not native to the state, intensive management 
and preservation of areas such as the SNG is 
a must if the species is to remain in North 
Dakota. 
Management Needs and 
Recommendations 
Many early management measures designed 
to save wildlife populations in North Dakota 
were aimed at prairie chickens. Most early 
attempts were in the form of hunting regula-
tions. Restrictions on market hunting, bag 
limits, closed seasons, and various gun, dog, 
and trespass laws were just a few. These tan-
gential attempts to aid prairie chickens may 
have slowed the decline but did not halt it 
or restore populations to former numbers. 
Following the first hunting regulations for prai-
rie chickens in the 1800s, the next attempts 
to manage this species came when private, 
state and federal refuges were established 
in many parts of the United States. On these 
undisturbed lands, varying in size from a few 
to several thousand acres, prairie chickens 
could theoretically reproduce unmolested 
by the hunter, plow, and domestic livestock. 
Unfortunately, prairie chickens did not re-
spond to any marked degree on these refug-
es; in most cases populations declined, al-
though many other wildlife species benefitted 
considerably from this undisturbed habitat. 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted 
an experimental program of trapping prairie 
chickens in South Dakota and releasing them 
on refuges (J. Clark Salyer Refuge in North 
Dakota) where habitat appeared suitable for 
reproduction. 
71 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
72 
A program to lease 80-acre (32 ha) plots of 
land already inhabited by prairie chickens was 
started by the NDGFD in 1955 but was short-
lived. It was quickly realized that the project 
would be too costly and landowners were 
reluctant. Only 87 acres (35 ha) from a pro-
posed 1,500 acres (600 ha) were leased and 
the program was discontinued within 3 years. 
Mid- to tallgrass prairies are the vital ingredi-
ent to survival of prairie chickens. In North 
Dakota, the original area of tall grass prairie 
was in the Red River Valley in the eastern tier 
of counties. Few of those acres remain today. 
Two areas, the Prairie Chicken WMA and 
the SNG are the only areas left where prairie 
chickens now exist and stand a chance of 
persisting for any length of time. These 2 
areas are vastly different even though both 
provide habitat for prairie chickens. 
The Prairie Chicken WMA is nearly all ac-
quired land that had been in crop production 
but has been returned to grass. The 3,500 
acres (1,400 ha) purchased by the NDGFD 
were primarily for prairie chickens and contin-
ue to be the core area where management is 
carried out. In recent years, burning, grazing, 
brush control, food plots and other manage-
ment has intensified to provide suitable habi-
tat for transplanted birds and must be contin-
ued to ensure that birds survive here. The 
Prairie Chicken WMA is not large enough by 
itself to provide a secure self-sustaining popu-
lation. A survey of the 34,000 CRP acres 
needs to be made to determine those areas 
used by chickens, determine how many more 
acres are needed, and try to work those into 
the prairie chicken management plan. This 
would involve maintenance, management, 
and possible acquisition of some CRP lands. 
We need to work more closely with the Fish 
and Wildlife Service and State Land Depart-
ment to point management of their lands in 
the prairie chicken direction. 
Eng et al. {1986) following a study of prairie 
chickens on the SNG made the following 
management recommendations: 
More intensive annual censuses should be 
conducted. Time should be allotted for 
conducting listening runs each spring to 
-------------~--~-
locate new grounds. The spring inventory 
must be maintained at a level to detect 
changes in distribution and relative abun-
dance of both species of prairie grouse. 
Lowlands and midlands received the most 
use in winter, spring use by all hens, and 
summer use by brood hens. Most nesting 
occurs in lowland or midland communities. 
Initial nests were less successful than renests 
indicating a lack of suitable residual vegeta-
tion in early spring. No nests were in up-
land grass or mowed lowland communities. 
Lowlands and midlands are very important 
as roosting areas. Thus, modification in 
management of these 2 communities could 
have the greatest positive impact on prairie 
chickens. 
The mowing pattern of lowlands needs to 
be adjusted to provide a wider distribution 
of unmowed lowlands. An effort must be 
made to increase total amounts of residual 
vegetation left for nesting and winter roost-
ing. Currently, mowing is done on a block 
basis with all lowlands in a single pasture 
being mowed. Disturbance of rank vegeta-
tion is necessary to protect upland vegeta-
tion but a pattern of mowing and burning 
that leaves some residual vegetation in 
each pasture would be beneficial to prairie 
chickens. One scenario would be to mow 
a third of each pasture in a 3-pasture allot-
ment on a 3-year rotation basis. A second 
alternative would be to evaluate individual 
allotments relative to number of grouse 
present. Allow mowing practices to remain 
the same in areas within a 1-mi/e (1.6 km) 
radius of booming grounds with high num-
bers of birds, while adjusting mowing prac-
tices around booming grounds with low 
or unstable numbers. No areas should be 
mowed more than once every 3 years. The 
midland strip around lowlands should be 
excluded from mowing in most cases. 
Delay mowing of lowlands until 10 August. 
This will ensure all nesting activities are 
complete and broods will be mature 
enough to avoid mowers. 
Delaying an introduction of cattle into pas-
tures until 15 june would be desirable to 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
permit early vegetation growth for early 
hatching broods. Alternatives would be to 
delay cattle introductions until 1 june or 
distribute cattle evenly between pastures 
during the first 2 weeks. Undisturbed vege-
tative growth in all pastures would be ad-
vantageous to broods hatching in early 
june. 
Maintain areas of vegetation for brood rear-
ing that were heavily disturbed the previous 
year but are relatively undisturbed in the 
current summer. Prairie chickens showed a 
decided aversion for pastures with cattle 
present. It is unknown whether this aversion 
was due to presence of cattle or reduction 
in vegetation from grazing. 
To provide a more dependable winter food 
source, food plots (standing corn, sunflow-
ers) should be strategically located with 
respect to known wintering areas and 
booming grounds. Availability of food is 
influenced by snow amounts and distribu-
tion. Food in harvested grain fields is avail-
able only when those fields are basically 
snow free. 
Sharptails are present on the area and were 
found to use shrub habitat at a rate 3 times 
greater than prairie chickens. Shrub control 
can be implemented to favor prairie chick-
ens. juxtaposition of various cover ingredi-
ents, food sources for various times of the 
year, and brood habitat needs to be under-
stood. Use of herbicides for noxious weed 
control, brush control, and improved forb 
production, along with use of fire and 
mowing to improve prairie chicken habitat 
needs to be investigated. 
The major threat to the greater prairie chicken 
is habitat destruction associated with human 
activity and livestock grazing. To ensure fu-
ture survival of the greater prairie chicken, 
adequate habitat must be provided and pro-
tected, and condition of the population and 
habitat must be continuously monitored to 
maintain an appropriate balance. 
Several research projects appear needed. Bio-
logical effects and economics of application 
of various herbicides for controlling brush 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
invasion and noxious weeds should be exam-
ined. There is a need to determine if properly 
spaced food plots within the grasslands would 
increase or maintain chicken populations 
where seasonal food availability is suspected 
to be"the limiting factor. The function of agri-
cultural lands adjoining the SNG as brood-
rearing cover and as a food source should be 
examined. 
Acknowledgments 
Much of the text for this report was taken 
from Feathers from the Prairie (Johnson 1964). 
That publication was updated in 1989 
(Johnson and Knue 1989) and some informa-
tion was used from the update. Census and 
transplant data were updated to make all in-
formation current through 1997. 
Literature Cited 
Bent, AC. 1963. Life histories of North Ameri-
can gallinaceous birds. Dover, New York, 
New York, USA 
Black, R.M. 1929. History of Dickey County, 
North Dakota. North Dakota State Normal 
College, Ellendale, North Dakota, USA 
Cooke, W.W. 1888. Report on bird migration 
in the Mississippi Valley in the years 1884 and 
1885. C.H. Merriam, editor. Department of 
Agricultural Ornithology Bulletin 2. U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 
USA 
Coues, E. 18 7 4. Birds of the Northwest. De-
partment of Interior Miscellaneous Publication 
3. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.C., USA 
Eng, R.L., J. Toepfer, and J. Newell. 1988. Man-
agement recommendations for prairie chickens 
on the Sheyenne National Grasslands, North 
Dakota, 1984-85. Rocky Mountain Forest & 
Range Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Ser-
vice/Fish and Wildlife Program, Montana 
State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA 
73 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
74 
Hatch, P.L. 1892. First report of the state zool-
ogist accompanied with notes on the birds of 
Minnesota. Harrison and Smith, Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, USA. 
Johnson, M.D. 1964. Feathers from the prairie. 
North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 
Bismarck, North Dakota, USA. 
____ _, and J. Knue. 1989. Feathers from 
the prairie. North Dakota Game and 
Fish Department, Bismarck, North Dakota, 
USA. 
/ 
Judd, S.D. 1905. The grouse and wild turkeys 
of the United States and their economic 
value. U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin 
24. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C., USA. 
Roosevelt, T. 1885. Hunting trips of a ranch-
man. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, New 
York, USA. 
Shrader, T.A., and A.B. Erickson. 1944. Upland 
game birds of Minnesota. Minnesota Depart-
ment of Conservation Bulletin 8. 
.,..._,....,.-.fi --·· 
WELCOME 1b Tile 
.·:.-<•P 
l0,184tb 
". - II 
t ~f'l ANNUAL CCx:K 6JAMES 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of the 
Greater Prairie Chicken in South 
Dakota 
Larry F. Fredrickson, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 
Chamberlain 1 
Barth Crouch, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Mobridge 
Gerald L. Heismeyer, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 
Chamberlain 
Historical Review 
Greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupi-
do pinnatus) were generally thought to have 
come into South Dakota in the 1870s follow-
ing settlers and the planting of grain (Cooke 
1888, johnson 1964). From 1870 to 1900, 
market hunters reaped a rich harvest (SDDG-
FP 1958-59). At that time, the area of the 
Great Plains that included eastern South Da-
kota was known as "the chicken country." 
"Millions of chickens and grouse were killed, 
and settlers were indifferent to or assisted in 
the slaughter" (SDDGFP 1958-59). However, 
Kirsch and Kruse (1973) provided convincing 
evidence that this species was present on the 
prairies of the Dakotas and Montana after the 
great reduction in grazing by big game herds, 
especially bison, but well ahead of the intro-
duction of grain farming (Westemeier 1980). 
Additionally, Lewis and Clark saw numbers of 
prairie hens in the Big Bend area along the 
Missouri River in 1804 (Lewis 1814) and john 
james Audubon recorded prairie chickens in 
1 Department of Natural Resources, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, 
P.O. Box4B, Fort Thompson, S.D. 57339 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
that area on 26 May 1843 (Audubon 1960). 
Audubon painted both species (prairie chick-
ens and sharp-tailed grouse [Tympanuchus 
phasianellus]) of prairie grouse so he knew the 
differences well. 
During 1888, Cooke noted that prairie chick-
ens occupied the entire length of eastern 
South Dakota in a strip 30 to 60 miles (48-96 
km) wide and were as far north as southeast-
ern Corson county, as far southwest as south-
ern Bennett county, and as far northwest as 
southwestern Harding county (Cooke 1888, 
Whitney et al. 1978). The historical distribu-
tion of the prairie chicken in South Dakota is 
shown by Aldrich and Duvall (1955). 
Prairie chickens declined in the eastern third 
(tallgrass and tallgrass/midgrass transition prai-
ries) of the state with intensive grazing of 
rangeland and conversion of grassland to 
cropland. Prairie chickens were gone from 
some areas of eastern South Dakota by 1920 
and other areas by the early 1950s, (W.C. 
Foss, personal communication; L.M. Kirsch, 
personal communication). Some large winter-
ing flocks of prairie chickens still occurred in 
Brown (including Sand Lake National Wildlife 
75 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Refuge [SLNWR], Renziehausen Slough, Put-
ney Slough and the James River) and Marshall 
counties in the early 1950s (L.M. Kirsch, per-
sonal communication). Three birds were sight-
ed at SLNWR in 1982 (S. Waldstein, personal 
communication) and we assume these birds" 
came from North Dakota, or at least from the 
north. 
The earliest statewide population estimate 
for South Dakota was 80,000 prairie chickens 
in 1968 when the range was restricted to the 
central and south central portion of the state 
(Christisen 1969). By 1982, the statewide 
population had declined to about 39,000, the 
range was estimated at 9,171 square miles 
(23,750 km 2), and the average population 
density was 4.3 birds/square mile (1.7 /km 2) 
(Fig. 1) (SDDGFP 1982). 
In the mid-1980s, the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP) began with significant sign-ups 
in the main range in South Dakota and prairie 
chickens appeared to respond positively. 
While males per lek numbers compared favor-
ably with those from the 1950s to the early 
1970s, the number of males per square mile 
was a bit higher because of the increase in 
lek numbers. We also noted some expansion 
of the prairie chicken range to the east and 
north during that period. With the ending of 
many CRP contracts, we expect prairie chick-
en numbers to decline along with the amount 
of undisturbed habitat. 
Yearly trend information for prairie chickens 
is presented from 1956 to 1997 (Table 1 ). The 
42-year mean was 0.67 males per square mile. 
Peak years of prairie chicken populations co-
inciding with those of sharp-tailed grouse oc-
curred in 1959, 1964, 1969, and 1980. 
We believe that excellent reproduction for 
prairie chicken, as well as sharptails (West 
Figure 1. South Dakota wildlife management regions showing distribution and relative density of greater prairie 
chickens, 1982. 
76 
I ~~ .. ~··• 
} I ~j"'""'. 
.;;:;--·--·-·-·-· I 
~.---·~ 
I 
I 
·-·-r-----.J 
....... " I 
~ 
·-·-·- _j 
.......... - ··------
-~~::_·~=?-
H 
M 
l 
Vl 
I 
I 
High ....... 6.9-22.1 per square mile 
Medium .... 2.6-6.89 per square mile 
low . ....... 0-2.59 per square mile 
Very low ... none to almost none 
l 
f ..... -- r;.-; .... ;- -l 
\ l!Y __ f·"-,....... . 
---l----Rt=-='-11 i I 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 1. Prairie chicken counts in South 
1960) is related to cool moist summer weath-
er because wet conditions in the spring and 
Dakota, 1957-97. summer cause increased growth of grasses 
and forbs for better nesting and brood cover 
Square 
Males per with a resultant higher survival of young. The 
Year miles lek sq. mile lowest population was in 1977, after the 
severe drought of 1976. 
1956 200 7.74 1.20 
Three research studies have been conducted 1957 200 6.29 0.98 
1958 200 6.16 0.77 on prairie chickens in South Dakota. Ren-
1959 200 9.18 1.29 howe (1968) studied food habits and Rice 
1960 200 5.45 0.60 
and Carter (1982) evaluated grassland man-
1961 160 7.40 0.46 
agement practices as they affected prairie 
chicken populations on the Fort Pierre Nation-
1962 160 6.00 0.45 
al Grasslands (FPNG). A radio telemetry study 
1963 185 4.52 0.74 
was conducted on the FPNG and on the Low-
1964 185 4.78 0.95 er Brule Indian Reservation from 1985 to 
1965 185 4.27 0.72 1989 and included an evaluation of translo-
1966 145 4.84 0.83 eating birds to McPherson County in north 
1967 185 4.42 0.76 central South Dakota (Fredrickson 1995, Fre-
1968 185 4.82 0.57 drickson 1996). It is believed this transplant 
1969 185 5.85 0.63 was unsuccessful because of the lack of crop-
1970 185 5.53 0.57 land in the release area, made up primarily 
1971 185 5.90 0.48 of ungrazed grassland. When birds moved to 
1972 185 7.62 0.50 cropland areas in the winter, there was inade-
1973 185 10.58 0.69 quate roosting cover and predation was so 
1974 185 9.67 0.63 great that most did not make it back to leks 
1975 175 9.00 0.93 in the release area the next spring. Future 
1976 175 5.45 0.34 release areas should have at least 4 square 
1977 175 4.90 0.29 miles (1 0.24 km2 ) of quality grassland habitat 
1978 175 6.25 0.43 intermixed with unharvested food plots of 
1979 175 8.14 0.98 corn, sunflowers, and sorgum for high energy 
1980 175 9.00 1.08 winter food. 
1981 175 7.80 0.85 
1982 175 7.15 0.53 A total of 75 greater prairie chickens were 
1983 175 7.00 0.48 released at SLNWR in 1959 (15 males, 2 fe-
1984 175 5.57 0.45 males) and 1960 (19 males, 36 females). The 
1985 175 6.33 0.54 birds were trapped in the vicinity of Fort Ran-
1986 175 7.38 0.50 dall Dam with cannon nets during the winter. 
1987 175 8.00 0.80 Chickens were seen in the release area until 
1988 175 7.11 0.77 March of each release year, but no booming 
1989 175 5.36 0.43 grounds were established and the releases 
1990 181 5.21 0.49 were considered unsuccessful (Kruse 1973). 
1991 181 4.19 0.51 
1992 181 6.71 0.53 
1993 181 7.65 0.66 Census and Survey 1994 181 6.19 0.87 
1995 181 9.07 0.62 Procedures 
1996 181 6.87 0.85 Since 1956, spring lek counts have been con-
1997 181 5.73 0.59 ducted to obtain an index of both sharp-tailed 
Mean 7.02 0.67 grouse and greater prairie chickens. The 
spring grouse survey consists of searching for 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 77 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
78 
and counting males on leks along survey 
routes distributed throughout the grouse 
range. Each route covers approximately 40 
square miles (1 04 km2). Presently there are 27 
routes censused each spring during April. Be-
ginning in 1999, the number of spring routes 
will be reduced to 25 while the remainder of 
the survey will be the same. The spring survey 
represents our best index of the statewide 
prairie chicken population. 
A randomized recording of observed broods 
of prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse is 
used to measure the reproductive success of 
both species. All personnel stationed in areas 
of the grouse range recorded all observations 
of prairie grouse broods. Personnel were en-
couraged to search for broods during early 
morning and late evening throughout the 
months of july and August. Beginning in 
1 998, we dropped the brood survey because 
of declining brood observations in recent 
years. Changes in field personnel, time con-
straints, and other duties made getting suffi-
cient sample sizes difficult. 
The prairie grouse bag check survey consists 
of collecting grouse data from hunter-bagged 
birds. Both road check stations and field 
checks were previously utilized to obtain the 
most possible data on young/adult ratios, sex 
ratios, and species composition of the harvest. 
The field check information is collected during 
the first 3 days of the hunting season. In 1998, 
the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, 
and Parks (SDDGFP) plans to develop a wing 
mailing census for prairie grouse harvest data 
collection since field checks have proven in-
sufficient for obtaining adequate information. 
Harvest and Hunting 
Pressure 
The harvest of prairie grouse in South Dakota 
has varied widely over the years. The lowest 
harvest on record was approximately 64,300 
in 1977 while the highest was 174,300 in 
1979. Hunting pressure over the years has 
remained fairly steady at approximately 20-
25,000 hunters annually. Prairie chickens have 
accounted for approximately 5-8 percent of 
the annual prairie grouse harvest which has 
averaged approximately 80,000 birds. In re-
cent years, there has been a decline in hunt-
ing pressure which may be explained by high 
travel costs and high pheasant populations in 
South Dakota. Harvest in the late 1980s to 
the early 1990s leveled off at lower numbers 
than in the previous decade, hence, harvest 
also declined with hunting pressure. Renewed 
interest and much better hunting opportuni-
ties in the mid-90s increased the statewide 
harvest. In 1996, the estimated prairie grouse 
harvest in South Dakota was over 1 09,000 
with about 1 0% of that being prairie chickens. 
Recent population estimates would indicate 
that the annual hunter harvest of both species 
is approximately 15 to 30% of the fall popula-
tions. Hunter harvest could expand upward 
without significant harm to the residual popu-
lations of either species under present condi-
tions. Increasing interest in grouse hunting 
continues as a priority goal of the SDDGFP. 
Species Needs 
The most important need of prairie chickens 
is protection of rangeland, roadside cover, 
shoreline vegetation around stock dams, and 
woody draws from heavy cattle use (Rice and 
Carter 1982). Heavy grazing and trampling 
removes nesting, brood-rearing, escape, and 
winter cover. Research by Rice and Carter 
(1982) on the FPNG proved that rest-rotation 
grazing was superior to deferred rotation in 
providing nesting and brood-rearing cover for 
both prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse. 
An attempt should be made to encourage 
West River Region ranchers and public land 
managers to implement more rest-rotation 
grazing systems. 
Conversion of grassland to cropland causes 
important losses of grouse habitat (Hillman 
and jackson 1973). This practice should 
be discontinued and the converted ranges 
reseeded to native grasses. Protecting dense 
nesting cover similar to that in the Pheasant 
Restoration Program and the CRP would be 
beneficial to prairie chickens as would fencing 
out woody draws. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
-------------------------
Public Needs 
All state and federal lands with prairie chick-
ens should be demonstration areas of good 
prairie chicken management. Interpretive 
signs which inform the public of the bird's 
presence should be erected on the FPNG and 
on state areas with significant populations of 
these birds. Increased population information 
should be more widely available to the public. 
Management Needs 
Additional funds are needed to pay West Riv-
er Region landowners to establish dense nest-
ing cover, food plots, and establish rest-rota-
tion grazing systems for prairie chickens as 
well as pheasants. This was part of the CRP 
that appeared to be a positive influence on 
populations and, unless a replacement pro-
gram arises, this will be a future need. 
We need information on how to discourage 
conversion of grassland to cropland and how 
to best seed croplands to native grasses. 
Information is needed on how to encourage 
moderate to light livestock grazing and devel-
op incentives to fence out portions of woody 
draws and stock dams on private lands. Graz-
ing or mowing of roadside cover should be 
discouraged. Consideration should be given 
to buying land to manage specifically for prai-
rie chickens. 
Research Needs 
More research is needed to corroborate the 
1988 preliminary findings (Fredrickson 1996) 
regarding the tendency of prairie chicken 
hens to select for taller cover for nesting and 
shorter cover for night roosting. Vegetation at 
nest sites should be determined at the time of 
nest initiation but measurements should be 
taken when radioed hens are well away from 
nests to reduce nest abandonment. 
Research on habitat use is needed throughout 
the range of the prairie chicken. We need to 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
better understand the influence of juxtaposi-
tion of quantity, quality, and shape of cover, 
food, nesting cover, brood habitat, roosting 
cover, and woody draws on population densi-
ties. We also need to determine the minimum 
quantities and quality of various cover types 
needed to sustain huntable populations in an 
area. We need more information on prairie 
chicken population dynamics and influence of 
predators on survival of young. 
Better methods are needed to census prairie 
chickens on leks in April and to conduct 
brood counts during the summer. 
We need to know if minimum habitat require-
ments given in the literature for release sites 
are correct for our state. Also, what minimum 
amounts of cover do prairie chickens need 
and use in areas where they now occur in low 
numbers? 
We need additional research on summer to 
fall-winter, and winter to spring, movements 
of prairie chickens. We should document 
where known breeding populations spend the 
winter and where some known winter popula-
tions of birds display and nest. Of particular 
interest are the prairie chicken populations in 
Stanley, Lyman and jones counties (FPNG), 
and in Gregory County. 
Information is needed on whether we can 
better manage and increase populations by 
providing needed cover types on or near 
game production areas. 
Acknowledgments 
The authors are indebted to Willy Foss, Mau-
rice Anderson, Floyd Gardner, Ron Meester, 
·Sam Waldstein, Leo Kirsch, Erling Podoll, War-
ren jackson, Les Rice, and Art Carter. 
Literature Cited 
Aldrich, j.W., and A.j. Duvall. 1955. Distribu-
tion of American gallinaceous game birds. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 34. 
79 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
80 
Audubon, M.R. 1960. Audubon and his jour-
nals. Volumes I and II. Dover Publishing, New 
York, New York, USA 
Christisen, D.M. 1969. National status and 
management of the greater prairie chicken. 
Transactions of the North American Wildlife 
and Natural Resources Conference. 34:207-
217. 
Cooke, W.W. 1888. Report on bird migration 
in the Mississippi Valley in the years 1984 and 
1985. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Divi-
sion of Economic Ornithology Bulletin 2. 
Hillman, C.N., and W.W. jackson. 1973. The 
sharp-tailed grouse in South Dakota. South 
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 
Technical Bulletin 3. 
Fredrickson, L.F. 1995. Prairie chicken range 
expansion and movements study, 1985-1989. 
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 
Parks Completion Report 96-03, Federal Aid 
in Wildlife Restoration Project W-75-R-28, 
29, 30, and 31. 
____ . 1996. Prairie grouse nesting, nest 
vegetation, and roost vegetation, 1986-1988. 
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 
Parks Completion Report 96-03. 
johnson, M.D. 1964. Feathers from the prairie. 
North Dakota Game & Fish Department, Fed-
eral Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-
67-R-5. 
Kirsch, L.M., and A.D. Kruse. 1973. Prairie 
fires and wildlife. Proceeding Tall Timbers Fire 
Ecology Conference 12:289-303. 
Kruse, A.D. 1973. Prairie chicken restoration 
projects. Pages 40-46 in W.O. Svedarsky and 
T. Wolfe, editors. The prairie chicken in Min-
nesota. University of Minnesota, Crookston, 
Minnesota, USA 
Lewis, M. 1814. The Lewis and Clark expedi-
tion. Volume 1, page 87. j.B. Lippincott Com-
pany; Keystone Western America Series; 
Philadephia and New York; Pennsylvania and 
New York, respectively; USA 
Renhowe, B.A. 1 968. Food habits of the sharp-
tailed grouse and greater prairie chicken in 
western South Dakota. Thesis. South Dakota 
State University, Brookings, South Dakota, 
USA 
Rice, L.A., and A.V. Carter. 1982. Evaluation 
of South Dakota grassland management prac-
tices as they affect prairie chicken populations, 
19 74- 19 78. South Dakota Department of 
Game, Fish, and Parks, Federal Aid in Wildlife 
Restoration Project W-75-R-24. 
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 
Parks (SDDGFP) 1958-59. Annual Report. 
Looking back the past 50 years (1909 to 
1959). South Dakota Department of Game, 
Fish, and Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, USA 
____ . 1982. South Dakota Wildlife Re-
source Assessment Survey. South Dakota De-
partment of Game, Fish and Parks, Resource 
Analysis and Planning Section, Division of 
Wildlife, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 
Project FW -19-C-12. 
West, D.R. 1960. The 1958 prairie grouse hab-
itat survey. South Dakota Department of 
Game, Fish and Parks, Federal Aid in Wildlife 
Restoration Project W-17-12. 
Westemeier, R.L., 1980. Greater prairie 
chicken status and management, 1968-1979. 
Pages 8-1 7 in P.A. Vohs, Jr., editor. Proceed-
ings of the Prairie Grouse Symposium. Oklaho-
ma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 
USA 
Whitney, N.R., B.E. Harrell, B.K. Harris, N. 
Holden, j.W. johnson, B.j. Rose, and P.F. 
Springer. 1978. The birds of South Dakota. 
The South Dakota Ornithologists' Union/W.H. 
Over Museum, Vermillion, South Dakota, 
USA 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of the 
Greater Prairie Chicken in 
Nebraska 
William L. Vodehnal, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Bassett 
Historical Review 
The greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus 
cupido pinnatus) has been a part of Nebras-
ka's heritage for over a 1 00 years and remains 
a major component of the avifauna. Numbers 
have fluctuated over the years, reaching peak 
levels during the late 1800s only to plummet 
to extremely low levels during "The Great 
Depression" years of the 1930s. Prairie chick-
en numbers were so low that biologists and 
historians alike felt they would follow the path 
of the heath hen (Tympanuchus cupido cupi-
do) and passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migrato-
rius) to extinction. However, prairie chickens 
have rebounded from this seemingly doomed 
fate to huntable populations today and are 
cherished as a prized game species. 
A close relative of the prairie chicken, the 
plains sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus pha-
sianellus jamesii), also occurs in the state and 
resides primarily in the western remote Sand-
hills region of north-central Nebraska. Histor-
ical accounts do not clearly distinguish be-
tween prairie chickens and sharptails, but 
greater emphasis appeared to be placed on 
prairie chicken ecology rather than sharptail 
ecology. 
During the 1 700s, little activity by European 
settlers and explorers occurred in this region 
of the Midwest and written accounts of prai-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
rie chickens or other birds of Nebraska are 
not available from early pioneers. French fur-
traders and trappers were venturing up the 
Missouri River about 1700, but the first white 
men to reach Nebraska were Spanish soldiers 
around 1720 (Nebr. Legislative Counc. 1981 ). 
The Mallet brothers discovered and named 
the Platte River in 1739 and traveled nearly 
the entire length of the state on a journey 
from the Missouri River to Santa Fe, New 
Mexico. 
The prairie chicken population began to blos-
som and expand during the latter portion of 
the 1800s, with low numbers reported during 
the first half century by early explorers. The 
first explorers to mention bird life were Lewis 
and Clark during their 1804-06 expedition up 
the Missouri River (Swenk 1935). Some spe-
cies encountered were the white pelican 
(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), American white 
egret (Casmerodius a/bus egretta), Canada 
goose (Branta canadensis canadensis) wood 
duck (Aix sponsa), eastern wild turkey (Melea-
gris gallopavo silvestris), interior least tern 
(Sterna antillarum antillarum), and interior 
Carolina paroquet (Conuropsis carolinensis 
ludovicionus). Captain Clark stated that on 2 
September 1806 he saw 4 "prairie fowls com-
mon to the Illinois, those are the highest up 
which I have seen" either in Cedar County, 
Nebraska, or across the river in South Dakota 
(Swenk 1935). Zebulon Pike spent time in the 
81 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
82 
Republican River Valley in 1806 and Stephen 
Long traveled the Platte River in 1819, but 
neither mentioned anything concerning Ne-
braska's bird life. 
Nebraska became part of the unorganized 
region, referred to as "Indian country" in 
1821, followed by a period of overland trails 
beginning in 1832, with little mention of prai-
rie chickens. Wagon trains loaded with mer-
chandise forged along the state's first major 
trail, the "Oregon Trail," which followed the 
Little Blue and Platte rivers westward. Park-
man (1922) tells about crossing eastern Kan-
sas in 1846, coming up the Blue River into 
southeastern Nebraska and says "not even 
a prairie hen is to be had," but 4 years later 
when he came down the Arkansas River east 
of Cow Creek, plenty of prairie chickens were 
seen in the country of the Shawnees "where 
the maize stood high." These were Indian 
farming lands (Beck 195 7). This party of voy-
agers carried shotguns and hunted often, 
as they mentioned the birds they killed and 
observed along the trail. They even killed a 
curlew (Numenius americanus), but not once 
did they kill a prairie chicken. 
The Mormon Trail and Denver Trail traversed 
Nebraska prior to 1850, bringing thousands 
of wagons across the state every year. john 
C. Fremont explored the region in 1842 and 
was the first to use the word "Nebraska" in 
his publications. Prospectors crossed the 
plains of the Platte River valley en route to 
California seeking gold in 1849, a period of-
ten referred to as the "California Gold Rush." 
Through all these travels, little was mentioned 
concerning prairie chickens, thus it is reason-
able to conclude that prior to 1850 few prai-
rie chickens inhabited Nebraska. 
Prairie chickens generated more notoriety 
beginning in 1854, but numbers were· still 
apparently limited. Early newspapers spoke 
of how prairie chickens and other wild game 
were sold in hotels and other public eating 
places in Omaha and Nebraska City. These 
first settlements were established along the 
Missouri River and benefitted from the limited 
farming practices of the Pawnees, Ponca, Oto, 
and soldiers at Fort Atkinson. Small parcels of 
cropland were also beneficial to prairie chick-
ens as their numbers increased, thus they 
initially became more numerous in Nebraska 
along the Missouri River. 
Buechler and Barr (1920) convey in their 
memoirs, relating to the vicinity around Hall 
County, that when the first white settlers 
came to this portion of the Platte River Valley 
in 1857, buffaloes (Bison bison), elk (Cervus 
canadensis), wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes 
(Canis latrans), and badgers (Taxidea taxus) 
were plentiful, but turkeys (Meleagris gal/opa· 
vo), deer (Odocoileus spp.) and prairie chick-
ens were scarce. As these German settlers 
began to raise small fields of corn to sell at 
Fort Kearney, deer and prairie chicken pop-
ulations began to grow, though the turkey 
soon disappeared. The old settler that ob-
served the rise in the prairie chicken popula-
tion related the increase to trapping of var-
mints and the end of prairie fires, but the 
settler did not take into account that better 
food and habitat was available for these spe-
cies as well. 
Beginning in 1860, the following 30 years 
marked dramatic changes for Nebraska and 
the prairie chicken population. Abraham Lin-
coln was elected president in 1860, the Civil 
War soon followed, Nebraska became a state 
in 1867, and the Union Pacific railroad was 
commencing construction in 1865, which was 
followed by construction of the Burlington 
and Northwestern railroads. The Free Home-
stead Law was enacted by Congress and took 
effect in 1863. The first large wave of settle-
ment by homesteading immigrants began in 
1867 and virtually the entire state was settled, 
except the Sandhills in north-central Nebras-
.ka, from 1875-90. 
Homesteaders spread up every river valley, 
including the Platte, Elkhorn, Republican, 
Loup, Niobrara, and Blue rivers, and in most 
cases they were ahead of the railroads. Small 
crop farming followed the settlements and 
spread throughout the state. Prairie chicken 
populations exploded as these small crop 
fields were developed amidst the prairie and, 
by the latter portion of the 1860s, the birds 
inhabited all of eastern and southern Nebras-
ka. The 1860s and 1870s thus produced the 
largest prairie chicken population on record 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
for Nebraska, and numbers have not attained 
that level since nor likely ever will. 
Homesteaders were quick to capitalize on the 
overwhelming number of prairie chickens as 
they became a staple component of their diet. 
Initially, little was wasted and they harvested 
only what the family could consume because 
refrigeration was not yet available for long-
term storage of many birds. These settlers also 
relied on geese, ducks, snipe, and other water 
birds as a part of their diet. 
As soon as the railroads became established, 
the economic importance of the prairie chick-
en changed also, as eastern markets had cre-
ated a demand for this species. Market hunt-
ing soon became the primary occupation of 
the region and chickens were harvested by 
the thousands. It was not practical for a mar-
ket hunter to shoot and transport game more 
than 20 miles {32 km) from a railroad station. 
Even though many areas were not accessible 
to hunters, the harvest was still enormous. 
Aughey {1878) noted that it was comparative-
ly easy for a man with a trained dog to shoot 
from 50-200 chickens in a day in August, 
before the young were full grown and had 
become wary of man. Professor Aughey cited 
the following from the Omaha Republican 
newspaper dated 8 September 1865: "on the 
6th, Captain Hoagland's party bagged 422 
prairie chickens, 4 quails, 6 hawks, 1 duck, 
4 snipe, and 1 rabbit; total, 462. Captain 
Kennedy's party bagged 287 prairie chickens, 
2 quails, 8 hawks, 15 ducks, 6 snipe, and 
1 rabbit; total, 353. Excluding the 2 rabbits, 
the total number for 1 day by these 2 parties 
was 813 birds." He also cited the Omaha Her-
ald dated 1 0 September 1866: "A. Hoagland, 
esq., of Omaha, killed in 1 day 192 prairie 
chickens." 
Not only was harvest tremendous on an indi-
vidual or party basis, but regional and state-
wide figures were almost unbelievable. Augh-
ey {1878) estimated that at least 300,000 
prairie chickens were killed and shipped out 
of 30 eastern and southeastern Nebraska 
counties in 1874. A Lincoln dealer during the 
winter of 1875 shipped 19,000 prairie chick-
ens to eastern cities, principally Boston and 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
New York, during a 6-week period; approxi-
mately half of the shipment came from Lan-
caster County alone. A University Regent 
living in Tecumseh estimated from johnson 
County that Tecumseh and Sterling shipped 
6,500 and 3,500 chickens, respectively, dur-
ing the winter of 1874-75.1n addition to the 
1 0,000 birds shipped, it could easily be as-
sumed that at least 2,000 more birds were 
consumed in the county, as people generally 
survived on game that winter. A Pawnee City 
native estimated from the number of birds 
he knew were caught or shot that there must 
have been at least 20,000 prairie chickens 
harvested in 1874 in Pawnee County alone. 
Prairie chickens brought $4.00 per dozen 
from Chicago dealers, which indicates the 
economic importance of these birds to the 
people of the 1800s (Schildman and Miller 
1956). 
The massive exploitation of chickens by set-
tlers and market hunters was stymied consid-
erably during the mid-1870s by farmers, "ecol-
ogists," and the public. Survival of the prairie 
chicken was as economically important to 
the settlers as harvest. A devastating Rocky 
Mountain grasshopper invasion plagued the 
state in 1865 and continued through 1876. 
Prairie chickens, quail, blackbirds, and plovers 
proved beneficial to farmers due to their 
insectivorous habits and ability to consume 
approximately 150 locusts per day (Aughey 
1878). When locusts invaded the Republican 
Valley in 1874, prairie chickens seemed to 
abandon all other foods. Little other than lo-
custs was found in stomachs during a month 
(Aughey 1878), and judd {1905) found that 
grasshoppers constituted greater than 90% 
of animal foods taken by prairie chickens. 
Realizing the importance of this biological 
control agent, public sentiment in 1877 in-
duced the legislature to make prairie chicken 
trapping illegal and ban their local sale and 
shipment to eastern markets. Due to the eco-
nomic conditions of the period and lack of 
enforcement personnel, the law was basically 
ineffective and market hunting continued. 
During the late 1880s and early 1890s the 
state was marred by drought, which caused 
a further decline in the prairie chicken popula-
tion. Market hunting was allowed once again 
83 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
84 
since many people needed to make a living 
when crop production was poor. However, 
the decline in prairie chickens and other game 
gradually forced out market hunters until they 
practically disappeared by 1920. 
The 1900s marked a new era for prairie chick-
ens: expansion to new ranges, reduction of 
the population to near extinction, temporary 
closure of hunting seasons, and recovery of 
the population to the self-sustaining huntable 
populations that currently exist. Three events 
were primarily responsible for these changes 
in prairie chicken numbers: the Kinkaid Act of 
1904, World War I, and the drought of the 
middle 1930s. 
Prior to the Kinkaid Act, the Sandhills were 
virtually untouched by settlement and re-
mained an ocean of grassland. The Act al-
lowed homesteaders to claim Sandhill acreage 
and within a short period almost every section 
of land was occupied by a family (Viehmeyer 
1938). These farmers developed a patchwork 
of scattered fields in the meadows and river 
valleys of these expansive grasslands, which 
proved beneficial to prairie chickens. Where 
farm size averaged 608-1,215 acres (243-
486 ha), chicken numbers were most abun-
dant, because cultivated crops met winter 
food requirements and enough grassland re-
mained to meet roosting, breeding, and nest-
ing requirements (Mohler 1942). When more 
than a third of the natural grasslands were 
cultivated, prairie chicken numbers declined 
due to less desirable habitat conditions. 
Along with the expansion in the chicken 
range came market hunters and the wholesale 
slaughter of birds. Hunters had basically a 
365-day season, so it was inevitable that the 
species would be reduced from hundreds 
of thousands to only a small fraction of that 
number (Viehmeyer 1938). Also, automobiles, 
such as Ford models, became available 
around 1914 and made hunting for prairie 
chickens easier and faster with few areas of 
the Sandhills remaining inaccessible to the 
gun. By 1925, conditions had changed be-
cause area farms were too small to be self-
supporting. Farms soon failed, land holdings 
were consolidated into fewer and larger 
ranches with significant reductions in culti-
vation, and prairie chicken numbers dwindled 
correspondingly. 
The United States entered World War I in 
1917 and Nebraska contributed greatly to the 
food supply (Nebraska Legislative Council 
1981 ). The surplus food which supplied Amer-
ican soldiers and allies was produced in no 
small measure by Nebraska and surrounding 
states. This demand for grain brought the 
plow to much of the state's remaining grass-
lands outside the Sandhills, and even more of 
the prairie chicken range disappeared. By the 
mid-1920s, the number of prairie chickens in 
the state was perilously low and· complete 
protection from hunting came in 1929. 
Populations of prairie chickens and sharptails 
continued to decline during the 1930s, a 
period of drought often referred to as "The 
Great Depression" or "Dust Bowl" years. Fol-
lowing 1933, an influx of cattle came to the 
Sandhills from adjacent drought-stricken areas 
(Viehmeyer 1941 ). Ranges were stocked 
beyond their carrying capacity and vegetative 
cover was greatly reduced. Most nesting 
areas were denuded of cover, thus few birds 
were produced. Overgrazing continued until 
1937 and prairie grouse populations fell to an 
all-time low due to the lack of suitable grass-
land habitat. 
Mohler (1942) stated that the drought was 
" ... an angel in disguise, ... a lifesaver to 
the prairie chicken by causing an adjustment 
in farming practices which restored many 
Sandhill border counties to good chicken 
habitat." Important features of this restoration 
were improved grazing and range manage-
ment practices and consequent restoration 
of the grass, which coincided with the in-
crease in farm sizes. With 193 7 came the 
Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act that implemented rangeland 
improvement practices, such as deferred graz-
ing, to the Sand hills (Viehmeyer 1941 ). Nest-
ing cover soon became available on the range 
and prairie grouse populations began to re-
bound, saved from extinction. 
During the fall of 1937 while canvasing Logan 
County, Viehmeyer {1941) observed 219 prai-
rie chickens. Flocks were generally small, com-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
posed of a dozen birds or less, with the only 
large flock {-125 birds) observed along the 
South Loup River, west of Stapleton. In the fall 
of 1940, flocks of 25-150 birds were com-
mon and an estimate of the total county pop-
ulation was 1,200 or more birds. This amount-
ed to a 400% increase during the previous 3 
breeding seasons {1938-40, inclusive). 
In Holt, Rock, Brown, and Keya Paha coun-
ties, with 1,160 miles {1,931 km) of driving, 
53 prairie chickens and 9 sharp-tailed grouse 
were counted in the spring of 1935 (Viehmey-
er 1941 ). In the fall of 1940, approximately 
1,500 prairie chickens and 1,000 sharp-tailed 
grouse were estimated in the same area. 
Comparison of spring and fall counts provides 
an unrealistic rate of increase, but consulta-
tion with local farmers, ranchers, and sports-
men throughout the area indicated that a 
400-500% increase during the 6 breeding 
seasons was a reasonable estimate. 
The geographic distribution of prairie chickens 
has changed fairly dramatically with time in 
Nebraska, but has stabilized and varied only 
slightly in recent years. Even though the spe-
cies may have inhabited the entire state at 
one time {Fig. 1 ), its current range {Fig. 2) is 
associated with the Sandhills, particularly the 
eastern and southern edges, where grain 
crops have infiltrated the expansive grasslands 
(Johnsgard and Wood 1968). The greatest 
concentrations of prairie chickens occur in 
Holt, Rock, Garfield, and Wheeler counties, 
where rainfall averages 20.4 inches (51 em) or 
more a year. Prairie chickens have penetrated 
the Sandhills, principally following the river 
systems as they progressed northwestward 
into the interior of the hills. Fair numbers of 
birds inhabit the grasslands of the southwest-
ern portion of the state, as well as the south-
eastern counties along the Kansas border, 
which represent the northern limits of the 
large Flint Hills population (Johnsgard and 
Wood 1968). 
The Sandhills region is considered the largest 
sand-dune area in the Western Hemisphere 
{Keech and Bentall 1971) and one of the larg-
est grass- stabilized dune regions in the world 
(Bleed and Flowerday 1990). Situated in 
north-central Nebraska and extending a short 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure I. Approximate original and current distribution of the 
greater prairie chicken in North American (adapted from Johns-
gard 1973). 
Historic range 
Current range 
distance into South Dakota (Fig. 3), the region 
covers approximately 20,000 square miles 
{4,9987 km 2l, an area about 3 times the size 
of Massachusetts (Keech and Bentall 1971 ). 
Its east-west length is approximately 256 miles 
{426 km) and its north-south width about 125 
miles {209 km). Dunes are created by prevail-
ing winds and are generally oriented north-
west-southeast, with the higher, steeper hills 
to the west and the smaller rolling hills in the 
east. Dunes are as high as 403 feet {122 m), 
as long as 19 miles {32 km), and slopes an-
gling close to 25%. Deep, sandy upland soils 
Figure 2. Current range of the greater prairie chicken in 
Nebraska. 
u 
85 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 3. Extent of the Sandhills in Nebraska and South Dakota (Keech and Bentall1971). 
.103' 
I 
43'- I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
86 
IOZ' 101. 
formed from wind-deposited sand are well 
drained and vary in texture from loamy fine 
sand to fine sand (Bose 1977). Valley soils 
however, are deep, relatively poorly drained, 
and vary in texture from loam to fine sand. 
The Sandhills possess 5 range sites which in-
clude wetlands, subirrigated, sandy, sands, 
and choppy sands range sites (Burzlaff 1962, 
Stubbendieck 1990). Average annual precipi-
tation varies from 16-23 inches (41-58 em). 
Principal grass species occurring on sandy 
uplands are sand bluestem (Andropogon hal-
Iii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), 
prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), 
switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), sand love-
grass (Eragrostis trichodes), blue grama (Boute-
loua gracilis), and needle-and-thread (Stipa 
comata). Bottomlands usually contain prairie 
cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), big bluestem 
(Andropogon gerardii), switchgrass, indian-
grass (Sorghastrum nutans), little bluestem, 
reed grasses (Calamagrostis spp.), sedges (Car-
ex spp.), rushes (]uncus spp.), and bulrushes 
100' 99' 
4!' 
(Scirpus spp.). Shrubs including lead plant 
(Amorpha canescens), inland ceanothus 
(Ceanothus ovatus), sunshine rose (Rosa sufful-
ta), western sandcherry (Prunus besseyi), and 
small soapweed (Yucca glauca) occur along 
with miscellaneous forbs. 
The Sandhills are well suited for livestock pro-
duction, the main industry. Rangeland pastur-
ing on the grassy dunes represents roughly 
80% of the total land use (Miller 1990), fol-
lowed by wild hay production (1 0%), planted 
or cultivated crops (5%), woodland (2%), and 
water (1 %). The remaining 2% is farmsteads, 
ranchsteads, villages, small towns, roads and 
railways, and miscellaneous other uses. 
Ranches vary in size from 4,048-6,070 acres 
(1,619-2,428 ha) and utilize primarily cow/ 
calf operations with stocking rates varying 
from 10-15 acres (4-6 ha) per animal unit per 
year in the eastern part of the region to about 
30 acres ( 12 ha) per animal unit in the west-
ern part. Traditionally, pastures are grazed 
season-long, but in recent years the trend has 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
moved toward planned grazing systems, 
where several pastures are utilized on a rota-
tional basis throughout the growing season. 
Outside of the Sandhills, croplands are more 
prevalent and limit the distribution of prairie 
chickens. Cropland is important though as a 
winter food source and biologists suggest that 
populations are highest where 30% of the 
range is cultivated and 70% is native grass-
land (Farrar 1980). Smaller populations can be 
maintained on range consisting of 30-40% 
grassland, providing some of the grass is in 
large blocks. 
The prairie chicken range outside the Sand-
hills involves a larger percentage of cropland 
interspersed with rangeland and within coun-
ties, their distribution is associated with areas 
of more rangeland. In the southwest portion 
of the state, the landscape is composed of 
rolling sandhills, varying from 45-75% range-
land and 30-50% cropland, of which the 
main crop is irrigated corn. Progressing east-
ward, the sandy soils give way to predomi-
nantly loess and silt loam soils that range 
from 0-31% slopes. These counties generally 
lie along the Kansas border and vary from 
37-43% rangeland and 53-60% cropland. 
Both dryland and irrigated farming are prac-
ticed where principal crops are corn, winter 
wheat, grain sorghum, and alfalfa. The south-
east portion of the state contains a similar 
landscape with rolling hills, and steep hard-
wood draws. Grass species are similar to the 
Sandhills with big bluestem, switchgrass, indi-
angrass, and prairie cordgrass the dominant 
species. 
The development of center-pivot irrigation 
created new economic opportunities for land-
owners in the Sandhills. Installation of irrigat-
ed cropland to supplement the ranching oper-
ation is also advantageous to wildlife 
populations by creating more edge and habi-
tat diversity. However, excessive cropland 
development can have deleterious effects by 
reducing the quality of wildlife habitat. Con-
version from grassland to cropland was more 
extensive and regionalized and had an ad-
verse impact on the prairie chicken popula-
tion since most of the conversion occurred in 
the eastern portion of the Sandhills. The hills 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
were more gently sloping and more condu-
cive to center-pivot systems. The 16 counties 
comprising the bulk of the Sandhills had 
about 64,500 acres (25,800 ha) of irrigated 
cropland in 1965 and by 1978 the total had 
risen to 535,000 acres (214,000 ha) (Nebras-
ka Department of Agriculture 1980). Nearly 
85% of the converted area was concentrated 
in the 9-county prairie chicken range (Blaine, 
Brown, Garfield, Holt, Logan, Loup, McPher-
son, Rock, and Wheeler). 
Land use changes were documented on 10 
spring display ground routes for comparison 
with changes in the prairie grouse population. 
In 1968, non-grassland habitat comprised 
11% of the survey routes with a range of 
1-33%, while in 1978, non-grassland habitat 
comprised 26% of the routes and ranged 
from 2-66% (Robertson 1980). Routes were 
divided to represent eastern, central, and 
western portions of the Sandhills. The percent-
ages of total area consisting of non-grassland 
habitat increased with the eastern portion 
showing 43% non-grassland habitat in 1978 
compared to 21% in 1968. The central por-
tion increased to 20% non-grassland from 6% 
in 1968, while the western portion increased 
to 7% non-grassland from 2% in 1968. The 
average number of prairie grouse display 
grounds per route declined from 8.9 during 
1967-69 to 7.0 during 1977-79 and males 
per ground steadily increased from 8.1 during 
1967-69 to 8.9 during 1977-79. The increase 
in breeding males did not offset the general 
population decline. A noticeable change in 
the sharptail population was not detected. 
Major land use changes have not occurred 
in the Sandhills in recent years other than 
converting center pivot croplands back to 
grasslands through the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP) of the 1985 farm bill. 
Population estimates are often difficult to de-
vise for upland game bird populations, but the 
Sandhills lend themselves to projecting a real-
istic minimum estimate of the prairie chicken 
population. An estimate was derived by first 
determining square miles of prairie grouse 
range by county in the Sandhills. Range was 
then multiplied by a prairie grouse per square 
mile value derived by adding the males per 
square mile, obtained from 20-mile (32 km) 
87 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
88 
Figure 4. Estimated greater prairie chicken population in Nebraska, 1986-96. 
~~~--~---------- -. -- ----------------------------------------------
240,000 
r/1 
" 210,000 .!:::: 
.0 
-
180,000 0 
... 
Q) 150,000 
.0 
E 120,000 ::::1 
I: 
" 
90,000 Q) 
-ctl 60,000 
.5 
- 30,000 r/1 UJ 
0 
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 
spring display ground routes, plus females per 
square mile, plus production based on the 
subsequent fall juvenile per adult ratio in the 
harvest. The underlying assumptions for this 
value are that all males and display grounds 
were counted during peak activity, females 
were equally proportional to males in the 
spring, adult mortality was minimal prior to 
the breeding season, and production was 
similar across the entire prairie grouse range. 
The annual prairie grouse cooperator survey 
was used to determine the proportion of prai-
rie chickens or sharptails by county which, 
when applied to the total prairie grouse popu-
lation, gave an estimate of prairie chickens by 
county. The same proportion of chickens by 
county was used for all years estimated. Sum-
ming all counties in the prairie grouse range 
provided a population estimate. 
When comparing 1986 through 1996 esti-
mates, the state-wide prairie chicken popula-
tion reached its lowest level in 1992 with 
102,325 birds (Fig. 4). The year 1987 provid-
ed the highest population with nearly 219,700 
estimated birds and was probably one of the 
best populations in the past 25 years accord-
ing to local accounts. 
Population estimates for the southwest and 
southeast portions of the state are spurious 
because habitat is more fragmented and thus 
populations are often localized. A cursory 
examination has indicated their presence or 
absence within a county, but not densities. 
Census Procedures 
Each spring since 1955, the prairie chicken 
breeding population has been surveyed by 
conducting approximately 20 miles (32 km) 
of transect routes within the primary prairie 
grouse range. Currently, 13 routes are moni-
tored with prairie chickens generally occuring 
on all but 3 routes. Surveys commence 1 April 
and it is recommended that all route work be 
completed prior to the last week of April, 
which corresponds to the peak of courtship 
activity. Each route requires a listening and 
locating portion be performed, with recom-
mendations that listening runs occur 1-9 April 
and locating runs occur 10-20 April. 
The listening portion begins 45 minutes be-
fore sunrise when wind velocity is 10 miles/hr 
(16 km/hr) or less. The observer ascertains 
the approximate location of active display 
grounds by listening at 1 mile (1.6 km) inter-
vals for grouse booming and/or dancing 
activity. Display grounds are considered on 
transect and located if they are within 1 mile 
(1.6 km) of the transect route. Following the 
listening portion, display grounds either heard 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
or not heard but known to be active the previ-
ous 2 years are located and grouse present 
counted. Counts made with inactive birds and 
counts recorded >1 hour after sunrise are not 
considered during data analysis. Observers 
also estimate the number of grounds heard on 
transects but not located to determine total 
grounds on route. 
Total birds on a ground are counted and a 
historical weekly percent males value is ap-
plied to the total birds present to derive an 
estimate of the number of males present. By 
definition, the number of males present is the 
ground size. Percent males values were de-
rived from analysis of 20 years of "sexed" 
display ground data, and is used in ground 
size calculations to minimize time observing 
individual grounds. Thus, more grounds could 
be visited by observers. Only the maximum 
count for each ground is used for comparison 
with previous year's data. Once counts have 
been completed, display grounds are plotted 
on route maps that also convey other physical 
characteristics of the route. Grounds are as-
signed a number and each is dated for years 
that it was located. 
Breeding populations in the Sandhills have 
fluctuated during the past 16 years (Table 1) 
with total males on transect and average num-
ber of males attending grounds peaking in 
1988 and 1987, respectively. The prairie 
chicken population reached its lowest level 
during this period in 1982. Two reasons for 
the increase in prairie chickens could be the 
Conservation Reserve Program and the gradu-
al movement westward of prairie chickens 
into the Sandhills, thus the species has be-
come more prominent on routes that previ-
ously had few birds (e.g., Valentine National 
Wildlife Refuge). 
Prairie grouse hunting seasons have been a 
part of Nebraska's heritage for over a century 
(Table 2). Obtaining all season dates prior to 
1930 was difficult, but relatively liberal sea-
sons were utilized. After an extensive period 
of season closure, the prairie grouse season 
was opened again in 1950 with a season held 
every year except 1954 with various bag and 
possession limits. The current policy of estab-
lishing season dates is to start the season on 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
the Saturday closest to 15 September and end 
the last day of December. Figure 5 shows 
where hunting is currently permitted, in the 
Table 1. Prairie chicken males and boom-
ing grounds recorded from 13 spring 
prairie grouse routes in Nebraska's 
Sandhills, 1982-97. 
Booming Males/ 
Year Males a ground b ground 
1982 878.7 76 11.6 
1983 1 ,006.1 95 10.6 
1984 919.8 88 10.5 
1985 1,060.4 94 11.3 
1986 1,144.7 105 10.9 
1987 1,387.9 114 12.2 
1988 1,613.5 134 12.0 
1989 1,383.1 129 10.7 
1990 1,274.4 121 10.5 
1991 1,061.1 103 10.3 
1992 1,239.2 110 11.3 
1993 895.9 97 c 
1994 1,162.8 105 c 
1995 1,496.0 129 c 
1996 1,354.0 121 c 
1997 1,087.0 109 c 
a Male per ground value applied to grounds 
heard but not located per route and added to 
total males. 
b Grounds heard but not located are included. 
c Data not available. 
Figure 5. Location of area open to prairie grouse hunting in 
Nebraska. 
89 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 2. Season dates, length (days), and bag and pos-
area of Nebraska west of US Highway 81. 
Boundaries of areas open to prairie chicken 
session limits for sharp-tailed grouse hunting in Ne- hunting have changed through the years. 
braska, 1890-1997. 
Opening weekend courtesy roadside check 
Pas- stations, a grouse hunter cooperator survey, 
ses- and a hunter report card survey are used an-
Bag sian nually to collect information on hunter harvest 
Year Season dates Length limit limit and success, distribution of harvest, and spe-
cies, sex, and age ratios of prairie grouse. 
1890s 1 Sept. - 31 Dec.a 122 Unlim- Unlim- Courtesy roadside check stations are general-
(1 Oct.) or92 ited ited ly operated annually near the following towns 
1901 1 Oct. - 30 Nov. 61 25 50 in Nebraska: Bassett, Burwell, Ericson, Halsey 
1905 15 Sept. - 28 Feb. 182 25b 50 at the Bessey Division of Nebraska National 
1907 15 Sept. - 30 Nov. 76 25b 50 Forest, Taylor, and Valentine. Biologists col-
1909 1 Oct. - 30 Nov. 61 25 50 lect harvest and biological information on 
1911 1 Sept. - 30 Nov. 91 10 10 Saturday and Sunday of the opening weekend 
1912 1 Sept. - 30 Nov. 91 10 10 from 1 000 hours to dark. Mandatory road 
1913 1 Sept. - 30 Nov. 91 10 10 checks, conducted by law enforcement per-
1914 1 Sept. - 30 Nov. 91 10 10 sonnel, are randomly used along major high-
1915 1 Sept. - 30 Nov. 91 10 10 ways to stop all traffic and search all vehicles 
1916 1 Sept. - 30 Nov. 91 10 10 suspected of participating in hunting activities. 
1917 15 Sept. - 14 Nov. 61 10 10 One or 2 road checks are manned annually 
and provide some additional harvest and bio-
1920 15 Oct. - 14 Nov. 31 10 10 
logical data. 
1921 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 10 10 The grouse hunter cooperator survey entails 
1922 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 10 10 mailing wing questionnaire envelopes to avid 
1923 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 10 10 prairie grouse hunters. Each hunter is assigned 
1924 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 10 10 a number and asked to use 1 envelope per 
1925 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 10 10 hunting trip and deposit a wing tip containing 
1926 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 10 10 the outer primaries from each bird harvested, 
1927 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 5 5 and to record date, hours hunted, and county 
1928 1 Oct. - 31 Oct. 31 5 5 hunted, along with number of birds bagged. 
1930-1949 Closed Voluntary wing envelope boxes were placed 
at Bessey Division of Nebraska National For-
1950 10 Nov. - 12 Nov. 3 2 2 est, Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 
1951 10 Nov. - 12 Nov. 3 2 2 McKelvie National Forest, and Valentine Na-
1952 11 Oct. - 15 Oct. 5 3 3 tiona! Wildlife Refuge. Hunters were asked to 
1953 10 Oct. - 15 Oct. 6 3 3 respond to questions on wing envelopes, de-
1954 Closed posit a wing from each bird bagged in the 
1955 22 Oct. - 26 Oct. 5 2 2 envelope, and return envelopes to the boxes 
1956 13 Oct. - 21 Oct. 9 2 4 as they leave the area. 
1957 5 Oct. - 13 Oct. 9 2 4 
1958 1 Oct. - 12 Oct. 12 2 4 The hunter report card survey is used to ob-
1959 3 Oct. - 18 Oct. 16 4 8 tain information pertaining to the success of 
resident upland game hunters throughout the 
1960 1 Oct. - 15 Oct. 15 3 6 state. The mailing list for the survey question-
1961 7 Oct. - 29 Oct. 23 2 4 
naire was obtained from a random 5% sample 
1962 6 Oct. - 28 Oct. 23 2 4 
of residents who purchased small game hunt-
1963 5 Oct. - 31 Oct.(North) 27 2 4 ing permits during the preceding season. The calculation of total harvest represents a simple 
90 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
projection of harvest reported by respondents 
Table 2 (continued). to resident permit buyers. This survey does 
not include harvest by non-residents or those 
residents not required to buy a permit. Pos-
ses-
Bag sion 
Year Season dates Length limit limit 
Harvest and Hunting 
Pressure 26 Oct. - 31 Oct.(South) 6 2 4 
1964 3 Oct. - 1 Nov. 30 3 6 
Harvest statistics of prairie grouse are not 1965 18 Sept. - 31 Oct. 44 2 6 
available for years prior to 1952, since no 1966 17 Sept. - 31 Oct. 45 2 6 
game surveys were conducted and only gen- 1967 16 Sept. - 5 Nov. 51 3 6 
eral accounts of the populations and harvest 1968 21 Sept. - 17 Nov. 58 3 9 
were made. Also, harvest was rarely separated 1969 20 Sept. - 31 Oct. 42 2 4 
by species, thus the proportion of sharptails to 
prairie chickens could not be known, but 1970 3 Oct. - 15 Nov. 44 2 6 
based on historical accounts it is believed 1971 18 Sept. - 17 Oct. 30 2 6 
prairie chickens represented the bulk of the 1972 16 Sept. - 15 Oct. 30 2 6 
harvest. 1973 22 Sept. - 4 Nov. 44 3 6 
1974 21 Sept. - 3 Nov. 44 3 6 
During the past 45 years, hunters and harvest 1975 20 Sept. - 26 Oct. 37 3 6 
have varied according to the status of the 1976 18 Sept. 17 Oct. 30 2 4 
prairie grouse population (Table 3). The great- 1977 17 Sept. - 16 Oct. 30 2 6 
est harvest occurred in 1979 while the lowest 1978 16 Sept. - 29 Oct. 44 2 6 
harvest occurred in 1957. During the past 10 1979 15 Sept. - 4 Nov. 51 3 9 
years, approximately 16,060 hunters pursued 
prairie grouse annually and harvested approxi- 1980 20 Sept. - 11 Nov. 53 3 9 
mately 73,650 birds. Each hunter averaged 
3.7 days afield during the season, bagged 4.2 1981 19 Sept. - 15 Nov. 58 3 9 
birds a season, and usually retrieved 1.1 prai- 1982 18 Sept. - 14 Nov. 58 3 9 
rie grouse per day hunted. 1983 17 Sept. - 30 Nov. 75 3 9 
1984 15 Sept. - 30 Nov. 77 3 9 
The hunter report card survey gives a general 1985 21 Sept. - 30 Nov. 71 3 9 
account of hunters and harvest of prairie 1986 13 Sept. 30 Nov. 79 3 9 
grouse during the past 45 years, but lacks 1987 12 Sept. - 30 Nov. 80 3 9 
sensitivity in evaluating success by hunters. 1988 17 Sept. - 30 Nov. 75 3 9 
This is most likely due to projecting success 1989 16 Sept. - 30 Nov. 76 3 9 
from a 5% sample of all hunters. The volun-
tary roadside check stations and cooperator 1990 15 Sept. - 30 Nov. 77 3 9 
wing envelope surveys attained similar sue- 1991 14 Sept. - 30 Nov. 78 3 9 
cess ratios. 1992 12 Sept. - 30 Nov. 80 3 9 
. 1993 18 Sept. - 30 Nov. 74 3 9 
Hunters annually bagged an average of 1.34 1994 17 Sept. - 30 Nov. 75 3 9 
prairie grouse per day hunted, 0.29 prairie 1995 16 Sept. - 31 Dec. 107 3 9 
grouse per hour hunted, and their grouse har- 1996 14 Sept. 31 Dec. 109 3 12 
vest consisted of about 44% prairie chickens 1997 13 Sept. - 31 Dec. 110 3 12 
based on results from voluntary roadside 
check stations (Table 4). Poor success 
a Season opening date varied between 1 September and 1 Octo-achieved in 1985 was primarily due to rainy 
windy weather during the opening weekend ber during these years. 
rather than the status of the bird population. b Daily bag limit restricted to 10 birds during 2 weeks in September. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 91 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 3. Hunters, harvest, days hunted per hunter (Days/h), birds bagged per hunter 
during season (8/h), and birds bagged per day hunted (8/day) of sharp-tailed grouse 
and greater prairie chicken derived from Nebraska hunter report card survey, 1952-96. 
Year Hunters Days Harvest Days/h B/h B/day 
1952 12,955 22,955 45,083 1.77 3.48 1.96 
1953 No survey conducted 
1954 No survey conducted 
1955 7,057 11,715 15,313 1.66 2.17 1.31 
1956 7,170 12,260 14,015 1.71 1.95 1.14 
1957 7,010 10,445 8,538 1.49 1.22 0.82 
1958 11,106 26,654 44,090 2.40 3.97 1.65 
1959 18,000 41,040 73,100 2.28 4.06 1.78 
1960 18,600 39,990 52,600 2.15 2.83 1.32 
1961 17,000 42,500 53,700 2.50 3.16 1.26 
1962 17,000 42,500 45,300 2.50 2.66 1.07 
1963 20,700 89,010 56,000 4.30 2.71 0.63 
1964 19,400 56,260 87,200 2.90 4.49 1.55 
1965 16,500 47,850 53,000 2.90 3.21 1.11 
1966 16,100 43,470 48,600 2.70 3.02 1.12 
1967 16,200 55,566 61,600 3.43 3.80 1.11 
1968 18,300 62,403 81,200 3.41 4.44 1.30 
1969 17,500 53,100 47,200 3.03 2.70 0.89 
1970 13,800 42,642 46,800 3.09 3.39 1.10 
1971 15,500 44,950 48,100 2.90 3.10 1.07 
1972 18,600 55,800 73,300 3.00 3.94 1.31 
1973 20,800 64,480 78,500 3.10 3.77 1.22 
1974 20,900 68,970 77,560 3.30 3.71 1.12 
1975 13,870 38,836 45,910 2.80 3.31 1.18 
1976 14,090 42,270 47,030 3.00 3.34 1.11 
1977 13,190 43,527 51,440 3.30 3.90 1.18 
1978 20,770 78,965 116,126 3.80 5.59 1.47 
1979 21,694 84,184 116,303 3.88 5.36 1.38 
1980 21,701 83,004 112,461 3.82 5.18 1.35 
1981 20,520 76,381 97,804 3.72 4.77 1.28 
1982 21,901 89,995 102,369 4.11 4.67 1.14 
1983 No survey conducted 
1984 No survey conducted 
1985 21,300 75,391 76,898 3.54 3.61 1.02 
1986 18,587 70,667 76,809 3.80 4.13 1.09 
1987 20,195 75,007 98,875 3.71 4.90 1.32 
1988 19,228 67,813 82,633 3.53 4.30 1.22 
1989 18,549 60,237 71,345 3.25 3.85 1.18 
1990 15,805 52,163 58,679 3.30 3.71 1.12 
1991 17,205 61,896 69,229 3.60 4.90 1.12 
1992 14,341 52,311 47,207 3.70 3.30 0.90 
1993* 13,065 44,981 38,847* 3.19 2.76 0.86 
1994* 15,625 60,156 70,837* 3.85 4.59 1.23 
1995* 13,259 54,362 58,014* 4.10 4.40 1.07 
1996* 13,332 56,883 63,856* 4.30 4.80 1.12 
*Estimated value since data sets have not been "officially" analyzed. 
92 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The most rewarding opening weekend was 
in 1987 when hunters took nearly 2 birds per 
day, or about 0.5 birds per hour hunted. The 
least rewarding year for hunters was 1993 
when 2 years of unusually cold, wet weather 
during the brood-rearing season reduced 
production. 
Data from wing questionnaire envelopes sug-
gested that prairie chickens comprised 29% 
of the bag and cooperators averaged 1.44 
birds per day and 0.33 birds per hour hunted 
(Table 5). Once again, 1987 was the most 
successful year in recent times for prairie 
grouse hunters while 1993 was the poorest. 
The difference in proportion of prairie chick-
ens between voluntary check stations and 
cooperators is explained primarily by differ-
ences in the geographic distribution of check 
stations versus cooperators. 
Age ratios of prairie chickens averaged slightly 
lower from wings submitted by cooperators 
throughout the season compared to the open-
ing weekend (Table 6). Prairie chickens aver-
aged 1.77 juveniles per adult from cooperator 
wings compared to 1.95 juveniles per adult 
during the opening weekend. 
Species Needs 
The habitat complexes available to prairie 
chickens in Nebraska are unique compared 
to other regions within their occupied range, 
primarily attributed to the unique topographic 
and spatial qualities of the Sandhills. Prairie 
chickens generally inhabit extensive areas 
of tall and mixed prairie grasses intermingled 
with cultivated fields, primarily corn, which 
is approximately 30% of the total area. Thus, 
prairie chickens are a species of the periphery 
of the Sand hills. 
Range management practices generally dic-
tate the seasonal suitability of Sandhills grass-
lands to prairie chickens. Nest site selection 
is based on the presence of dense, residual 
vegetative cover. Blus and Walker (1966) 
found the height of nesting cover varied from 
3.8-9.2 inches (9.4-22.9 em) with an average 
slightly over 5.1 inches (12.7 em). Residual 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 4. Harvest, percent prairie chicken, birds bagged 
per day hunted (8/day), and birds bagged per hour hunt-
ed (8/hr) of prairie grouse sampled at 6 voluntary road-
side check stations in Nebraska, 1982-97. 
%Prairie Hunter success 
Year Hunters Harvest a chicken B/day 
1982 723 1,392 41 1.39 
1983 750 1,725 48 1.53 
1984 630 1,408 40 1.56 
1985 618 632 43 0.75 
1986 408 921 49 1.71 
1987 611 1,788 36 1.98 
1988 640 1,281 50 1.36 
1989 626 1,319 43 1.48 
1990 577 1,158 55 1.34 
1991 645 1,496 44 1.50 
1992 559 956 39 1.10 
1993 484 600 36 0.80 
1994 909b 1,365 40 1.50 
1995 942b 908 54 0.96 
1996 723b 763 44 1.06 
1997 704b 944 48 1.34 
a Plains sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie chicken. 
b Hunter days compared to hunters. 
c Information not available. 
cover over 3.0 inches (7.6 em) comprised 
4.8-28.0% of the vegetation encountered 
during the pasture transects. Principal plant 
species forming nest canopies were sand 
lovegrass (Eragrostis trichodes), little bluestem 
(Schizachyrium scoparium) and prairie sand-
reed (Calamovilfa longifolia). Nearly all nests 
were located in pastures of excellent to good 
range condition, with 15.5% of the nests in 
prairies not used for 2 successive years. Many 
nests were located in prairies receiving mod-
erate to full livestock use. Nesting cover is 
probably of lower quality in the major chicken 
range compared to the interior of the San-
d hills primarily due to overgrazing and over-
mowing (Bius 1963). 
Grassland conditions are also important dur-
ing fall and winter. Loafing and roosting cover 
consisted of stands of mixed grasses. Stems 
B/hr 
0.29 
0.31 
0.31 
0.16 
0.34 
0.41 
0.29 
0.35 
0.28 
0.32 
0.22 
0.19 
c 
c 
c 
c 
93 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 5. Number of cooperators, harvest, percent prairie 
chicken, birds bagged per day hunted (8/day), and birds 
bagged per hour hunted (B/hr) of prairie grouse derived 
from cooperator wing questionnaire envelopes in Ne-
braska, 1983-96. 
Coop- %Prairie Hunter success 
Year erators a Harvestb chicken B/day B/hr 
1983 81 2,215 13 1.47 0.37 
1984 68 1,871 17 1.44 0.35 
1985 57 1,483 19 1.38 0.32 
1986 68 2,208 21 1.46 0.31 
1987 68 3,266 25 1.74 0.41 
1988 77 2,140 34 1.44 0.32 
1989 70 1,609 32 1.49 0.31 
1990 71 1,499 38 1.35 0.27 
1991 68 1,931 34 1.59 0.37 
1992 63 1,492 23 1.25 0.29 
1993 68 1,167 30 1.16 0.28 
1994 Not available 
1995 51 552 53 1.56 0.32 
1996 53 453 42 1.43 0.39 
a Includes only participating cooperators and not their hunting 
companions. 
b Plains sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairie chicken. 
94 
over 24.4 inches (61.0 em) in height were 
found to be 9 times more numerous on the 
area used by prairie chickens than were found 
on adjacent heavily grazed areas (Mohler 
1952). Fairly dense cover extending from 
12.2-24.4 inches (30.4-61.0 em) was 5 times 
more prevalent in pastures used by the birds. 
Dense understory or litter layer of 8.6 inches 
(21.6 em) or more in height was preferred 
as loafing and roosting areas. Heavily grazed 
pastures deficient of tall grass cover and inad-
equate understory were avoided by prairie 
chickens. 
Home ranges during the fall generally did 
not exceed 0.7 miles (1.2 km) from the flush-
ing point (Mohler 1952). The distance from 
night roosting sites to feeding areas varied 
from 0.1-0.7 miles (0.2-1.2 km). Presence 
of winter feeding areas near roosting areas 
appeared to be an important factor in deter-
mining whether an area will be occupied by 
prairie chickens, but a suitable food source 
alone will not ensure an area will be occu-
pied. Adequate grassland cover must also be 
available. 
Public Needs 
The Sandhills are primarily under private own-
ership, thus hunting opportunities for prairie 
grouse are generally obtained by dealing with 
individual landowners. This is particularly true 
with hunting the major prairie chicken range. 
Access to private lands may be difficult during 
the opening 2 weekends of the prairie grouse 
season, but generally landowners are recep-
tive to hunters. 
Scattered state wildlife management areas 
exist within the region, but offer limited op-
portunity for harvesting prairie chickens. 
These areas are few in number and contain 
principally deer, turkey, waterfowl, and pheas-
ant habitat rather than prairie grouse habitat. 
The only wildlife management area (WMA) 
that offers a reasonable opportunity for bag-
ging a prairie chicken is the Calamus Reser-
voir WMA. State public hunting lands could 
be expanded by allowing public hunting on 
Board of Education lands. An access program 
to these school lands, which are leased to 
private individuals, would greatly enhance 
hunting opportunity. 
Federal lands provide hunting opportunities 
in the Sandhills, but unfortunately are situated 
primarily in the sharp-tailed grouse range 
rather than the prairie chicken range. These 
.federal lands (totaling 327,383 acres [130,953 
ha]) consist of 2 national wildlife refuges 
(NWR) and 2 tracts administered by the U.S. 
Forest Service. Valentine NWR contains 
72,353 acres (28,941 ha) of primarily grass-
lands interspersed with wetlands, on which 
approximately 15% of the prairie grouse har-
vest is prairie chickens. Bessey Division of 
the Nebraska National Forest contains 91,503 
acres (36,601 ha) of primarily grasslands, on 
which approximately 20% of the prairie 
grouse harvest is prairie chickens. Crescent 
Lake NWR contains 46,535 acres (18,614 ha) 
of habitat similar to the Valentine NWR, and 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
McKelvie National Forest contains 116,993 
acres (46,797 ha) of primarily grasslands with 
a small forested area. Primary harvest on both 
areas is sharptails. 
Viewing blinds are placed on several of the 
federal lands to observe the spring courtship 
ritual of the prairie chicken. Prairie chicken 
blinds are located at Fort Niobrara NWR and 
Bessey Division of the Nebraska National 
Forest. School field trips, youth group activi-
ties, and adult education programs could en-
joy a spectacular outdoor and cultural experi-
ence by visiting these early morning displays 
on the booming grounds. 
Management Needs 
Prairie chicken populations are a product of 
the environment they inhabit, thus the quality 
and quantity of habitat is important. Various 
successional stages of the plant community 
are desired to fulfill the life requirements of 
chickens, but the primary limiting factor in the 
Sandhills for growth in the population is se-
cure nesting cover. Since ranching is the main 
industry of the region, range management for 
livestock production takes precedence over 
prairie grouse production. Maintaining a cli-
max plant community in excellent range con-
dition, desirable for nesting prairie chickens is 
not always accomplished when livestock pro-
duction is the primary objective. Ranchers can 
generally attain higher sustained yields of live-
stock from range in excellent condition. Over-
stocking the range may contribute to long-
term declines in range condition and 
productivity, which in turn reduces nesting 
cover and deteriorates shrubby cover utilized 
by broods. 
Sisson (1975) provided several recommenda-
tions to optimize sharp-tailed grouse habitat 
in Nebraska which would also prove benefi-
cial to prairie chickens: 
1. Limit annual utilization of forage to no 
more than 50% of new growth; reduce 
utilization if forage does not consist of at 
least 75% climax species until that compo-
sition is reached. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
2. Use a deferred rotation with 2 pastures on 
a last out, first-in schedule. Maintain pas-
tures of 1,295 acres (518 ha) or more with 
adequate water and salt distribution. 
3. Regulate grazing to allow approximately 
15% of each pasture grazed to remain un-
used each season. 
4. Winter-graze pastures dominated by chop-
py sands sites when feasible. 
5. Ensure adequate woody cover. 
Leonard McDaniel (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, personal communication) has been 
active with sharp-tailed grouse and prairie 
Table 6. Juveniles per adult (juv/ad) and juveniles per 
adult female (juv/ad F) age ratios of prairie chicken ob-
tained from voluntary roadside check stations and co-
operator wing questionnaire envelopes in Nebraska, 
1978-97. 
Voluntary check station Wing cooperators 
Year Sample Juv/ad Juv/ad F Sample Juv/ad 
1978 175 4.00 5.60 324 2.95 
1979 156 1.47 3.14 381 2.18 
1980 174 1.46 3.92 449 1.52 
1981 167 1.21 2.19 301 1.61 
1982 225 1.84 3.20 a a 
1983 246 1.89 4.13 273 1.57 
1984 166 2.25 4.42 301 1.77 
1985 166 1.44 2.88 258 1.49 
1986 294 2.61 4.74 443 2.68 
1987 246 2.32 5.38 769 2.49 
1988 208 1.36 2.22 692 1.40 
1989 186 1.45 2.62 499 1.40 
1990 164 1.25 1.90 531 1.21 
1991 236 1.81 3.23 643 2.26 
1992 145 1.27 2.19 332 0.98 
1993 152 3.30 5.10 332 2.07 
1994 478 2.57 a a a 
1995 441 1.27 a 250 0.70 
1996 275 1.81 a 191 1.17 
1997 305 2.35 a b b 
a Data not available. 
b Analysis not yet complete. 
95 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
96 
chicken management since 1972, primarily 
evaluating grassland management practices 
for wildlife on the Valentine NWR. If grazing 
is the primary land management tool utilized, 
McDaniel recommends delaying grazing of 
undisturbed cover until after the nesting sea-
son, which corresponds to late June or early 
July. During the following spring, enter the 
last pasture grazed the preceding year first 
for a short duration generally through May. 
Rest the pasture for the remainder of the year 
and through the nesting season of the suc-
ceeding year. Maintaining this sequence in-
corporates rest periods for plant regrowth 
and ensures suitable nesting cover for prairie 
grouse. 
Generally, several grazing strategies are avail-
able to manage for prairie grouse habitat. 
Maintenance of some cover in all pastures is 
desirable and can be accomplished through 
stocking rates, pasture size, period of grazing 
use, and distribution of livestock. Shrubs and 
other woody cover are utilized by broods and 
loafing adults, thus protection of these acres 
through fenced enclosures or minimal live-
stock use is desirable. 
Hay meadows are considered ideal habitat for 
prairie chickens and are generally hayed for 
livestock production. It would be desirable to 
stop mowing after 1 August to allow sufficient 
regrowth for spring nesting. The ideal mowing 
period would be 1-15 July, but the alternative 
of 1 July-1 August would provide nesting 
habitat. Raising the mow bar would be anoth-
er option to help maintain warm-season grass-
es. If meadows are grazed, chickens would 
benefit most by a spring graze followed by 
2-3 years of rest. 
Prescribed burning may be used as a manage-
ment tool in the Sandhills, but with caution 
due to the fragile nature of the soils. Erosion 
could be a potential problem if adequate 
moisture to stimulate regrowth is not avail-
able. Fire is less of an erosion problem in 
meadows compared to upland sites. 
Cropland, primarily that devoted to corn, 
adjacent to quality grasslands is desirable for 
winter feeding areas. Prairie chickens general-
ly inhabit areas associated with cropland over 
areas without cropland. Cultivated areas 
should not exceed 30%. 
Research Needs 
The life histories of the prairie chicken and 
sharp-tailed grouse are much more difficult 
to understand and observe than most other 
upland game bird species. Their dependence 
on expanses of grasslands creates for them 
a content, solitary, remote existence. Under-
standing and assessing the intricate factors 
that affect their survival places constraints 
on evaluating fluctuations in the population. 
Prairie chickens thrive on the periphery of 
the Sandhills of Nebraska and provide many 
hours of recreational opportunity, yet many 
questions remain as to why they abound or 
decline. 
Research should continue to address nesting 
requirements in the Sandhills. Intensive grass-
land management has affected many wildlife 
species including prairie chickens. Various 
planned grazing systems are being utilized 
in the Sandhills, thus addressing the positive 
or negative impacts on prairie chicken nesting 
success should be studied. How many pas-
tures and how big? What sequence of live-
stock rotation? When should you graze? What 
stocking rates under various rotations should 
be utilized? Also, relative to nesting success, 
what role does nest fidelity play in prairie 
chicken ecology? What types of nesting habi-
tat do juvenile females select versus adult 
females? At what spatial scale do hens select 
patches of cover? 
A considerable amount of research should 
emphasize brood habitat and brood survival. 
A major obstacle confronting managers is 
forecasting pre-hunt population levels. Gener-
ally, spring booming ground routes provide 
reliable information concerning the breeding 
population, but cannot be used to project 
productivity and hence fall populations. The 
problem relates to obtaining estimates of pro-
duction and brood survival. Research should 
therefore concentrate on climatic and physi-
cal factors affecting productivity (i.e. nest suc-
cess and chick survival). Knowledge of these 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
relationships (if present) would help managers 
forecast regional fall population sizes without 
the benefit of reliable brood counts, which 
are often difficult to obtain. 
Finally, past research has indicated that pred-
ators influence nesting success on sharptails. 
Coyotes appear to be the major nest preda-
tor, but relatively little is known about how 
predators affect survival and productivity of 
prairie chickens in the Sandhills. 
Recommendations 
It is recommended that the following ideas 
and proposals be pursued to expand existing 
knowledge of prairie chicken ecology in Ne-
braska: 
1. Continue spring booming ground routes in 
the Sandhills and develop new routes in 
the primary prairie chicken range. 
2. Further evaluate prairie chicken nesting 
ecology with emphasis on the suitability of 
habitat. 
3. Evaluate how planned grazing systems 
affect prairie chicken populations and de-
velop a grazing strategy which enhances 
chicken populations while maintaining the 
goals of individual ranching operations. 
4. Determine brood habitat requirements and 
assess biotic and abiotic factors affecting 
nest success and brood survival. 
5. Establish and evaluate brood routes or 
prairie chicken observation routes during 
the summer to develop an index of pro-
duction which will help make projections 
of fall populations. 
6. Continue all current surveys to monitor 
success of the fall hunting seasons. 
7. Develop a model depicting prairie chicken 
ecology in the Sandhills. 
8. Evaluate population levels and range ex-
pansion for prairie chickens outside the 
primary range. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Literature Cited 
Aughey, C. 1878. Some facts and consider-
ations concerning the beneficial work of birds. 
Pages 338-350 in U.S. Entomological Com-
mission Annual Report. 
Beck, J.V. 1957. The greater prairie chicken 
in history. Nebraska Bird Review 25:8-12. 
Bleed, A. and C. Flowerday. 1990. Introduc-
tion. Pages 1-15 in A.Bieed, and C. Flower-
day, editors. An atlas of the sandhi/Is. Univer-
sity of Nebraska Conservation and Survey 
Division, Resource Atlas Sa, University of 
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 
Blus, L.J., 1963. Land-use trends and prairie 
grouse in the Nebraska Sandhi/Is. Abstract 
of paper presented at 25th Midwest Wildlife 
Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 
___ _, and J.A. Walker. 1966. Progress 
report on the prairie grouse nesting study in 
the Nebraska Sandhills. Nebraska Bird Review 
34:23-30. 
Bose, D.R. 1977. Rangeland resources of 
Nebraska. Society for Range Management, 
Scottsbluff, Nebraska, USA. 
Buechler, A.F., and E.J. Barr. 1920. History of 
Hall County. Western Publishing and Engrav-
ing, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 
Burzlaff, D.F. 1962. A soil and vegetation 
inventory and analysis of three Nebraska sand-
hills range sites. University of Nebraska Re-
search Bulletin 206. 
Farrar, J. 1980. In quest of the prairie hen. 
Nebraska/and 58:30-35, 46-48. 
Johnsgard, P.A., and R.E. Wood. 1968. Distri-
butional changes and interactions between 
prairie chickens and sharp-tailed grouse in the 
Midwest. Wilson Bulletin 80:173-188. 
Johnsgard, P.A. 1973. Grouse and quail of 
North America. University of Nebraska Press, 
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 
Judd, S.D. 1905. The grouse and wild turkeys 
97 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
98 
of the United States, and their economic val-
ue. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Biological 
Survey Bulletin 24:10-18. 
Keech, C.F., and R. Bentall. 1971. Dunes on 
the plains: The sandhi/Is region of Nebraska. 
University of Nebraska Conservation and Sur-
vey Division Resource Report 4. 
Miller, S.M. 1990. Land development and use. 
Pages 207-226 in Bleed, A. and C. Flower-
day, editors. An atlas of the sandhi/Is. Universi-
ty of Nebraska Conservation and Survey Divi-
sion Resource Atlas Sa. 
Mohler, L.L. 1942. How farm and settlement 
affects Nebraska's prairie chickens. Outdoor 
Nebraska 20:8-9, 23. 
____ . 1952. Fall and winter habits of 
prairie chickens in southwest Nebraska. jour-
nal of Wildlife Management 16:9-23. 
Nebraska Department of Agriculture. 1980. 
Nebraska agricultural statistics, annual report 
1978-1979, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 
Nebraska Legislative Council. 1981. Nebraska 
blue book 1980-1981. Volume 33. joe Chris-
tensen, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. 
Parkman, F. 1922. The Oregon Trial: Sketches 
of prairie and Rocky Mountain life. Little, 
Brown, and Co., Boston, Massachusetts, USA 
Robertson, K. 1980. Changes occurring in Ne-
braska's prairie grouse range. Pages 52-54 in 
P.A Vohs and F.L. Knopf, editors. Proceedings 
of the Prairie Crouse Symposium. Oklahoma 
State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA 
Schildman, G., and H.W. Miller. 1956. The 
past history and present status of prairie chick-
ens in Nebraska. Central Mountains and Plains 
Section, The Wildlife Society Conference. Un-
published manuscript. 
Sisson, L.H. 1975. Recommendations for man-
agement of sharp-tailed grouse in the Nebras-
ka Sandhi/Is. Nebraska Game and Parks Com-
mission, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA 
Stubbendieck, J. 1990. Range management. 
Pages 227-233 in A Bleed and C. Flowerday, 
editors. An atlas to the sandhi/Is. University of 
Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division 
Resource Atlas Sa. 
Swenk, M.H. 1935. Period of the explorations 
of the early nineteenth century (1804-1854): 
The Lewis and Clark expedition. Nebraska 
Bird Review 3:115-125. 
Viehmeyer, G. 1938. Is the prairie chicken 
passing? Nebraska Bird Review 6:25-28. 
----· 1941. The present status of the 
greater prairie chicken and sharp-tailed grouse 
in the sandhill region of Nebraska. Nebraska 
Bird Review 9:1-7. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Population Status and 
Distribution of Greater Prairie 
Chickens in Colorado 
Kenneth M. Giesen, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins 
Michael A. Schroeder, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
Bridgeport 
Historical Review 
Greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupi-
do pinnatus), hereafter referred to as "prairie 
chickens," may have inhabited portions of 25 
states and 4 Canadian provinces at their maxi-
mum distribution in North America following 
European settlement (Schroeder and Robb 
1993). They may not have been native to 
Colorado, however, as Cooke (1897) did 
not record them, and later (Cooke, 1898) 
contended that habitats west of Ogallala, 
Neb., (about 25 miles [40 km] northeast of 
Colorado), were not suitable for prairie chick-
ens. The first documented observation was 
reported in 1897 near the present location of 
julesburg in Sedgwick County (Sclater 1912). 
By 1900, this species was reported as "not 
an uncommon breeder" (Cooke 1900) near 
Wray in Yuma County. There is evidence that 
prairie chickens responded positively to grain 
agriculture and markedly expanded their 
range westward into Colorado with settle-
ment (Schorger 1944, Beck 1957, Christisen 
1969, Horak 1985). The farthest westward 
documentation of prairie chickens in Colo-
rado was in 1907 when a nest was found 
near Barr Lake in Adams County (Hersey 
and Rockwell 1909). Prairie chickens appar-
ently occurred in at least 7 and perhaps 9-11 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
counties in northeastern Colorado (Fig. 1) 
from 1897 to the mid-1930s (Evans and Gil-
bert 1963, Christisen 1969, Van Sant and 
Braun 1990). This range is generally consid-
ered the maximum historical range of greater 
prairie chickens in Colorado (Aldrich and 
Duvall 1955). 
Throughout the 1930s, prairie chicken popu-
lations and distribution declined in Colorado. 
The hunting season was closed initially in 
1929-32 and permanently in 1937. This rapid 
population decline prompted a study to esti-
mate the total number of prairie chickens in 
the state. Swope (1953), using winter flock 
counts in Yuma County, estimated a total 
population of 2,835 prairie chickens in Colo-
rado. He repeated this census in the spring 
by counting birds on booming grounds and 
reported a similar estimate of 2000 prairie 
chickens. Using anecdotal evidence, Swope 
(1953) concluded that prairie chicken num-
bers had increased in Colorado between 
1949 and 1952. However, he examined rela-
tively few leks (n = 20) and assumed a male-
biased sex ratio (1 male: 0.77 females) to 
estimate female numbers. 
It is possible that from 1949 to 1952 the trend 
of increasing prairie chicken numbers repre-
99 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 1. Changes in distribution of greater prairie chickens in Colorado from 1930 to 1984. 
100 
1930 
WYOMING I NEBRASKA 
X s.?' X X 
P\. 
LARI )fu 
-
BOU 
)< (),. JEFFE 
DOUGI.Ai KANS 
TEUE~ ELPASO ~ :.:;::::::_ 
FREMO ~ PUEBLO c~ 
1963 
WYOMING 
LARIME 
WELD 
KIT CARSON 
KANSAS 
CHEYENNE 
KIOWA 
sented recovery of the population after the 
dramatic decline during the 1930s. Aldrich 
and Duvall (1955) suggested that the 1955 
range of prairie chickens was still large in Col-
orado, relative to the "historical" range. Even 
though Aldrich and Duvall (1955) likely over-
estimated Colorado prairie chicken habitat, 
their study, and surveys conducted by Swope 
1955 
WYOMING I NEBRASKA 
COL ORAD~ 
.J< 
l.ARIME 
WELD 
I 
-
:::: 
BOUL ER ·::. 
-
/'DAM ;:... .::::· 
DENVEA ~. 
JEFFE p,scJ[W'AHO .·. 
DOUGIJI 
ELBERT \c 
KANS 
TJ 
ELPASO 
...... ~ 
'.:c=. 
FREMO ~ CRO~ )< PUEBLO 
1984 
WYOMING NEBRASKA 
COLORADO LOGAN 
LARIME 
WELD 
MORGAN 
KIT CARSON 
KANSAS 
UNCOLNI-------1 
ELPASO CHEYEI*jE 
PUEBLO CRO KIOWA 
{1953), indicated that the state population of 
prairie chickens was well over 2,000 in the 
early 1950s. 
By 1963, the Colorado population of prairie 
chickens had reportedly declined to 700-800 
(Evans 1964). Total population estimates for 
the 1963 census were extrapolated from ex-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
ami nation of a small amount of Colorado's 
prairie chicken habitat (mostly the northern 
half of Yuma County). Also, the population 
estimate was based on the assumptions of 
1 DO% male lek attendance and detectability, 
and an equal sex ratio (booming ground 
counts rarely differentiated between males 
and females). Even so, the decline in both lek 
numbers (20 to 1 D) and the number of birds 
per lek (25 to 7), indicated the population 
likely decreased markedly between 1952 and 
1963. In 1973, the population was still low, an 
estimated 600 birds, and the Colorado Wild-
life Commission declared the prairie chicken 
an endangered species in Colorado (Graul 
1975). The overall trend of declining popula-
tions and increasingly fragmented distribution 
since the 1930s (Fig. 1) resulted in the Colo-
rado Division of Wildlife increasing research 
and management efforts on prairie chickens. 
Recent Management and 
Reintroduction Programs 
Beginning in 1978, upland portions of the 
Tamarack State Wildlife Area, along the North 
Platte drainage in Logan county, have been 
managed for prairie chickens through reseed-
ing native warm-season grasses and pre-
scribed burning (Hoffman 1985). Although 
the Tamarack prairie once may have com-
prised part of prairie chicken range as recently 
as 1963, sightings near this area prior to trans-
planting were infrequent and no booming 
grounds were located. A reintroduction of 
prairie chickens from Yuma County to the 
Tamarack State Wildlife Area was conducted 
in late March and early April of 1984 when 36 
(20 females, 16 males) were released. An ad-
ditional 40 birds (25 females, 15 males) birds 
were released at this site in 1985 (Hoffman 
1985). A supplemental release of 24 prairie 
chickens (13 females, 11 males) occurred in 
April 1990. All released birds were banded 
and several were radio-marked to document 
movements, nest success, and survival. Fol-
lowing the transplants, about 40 booming 
grounds were located and in 1996-97 at least 
18 booming grounds were active. This popu-
lation of prairie chickens expanded its range 
from Sterling to Sedgwick south of the Platte 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
River with 1998 population estimates exceed-
ing 300 to 400 birds. 
Additional transplants of prairie chickens in 
Colorado occurred during the early 1990s. 
Prairie chickens were trapped on booming 
grounds in Cowley County, Kansas, and trans-
planted to the Well's Ranch in western Weld 
County in April 1991 (23 females, 27 males) 
and April 1992 (27 females, 23 males) (Beau-
prez 1994). Additional birds (21 females, 20 
males) were trapped in spring near Wray in 
Yuma County and released in the same gener-
al area in April 1993. Three booming grounds 
were located in 1991 and 1992 following the 
release, with a total of 16 and 14 males identi-
fied, respectively (Beauprez 1994). Despite 
the release of additional birds at this site in 
1993, no additional booming grounds were 
located. Surveys conducted since 1994 found 
few birds suggesting that a population of prai-
rie chickens did not become established at 
this site. 
Another transplant of prairie chickens was 
conducted in 1991-92 when birds trapped 
on booming grounds in Yuma County were 
released in Washington County (Beauprez 
1994). Forty-three birds (23 females, 20 
males) were released in April 1 991 and 41 
birds (22 females, 19 males) were released 
in April 1992. Five booming grounds with 22 
males were located following the 1991 re-
lease and 6 booming grounds (30 total males) 
were located in 1992 (Beauprez 1994). At 
least 8 active booming grounds were located 
in 1996-97 and this transplant appeared suc-
cessful. Population estimates in 1998 for this 
population were 1 DO to 200 birds. 
Current Population and 
Distribution 
Prairie chickens presently occur in Yuma, Phil-
lips, Washington, Logan, Sedgwick, Morgan, 
and Weld counties (Fig. 2). The core popula-
tion in Yuma, Washington, and Phillips coun-
ties is currently estimated at 8,000 to 1 0,000 
birds and is judged to be stable or increasing. 
The population resulting from the Tamarack 
transplant is estimated at 300 to 400 birds 
101 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
and continues to expand its range. The more 
recent transplants have not markedly in-
creased the overall populations in Colorado 
although the Washington County transplant 
appears successful. 
Prairie chicken abundance and distribution 
are closely tied to land-use practices, and 
the conversion of some grain fields to warm-
season grasses under the Conservation Re-
serve Program likely was partially responsible 
for the increasing populations and expanded 
range of the species in Colorado. While the 
stability of current farming and grazing pro-
grams and practices cannot be predicted 
with certainty, it is likely that prairie chicken 
populations in Colorado will exist at current 
levels in the short-term. 
Figure 2. Current distribution of greater prairie chickens in 
Colorado. 
WELD 
MORGAN 
102 
NEBRASKA 
LOGAN 
WASHINGTON YUMA 
@ 199BRANGE 
0 INTRODUCED POPULATIONS 
Harvest and Hunting 
Pressure 
KANSAS 
Prairie chickens have not been legally hunted 
in Colorado since 1936. Their increasing pop-
ulations and expanded distribution has result-
ed in recent efforts to change their status 
from state endangered (non-game) to a game 
species. While most hunters (88%) and non-
hunters (71 %) would support limited hunting 
of this species if the Colorado Division of 
Wildlife determined populations were large 
enough to accommodate a harvest (Braun 
et al. 1994), most landowners having popula-
tions of prairie chickens are not in favor of 
hunting at this time. In May 1998, the Wildlife 
Commission voted to remove the greater prai-
rie chicken from the state list of threatened 
and endangered species and classify it as non-
game wildlife. Until this species is reclassified 
as a game species, it may not be hunted in 
Colorado. 
Species Needs 
The history of prairie chickens has been 
closely tied to the agricultural practices of 
pioneer and present day farmers/ranchers 
(Beck 1956). Prairie chickens are almost en-
tirely restricted to private lands in Colorado, 
and thus, their future is largely dependent 
upon private land management practices. 
Emphasis needs to be placed on the preser-
vation and proper management of prairie 
chicken habitat in Colorado. Prairie chicken 
habitat in the state of Colorado is unique 
when compared with typical prairie chicken 
habitat in other parts of North America. For 
appropriate prairie chicken management in 
Colorado, additional research is needed on 
seasonal food habits and nutritional require-
ments, roosting cover, breeding, nesting, and 
brood habitat. 
Additionally, special efforts need to be made 
to communicate habitat requirements of prai-
rie chickens to private landowners. Generally, 
most landowners within prairie chicken range 
are interested in prairie chickens and view 
them with a source of pride and nostalgia. 
However, changes in land use practices are 
slow to take hold in difficult economic times 
and incentives may be needed to compensate 
private landowners and managers for imple-
menting habitat management practices bene-
ficial to prairie chickens. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Public Needs 
There is increasing demand from the public 
(naturalists, bird-watchers, and/or photogra-
phers) to observe prairie chickens on boom-
ing grounds during spring. The Wray Museum 
in Yuma County sponsors 3-4 weekend pub-
lic tours (including evening programs, access 
to an observation blind on private land, and 
breakfast) each spring and always sells out in 
advance. This popular project has support 
from landowners in the area as well as busi-
nesses in Wray. 
Research and Management 
Needs 
Understanding the ecology of prairie chickens 
in Colorado is critical for their management. 
Unfortunately, many basic questions about 
the prairie chicken's biology remain unan-
swered. Additional information on sex ratios, 
causes of mortality, factors affecting nest suc-
cess, population fluctuations, dispersal, migra-
tion, and seasonal movements is needed to 
properly monitor populations and manage this 
species. 
At the heart of prairie chicken management 
is the necessity for information on seasonal 
habitat requirements. Specifically, factors that 
limit both the range and population density 
of prairie chickens in Colorado require further 
study. Some habitats presently unoccupied 
by prairie chickens could potentially support 
chicken populations. Procedures for improv-
ing and/or restoring habitats for prairie chick-
ens need to be evaluated and recommenda-
tions made available to wildlife managers and 
private landowners. 
Management decisions are often based on 
population and/or density estimates, em-
phasizing the need for better techniques to 
estimate numbers of prairie chickens. A stan-
dardized and statistically valid census or pop-
ulation monitoring procedure should be im-
plemented. Additionally, accurate information 
on sex ratios, lek attendance by males and 
females, movement between leks, movement 
between leks and nests, and metapopulation 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
characteristics is essential for monitoring pop-
ulation levels. 
Recommendations 
Emphasis needs to be placed on research so 
management efforts are productive. Ideally, 
adaptive management strategies should be 
implemented, thereby building a foundation 
of data that will aid in understanding prairie 
chicken ecology. This approach was tried with 
some success when prairie chickens were 
transplanted to the Tamarack State Wildlife 
Area, and later to Weld and Washington 
counties. 
Education of private landowners should be 
an important consideration in management 
programs for prairie chickens. Effective man-
agement strategies by landowners to benefit 
both their economic interests and wildlife 
should be encouraged. Access to leks should 
be managed to meet demands of watch able 
wildlife programs while minimizing distur-
bance of prairie chickens during the breeding 
season. 
Summary 
Prairie chickens apparently were not indige-
nous to Colorado but expanded into the 
northeastern corner of the state following 
settlement and conversion of some native 
grasslands to small grain agriculture in the late 
1890s. Both distribution and populations of 
prairie chickens in Colorado peaked prior to 
the "Dust Bowl" days of the 1930s. Popula-
tions remained low into the 1960s and 1970s 
and resulted in the Colorado Division of Wild-
life classifying this species as state endan-
·gered. Habitat and population management 
practices including burning of rangelands, 
seeding of native warm-season grasses, resto-
ration of grasslands under the Conservation 
Reserve Program, and a series of transplants, 
resulted in increases in both distribution and 
populations of prairie chickens in Colorado. 
Current prairie chicken populations are vari-
ously estimated to be between 8,000 and 
103 
I 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
104 
10,000 birds and this species is no longer 
considered as a state threatened or endan-
gered species. 
Acknowledgments 
Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel sup-
plied much of the information on population 
estimates and distribution, and participated in 
transplant projects. We appreciate the contri-
butions of G. Beauprez, R. Hoffman, G. Miller, 
F. Pusateri, and W. Snyder. Funding was sup-
plied by the Colorado Division of Wildlife 
through Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 
Project W-167-R. 
Literature Cited 
Aldrich, j.W., and A.J. Duvall. 1955. Distribu-
tion of American gallinaceous game birds. U. 
S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 34. 
Beauprez, G.M. 1994. Movements, reproduc-
tive success, and habitat use by introduced 
greater prairie chickens in northeastern Colo-
rado. Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, 
Greeley, Colorado, USA. 
Beck, j.V. 1957. The greater prairie chicken in 
history. Nebraska Bird Review 25:8-12. 
Braun, C.E., K.M. Giesen, R.W. Hoffman, T.E. 
Remington, and W.O. Snyder. 1994. Upland 
bird management analysis guide, 1994-1998. 
Colorado Division Wildlife Report 19. 
Christisen, D.M. 1969. National status and 
management of the greater prairie chicken. 
Transactions of the North American Wildlife 
and Natural Resources Conference 34:207-
217. 
Cooke, W.W. 1897. The birds of Colorado. 
Colorado Agricultural College Bulletin 37. 
----· 1898. Further notes on the birds 
of Colorado. An appendix to Bulletin 3 7. Colo-
rado Agricultural College Bulletin 44. 
----· 1900. The birds of Colorado. A 
second appendix to Bulletin 37. Colorado 
Agricultural College Bulletin 56. Technical 
Series 5:179-239. 
Evans, K.E., and D.L. Gilbert. 1963. Grouse of 
the grasslands: the greater prairie chicken in 
Colorado. Colorado Outdoors 12:15-18. 
Evans, K.E. 1964. Inventory of greater prairie 
chickens. Pages 343-367 in Colorado Divi-
sion of Wildlife, Federal Aid Report W-37-R-
17. 
Graul, W. 1975. Grassland boomers. Colo-
rado Outdoors 24:24-28. 
Hersey, L.j., and R.B. Rockwell. 1909. An an-
notated list of the birds of the Barr Lake Dis-
trict, Adams County, Colorado. Condor 
11:109-122. 
Hoffman, R.W. 1985. Greater prairie chicken 
transplant. Colorado Division of Wildlife Fed-
eral Aid Report N-1-R. 
Horak, G.J. 1985. Kansas prairie chickens. Kan-
sas Fish and Game Commission Wildlife Bulle-
tin 3. 
Schroeder, M.A., and L.A. Robb. 1993. Great-
er prairie chicken. In, The Birds of North Amer-
ica, Number 36, A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and 
F. Gill, editors. Philadelphia: the Academy of 
Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C: American 
Ornithologists' Union. 
Schrager, A.W. 1944. The prairie chicken and 
sharp-tailed grouse in early Wisconsin. Trans-
actions of Wisconsin Academy of Science, 
Arts, and Letters. 35:1-59. 
Sclater, W.L. 1912. A history of the birds of 
Colorado. Witherby, London. 
Swope, H.M. 1953. Surveys to determine the 
population status of the prairie chicken. job 
Completion Report, Colorado Department of 
Game and Fish, Project W-37-R-6. 
Van Sant, B.F., and C.E. Braun. 1990. Distribu-
tion and status of greater prairie chickens in 
Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 22:225-230. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of the 
Greater Prairie Chicken in 
Oklahoma 
Russell E. Horton, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Norman 
Donald H. Wolfe, George M. Sutton Avian Research Center, Bartlesville, 
Oklahoma 
Historical Review 
Greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupi-
do pinnatus), hereafter referred to as "prairie 
chickens", formerly ranged across at least the 
eastern two-thirds of Oklahoma, except in the 
eastern hardwood forested areas of extreme 
eastern Oklahoma. By 1941, the range had 
contracted drastically, approaching a distribu-
tion not much larger than the present occu-
pied range (Duck and Fletcher, 1944). 
jacobs (1959) believed that plenty of suitable 
tallgrass prairie habitat existed in many areas 
of southern Oklahoma, and that transloca-
tions from Osage County (north central Ok-
lahoma) to 4 sites in 3 southern Oklahoma 
counties were possible and might restore 
prairie chickens to some of their former range. 
A total of 314 birds was translocated between 
1955 and 1959 (Jacobs, 1959). Although 
reproduction occurred in the areas of these 
releases, the translocated populations eventu-
ally disappeared. 
Martin (1980) estimated that the occupied 
range of greater prairie chickens in Oklahoma 
was reduced 42% from 4,065 square miles 
(1 0,530 km2) in 1943 to 2,355 square miles 
(6,1 00 km2) in 1979. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
Current Distribution 
The greater prairie chicken occurs in north 
central and portions of northeastern Oklaho-
ma. The two largest contiguous tracts occu-
pied by prairie chickens are an area in north-
ern Osage County, which extends into the 
extreme northeast corner of Kay County. 
This area also encompasses the more than 
37,000 acre (14,974 ha) Tallgrass Prairie 
Preserve (TGPP), owned and managed by 
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 
A second area occupied by the greater prairie 
chicken is the northern portion of Nowata 
and Craig counties, and also includes the 
extreme northeastern corner of Washington 
County. Isolated flocks are known to occur 
in central Noble County (extends slightly into 
northwest Pawnee County), Ottawa County 
northwest of the town of Miami, and in the 
3-county area at the confluence of Rogers, 
Wagoner and Mayes counties. 
Population Trends 
The population trend since 1979 has been 
steadily declining with a marked decline be-
ginning in 1990 (Fig. 1 ). The population now 
105 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure I. Greater prairie chicken Population Density Index 
(number of cocks/booming ground X number of booming 
grounds/square mile) in Oklahoma. 
106 
appears stable, but at a very low level. The 
long-term outlook for prairie chickens in Okla-
homa is stability, with hopes for a steady (al-
though likely quite slow) increase. Land man-
agement practices on private land within the 
core range of prairie chickens will likely deter-
mine the actual population trend. 
Possible Limiting Factors 
One possible limiting factor to prairie chick-
ens in Oklahoma appears to be related to 
a shift from cow-calf operations to intensive 
early season grazing on an extremely large 
scale. Immediately before native, warm-
season grasses break dormancy and begin 
to grow, large tracts of prairie rangeland are 
burned and then heavily stocked with yearling 
steers and heifers for the early part ofthe 
growing season. Annual burning of extensive 
acreage immediately prior to nesting, and 
intensive early growing season grazing over 
expansive areas might limit the amount of 
suitable cover for optimal nesting habitat 
during the earliest part of the nesting season. 
Another possible management problem is 
small mammalian nest predators (skunks, rae-
coons and opossums). In some areas, herbi-
cides used to eliminate or reduce annual forbs 
may be a potential problem, especially when 
used annually and in combination with spring 
burning. The extent and effects of this prac-
tice in Oklahoma are unknown. 
A final management problem, and one that 
certainly merits attention, is the increasingly 
fragmented nature of the tallgrass prairie land-
scape. Many areas which once were vast ex-
panses of native prairie have been fragment-
ed to the point that population isolation is 
common. Extinction of these fragmented pop-
ulations is occurring quite rapidly, and soon 
only the core areas along the northern bound-
ary of Oklahoma will be occupied by prairie 
chickens. The amount of surface limestone 
and sandstone and the rolling terrain of much 
of Osage County, combined with the high 
suitability of the tallgrass prairie for cattle op-
erations may help to preserve large, contigu-
ous tracts of prairie chicken habitat. 
Habitat Acquisition 
The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Con-
servation (ODWC) owns 480 acres (194 ha) 
in Osage County which was purchased specif-
ically for prairie chicken hunting. Portions of 
this tract were planted to small grains (primari-
ly milo [Sorghum spp.]) to attract birds during 
the fall hunting season. This practice was 
stopped in 1996. These lands are currently 
being allowed to revert back to native prairie 
vegetation, and will be managed with burn-
ing, and limited grazing and/or haying in fu-
.ture years. 
The extreme west edge of the Western Wall 
Unit of the Osage Wildlife Management Area, 
purchased from The Nature Conservancy, 
comprises suitable, occupied prairie chicken 
habitat. This portion of the WMA adjoins 
TNC's Tallgrass Prairie Preserve. Approximate-
ly 90% of this WMA is comprised of timber 
along Rock Creek, and is therefore not man-
aged for prairie chickens. 
The Nature Conservancy, a private conserva-
tion organization, has purchased over 3 7,000 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
acres (14,974 ha) in north central Osage 
County- the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve. Bison 
have been reintroduced as the primary large 
herbivore and number about 600 animals. 
Future plans are to allow the herd to expand 
to a total of about 2,000 head. The entire 
preserve is managed with prescribed fire and 
grazing as primary management tools, in 
hopes of restoring the area to historic land 
use as nearly as possible. While the TGPP is 
not managed specifically for prairie chickens, 
they are an integral part of the tallgrass prairie 
ecosystem, and therefore, any management 
practices aimed at restoring and maintaining 
the vigor of the tall grass ecosystem should 
also benefit prairie chickens. 
It is unknown whether The Nature Conservan-
cy would be interested in or have the oppor-
tunity to purchase additional land to increase 
the size of the TGPP. There is a need to ac-
quire additional land for prairie chickens in 
Oklahoma, although the political climate is 
not conducive for such purchases at this time. 
Any lands purchased by the state would likely 
be managed (at least initially) for preservation 
of prairie chickens. Hopefully, management 
efforts would be successful and prairie chick-
ens would recover to levels that could sup-
port some hunting (Appendix A, Adaptive 
Harvest Management Strategy). 
Probably the best way to assure adequate 
habitat is available for prairie chickens would 
be to seek voluntary cooperation from large 
landowners in areas contiguous with the 
Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, and in other areas 
of high prairie chicken densities. 
Management 
Specific management practices for prairie 
chickens in Oklahoma on state (ODWC) 
lands have been limited to food patches. 
These patches were planted more to attract 
birds for hunters than provide a winter food 
source, although providing supplemental win-
ter food was certainly considered and was an 
intrinsic benefit of these plantings. 
The Nature Conservancy's Tallgrass Prairie 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Preserve is managed as a functional tallgrass 
prairie ecosystem. Specific management prac-
tices include grazing by both bison and cattle 
(with an increasing emphasis towards bison), 
and prescribed fire. 
Prescribed fire and managed grazing are, 
without question, the 2 practices which have 
the most merit in Oklahoma. However, there 
may be ways that prescribed fire and grazing 
can be managed differently that would pro-
vide more benefit for prairie chickens (e.g. 
leaving scattered sections unburned or imple-
menting suitable rotational grazing systems). 
Research 
Since 1997, The George M. Sutton Avian 
Research Center (GMSARC) has been con-
ducting research on habitat use, survivorship, 
mortality factors, and nesting success of prai-
rie chickens through radio-telemetry. Addi-
tionally, a total of 26 nests was found and 
monitored during a multi-species, tallgrass 
prairie birds study between 1992 and 1996. 
GMSARC personnel also hope to monitor 
broods of successful hens to determine habi-
tat use and measure brood-rearing success in 
various management regimes. Some concern 
has been expressed about the role of retrovi-
ruses in Oklahoma prairie-chicken popula-
tions. Retroviruses were present in 2 of 1 7 
birds tested in spring 1998. All birds captured 
in the future will be tested so that the level 
and effect of these retroviruses can be better 
ascertained. 
While current research information is valuable 
in properly managing prairie chickens, much 
of the published research has dealt with large 
populations of birds occupying large contigu-
ous tracts of suitable habitat (Jones 1963a,b). 
Habitat fragmentation and population isola-
tion have become increasingly common in 
Oklahoma. In addition, annual large-scale 
spring burning and early intensive cattle graz-
ing now dominate the landscape in the heart 
of prairie-chicken range in Oklahoma. The 
effects of these phenomena on prairie chick-
ens need to be evaluated and relevant man-
agement recommendations put forth. 
107 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
108 
Hunting and Harvest 
Pressure 
Greater prairie chickens were hunted in Okla-
homa during the fall of 1997 (18-19 October; 
bag limit: 1 bird/day; season limit: 2 birds). At 
the August 1997 meeting of the Oklahoma 
Wildlife Commission, the prairie chicken sea-
son was closed, effective beginning with the 
1998 season. The Commission approved an 
Adaptive Harvest Management Strategy 
whereby the season would re-open if certain 
population parameters indicated recovery of 
prairie chickens to population levels at which 
hunting would be warranted (Appendix A). 
The earliest that the season could possibly re-
open would be in the fall of 2002. 
Although the final harvest estimate for 1997 
is not yet available pending the results of the 
1997 Game Harvest Survey, the total estimat-
ed harvest is likely less than 200 birds (includ-
ing lesser prairie chickens [Tympanuchus pal-
lidicinctus]). If prairie chickens are hunted in 
the future, the approved Adaptive Harvest 
Management Strategy will be utilized as a 
safeguard to ensure against over harvest. 
Habitat Management 
Recommendations 
PASTURE MANAGEMENT 
• Grazing should be light to moderate, espe-
cially within 1f2 mile (0.8 km) of known 
booming grounds, to ensure adequate, 
high quality nesting cover. 
• Spot treatment with heavy (season-long) 
grazing should be utilized to promote 
growth of native annual forbs for food and 
brood-rearing cover. 
• Hay meadows should be cut between 1 
July and 15 July, and native grass should 
never be cut more than once per season. 
• Minimize herbicide use, using spot treat-
ment only where necessary andjor spray 
small areas on a 2- to 3-year rotation. 
• Convert non-native pasture to a mixture of 
warm-season native grasses, making sure 
to include a mixture of native forbs and 
legumes. 
CONTROLLED BURNING 
• Complete all burning a month prior to nest 
initiation. 
• Rotate pastures (2-3 years) and burn in a 
mosaic pattern. 
• Keep burn units small (~640 acres [259 
ha]) where possible. 
SUPPLEMENTAL FOODS 
• Native annual forbs and legumes are pre-
ferred. 
• If supplemental plantings are desirable, 
plant small 10-15 acre (4-6 ha) patches, 1 
or 2 per square mile (259 ha). Plots should 
be oblong (rather than square), planted 
along topographic contours, and adjacent 
to high quality winter j escape cover. 
Literature Cited 
Duck, J.G., and J.B. Fletcher. 1944. A survey of 
the game and fur-bearing animals of Oklaho-
ma. Oklahoma Game and Fish Department 
Bulletin 3. 
Jacobs, K.F. 1959. Restoration of the greater 
prairie chicken. Oklahoma Department of 
Wildlife Conservation, Norman, Oklahoma, 
USA. 
Jones, R.E. 1963a. A comparative study of 
the habitats of the lesser and greater prairie 
chicken in Oklahoma. Dissertation, Oklahoma 
State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. 
____ . 1963b. Identification and analysis 
of lesser and greater prairie chicken habitat. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
journal of Wildlife Management 27:757-778. 
Martin, S.A. 1980. Current status and ap-
proaches to monitoring populations and habi-
tats of greater prairie chickens in Oklahoma. 
Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, 
Oklahoma, USA 
Appendix A. Adaptive Harvest Management Strategy for 
Prairie Chickens In Oklahoma. 
JULY 1997 
ADAPTIVE HARVEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR PRAIRIE CHICKENS 
IN OKLAHOMA 
It is proposed that the hunting season for 
both the lesser prairie chicken and greater 
prairie chicken be closed in Oklahoma. 
Populations of both species have shown a 
gradual but continuous long-term decline, but 
over the past 6-8 years, this decline has accel-
erated and become much more obvious. For 
this reason, the hunting season for both spe-
cies was reduced from 9 days in mid-Novem-
ber (daily bag limit 2, possession limit 4) to a 
2-day season in late October (daily bag limit 
1, possession limit 2). Populations have con-
tinued to decline, and although the Oklahoma 
Department of Wildlife Conservation does 
not consider the decline to be in any way 
caused by nor related to legal recreational 
hunting, the ODWC feels that hunting of ei-
ther species should be curtailed until popula-
tions recover, and is therefore recommending 
closing the hunting season for both species. 
This recommended closure should remain in 
effect only until populations have recovered 
to levels at which sustained hunting is war-
ranted. The following are the conditions under 
which the season will be re-opened, and in-
clude population-related season and bag limit 
frameworks. 
GREATER PRAIRIE CHICKEN 
A 2-day season will be opened in Craig, Kay, 
Noble, Nowata, Osage and Washington 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
counties when all of the following population 
parameters are met in at least 4 of these 6 
counties: 
1. Population indices in at least 4 of the 
above counties indicate an increasing pop-
ulation in 4 or more of 5 successive years, 
and 
2. The average number of booming males I 
active booming ground is 5 or more for 4 
or more of 5 successive years, and 
3. Average booming ground densities in the 
above counties, as determined by current 
survey methods, are at least .25 booming 
grounds I square mile (259 ha), for 4 or 
more of 5 successive years, and 
4. The Population Density Index(# booming 
males X booming ground density) is 3.0 or 
higher for 4 or more of 5 successive years. 
The season will be opened for 2 days only, 
the fourth weekend in October. The daily 
bag limit will be 1 greater prairie chicken, and 
the possession limit will be 2 greater prairie 
chickens. 
Shooting hours will be 1fz hour before legal 
sunrise to legal sunset. A 4-day season will be 
opened in Craig, Kay, Noble, Nowata, Osage 
and Washington counties when all of the 
following criteria are met in at least 5 of the 
above counties: 
109 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
110 
1. The 2-day season described above has 
been opened in each of the 3 previous 
years, 
2. Population indices in at least 5 of the 
above counties indicate an increasing pop-
ulation in 4 or more of 5 successive years, 
and 
3. The average number of booming males I 
active booming ground is 7 or more for 4 
or more of 5 successive years, and 
4. Average booming ground densities in the 
above counties, as determined by current 
survey methods, are at least .30 booming 
grounds I square mile (259), for 4 or more 
of 5 successive years, and 
5. The Population Density Index(# booming 
males X booming ground density) is 4.0 or 
higher for 4 or more of 5 successive years. 
Season dates will be the second Thursday 
before Thanksgiving through the following 
Sunday (4 days). Daily bag limit will be 2 
greater prairie chickens, and possession limit 
is 4 greater prairie chickens. Legal shooting 
hours will be daylight to dark. 
A 9-day season will be opened in Craig, Kay, 
Noble, Nowata, Osage and Washington coun-
ties when all of the following criteria are met 
in at least 5 of the above counties: 
1. The 4-day season described above has 
been opened in each of the 3 previous 
years, 
2. Population indices in at least 5 of the 
above counties indicate an increasing pop-
ulation in 4 or more of 5 successive years, 
and 
3. The average number of booming males I 
active booming ground is 8 or more for 4 
or more of 5 successive years, and 
4. Average booming ground densities in the 
above counties, as determined by current 
survey methods, are at least .35 booming 
grounds I square mile (259 ha), for 4 or 
more of 5 successive years, and 
5. The Population Density Index(# booming 
males X booming ground density) is 5.0 or 
higher for 4 or more of 5 successive years. 
Season dates will be the second Thursday 
before Thanksgiving through the Sunday prior 
to Thanksgiving (9 days). Daily bag limit will 
be 2 greater prairie chickens, and possession 
limit will be 4 greater prairie chickens. Legal 
shooting hours will be daylight to dark. 
Hunting season for greater prairie chickens 
will comprise the following 4 levels: 
• Closed Season 
• 2-day October Season 
• 4-day November Season 
• 9-day November Season 
Hunting season for greater prairie chickens 
will be opened at the most liberal level al-
lowed under the above-described framework. 
LESSER PRAIRIE CHICKEN 
A 2-day season will be opened in Beaver, Ellis, 
Harper, Texas and Woodward counties when 
all of the following population parameters are 
met in at least 4 of these 5 counties: 
1. Population indices in at least 4 of the 
above counties indicate an increasing pop-
ulation in 4 or more of 5 successive years, 
and 
2. The average number of booming males I 
active booming ground is 6 or more for 4 
or more of 5 successive years, and 
3. Average booming ground densities in the 
above counties, as determined by current 
survey methods, are at least .25 booming 
grounds I square mile (259 ha), for 4 or 
more of 5 successive years, and 
4. The Population Density Index (# booming 
males X booming ground density) is 3.0 
or higher for 4 or more of 5 successive 
years. 
The season will be opened for 2 days only, 
the fourth weekend in October. The daily bag 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
limit will be 1 lesser prairie chicken, and the 
possession limit will be 2 lesser prairie chick-
ens. Shooting hours will be 1/z hour before 
legal sunrise to legal sunset. 
A 4-day season will be opened in Beaver, Ellis, 
Harper, Texas and Woodward Counties when 
all of the following criteria are met in at least 
4 of the above counties: 
1. The 2-day season described above has 
been opened in each of the 3 previous 
years, 
2. Population indices in at least 4 of the 
above counties indicate an increasing pop-
ulation in 4 or more of 5 successive years, 
and 
3. The average number of booming males I 
active booming ground is 7 or more for 4 
or more of 5 successive years, and 
4. Average booming ground densities in the 
above counties, as determined by current 
survey methods, are at least .30 booming 
grounds I square mile (259 ha), for 4 or 
more of 5 successive years, and 
5. The Population Density Index(# booming 
males X booming ground density) is 4.0 or 
higher for 4 or more of 5 successive years. 
Season dates will be the second Thursday 
before Thanksgiving through the following 
Sunday (4 days). Daily bag limit will be 2 less-
er prairie chickens, and possession limit is 4 
lesser prairie chickens. Legal shooting hours 
will be daylight to dark. 
A 9-day season will be opened in Beaver, Ellis, 
Harper, Texas and Woodward Counties when 
all of the following criteria are met in at least 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
4 of the above counties: 
1. The 4-day season described above has 
been opened in each of the 3 previous 
years, 
2. Population indices in at least 4 of the 
above counties indicate an increasing pop-
ulation in 4 or more of 5 successive years, 
and 
3. The average number of booming males I 
active booming ground is 8 or more for 4 
or more of 5 successive years, and 
4. Average booming ground densities in the 
above counties, as determined by current 
survey methods, are at least .35 Booming 
grounds I square mile, for 4 or more of 5 
successive years, and 
5. The Population Density Index(# booming 
males X booming ground density) is 5.0 or 
higher for 4 or more of 5 successive years. 
Season dates will be the second Thursday 
before Thanksgiving through the Sunday prior 
to Thanksgiving (9 days). Daily bag limit will 
be 2 lesser prairie chickens, and possession 
limit will be 4 lesser prairie chickens. Legal 
shooting hours will be daylight to dark. 
Hunting season for lesser prairie chickens will 
comprise the following 4 levels: 
• Closed Season 
• 2-day October Season 
• 4-day November Season 
• 9-day November Season 
Hunting season for lesser prairie chickens will 
be opened at the most liberal level allowed 
under the above-described framework 
111 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
112 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management 
of the Greater Prairie Chicken 
In Kansas 
Roger D. Applegate, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Emporia 
Gerald}. Horak, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Emporia 
Historical Review1 
Historically there were 3 species of prairie 
grouse in Kansas, the plains sharp-tailed 
grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii), 
lesser prairie chicken (T. pallidicinctus), and 
greater prairie chicken (T. cupido pinnatus). 
The greater prairie chicken was, and still is, 
the most common prairie grouse species in 
Kansas. Beginning with settlement, land-use 
changes from grassland to cropland have in-
fluenced prairie chicken populations and 
range. Greater prairie chicken populations 
initially increased, but later dwindled as land 
conversion continued. The Flint Hills of east-
central Kansas now remain their stronghold, 
with smaller populations to the east and west. 
Historical records of prairie chickens in Kan-
sas are rare. The accounts of early explorers 
mention little of the bird, which may indicate 
that they did not occur in substantial num-
bers. Pike did not mention the prairie chicken 
in his account of travels across Kansas in the 
autumn of 1806 (Coues 1895). While observ-
ing prairie chickens twice in Missouri, Tixier 
never mentioned seeing them during his trav-
1 Taken largely from Horak (1985) 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
els in 1840 to an Osage Indian Village proba-
bly located in southeast Kansas (McDermott 
1940). Even more significant was the fact that 
part of his party survived for 2 days on upland 
sandpipers (Bartramia longicauda) during their 
stay on the prairie. Had prairie chickens been 
available, they no doubt would have also 
been used as food. 
Territorial and state laws governing the har-
vest and use of prairie chickens in Kansas 
probably present the most complete records 
available (Wood 1964). These laws, though 
initially unscientific, reveal a general concern 
for the population. 
In 1861, the last Territorial Legislature impos-
ed the first hunting season for prairie chickens 
in Kansas (2 November to 31 March). No 
limits or methods of taking birds were stated, 
however, Leavenworth County landowners 
were allowed to take the birds year-round on 
their own land. This could indicate a greater 
abundance of birds or favoritism toward the 
landowner in extreme northeastern Kansas. 
The season never actually occurred because, 
in the same year, the formation of the first 
Kansas State Legislature resulted in game law 
changes. The new legislature apparently gave 
county governments authority over seasons. 
113 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
114 
As a result, the season opened on 2 Septem-
ber rather than 2 November, statewide. The 
law provided that the season could be closed 
in any county if a minimum of 20 citizens of 
that county petitioned for closure. There is no 
evidence that any county exercised this op-· 
tion (Wood 1964}. 
The law remained unchanged until 1865, 
when the legislature removed state protection 
of the prairie chicken, but left open the option 
to counties to close hunting in their own jur-
isdictions. Again, there is no record of any 
counties doing so. No governmental body 
provided enforcement of the laws affecting 
prairie chickens (Wood 1964}. 
With further settlement of Kansas in the 
late 1860s and 1870s, agricultural activity 
increased and the prairie chicken population 
responded. Farming made range expansion 
possible due to new winter food supplies. 
Early farming efforts seemingly provided ex-
cellent habitat. Koch (1863} indicated that 
prairie chicken numbers increased within 
3 years after settlement. In an ornithological 
survey in 1872, J.A. Allen noted that the 
prairie chicken was rare, but was advancing 
westward every year. Prairie chickens were 
first seen in the vicinity of Fort Hays around 
1870 and were apparently fast becoming 
common (Goss 1891 ). 
During the late 1800s, new settlements were 
being established in western Kansas, and the 
accompanying agriculture helped move the 
prairie chicken west. Cooke (1900} reported 
that prairie chickens first nested in Colorado 
in approximately 1899. 
Kansas laws were liberalized during the 1870s 
suggesting increased prairie chicken numbers. 
Nets and traps were illegal in 1868, but by 
1876, landowners could use them to catch 
birds on their own property. In 1877, prairie 
chickens could be taken by anyone, anyplace, 
by any means, but commercial shipment of 
any game animal out of the state was illegal 
(Wood 1964}. 
The decline of prairie chicken populations in 
Kansas was noted as early as 1891, when 
Goss (1891) reported that birds were rapidly 
decreasing in numbers, and that, unless the 
law protecting them was strictly enforced, 
especially relative to trapping, prairie chickens 
would soon be exterminated. During periods 
of extreme cold and snow cover, hunger over-
came fear and chickens were easily trapped. 
In 1912, Dyche noted that prairie chickens 
were previously found in great numbers, espe-
cially in eastern Kansas, but as of that date 
they were restricted mainly to counties in the 
western part of the state (Bunker 1913}. Bun-
ker noted that, while prairie chickens were 
fairly common in western Kansas, they were 
no longer so abundant in some areas. 
At some point, agriculture provided an opti-
mum balance of food and cover for prairie 
chickens, but they rapidly disappeared once 
this balance was exceeded. The decline was 
probably accelerated by subsistence and 
market hunting and natural population fluc-
tuations. There is no question that the major 
long-term impact resulted from expansion of 
cultivation and the subsequent loss of prairie 
habitat. Unlike most tallgrass prairie regions, 
the Flint Hills of Kansas escaped heavy cultiva-
tion and consequently maintained good prai-
rie chicken populations during the agricultural 
revolution. 
In the early 1900s, public concern for the 
welfare of prairie chicken populations grew 
and many Kansas county commissions closed 
their counties to hunting. From 1903 through 
1905, 20 Kansas counties closed their sea-
sons. All of these were in the western half of 
the state, with 17 in the southwest. In 1907, 
Butler County government made prairie chick-
en hunting illegal for 3 years. The statewide 
daily bag limit of 15 was imposed in 1905 and 
was lowered to 12 in 1911 (Wood 1964}. 
Despite all efforts, prairie chicken numbers 
continued to decline, suggesting that hunting 
was not solely responsible. There was no 
prairie chicken season in Kansas from 1913 
through 1916. By 1922, prairie chicken pop-
ulations had stabilized in the eastern portions 
of Kansas and were found wherever con-
ditions were favorable. This included the 
extreme eastern counties, where they were 
nearly extirpated 10 years earlier (Clapp 
1922}. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
During the 1920s, more regulations were es-
Table 1. Greater prairie chicken hunting seasons in Kan-tablished, and market hunting stopped. Sea-
son limits of 20 birds and shooting hours of sas, 1957-96. 
one-half hour before sunrise to sunset were 
Season Daily Number of first established in 1921. In addition, only 
11 hunting days were allowed from 1921 length bag Possession counties 
through 1926. The Kansas Forestry, Fish and Year (Days) limit limit open 
Game Commission was established in 1926, 
further increasing the ability of the state to 1957 2 2 4 19 
impose and enforce game laws. The commis- 1958 2 2 4 19 
sian imposed a statewide closed season on 1959 3 2 4 27 
prairie chickens in 1927 in hopes of protect- 1960 3 2 4 28 
ing lesser prairie chickens in the southwestern 1961 3 2 4 28 
portion of Kansas (Wood 1964). 1962 5 2 4 29 
1963 3 2 4 29 
During the early 1930s, populations of prairie 1964 5 2 4 29 
chickens fluctuated greatly due to drought 1965 3 2 4 29 
conditions (Schwilling 1955, Baker 1953). 1966 9 2 4 29 
From 1931 through 1935, the season was 1967 9 2 6 29 
only 2 days long. The severe drought during 1968 7 2 6 29 
the late 1930s may have reduced the hatch- 1969 11 2 6 51 
ing rate of prairie chickens (Stempel and Rod- 1970 4 2 4 51 
gers 1961 ). Prairie chicken hunting seasons 1971 4 2 6 51 
in Kansas were closed from 1936 through 1972 18 2 6 51 
1940 during the height of the drought (Wood 1973 30 2 6 51 
1964). It is likely that changes in agriculture 1974 28 2 6 59 
and overgrazing that accompanied the 1975 9 2 4 statewide 
drought all but eliminated prairie chickens 1976 30 2 6 statewide 
from northwest Kansas and drastically re- 1977 37 2 6 41 
duced populations elsewhere (Baker 1953). 1978 44 2 6 51 
1979 59 2 6 statewide 
From 1941-43, short hunting seasons were 1980 61 2 6 statewide 
opened in certain areas of the state. Six south- 1981 101 2 6 statewide 
east counties (Woodson, Allen, Anderson, 1982 88 2 6 statewide 
Linn, Bourbon, and Crawford) were open to 1983 89 2 6 statewide 
hunting in 1941. Greenwood, Franklin, and 1984 90 2 6 statewide 
Wilson were added in 1942 and 1943, while 1985 91 2 6 statewide 
Linn County remained closed (Wood 1964). 1986 92 2 6 104 
1987 86 2 6 104 
The season was closed again in 1944 and 1988 88 2 6 104 
remained closed through 1950. Hunters were 1989 23,891 2 6 statewide 
allowed to take 2 birds during 1-day seasons 1990 30,90 2 6 statewide (25 October) in 1951 and 1952. The only 
. 1991 23,91 2 6 statewide 
areas open to hunting in the state were coun- 1992 31,86 2 6 66,statewide 1 
ties in or near the Flint Hills (Wood 1964). 1993 31,87 2 6 66,statewide 
1994 31,88 2 6 66,statewide 
The season was again closed from 1953 until 1995 31,89 2 6 66,statewide 
1956. In 1956, an attempt to reopen the prai- 1996 31,90 2 6 66,statewide 
rie chicken season failed due to fears that 
hunting coupled with drought conditions, 1 Starting in 1989, and in subsequent years, there has been an 
would be detrimental to the birds. A season "early" walk-up hunting season in addition to the "regular'' fall sea-
was established in 1957 and every year since son. The first numeral reflects the length and open area of the 
(Table 1) (Wood 1964). early season, and the second numeral is for the regular season. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 115 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
116 
Other Greater Prairie Chicken Range 
Figure 1. Distribution and survey regions for greater prairie chickens in Kansas. The shaded coun-
ties represent lesser prairie chicken range. 
European agricultural influence was a early 
positive factor in the expansion of the prairie 
chicken in Kansas. Only after man amplified 
agricultural operations did the prairie chicken 
suffer. Intensified land use and changes in 
the prairie plant composition during the late 
1800s started the downward trend. Though 
populations fluctuated widely during the first 
half of the 20th century, the numbers of the 
1800s were never repeated. The drought 
years of the 1930s and 1950s drastically re-
duced the numbers and range of Kansas 
prairie chickens. Since that time, Kansas prai-
rie chickens have again gradually increased 
their range and populations with consider-
able fluctuation. 
Greater prairie chickens are presently found 
throughout eastern and northern Kansas 
(Fig. 1 ). Most of southwestern and south-
central Kansas is considered to be lesser 
prairie chicken range. It is possible that both 
greater and lesser prairie chickens occur in 
some 
areas of south-central Kansas, particularly 
Stafford and Barton Counties, as well as oth-
er areas in western Kansas south of Interstate 
70 and west of U.S. Highway 281. 
Censusing and Surveys 
BOOMING GROUNDS 
Booming ground or lek surveys are conduct-
ed annually in spring from 20 March to 20 
April along 28, 1 0-mile (16.1 km) routes es-
tablished in typical greater prairie chicken 
habitat. Eleven booming ground survey 
routes have been conducted since 1963 
(Horak 1985) with 17 additional routes add-
ed in subsequent years. 
The listening component of the survey begins 
40 minutes before sunrise. The observer 
stops at 1-mile (1.6 km) intervals along the 
route and listens for booming males for 3 
minutes within a 1-mile (1.6 km) radius of the 
stop. Booming ground locations are marked 
on a route map. At the end of the listening 
component, the observer retraces the route, 
locates each booming ground and flushes 
birds for a total count (males plus females). 
For the purposes of this survey we define a 
booming ground as an area where 2 or more 
male prairie chickens are displaying. 
Only booming grounds located within the 
defined 12.9 mF (32.2 km2 ) area covered by 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
a route are considered in analyses. Indices are cal-
culated for both booming grounds and prairie chick-
ens/mF (2.59 km2 ). Data are pooled by regions 
(Fig. 1) and only prairie chicken densities will be 
discussed here. We have 34 years of booming 
ground survey data from the 4 regions (Fig. 1) and 
range-wide. All survey regions show peak greater 
prairie chicken numbers in the late 1960s and early 
1980s with declines occurring thereafter (Fig. 2). 
Lowest densities occurred in the period 1990, 
1994, and 1996, with a slight recovery in 1997. 
RURAL MAIL CARRIER SURVEY (RMCS) 
A Rural Mail Carrier Survey is conducted 4 times per 
year during the last full calendar week of july (1962-
present), january (1963-present), April (1963-
present), and during mid-October (1966-present). 
Standard prepaid post cards are distributed to the 
postmasters of all Kansas post offices having rural 
16,------------------------------------. 
14 
..!!! 12 
E 
!.!:! 10 ltl 
:I 
C" 
~ 8 
1/) 
"C 
ffi 6 
Western Cropland 
2 1~-L--------19~7-o-------t~mw--------1~~--------2~~ 
Year 
14·r---------~------~----------------~ 
12 
..!!! 10 
·e 
CD 
:a 8 
:I 
C" 
~ 6 
1/) 
"C 
... 4 
iii 
2 
Eastern Cropland 
0~.~------~------~~------~------~ 1960 1970 tmw 1~  
Year 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 2. Greater prairie chicken booming ground 
survey trends in Kansas, 1963-1996.Index =birds/ 
square mile (2.59 km2 ) and includes prairie chickens 
of both sexes. 
14r------------------------------------. 
12 
..!!! 
·e 10 
CD 
... 
ltl 
:I 
C" 
8 
~ 6 
1/) 
"C 
... 
iii 
2 
Blackjack 
0~. ------~~------~------~------~ 1960 1970 tmw 1~ 2~ 
Year 
16.------------------------------------. 
14 
E 12· 
CD 
... 
ltl g. 10 
1/) 
-1/) 
"C 8· 
... 
iii 
6· 
Flint Hills 
1~r--------19~7-o-------1~mw--------1~~--------~2~ 
Year 
16i;------------------------------------. 
14 
..!!! 
·e 12 
~ 
ltl g. 10· 
1/) 
-~ 8 
... 
iii 
6· 
Rangewide 
1~t--------19~7-o-------1mw~-------1~~--------2~~ 
Year 
117 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 3. Rural Mail Carrier Survey 
trends for greater prairie chickens in 
Kansas by region (Blackjack, Eastern 
Cropland, Flint Hills, and Western 
Cropland) and across the entire range, 
1963-1994. Index= birds/100 miles 
(161 km) and includes prairie chickens 
of both sexes. 
2.0,-----------------------------------------, 
Ill 
~ 
.E 
1.5 
0 
01.0 
,.... 
...... 
Ill 
"C 
... 
iii 
.5 
0.0 
1960 
20~----------------------------------, 
Ill 
~ 
.E 
0 
:= 10 
...... 
Ill 
"C 
... 
iii 
1960 
118 
1970 1980 
..6. = Western Cropland 
e = Flint Hills 
1990 2000 
Ill 
~ 
.E 
0 
0 
,.... 
...... 
Ill 
"C 
... 
ID 
routes. Carriers are asked to record the num-
ber of miles driven during the survey week 
and the numbers of animals seen by species. 
An index of prairie chickens/1 00 miles (161 
km) is calculated from these data. Data are 
pooled by regions (Fig. 1) and indices are 
means of each annual cycle of 4 surveys. We 
have 34 years of RMCS data, but this paper 
only includes data through 1994. 
The trends shown in the RMCS data are simi-
lar to booming ground surveys except that 
there is more fluctuation in the numbers of 
birds/route (Fig. 3). Also evident from these 
data are increases in numbers in 1994 in all 
regions except the Flint Hills. 
4.0 
3.5 
3.0 
2.5 
2.0 
1.5 
1.0-
.5· 
0.0 
.... 
•' . 
.. 
.. 
... 
... 
1980 
Year 
Rangewide 
1990 
..6. = Blackjack 
e = Eastern Cropland 
200C 
1960 1970 1990 2000 
Harvest and Hunting 
Pressure 
Each year prior to the upland gamebird hunt-
ing seasons, 5% of the previous year's general 
hunting license purchasers are contacted by 
mail and asked to maintain a record of their 
hunting activity on a survey card. At the close 
of the upland bird hunting seasons, each per-
son in the sample is mailed a questionnaire 
which they are asked to fill out detailing their 
hunting activity for that year and return the 
card to the Kansas Department of Wildlife 
and Parks (KDWP). Each non-respondent is 
sent a second mailing with the same question-
naire card. Generally about 4% of those con· 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
tacted return usable data which equates to 
-2% of the current year's license buyers. One Table 2. Estimates of greater prairie 
reason for a low response rate is that a gener- chicken harvests during Kansas hunting 
al license is required in order to purchase big seasons, 1957-96. 
game permits; some purchasers of a license 
may have only hunted big game species. lndi- Early Regular 
ces calculated include percent of respondents Year season season Total 
hunting a species, average bag/day, days 
hunted/season, and total season bag/hunter. 1957 24,000 
These data are expanded using known total 1958 75,000 
hunting license sales to estimate total hunters 1959 91,000 
and total statewide harvest of each species 1960 43,000 (Landwehr 1982). Harvest estimates for great- 1961 38,000 
er prairie chickens are available for a 39-year 
period, 1957-1996 (Table 2). 1962 37,000 
1963 38,000 
Overall, estimated harvests have remained 1964 39,000 
stable based on linear regression (Fig. 4). 1965 42,000 
However, because the estimated harvest for 1966 67,000 
any given year will be auto-correlated with 1967 42,000 
the previous year's estimates, time-series anal- 1968 45,000 
yses are necessary to accurately model trends 1969 46,000 
(Ostrom 1978). Since time-series analyses will 1970 19,000 
be presented in a future paper, we present 1971 32,000 
these data to show generalized trends. 1972 36,000 
1973 13,000 
1974 18,000 
Species Needs 1975 16,000 
1976 26,000 
Continued changes in land use have influ- 1977 39,000 
enced both the distribution and abundance 
of prairie chickens in Kansas. The extent of 1978 51,000 
these changes on population density and 1979 88,000 
distribution are unknown. 1980 51,000 
1981 80,000 
KDWP is conducting research , under con- 1982 109,000 
tract with Kansas State University, to address 1983 59,000 
effects of observer variability on booming 1984 41,000 
ground counts. In addition, an effort is being 1985 54,000 
made to assess effects of route-specific land 1986 64,000 
use change on booming ground survey re- 1987 47,000 
suits. Models will be developed to correct 1988 52,000 
future surveys for such variables as starting 1989 6,000 47,000 53,000 
time and duration of count. 
1990 13,000 42,000 55,000 
1991 15,000 44,000 59,000 
1992 4,000 26,000 30,000 
Management Needs 1993 10,000 42,000 52,000 
A shift from season-long (May-October) steer 1994 11,000 18,000 29,000 
operations to early intensive (Launchbaugh 1995 4,000 19,000 23,000 
et al. 1983) grazing systems in recent years 1996 5,000 11,000 16,000 
has had an unquantified impact on prairie 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 119 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 4. Linear regression (r 2= 0.0001, P= 0.973) trends of 
greater prairie chicken harvest estimates in Kansas, 1957-1996. 
120 
1200001...--------------------
0+-------------~------------------~ 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 
Year 
chicken populations. Early intensive grazing 
involves stocking of steers at -2 times the 
normal rate of 3.4 acres/steer (1.4 ha/steer) 
in early May. Cattle are then removed in mid-
july, instead of early October, and shipped to 
feedlots for finishing. 
There has also been an increase in annual 
burning of entire pastures instead of less thor-
ough burning as in the past. Since burning is 
conducted in March and April, this means 
that any residual vegetation produced after 
mid-july under the early intensive system is 
burned before prairie chicken nesting or dur-
ing egg laying. Nesting cover, particularly 
residual vegetation, is essential for prairie 
chicken nesting habitat (Westemeier 1972, 
Buhnerkempe et al. 1984). 
Several general guidelines have been pre-
pared for enhancing greater prairie chicken 
populations in Kansas (Applegate and Horak 
1998). These are: 
1. Maintain a grassland/cropland intersper-
sion of 75:25 on the landscape. 
2. Maintain large and moderately grazed 
pastures to provide a diversity of grassland 
types. 
3. Controlled burning every 3 or 4 years to 
maintain pastures to improve cattle forage, 
retard woody vegetation encroachment, 
remove excess residual vegetation, and 
maintain plant vigor. 
4. Booming grounds (-1 0% of the pasture 
area) should be overgrazed to provide 
vegetation -2 in. (Scm) in height. 
5. Nesting habitat (15% of pasture area) 
should be maintained by light grazing at 
a height of -15 in. (-38 em). 
6. Brood habitat and winter loafing and 
roosting habitat (75% of pasture area) 
should be maintained in medium to tall 
vegetation. 
7. Grain fields (minimum of 15 acres [6 ha]) 
planted to soybeans, sorghum, winter 
wheat or corn will furnish winter food 
and fields for hunters to harvest prairie 
chickens. 
Public Needs 
KDWP is providing 2 prairie chicken viewing 
blinds in the Flint Hills. Blind space is reserved 
on a first-come, first-served basis. A report 
card is supplied to each group using the 
blinds to collect information of visitation rate 
and data on activities and number of prairie 
chickens present on the grounds. The primary 
purpose of these data is to document visitor 
use of the blinds and possible effects of public 
use on the birds. Blinds are located on private 
lands. 
Acknowledgments 
This paper is a contribution of Kansas Federal 
Aid to Wildlife Restoration Project W-39-R 
and its predecessors. Numerous KDWP 
personnel have contributed to prairie chicken 
research and management over the years. 
We especially thank former project leaders 
j. Norman, K. Sexson, R. Wells, K. Church, 
and current project assistant R. Rodgers, 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
R. Westemeier, W.O. Svedarsky, and W. Jens-
en provided helpful suggestions on the manu-
script. A. Schleicher typed and edited portions 
of the manuscript. 
Literature Cited 
Applegate, R.D., and G.J. Horak. 1998. Great-
er prairie chicken management. Kansas School 
Naturalist 45:1-15. 
Baker, M.F. 1953. Prairie chickens of Kansas. 
University of Kansas, Museum of Natural His-
tory and Biological Survey Miscellaneous Pub-
lication 5. 
Buhnerkempe, J.E., W.R. Edwards, D.R. Vance, 
and R.L. Westemeier. 1984. Effects of residual 
vegetation on prairie chicken nest placement 
and success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:392-
386. 
Bunker, C. D. 1913. The birds of Kansas. Kan-
sas University Science Bulletin 7:137-158. 
Clapp, A. 1922. Sixth biennial report of the 
Fish and Came Warden. State Printing Office, 
Topeka, Kansas, USA. 
Cooke, W.W. 1900. Birds of Colorado, a sec-
ond appendix to Bulletin 37. Bulletin of the 
State Agricultural Experiment Station 56, Tech-
nical Series 5:179-235. 
Coues, E. 1895. The expeditions of Zebulon 
Montgomery Pike. Vol. 2. Harper, York, New 
York, USA. 
Goss, N.S. 1891. History of the birds of Kan-
sas. Crane, Topeka, Kansas, USA. 
-f-. . 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Horak, G.J. 1985. Kansas prairie chickens. Kan-
sas Fish and Game Commission Technical 
Bulletin 3. 
Koch, T. 1863. Beobachtungen uber das cupi-
dohuhn, Tetrao cupido. Archiv fur Naturge-
schichte 2:159-163. 
Landwehr, T.J. 1982. A comparison of trapping 
harvest estimates determined from trapper 
report cards and mail surveys, 1976-79. Minne-
sota Wildlife Research Quarterly 42:25-47. 
Launchbaugh, J.L., C.E. Owensby, J.R. 
Brethour, and E.F. Smith. 1983. Intensive-early 
stocking studies in Kansas. Kansas State Univer-
sity Agricultural Experiment Station Progress 
Report 441. 
McDermott, J.F. 1940. Tixier's travel on the 
Osage prairies. University of Oklahoma Press, 
Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 
Ostrom, C.W., Jr. 1978. Time series analysis: 
regression techniques. Sage, Beverly Hills, Cali-
fornia, USA. 
Schwilling, M.D. 1955. Unpublished manu-
script. Kansas Fish and Game Commission, 
Emporia, Kansas, USA. 
Stempel, M.E., and S. Rodgers, Jr. 1961. Histo-
ry of prairie chickens in Iowa. Proceedings of 
the Iowa State Academy of Science 68:314-
322. 
Westemeier, R.L. 1972. Prescribed burning in 
grassland management for prairie chickens in 
Illinois. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire 
Ecology Conference 12:317-338. 
Wood, R.D. 1964. Chronology of Kansas hunt-
ing and trapping laws and regulations. Unpub-
lished report. Kansas Fish and Game Commis-
sion, Pratt, Kansas, USA. 
-f-. 
. ~~-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 121 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
122 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of the 
Greater Prairie Chicken in Iowa 
Mel Moe, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Mount Ayr 
Historical Review 
At the time of European settlement in the mid-
nineteenth century and until about 1900, 
greater prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido 
pinnatus) commonly nested throughout the 
state of Iowa. Numbers peaked about 1880 
when most of Iowa was a mosaic of small 
grainfields, hayfields, pasture, and native prai-
rie which provided ideal habitat conditions 
(Ehresman 1996). 
Prairie chickens were the most abundant 
gamebird on the Iowa prairies and hunting 
and trapping them was very important to set-
tlers, both for food and market. Bags of 25 to 
50 a day were common, and some hunters 
took up to 200 a day. By 1878, Iowa lawmak-
ers were apparently concerned that prairie 
chickens were being over-harvested and 
passed a law limiting the daily bag to 25 birds 
per person. This is believed to be the first time 
that bag limits were used as a tool to regulate 
the harvest of game in the United States. Ad-
ditional restrictions followed, and the last 
open season for prairie chickens in Iowa was 
held in 1915 (Stempel and Rodgers 1961 ). 
As agricultural land use intensified, popula-
tions of prairie chickens started to decline. By 
the 1930s, most prairie chickens found in the 
northwestern part of the state were migrant 
winter flocks, with only a few nesting along 
the northern, northeastern, and southern bor-
ders of the state. By the 1950s, the only 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
known nesting prairie chickens were in Appa-
noose, Wayne, and Ringgold Counties in 
southern Iowa (Fig. 1 ). The last verified nest-
ing prior to reintroduction attempts was in 
Appanoose County in 1952 (Stempel and 
Rodgers 1961 ). 
Reintroduction Projects 
FIRST ATTEMPT 
In the early 1980s, the Iowa Conservation 
Commission, now the Iowa Department of 
Natural Resources (IADNR), made an attempt 
to restore prairie chickens to west central 
Iowa. The IADNR negotiated with the Kansas 
Fish and Game Commission, now Kansas 
Department of Wildlife and Parks (KSDWP), 
to trade wild turkeys for 1 00 prairie chickens. 
The release site was in the loess hills east of 
Onawa (Site 1, Fig. 2), an area of steep to 
moderately rolling bluffs and hills bordering 
the Missouri River valley with large expanses 
of grassland interspersed with brush and 
small crop fields. Fifty-three prairie chickens 
were released in 1980 and 48 in 1982. A few 
booming grounds were established, and 
2 broods were reported, but most sightings 
were in the more agricultural Missouri River 
valley instead of the hills where birds were 
released. Apparently, prairie chickens pre-
ferred the more level valley land to the hilly 
release area, but suitable grasslands were 
123 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
lacking in the valley. Only occasional sightings 
have been reported in this region since 1984, 
suggesting that this reintroduction effort was 
probably a failure (Ron Munkel, IADNR, per-
sonal communication). 
Figure I. Iowa counties known to have nesting prairie chickens, 
I950-53. 
~ 
; I~ 
-
_1, ""'"-,, ~ l l ~", \_ J I I I r-·rl) ~~ \~/ I I I t 
\ 
~ i·tr: i''"'':'•·:i:: ·•:•·•:·•:•·•: \•::'.::::•::::- LV> ..-/ ) 
( 
Rmggold Wayne Appanoose 
Figure 2. Iowa prairie chicken release sites. I980-94. 
2_ 
2 ~ 
~ 1\ \ L l 1 1 \& I I I I -
{. ~ l r--
1 I 5&. I J I I 
( 3 Aa 4 2&:.. 
Release site Total released Years of release 
1. Loess Hills 101 1980, '82 
2. Ringgold Area 263 1987, '88, '89, '92 
3. Mount Ayr Unit 39 1992 
4. Kellerton 134 1992, '93, '94 
5. Orient 113 1993, '94 
124 
~~~------~-----------· .. ------
SECOND ATTEMPT 
In 1987, a second reintroduction program 
was initiated by the IADNR on the Ringgold 
Wildlife Area located 2 miles (3.2 km) north 
of the Missouri border in Ringgold County in 
south central Iowa (Site 2, Fig. 2). The IADNR 
considered this site to be the best potential 
prairie chicken habitat in Iowa. The immediate 
vicinity was one of the last strongholds of 
prairie chickens in southern Iowa and north-
ern Missouri (Christisen 1985, Stempel and 
Rodgers 1961 ). The surrounding portions of 
Ringgold County and adjacent Harrison Coun-
ty, Missouri are cattle country, with 60% 
or more of the land in permanent grass. Chris-
tisen (1985) concluded that the demise of 
prairie chickens in this area was due to poor 
quality grasslands resulting from heavy utiliza-
tion by livestock. 
Recent years had brought some positive 
changes in the grasslands of the area, and it 
was hoped that these changes would once 
again provide suitable habitat for prairie 
chickens. One major change was the inten-
sive restoration of around 500 acres (200 ha) 
of prairie on the Ringgold Wildlife Area. 
Other changes were better pasture manage-
ment by some area farmers, and the Conser-
vation Reserve Program (CRP) which con-
verted thousands of acres of cropland into a 
diversity of mostly undisturbed grasslands for 
at least 1 0 years. 
The birds for this reintroduction were also 
obtained from Kansas. Birds for the first 3 
years of this effort were obtained through 
a 3-way trade in which IADNR supplied the 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources 
(MIDNR) with wild turkeys while the MIDNR 
negotiated with the KSDWP to allow a Mich-
igan crew to trap prairie chickens in Kansas 
for translocation to Iowa. 
Prairie chickens were captured in the spring 
with funnel traps set on booming grounds in 
the Flint Hills region of Kansas. Every few days 
captured birds were transported to Iowa and 
released the next morning utilizing a soft re-
lease box and artificiallek technique which 
had been successfully used in Kansas to rein-
troduce sharp-tailed grouse (Rodgers 1983). 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
A total of 254 prairie chickens were translo-
cated to the Ringgold Wildlife Area from Kan-
sas during the years 1987, 1988, and 1989. 
By the spring of 1988, booming grounds had 
been established at the original release site 
and a site 9.4 miles (15 km) south in Missouri. 
The Missouri site, located on the Dunn Ranch, 
is a cattle ranch operated by Forrest and Mau-
ry Meadows of Bethany, Missouri. In addition 
to several hundred acres of cool-season pas-
ture, the ranch includes about 1235 acres 
(500 ha) of well-managed native prairie pas-
ture. The entire ranch has a very open land-
scape. Before the disappearance of prairie 
chickens from this location in the 1960s, 
the ranch had a major booming ground. The 
booming ground established in 1988 was on 
the same site as the historic lek, and visible 
leg bands verified that birds were from the 
Iowa releases (Maury Meadows, personal 
communication). 
No prairie chickens were released in 1990 or 
1991. This was a period of poor reproductive 
conditions for gallinaceous birds in the area, 
but brood sightings were made each year. By 
1991, prairie chickens appeared to be firmly 
established on the Dunn Ranch, but only 1 
booming ground of 6 males could be located 
in Iowa that year. The success of the reintro-
duction of prairie chickens on the Dunn 
Ranch has been the bright spot of the project 
thus far. Based on this success, the IADNR 
continued the program with more Kansas 
birds. An agreement with KSDWP allowed 
IADNR crews to trap and translocate 100 
prairie chickens per year. Instead of releasing 
all of the birds at 1 site, it was decided to re-
lease significant numbers on large grassland 
tracts in the region and smaller numbers at 
the original Ringgold Wildlife Area. 
Birds were translocated to 2 new sites in 
1992; the Mount Ayr site located 17.5 miles 
(28 km) northwest and the Kellerton site, 15 
miles (24 km) northeast of the Ringgold Wild-
life Area. In 1993, the Mount Ayr site was 
dropped, and the Orient site, located 56 miles 
(90 km) northwest of the Ringgold Wildlife 
Area was added. All of the sites contained 
high quality grasslands and open landscapes. 
Land use at all 3 sites was mostly a mixture of 
pasture, hay, and CRP. A total of 295 prairie 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
chickens were released in a 3-year period 
using gentle releases onto artificial or actual 
leks. Since 1987, a total of 549 prairie chick-
ens were released at 4 sites in southern Iowa 
(Fig. 2). 
MOVEMENTS FOLLOWING RELEASE 
All of the translocated prairie chickens were 
banded and 14 birds were equipped with 
radio collars to obtain movement information 
(Fig. 3). Noteworthy is the apparent ability of 
prairie chickens to find distant booming 
grounds. Birds from all release sites visited the 
vicinity of the Kellerton release site. This in-
Figure 3. Last known radio locations or band returns of prairie 
chickens that were more than 6.25 miles (10 km)from their 
original release site. 
Adair 
~4 
Adams 
Taylor 
Iowa Ringgol 
Missouri 
Release Sites: 
1- Ringgold WMA 
2- Kellerton 
3- Mt. Ayr 
4- Orient 
Madison 
5 
5- Dunn Ranch (not a release site) 
Clarke 
Decatur 
20 KM 
(approx.) 
125 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
eluded 1 radioed bird released at Orient that 
traveled at least 50 miles (80 km) to reach the 
Kellerton site. 
MISSOURI REINTRODUCTIONS 
The Missouri Department of Conservation 
(MDC) has been involved in a prairie chicken 
reintroduction effort in north central Missouri 
since 1993. They have released birds at 8 
sites located 37.5-62.5 miles (60-1 00 km) 
southeast of the Ringgold Wildlife Area, and 
6.3-25 miles (1 0-40 km) south of the Iowa 
border (Larry Mechlin, MDC, personal com-
munication). Prairie chickens were sight-
ed immediately south of the Iowa border in 
the spring of 1998 and it is probable that adja-
cent areas in Iowa have prairie chickens as a 
direct result of Missouri's stocking efforts. 
Figure 4. Known prairie chicken locations, summer 1997-spring 
1988, in relation to release sites. 
Adair Madison 
• 0* 
Adams Union 
Taylor Ringgold 
o o*o 
• to 
*0 * 
eo 
• - Release Site 
* - Booming ground, 1998 
Clark 
Decatur 
ot 
* * 
20 KM 
(approx.) 
o - Broods or fall/ winter observations, 1997 
126 
Results of Reintroductions 
CENSUSING 
Attempts are made to locate leks and count 
booming males each spring by IADNR per-
sonnel and volunteers. Because of the large 
area of potential habitat and the limited 
manpower available for censusing, the num-
ber of booming males observed is considered 
minimal. It is highly probable that a number 
of booming grounds have not been located. 
MDC personnel make similar counts on and 
around the Dunn Ranch, where the birds are 
part of the same regional population. 
Iowa- In the spring of 1995, 1 year fol-
lowing the last Iowa release, 40 male prai-
rie chickens were observed on 7 booming 
grounds. Nesting conditions were only 
fair that spring, and in 1996 the numbers 
dropped to 26 males on 6 booming 
grounds. Regionally, in 1996, upland bird 
nesting conditions were the poorest in 
recent memory. Consequently, 1997 
counts reflected these conditions with 
only 17 males recorded on 4 booming 
grounds. Upland bird nesting conditions 
improved in 1997 and 42 males were 
observed on 8 booming grounds in the 
spring of 1998. 
Missouri-Trends were similar at the Dunn 
Ranch in Missouri. Counts dropped from 
35 males in 1995, to 22 in 1996 and 23 in 
1997, but rebounded to 46 in 1998 (Bill 
Lenhart, MDC, personal communication). 
Sightings and known booming grounds for 
the winter of 1997-98 and the spring of 1998 
are presented in Figure 4. Iowa sites are indi-
cated as well as those in Missouri believed to 
be associated with the Iowa releases. 
Discussion 
The prairie chicken reintroduction efforts initi-
ated in Iowa in 1987 and in Missouri in 1993 
have resulted in a small, but somewhat stable 
population of prairie chickens across a wide 
area of southern Iowa and northern Missouri. 
Large amounts of habitat in this area still lack 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
prairie chickens and additional stocking would 
help fill in the gaps and augment existing local 
populations. Proposed stockings in Iowa in-
clude releasing additional hens onto all 
known booming grounds, and establishing 
new release sites in suitable habitat. 
Pasture and hay are still primary land uses in 
this region and, coupled with a recent high 
CRP sign-up, should assure adequate grass-
land habitat for the next 1 0 years. A positive 
aspect of the recent CRP guidelines was the 
emphasis on establishing cover beneficial to 
wildlife instead of grass monocultures. The 
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 
of the USDA also targets improvement 
of prairie chicken habitat in south central 
Iowa and should benefit prairie chicken 
populations. 
Intensive management of large blocks of 
grassland by public agencies will help ensure 
adequate habitat into the future. To help pro-
vide this habitat for prairie chickens and other 
grassland birds, Iowa has initiated the Keller-
ton Bird Conservation Area (KBCA). This is 
a proposed 10,300 acres (4,170 ha) area that 
presently consists of 70% grassland, 25% 
cropland, and 5% woodland, and had at least 
3 booming grounds in 1998. The KBCA pro-
posal calls for public acquisition of at least 
2,050 acres (830 ha) of the area and working 
with landowners to improve habitat on at 
least 2,470 acres (1,000 ha) utilizing the CRP 
and WHIP program lands. This program has 
been given a high priority through the Part-
ners in Flight-Midwest Steering Committee, 
and funding for initial acquisition has been 
provided by the IADNR, the National Fish 
and Wildlife Foundation, and numerous pri-
vate donations including funds from Pheas-
ants Forever and the Iowa Audubon Society. 
Lands acquired will be managed by the IAD-
NR. The IADNR has recently acquired more 
property on the Ringgold Wildlife Area, bring-
ing the total size to 1,853 acres (750 ha) 
of which 741 acres (300 ha) is managed as 
grasslands with open landscapes. Though no 
booming grounds have been located on this 
area in recent years, broods have been sight-
ed nearly every summer. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
The MDC and The Nature Conservancy have 
each acquired several hundred acres of grass-
land between the Ringgold Wildlife Area and 
the Dunn Ranch, and this land will be man-
aged for grassland species (Bill Lenhart, MDC, 
personal communication). 
The aggressively managed public tracts sur-
rounded by large areas of less intensively 
managed private grasslands should assure 
prairie chicken habitat into the future. 
Acknowledgments 
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 
FW-43-D and the IADNR provided funding for 
this project. The cooperative effort of the 
MIDNR and the KSDWP, as well as numerous 
farmers and ranchers in Iowa and Kansas 
made this project possible. A special thanks to 
participating personnel of the IADNR and 
KSDWP, especially the technicians, whose 
hard work over 1 0 years got the job done. 
Thanks also, to the Adair County Conserva-
tion Board and numerous volunteers. 
Literature Cited 
Christisen, D. M. 1985. The greater prairie 
chicken and Missouri's land-use patterns. 
Missouri Department of Conservation Terres-
trial Series 15. 
Ehresman, B. L. 1996. Greater prairie chicken. 
Pages 130 -131 in L. S. jackson, C.A. Thomp-
son, and j. A. Dinsmore, editors. The Iowa 
Breeding Bird Atlas. University of Iowa Press, 
Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 
Rodgers, R. 1983. Evaluation of the re-estab-
lishment potential of sharp-tailed grouse in 
western Kansas. Kansas Fish and Game Com-
mission Federal Aid Project W-23-R-20, Study 
No. 18, Job Q-1. 
Stempel, M. E., and S. Rodgers, Jr. 1961. His-
tory of prairie chickens in Iowa. Proceedings 
of the Iowa Academy of Science 68:314-322. 
127 
The Greater Prairie Ch~ken. ;·r-~~-A~N~a~tio:n:a~IL=o~ok ______ _ 
128 ·ment Station ta Agricultural Expen Minneso _ 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of 
Greater Prairie Chickens in 
Missouri 1 
Larry M. Mechlin, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia 
Richard W. Cannon, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia 
Donald M. Christisen, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia 
Historical Review 
Before the 20th century, prairie chickens 
probably occurred in every county of Miss-
ouri with native prairie. Schroeder's (1981) 
analysis of land-survey records indicated 
26.7% (18,474 square miles (48,032 km2]) of 
the state was originally native prairie (Fig. 1 ). 
Others believed approximately 40% was prai-
rie (Bennitt 1939, Christisen 1973). Differenc-
es in these estimates were reconciled by in-
cluding small, scattered prairies. Surveyors did 
not include "barrens," the grassy Ozark tracts, 
as prairies. "Glades," very small, usually steep 
Ozark hillside forest openings, were excluded 
as were some prairies with trees in draws, 
scattered small groves, and thickets (Schroed-
er 1981 ). Apparently, periodic wildfires kept 
Missouri's native prairies from being lost to 
tree and shrub invaders (Christisen 1967). 
Prairie chickens probably occurred wherever 
prairie existed in contiguous tracts of a few 
1 A draft of this paper was originally developed by Richard W. 
Cannon and Donald M. Christisen in March of 1985. That 
draft is archived with Donald Christisen's papers in the West-
em Historical Manuscript Collection, 23 Ellis Library, Univer-
sity of MO., Columbia. Larry Mechlin updated that draft to 
reflect current research findings and change over the past 13 
years in the population status and management strategies for 
prairie chickens. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
thousand acres, intermingled with less than 
10% woodland. Prairie chickens not only 
occupied the great prairies of northern and 
western Missouri, but also the smaller grass-
lands of the Ozarks, according to historians. 
Prairie chickens were reported in Gasconade, 
Iron, Perry, and St. Francois counties in the 
eastern Ozarks and in the central Ozark coun-
ties of Howell, Reynolds, Ripley and Shannon 
(Leopold 1931 ). Early records indicated 14 of 
24 Ozark counties had prairie chickens (Ben-
nitt and Nagel 193 7). Prairie chickens have 
been observed in Camden, Miller and Taney 
counties, at one time or another, from 1975 
to 1985 and in Maries County earlier. 
It is of interest that Schroeder ( 1981) stated 
"prairies occupied 38 square miles (99 km 2) 
or 61% of St. Louis City and 86 square miles 
(224 km 2) or 17% of St. Louis County" before 
settlement. Undoubtedly, this metropolitan 
area on the banks of the Mississippi River was 
once occupied by prairie chickens along with 
its mammalian associate, the bison. 
Only remnants of the presettlement prairie 
remained when the first formal survey of the 
prairie chicken range was completed (Bennitt 
and Nagel 193 7). The authors considered all 
of north Missouri, the Western Prairie, and 
129 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
130 
Figure 1. Pre settlement prairie in Missouri. 
the Ozark Border as range, roughly 40,21 5 
square miles (1 04,559 km2), recognizing that 
only 27,031 square miles (70,281 km2) were 
occupied. Bennitt (1939) expressed "little 
doubt that present agricultural trends in Mis-
souri are increasing and improving the prairie 
chicken range and are likely to continue to do 
so." He also believed most of the loss of 
range occurred before 1900. 
A more exhaustive field survey in the early 
1940s resulted in a prairie chicken range 
map of the state on a county basis (Fig. 2 , 
Schwartz 1945). This map was based largely 
on soil types, vegetation, and topography, 
and was refined by field interviews in counties 
where birds were reported. Time did not per-
mit delineation of prairie chicken range by 
field surveys in a few instances, but observa-
• Prairie 
tions of birds were plotted on range maps. 
This survey represented the most accurate 
delineation of prairie chicken range for the 
state until 1983 (Cannon and Christisen 
1984b). Figure 3 includes the most recent 
range update utilizing information from the 
1993 range wide survey and annual surveys 
through 1997. Schwartz's (1945) 2,500 
square mile (6,500 km2) range accounted 
for only 13.5% of the most conservative esti-
mate of what once was prairie chicken range, 
the presettlement prairie. 
Approximately 88% of the occupied prairie 
chicken range comprised 8 soil types; 18,759 
square miles (48,773 km2) of these soils were 
unoccupied by prairie chickens, but were 
considered potential range (Table 1, Schwartz 
1 945). Over half the prairie chicken range 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 2. Missouri prairie chicken range in 1940 and associated soil types. 
segments were in parcels of 2.8 to 18.7 
square miles (7.3 to 48.6 km2) and represent-
ed a total of 270 square miles {702 km2) of 
range. Overall, the size of range segments 
varied from 2.8 to 383.1 square miles (7.3 to 
996.1 km2) (Table 2, Schwartz 1945). 
The Schwartz map was considered the basic 
range of the prairie chicken in Missouri for 
nearly 40 years. By the mid-1950s, prairie 
chickens had disappeared from most of the 
range north of the Missouri River (Christisen 
1969). It was estimated that only 900 square 
miles (2,340 km2) of range remained in south 
Missouri, in addition to approximately 200 
square miles (520 km2) in north Missouri. 
A lek survey of south Missouri in 1983 indicat-
ed a breeding range of 632 square miles 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
(1,643 km2), comprising 64 segments (Can-
non and Christisen 1984b). Size of breeding 
range segments varied from 3 to 77 square 
miles (200 km2). The 1998 5-year range up-
date should provide us with new estimates, 
but probably no more than 400-500 square 
miles (1 ,080 to 1300 km2) of range are cur-
rently occupied by resident birds. 
Early historians cite many stories of settlers 
proclaiming the great abundance of prairie 
chickens, along with accounts of market hunt-
ers taking thousands of birds (Britton 1929, 
McKinley 1960). Bennitt {1939) speculated 
that a population of one million would have 
meant an average density of only 36 birds per 
square mile (2.6 km2). Based on the most con-
servative estimates of prairie habitat and bird 
density (5 to 1 0 birds per square mile [2.6 
131 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
132 
Figure 3. Missouri prairie chicken range in 1997. 
iMr,OONAU;- .i 
L ..... 
km2]), the spring breeding population of prai-
rie chickens was 92,370 to 184,740 birds in 
a land of few people. Kirsch (1974) writes of 
a prairie chicken management goal of 1 00 
cocks per square mile (2.6 km2), implying 
a realistic expectation. When optimum habitat 
for this bird existed in Missouri, this standard 
of density may have occurred naturally. Ap-
parently, hundreds of thousands, perhaps 
even millions of prairie grouse were in Mis-
souri. The peak population likely occurred at 
the time when 25 to 30% of the prairie was 
in till crops- possibly in the 1860s, certainly 
not much later. Prairie chickens were consid-
ered abundant until the Civil War, but after-
wards gradually disappeared from most of 
western Missouri (Britton 1929). 
The State Game and Fish Warden's Annual 
... Booming grounds 
from reintroductions 
Report of 1907 showed an estimate of 12,500 
birds based on a 3-county survey sample by 
Chief Warden, J.H. Rodes. During the 1929-
30 winter, Leopold (1931) estimated 8,647 
birds in 33 counties with a density of 8.1 birds 
per square mile (2.6 km2). Another estimate of 
10,000 birds was released by the State Game 
and Fish Warden in 1932. Bennitt and Nagel 
(1937) estimated 5,110 birds in the resident 
fall population of 1934 and a breeding popu-
lation of about half that number. The popula-
tion was estimated by Bennitt (1939) at 6,630 
birds in the spring of 1938 and 13,000 in the 
spring of 1940 (Bennitt 1940). The Schwartz 
(1945) field study, utilizing farmer interviews 
and a lek census sampling of the range in 
1941-44, set the number of prairie chickens 
at well above 13,000. Christisen (1970) esti-
mated a population of 7,000 prairie chickens 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 1. Missouri prairie chicken range according to soil types, 1942. 1 
Soil type 
Putnam silt loam 
Grundy-like 
Shelby loam 
Summit silt loam 
Oswego silt loam 
Cherokee silt loam 
Lebanon silt loam 
Wabash & Grundy silt loam 
Total 
1 Adapted from Schwartz (1945). 
Square 
miles in 
Missouri 
3,258 
504 
4,608 
1,744 
3,362 
1,555 
1,905 
4,025 
20,961 * 
Occupied by 
prairie chickens 
Square 
% miles 
12 396.0 
39 195.3 
13 617.8 
7 129.8 
8 276.5 
30 467.9 
2 38.1 
2 80.5 
10.5 2,201.9 
Prairie 
chickens per 
square mile 
3.2 
3.9 
6.6 
4.9 
6.4 
3.4 
2.6 
6.8 
5.4 
Square 
miles 
unoccupied 
2,862.0 
308.7 
3,990.2 
1,614.2 
3,085.5 
1,087.1 
1,866.9 
3,944.5 
18,759.1 
*Miscellaneous portions of other soils comprise balance of 2,500 square miles of range. 
for south Missouri in 1965 with another 500 
in north Missouri. 
Schwartz (1945) estimated the prairie chicken 
population of Missouri's 2,500 square miles 
(6,500 km2 ) of remaining range to be 13,992 
(adjusted) in 1942, 12,413 in 1943 and 9,250 
in 1944. To afford a comparison with most 
recent estimates, sex ratios listed by Schwartz 
were used to reduce his population to cocks; 
8,135 in 1942; 8,008 in 1943; and 6,801 in 
1944. The estimated population of cocks in 
1982 for 900 square miles (2,340 km 2 ) of 
range was 5,657, and a few cocks (<1 00) in 
north Missouri (Christisen 1982). It appears 
that despite a loss of about 56% (1,400 
square miles [3.640 km2]) of range, the num-
ber of cocks declined no more than 30%. 
Today (1998), the population of resident birds 
is estimated at 1,000 birds. Nearly the entire 
population resides in southwest Missouri and 
is represented by routes run in that region. 
Survey results indicate that population has 
been in decline for the last 28 years (Fig. 4). 
In the early 1940s, the largest and most 
densely populated prairie chicken ranges 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
Table 2. Size classes of Missouri prairie 
chicken range. 1 
Range 
size in 
square 
miles 
2.8-18.7 
22.5-55.5 
72.7-84.4 
173.0-383.1 
Number 
of 
ranges 
26 
16 
5 
4 
Percent 
of 
total 
range 
50.9 
31.3 
9.6 
7.8 
1 Adapted from Schwartz (1945). 
Square 
miles 
occupied 
270.1 
595.0 
390.4 
946.4 
were in north Missouri in an area that extend-
ed from the Iowa line south through Putnum, 
Sullivan and into Linn counties (Schwartz 
1945). This population went from an already 
declining population of 3,100 birds in 1941 to 
near zero by the mid-1950s. A combination of 
133 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 4. Missouri prairie chicken trends south of the Missouri River. 
134 
2.4 
2.2 
2 
10 1.8 
.s:. 
0 1.6 0 
::s 
"' 
1.4 
Gl 
t 1.2 (ll 
1'-
o:t 
C\1 
..... 
"' 0.8 , 
.... 
i:D 
0.6 
0.4 
0.2 
1945 1950 1960 
factors made the decline in north Missouri so 
dramatic. Habitat destruction certainly played 
a role with the intensification of agriculture 
following World War II. Attempts were made 
to reintroduce populations in Macon (1965, 
1966 ), Chariton ( 19 71, 19 73) and Harrison 
(1973) counties, but they were not successful. 
These releases involved small numbers of 
birds and were conducted without the benefit 
of telemetry for evaluation. 
In recent years, grassland habitat has improv-
ed greatly in the north Missouri historic prairie 
chicken range including Sullivan, Putnam, 
Harrison, and Mercer counties. Many cultivat-
ed fields from the 1980s have been returned 
to pastures and haylands, alongside a sub-
stantial increase in acreage of rested grass-
lands resulting from the Conservation Reserve 
Program (CRP). Sullivan and Harrison were 
among the counties with Missouri's highest 
CRP enrollment. Habitat improvement, avail-
ability of 11-gm necklace transmitters (McKee 
et al. 1997) to aid with evaluation, and recent 
successes by Iowa with reintroductions that 
resulted in the reoccupation of a historic 
booming ground in Harrison County, Missou-
ri, provided the support needed to attempt 
reintroductions again in Missouri. 
1970 1980 1990 1997 
Year 
Recent Translocations 
One hundred birds, trapped in Kansas, were 
released in Sullivan County in April of 1993 
and 1994. Some birds were highly mobile in 
1993 with 2 hens nesting 31 and 21 miles 
(49.7 and 33.6 km) from their release site. In 
1994, 2 hens nested approximately 25 miles 
(40 km) while 4 others nested 15 miles (24 
km) from their respective release sites. In the 
spring of 1995, 4 booming grounds in Sullivan 
County had 10, 12, 16, and 20 males display-
ing on them regularly. Additional releases 
were made in April of 1996 and 1997 with 
birds trapped in Nebraska. One hundred birds 
were released each of these years at several 
release sites in Mercer, Putnam and Sullivan 
counties. Reports of flocks of birds are being 
investigated during the 5-year range-wide 
survey this spring and we are hopeful more 
new booming grounds will be located. 
Census Procedures 
The lek census sampling of about 18% of the 
prairie chicken range initiated by Schwartz 
has been conducted annually since 1945, 
with some modifications in 1961. The loss of 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
birds from most of north Missouri prompted 
census discontinuation on some routes, as 
well as changes in the configuration of other 
routes for south Missouri. Since 1975, the lek 
census has been expanded to include public 
prairies (Toney 1981 ). 
Only wildlife biologists and managers con-
ducted the lek census after 1955, and birds 
on each lek were sexed after 1961. Tradition-
ally, with untrained personnel, the census 
had been conducted during the third week of 
April, when most birds on the lek sites were 
males. Beginning in 1962, the census period 
was set earlier and expanded from late March 
to mid-April. The earlier population figures 
from 1946-62 were converted to cock popu-
lations, but estimates beginning in 1962 prob-
ably are more reliable (Table 3). For a repre-
sentation of long-term population trends in 
south Missouri, where sexes were not always 
determined and where annually run survey 
routes experienced some change in length, 
all birds seen are included and displayed on 
a per area basis in Figure 4. 
Harvest 
The season on prairie chickens has been 
closed since 1907 (Bennitt and Nagel1937) 
and has remained closed to the present. The 
Species Management Plan for the Greater Prai-
rie Chicken (Cannon and Christisen 1984a) 
included a final objective to determine the 
feasibility of a limited harvest. Since the state-
wide population has continued to decline, this 
objective was not included in the current spe-
cies management plan (Mechlin 1991) and 
will most likely not be included in the revision 
of the plan to occur in 1998-99. If regional 
populations develop to the point where they 
could support harvest, donor populations of 
prairie chickens will be considered for translo-
cation to unoccupied habitat. 
Public Needs 
The prairie chicken enjoys a wide range of 
support from Missouri's citizens for several 
reasons. Since the prairie chicken was once 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
an upland game bird in the state, and contin-
ues to be hunted in neighboring Kansas and 
Nebraska, it is of interest to upland bird hunt-
ers and bird dog enthusiasts. It is also of inter-
est to the public because historically, during 
the white settlement period, chickens were 
often noted due to their abundance, their role 
as a food item, and their interesting spring 
displays. Their past influence on Native Ameri-
can dance attracts further support. 
Among the more environmentally aware it 
serves as a symbol of the diminished prairie 
community within the state. Since 1966, the 
Missouri Prairie Foundation (MPF) has pro-
moted prairie preservation through awareness 
and land acquisition. The MPF has long used 
the prairie chicken as a natural symbol of a 
movement to preserve what little prairie re-
mains. The 1990 Crossroads Conference, or-
ganized by the MPF, focused further attention 
to the current perilous status of prairie chick-
en and the prairie community overall. They 
are currently involved in the formation of a 
coalition of public and private agencies to 
address habitat problems for all grassland 
birds using the prairie chicken as a focal 
point. The prairie chicken is currently rated as 
endangered in Missouri making it of primary 
interest to many. 
The interesting and colorful breeding displays 
of the prairie chicken create more support for 
the bird than any other factor among the pub-
lic. The problem has been handling the de-
mand without jeopardizing the resource. The 
Missouri Department of Conservation sta-
tioned seasonal blinds at a lek site on Taber-
ville Prairie (Toney 1981 ), St. Clair County, for 
use by the public. Without supervision, how-
ever, within several years the harassment to 
the birds was sufficient to cause the booming 
ground to be vacated. Currently, after some 
words of caution, interested parties are sent 
to sites where they can view booming 
grounds from their vehicles along the road-
side. Viewing opportunities exist at Prairie 
State Park, where staff is on-site, and at a pri-
vately run bed and breakfast establishment. 
The current species management plan (Mech-
lin 1991) calls for the development of more 
viewing opportunities, but this will be contin-
135 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Table 3. Estimated Missouri cock prairie chicken population by year and soil type. 
%of range Males per Summit Grundy-like Putnam 
censused mi.2 range (129.8 mi.2) (195.3 mi.2) (396.0 mi.2) 
South Missouri Oswego Cherokee Shelby State 
Year (900 mi.2) (276.5 mi.2) (467.9 mi.2) (617.8 mi.2) (2,500 mi.2) 
1945 3,748 4.16 1,641 656 912 325 2,078 418 6,941 
1946 19.0* 3,338 3.71 1,237 799 1,042 307 668 338 5,860 
1947 15.9* 3,186 3.54 1,262 683 907 229 695 415 5,955 
1948 7.3* 2,741 3.05 639 998 958 262 770 250 4,770 
1949 10.6* 3,222 3.58 891 1,088 1,298 138 429 161 4,974 
1950 8.7* 3,158 3.51 755 919 1,638 0 523 216 5,661 
1951 10.2* 2,586 2.87 633 928 1 ,211 152 837 127 4,949 
1952 11.8* 3,120 3.47 849 779 1,451 87 657 303 5,160 
1953 12.1* 2,978 3.31 800 751 1,488 114 305 233 5,374 
1954 12.9* 1,891 2.10 375 178 1,607 17 20 186 3,095 
1955 21.2 1,778 1.98 401 465 1,123 
1956 14.2* 2,311 2.57 543 150 1,890 64 78 3,624 
1957 20.2 3,127 3.47 698 178 2,875 
1958 13.1* 2,195 2.44 495 430 1,612 0 16 3,412 
1959 20.5 3,039 3.38 673 509 2,291 
1960 20.5 3,998 4.44 762 180 3,742 
1961 19.8 3,754 4.17 686 261 3,444 
1962 21.6 4,530 5.03 868 334 3,779 
1963 24.5 3,748 4.16 573 419 3,474 
1964 24.5 4,457 4.95 776 276 3,995 
1965 21.5 3,591 3.99 754 275 2,807 
1966 18.8 5,150 5.72 1,777 297 3,006 
1967 18.8 5,920 6.58 1,352 216 338 
1968 18.8 5,315 5.91 1,376 311 3,685 
1969 18.8 4,837 5.37 1,389 239 3,234 
1970 18.8 5,310 5.90 1,403 176 3,819 
1971 18.8 4,216 4.68 1,266 3,018 
1972 18.8 4,173 4.64 1,216 86 2,924 
1973 18.8 4,949 5.50 1,335 90 3,620 
1974 18.8 3,462 3.85 1,107 108 2,252 
1975 18.8 4,099 4.55 1,207 189 2,720 
1976 18.8 3,897 4.33 1,312 176 2,380 
1977 18.8 4,248 4.72 1,485 122 2,614 
1978 18.8 4,635 5.15 1,622 104 2,889 
1979 18.8 4,827 5.36 1,749 99 2,942 
1980 10.1 6,453 7.17 2,660 2,472 
1981 18.3 4,098 4.55 1,058 50 2,492 
1982 14.3 5,657 6.29 1,431 3,258 
• For the state 
Lebanon, a south Missouri soil type, included 38.1 mi.2 of prairie chicken range and had the following cock populations 
- 1945, 25; 1946, 144; 1947, 119. 
Wabash, a north Missouri soil type, included 80.5 mi.2 of prairie chicken range and had the following cock populations 
- 1945, 141; 1947, 98; 1949, 152. 
136 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
_ .... ~~-- -"'~--
gent upon securing the labor and regulations 
to protect the integrity of the leks being ob-
served. Past disturbance problems have been 
from overzealous photographers and from 
viewers moving out of blinds to investigate 
prairie wildflowers near booming grounds. 
Species Needs 
The major limitation for prairie chickens, rec-
ognized since 1937, has been one of habitat 
deficiency, specifically the quantity and quali-
ty of permanent grass. Any food deficiencies 
have been local and short-term. 
Christisen's (1985) land-use study of former 
and current prairie chicken range document-
ed not only the shortage of permanent grass 
in relation to grain crops but also the lack of 
diversity in the kinds of forage crops grown. 
The survey revealed that an extensive portion 
of the range in north Missouri (Shelby soils, 
Table 3) had an ideal ratio of permanent grass 
to crops, yet supported no breeding popula-
tions of prairie chickens. Christisen (1985) 
reported 60% of the Shelby range in pasture. 
Apparently, the necessary vegetative structure 
within grasslands was not present to provide 
quality nesting and brood rearing cover. This 
deficiency could be corrected with different 
management or grass species, but it would be 
difficult because economics dictate what 
crops are grown on private land. 
Better forage crop management is required to 
allow greater height of grass cover for nesting 
and roosting. Most of northern Missouri pas-
tureland is in cool-season grasses. Those grass-
es include orchard grass (Oactylis glomerata), 
timothy (Phleum pratense), and smooth bro-
me (Bromus inermis) that when managed 
properly, especially in a mixture with a le-
gume, can provide excellent nesting, brood-
rearing and roosting habitat. Unfortunately, 
tall fescue (Festuca elatior) is the most com-
mon cool-season grass and it seems to en-
courage overuse and abuse by managers. 
This occurs for 2 reasons. Tall fescue is resil-
ient to abuse, maintaining itself in stands even 
though continuously overgrazed and because 
of endophyte fungus problems that occurs in 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
more mature vegetation of this species. Cur-
rently 60% of the Shelby range is in pasture. 
Kirsch (1974) concluded that annual grazing 
is undesirable for prairie chickens. However, 
in the tallgrass prairie region of Missouri, cat-
tle grazing at some level is attractive to prairie 
chickens. "Light to moderately grazed prairie 
pasture was used more frequently than any 
other cover type for all activities except feed-
ing" was reported by Drobney and Sparrowe 
(1977) after evaluating 7,160 observations of 
cocks in the Mora locality of Benton County, 
Missouri. When looking at 21 species of grass-
land birds, Skinner et al. (1984) found grazing 
to be the most versatile management practice 
among grazing, fire, haying, and rest. When 
stocking rates were adjusted, all cover condi-
tions could be provided. 
Another portion of the north Missouri range 
(Putnam-Mexico soils, Christisen (1985) has 
insufficient permanent grass cover to support 
anything better than a marginal population of 
prairie chickens. Owing to the soil fertility and 
the price advantage of grain over forage pro-
duction, no change in this situation is likely. 
In addition, this highly productive, non-erosive 
land is not likely to qualify or be a good 
choice economically for farmers to enroll in 
the current CRP. Wheat could be a redeem-
ing feature, compensating for the deficiency 
of permanent grass since it is used for nesting 
(Skinner 1974, jones 1988). The stubble, with 
a mix of annual weeds that emerge after the 
wheat matures, can provide quality brood and 
roosting cover. Unfortunately, the increase 
in double cropping of wheat with soybeans 
has become a common practice here and in 
southwest Missouri (Oswego-Dennis and Par-
sons-Gerald soils) where the bulk of the pop-
ulation now resides. 
Audrain County is the home for the few re-
maining chickens existing on Putnam-Mexico 
soils. Approximately 6,000 acres (2,400 ha) 
in Audrain County of wheat were double 
cropped in 1996. Double cropping results in 
early harvest of the wheat, burning or tilling 
of the stubble and planting to beans, leaving 
little for prairie chickens. Single crop wheat 
fields that are usually tilled in the fall provide 
no benefits as roosting or escape cover (Skin-
ner 1974, Christisen 1981a). 
137 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
138 
The southwest portion of the prairie chicken 
range has an adequate amount of permanent 
grass but lacks diversity because tall fescue, 
grown to the exclusion of other grasses, is the 
major forage crop. In the absence of other 
preferred grasses better suited structurally for 
nesting and roosting (Christisen and Krohn 
1980), fescue can support a density of about 
5 prairie chickens per square mile (2.6 km 2 ). 
A conversion to diverse native warm-season, 
or non-fescue diverse cool-season pastures 
and haylands, would greatly improve habitat 
for prairie chickens in this region. Higher prai-
rie chicken population densities are related 
to diversity of grass species and presence 
of prairie grass over fescue (Christisen and 
Krohn 1980). Native prairie is still a dominant 
and beneficial component of south Missouri 
prairie chicken habitat because of the great 
variety of plants and diversity of cover heights 
it provides (Christisen 1981 b). 
Management Needs 
The most important management needs for 
prairie chicken populations within the state 
have remained constant through 2 species 
management plans beginning in 1983, and 
they undoubtably will be a major focus within 
the plan to be updated in 1998. The creation 
of grassland habitat through land acquisition 
and management, an aggressive private-lands 
program, and the reintroduction of birds to 
available habitat in north Missouri are our 
most important management needs. 
There is very little margin for error in the pres-
ervation of prairie chickens in Missouri. The 
fragmented, but still extensive, breeding range 
mapped by Schwartz (1945) simply vanished 
in north Missouri within 10 years after his 
survey (Christisen 1981 b). The nearly com-
plete extirpation of prairie chickens in north 
Missouri resulted from a dramatic and unex-
pected change in crop and grassland man-
agement (Christisen 1985). Today, in south 
Missouri, a similar disadvantage exists in pre-
dicting the future of prairie chickens because 
cropping and grassland management practic-
es are dictated by economics of the market-
place. 
Land Acquisition 
The strategy for land acquisition has changed. 
Due both to an intensification of agriculture 
and to woody encroachment, the grassland 
landscape no longer exists. The acquisition 
of small, high quality scattered tracts of grass-
land results in isolated pockets of habitat not 
large enough to be self-sustaining and too 
disconnected to maintain populations within 
a region. In 1991, the land acquisition strate-
gy became one of creating core areas of 
grassland of at least 2 square miles (5.2 km 2 ) 
surrounded by additional scattered tracts 
of grassland. This strategy is supported by 
research findings from Burger (1988) and 
jones (1988) in their comparison of survival, 
movement, reproduction, and habitat use by 
prairie chickens inhabiting an isolated large 
block of native prairie with a population occu-
pying a "scatter-pattern" (Hamerstrom et al. 
195 7) of habitats. 
The melding of the 2 popular habitat acqui-
sition strategies seemed to provide greater 
protection to the population. Within the large 
core, fragmentation and its negative affects 
should be reduced, birds required to move 
less to meet needs should experience re-
duced exposure to predation, and fewer loss-
es due to agricultural machinery. Scattered 
adjoining tracts could provide areas for expan-
sion under good environmental conditions, 
opportunities for genetic mixing and protec-
tion for the population against localized 
random events such as a major hailstorm. 
These population centers, made of core areas 
and associated smaller tracts, were to be cre-
ated through acquisition and an aggressive 
private lands program. Though development 
of these areas has been painfully slow, indica-
tions are that this habitat acquisition will be 
carried forward. 
Private Lands Programs 
The best remaining Missouri populations exist 
on scattered tracts of privately owned prairie. 
However, the future of these populations is in 
doubt as prairie loss persists due to continued 
row cropping. Approximately 75,000 acres 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
(30,000 ha) of native prairie remains, most 
of which occurs within the breeding range 
of the prairie chicken (Christisen 1973). 
Greater than 80% of the remaining flocks 
of prairie chickens in Missouri occur in areas 
with significant native prairie acreage. There-
fore the restoration, if not the survival, of 
prairie chickens within the best portions of 
the remaining range hinges on the preser-
vation and proper management of native 
prairie tracts. In addition, the establishment 
of diverse warm-season native or cool-season 
grasses, other than fescue, adjacent to these 
native tracts could provide additional habitat 
and reduce fragmentation. 
Because 97% of the prairie chicken breeding 
range is privately owned, there is a need to 
provide landowner services. A range-wide 
effort continues with private landowners. 
However, beginning in 1993, an aggressive 
1 0-year program, "Partners for Prairie Wild-
life," began which targeted a limited portion 
of the range. Specific cost share incentives 
were developed for 2 areas, each 40 square 
miles (1 04 km2) with a complement of public 
and private prairie tracts and some of the bet-
ter chicken populations statewide. 
This experimental program addressed the 
problem that habitat improvement, resulting 
from range wide programs, are so diluted by 
wide spacing that they provide little for true 
grassland species such as prairie chickens. 
Partners for Prairie Wildlife addresses tree 
removal to reduce fragmentation and the 
establishment of permanent and temporary 
grasslands. It contains programs for fescue 
conversion and over-seeding of wheat. The 
greatest change to the approach of this 
private-lands initiative is that it is proactive. 
Adjacent lands that through a change in 
management could provide complementary 
habitat for prairie chickens are identified. The 
owners of those lands are then contacted 
to explore possible cooperative efforts bene-
ficial to both parties. For example, the prac-
tice of over-seeding lespedeza onto wheat 
stubble can provide brood-rearing habitat 
next to existing nesting habitat. Partners for 
Prairie Wildlife can provide seed and the land-
owner can harvest forage or seed in the fall 
and both parties benefit. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99 1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Translocation in North 
Missouri 
Many CRP contracts from the original sign-
ups are coming to a close and grasslands cre-
ated by the program are being put back into 
cultivation. This is especially true in CRP fields 
less prone to erosion and/or very productive 
for crops. Many of these are found in the prai-
rie chicken range of south central and south-
west Missouri. However, in Missouri's most 
northern counties, such as Harrison and Sulli-
van, CRP grasslands within the chicken range 
are being maintained. These counties were 
among the highest in the state for acreage 
put into CRP and, with the recent sign-up, the 
acreage has remained very high. The addition-
al incentives to CRP landowners to manage 
these grasslands are expected to further in-
crease the quality of these previously rested 
grasslands. Radio telemetry studies of birds 
relocated to Sullivan, Putnam and Mercer 
counties in north Missouri recorded nesting 
in hay fields and CRP grasslands mowed the 
previous year. Mowed CRP grasslands provid-
ed similar vegetative structure to hay fields. 
Four stable booming grounds have been 
formed in Sullivan County from spring releas-
es that took place between 1993 and 1997 
and 1 in Harrison County from releases in 
southern Iowa in the late 1980s. Additional 
small grounds have been found and others 
are expected to exist. Additional releases over 
the next 5 years are needed to continue to 
build the population forming across northern 
Missouri and southern Iowa. Prairie chickens 
released and monitored have been highly 
mobile and adept at finding other birds. Birds 
from supplementary releases are expected to 
create additional leks and supplement others. 
Research Needs 
The prairie chicken restoration and manage-
ment program in Missouri will be based on 
the following research activities: (1) monitor 
annual population trends and (2) identify and 
describe habitat elements required to support 
populations inhabiting altered, contemporary 
landscapes. 
139 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
140 
We will continue to monitor populations with 
annual lek surveys on designated routes and 
Missouri Department of Conservation Areas 
and conduct surveys of the entire range every 
5 years. The investigation of habitat elements 
has been part of the research conducted by 
3 recent Masters' degree studies and 1 Ph.D. 
study. Burger (1988) and Jones (1988) investi-
gated differences in survival, movement, re-
production, and habitat use by prairie chick-
ens inhabiting an isolated block of native 
prairie with a population occupying a scatter 
pattern of habitats. McKee (1995) investigat-
ed vegetative structure and found nest sites 
with litter cover >25% had a failure rate twice 
that of nests with <25% litter cover. Nest 
success declined substantially when woody 
cover >5% was present at the nests, when 
forb cover was .:5.5%, or when grass cover was 
.:5.25%. Winter (1998) investigated how factors 
on 3 scales (within patch, local scale, and 
landscape scale) affected density and nesting 
success of grassland-nesting birds in 13 frag-
ments of native tallgrass prairie in southwest-
ern Missouri. 
At this time, further investigation of the rela-
tionship among habitat, habitat management 
techniques, and nest and brood predation 
are needed. This will require further identifica-
tion of the complement of predators respon-
sible for predation on nests with the use of 
photography, etc. and the development of 
new techniques to monitor brood mortality. 
Proactive private-lands programs need evalua-
tion to provide guidance for future private-
lands strategies. These long-term and expen-
sive evaluation studies tend to be particularly 
difficult when dealing with small dwindling 
populations. 
Recommendations 
The remaining breeding range of the prairie 
chicken in Missouri is 4% of its original size. 
More than 80% of the remaining prairie chick-
en populations are associated with Missouri's 
remaining 1% of native prairie. The breeding 
range is fragmented into 50-70 distinct seg-
ments, most on privately owned land. If the 
past 28-year trend continues, Missouri's resi-
dent prairie chicken population will be gone 
by the year 2009! 
To stop and reverse this deteriorating process, 
the establishment of key core areas through 
aggressive land acquisitions for grassland wild-
life and proactive private-lands programs tar-
geted to these same landscapes will be neces-
sary. Government and private organizations 
within the state will need to complement each 
other's efforts. Where one fails another must 
succeed. The battle to secure habitat must be 
prioritized. Efforts have been spread too thin 
in the past for true grassland landscape spe-
cies to benefit. 
Acknowledgments 
The authors are indebted to Debra Hardin for 
word processing and assistance with editing 
this manuscript, and to Craig Scroggins for 
graphic presentations. 
Literature Cited 
Bennitt, R.B. 1939. Some agriculture charac-
teristics of the Missouri prairie chicken range. 
Proceedings of the Fourth North American 
Wildlife Conference 4:491-500. 
____ . 1940. Letter to Arthur L. Clark, 
Conservation Commissioner. 19 February 
1940. 
____ _, and W.O. Nagel. 193 7. A survey 
of the resident game and furbearers of Mis-
souri. University of Missouri Studies 12:44-51. 
Burger, L.W. 1988. Movements, home range, 
and survival of female greater prairie chickens 
in relation to habitat pattern. Thesis, University 
of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 
Britton, W. 1929. Pioneer life in southwest 
Missouri. Smith-Grieves, Kansas City, Missouri, 
USA. 
Cannon, R.W., and D.M. Christisen. 1984a. 
Species management plan for the greater prai-
rie chicken in Missouri. Wildlife Division, Mis-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
souri Department of Conservation, Jefferson-
City, Missouri, USA. 
____ and ____ . 1985b. Breed-
ing range and population status of the greater 
prairie chicken in Missouri. Transactions of 
Missouri Academy of Science 18:33-39. 
Christensen, D.M. 1967. A vignette of Missou-
ri's native prairie. Missouri History Revisited 
61:166-186. 
_____ . 1969. National status and man-
agement of the greater prairie chicken. Pro-
ceedings of the Thirty-fourth North American 
Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 
34:207-217. 
_____ . 1970. Prairie chicken. Pages 79-
83 in W.O. Nagel, editor. Conservation con-
trasts. Missouri Department of Conservation, 
Jefferson City, Missouri, USA. 
_____ . 1973. Prairie preservation in 
Missouri. Pages 42-46 in L.C. Hulbert, editor. 
Proceedings of the Third Midwest Prairie Con-
ference. 
_____ . 1981 a. Significance of native 
prairie to greater prairie chicken survival in 
Missouri. Pages 250-254 in R.L. Stuckey and 
K.J. Reese, editors. Prairie peninsula in the 
shadow of Transeau. Proceedings of the Sixth 
North American Prairie Conference. Ohio 
Biological Survey, Biology Notes 15. 
____ . 1981 b. Stubble stands for wild-
life. Missouri Conservationist 42:22-23. 
_____ ,. 1982. Lek census data. On file at 
Wildlife Research Office. Missouri Depart-
ment of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri, 
USA. 
_____ . 1985. The greater prairie chicken 
and Missouri's land-use patterns. Missouri De-
partment of Conservation Terrestrial Series 15. 
-----' and R.B. Krohn. 1980. Land use: 
a key to greater prairie chicken habitat in Mis-
souri. Pages 55-58 in P.A. Vohs and F.L. 
Knopf, editors. Proceedings of the Prairie 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Crouse Symposium. Oklahoma State U niversi-
ty, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. 
Drobney, R.D., and R.D. Sparrowe. 1977. 
Land-use relationships and movements of 
greater prairie chickens in Missouri. Transac-
tions of Missouri Academy Science 1 0 & 
11:146-160. 
Hamerstrom, F.N., O.E. Mattson, and F. Ham-
erstrom. 1957. A guide to prairie chicken man-
agement. Wisconsin Conservation Depart-
ment Technical Bulletin 15. 
Jones, D.P. 1988. Breeding ecology and habi-
tat use of prairie chickens. Thesis, University of 
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 
Kirsch, L.M. 19 7 4. Habitat management con-
siderations for prairie chickens. Wildlife Soci-
ety Bulletin 2:124-129. 
Leopold, A. 1931. Report on a game survey of 
north central states. Sporting Arms and Ammu-
nition Manufacturers Institute, Madison, Wis-
consin, USA. 
McKee, G. 1995. Ecology of greater prairie 
chickens in relation to habitat characteristics in 
southwest Missouri. Thesis, University of Mis-
souri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 
McKee, G., M.R. Ryan, and L.M. Mechlin. 
1997. Predicting greater prairie chicken nest 
success from vegetation and landscape char-
acteristics. journal of Wildlife Management 
62:314-321. 
McKinley, D. 1960. A chronology and bibliog-
raphy of wildlife in Missouri. University of Mis-
souri Bulletin. 61 :13. Library Service 26:128. 
Columbia, Missouri, USA. 
Mechlin, L.M. 1991. Species management 
plan for the greater prairie chicken in Missouri. 
Wildlife Division, Missouri Department of 
Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, USA. 
Schroeder, W.A. 1981. Presettlement prairie 
of Missouri. Serial 2:37. Missouri Department 
of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri, 
USA. 
141 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
142 
Schwartz, C.W. 1945~ The ecology of the prai-
rie chicken in Missouri. University of Missouri 
Studies. Columbia, Missouri, USA. 
Skinner, R.M. 1974. Grassland use patterns 
and prairie bird populations in Missouri. The-
sis, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missou-
ri, USA. 
Skinner, R M., T.M. Basket, and M.D. Blenden. 
1984. Bird habitat on Missouri prairies. Mis-
souri Department of Conservation Terrestrial 
Series 14. 
Toney, T. E. 1981. Public prairies of Missouri. 
Missouri Department of Conservation, Jeffer-
son City, Missouri, USA. 
Winter, M. 1988. Effect of habitat fragmenta-
tion on grassland-nesting birds in southwestern 
Missouri. Dissertation, University of Missouri, 
Columbia, Missouri, USA. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Status and Management of 
Greater Prairie Chickens in 
Illinois 
Ronald L. Westemeier, Illinois Natural History Survey, Effingham 
Scott A. Simpson, Jllinois Department of Natural Resources, Newton 
Terry L. Esker, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Newton 
At the first meeting (1973) of the group that 
became the Minnesota Prairie Chicken Soci-
ety, the current Illinois program for greater 
prairie chickens (Tympanuchus cupido pinna-
tus) had been underway for about a decade 
(Sanderson and Edwards 1966, Sanderson 
et al. 1973, Westemeier 1973). At that time, 
research, land acquisition, and habitat man-
agement were vigorously pursued. Results 
were positive and the outlook for Illinois prai-
rie chickens was highly optimistic. Newly de-
veloped sanctuary grasslands were being 
used at densities beyond expectations, nest-
ing success was high, and an increase of over 
400% occurred between the mid-1960s and 
1973 on the primary study area in jasper 
County (Sanderson et al. 1973, Westemeier 
1973). Thus, it appeared that sufficient infor-
mation was available to preserve a population 
of prairie chickens. This was not the case. 
In 1973, nest predation greatly increased on 
sanctuaries, and prairie chicken numbers 
plummeted (Westemeier 1985a). Most un-
managed Illinois populations were extirpated 
as land use intensified. Also, beginning in the 
1970s, but especially significant by the mid-
1980s, was the increase of pheasants (Pha-
sianus colchicus) on the jasper County sanctu-
aries. Interactions between pheasants and 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
prairie chickens became a serious threat to 
the survival of the prairie chickens (Vance and 
Westemeier 1979, Westemeier and Edwards 
1987, Westemeier 1988, Westemeier et al. 
1998b). Control of nest predators and pheas-
ants by sanctuary managers was eventually 
successful and land acquisition nearly dou-
bled sanctuary grasslands by the mid-1990s in 
jasper County (Westemeier 1997). 
However, by the late 1980s and early 1990s, 
it became evident that small population size, 
isolation, fitness loss, and genetic deficiencies 
were significant factors in the continuing 
decline of Illinois prairie chickens (Weste-
meier et al. 1 991, 1998a; Bouzat et al. 
1998a,b). This revelation led Illinois Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (IDNR) managers 
to develop and execute an action plan for 
translocating prairie chickens from large 
populations from other states for demograph-
ic and genetic enhancement of the remnant 
Illinois populations. 
The quest to understand the role of many 
factors that influence prairie chicken numbers 
and how best to follow up with remedial ac-
tion is an ongoing one. Key questions still 
needing answers include how many individu-
als are needed to comprise a viable popula-
143 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
tion and what is the quantity and varied struc-
tures of grassland needed to support such a 
population (Westemeier and Gough 1999). 
The purpose here is to present an overview 
of the current status of Illinois prairie chick-
ens, some results of prairie chicken transloca-
tions, and the main challenges still confronting 
efforts to have wild prairie chickens in our 
state. Some management concepts presented 
by Sanderson et al. (1973) and Westemeier 
(1973, 1985a) have changed and are modi-
fied herein. 
Study Areas 
The primary study areas in Jasper and Marion 
counties include the sanctuary grasslands 
(Fig. 1) and surrounding landscapes of inten-
sively farmed private land. In 1993 for exam-
ple, land use types on the central core (2,560 
acres [ 1,03 6 ha]) of the Bogota Study Area 
in jasper County was comprised of 35% soy-
beans (Glycine max), 20% corn (Zea mays), 
8% wheat (Triticum aestivum), and 30% grass-
land. Most grassland cover types were on 
sanctuaries. The few grasslands on private 
land near sanctuaries have included fescue 
pastures, wheat stubble/legumes, and weedy 
grassjforbs. Tall fescue (Festuca elatior var. 
arundinacea) is an undesirable invasive grass, 
and private fescue pastures were, and still are, 
typically too overgrazed to provide quality 
nesting or brooding habitat. 
In the 1960s-70s, fall-seeded wheat was often 
overseeded the following winter with forage 
legumes. Wheat harvest occurred in late june 
at which time the resulting "stubble clover" 
afforded food and cover at least for broods 
3-6 weeks of age. The stubble clover was 
either hayed in late summer and/or left undis-
turbed to be plowed down for soil enrichment 
the following spring, often before nesting prai-
rie chickens could complete incubation. 
Currently, wheat stubble is often seeded to 
soybeans with no-till drills, for a "double crop" 
in the same year. Weedy grass/forb mixtures 
(usually Federal set-aside acres) were also 
mowed in midsummer, often disrupting use 
by prairie-chicken broods. Yet, the weedy 
grass/forb type, now rare on private land, may 
have been an important factor for brood sur-
vival during the critical first few weeks after 
hatching. 
Figure 1. Sanctuaries of managed grassland in the Prairie Ridge State Natural Areas of Jasper and Marion coun-
ties, Illinois, USA. 
144 
N 
I • •I 
1.6 km 
~~--------------------------
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
In 1998, Illinois sanctuaries totaled 2,396 
acres (970 ha) with an approximate 50:50 
ownership by the Illinois Department of Natu-
ral Resources (IDNR) and the Illinois Chapter 
of The Nature Conservancy (TN C). The Prairie 
Chicken Foundation of Illinois was the initial 
key player in sanctuary acquisition, but this 
group disbanded in 1973 after transferring 
paid-for land to the State of Illinois and re-
maining liabilities and assets to the TNC 
(Sanderson et al. 1973}. The Illinois Natural 
History Survey (INHS} was responsible for 
managing TNC sanctuaries from 1965 to 
1985, and all sanctuaries from 1973 to 1985; 
IDNR-Division of Natural Heritage has man-
aged all sanctuaries since 1985. In 1997, a 
broadened ecosystem-based management 
approach was formulated to emphasize spe-
cies of special concern, especially state en-
dangered and threatened species (Simpson 
and Esker 1997}. This change included renam-
ing the prairie chicken sanctuary areas in jas-
per and Marion counties collectively as "Prai-
rie Ridge State Natural Area" (PRSNA). 
Virtually all non-wooded sanctuary lands were 
in cropland at the time of acquisition. These 
were promptly seeded to introduced cool-
season grasses such as redtop (Agrostis 
stolonifera), timothy (Phleum pratense), or 
smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and domestic 
legumes or native warm-season grasses. One 
exception was a 40-acre (16 ha) tract contain-
ing about 30 acres (12 ha) of native prairie 
vegetation. Among these grassland types, 
smooth brome was highly preferred as nest 
cover, even for prairie chickens translocated 
from Minnesota and Kansas prairies to Illinois 
(Westemeier 1985a, Westemeier et al. 1994}. 
In Minnesota, Svedarsky (1988} found a simi-
lar preference for brome by prairie chickens 
on an area with a mix of native and non-na-
tive cover types. 
Grassland management in Illinois has included 
grass seed harvests, rotary mowing (without 
seed harvests) at both high and low levels, 
late haying, prescribed burning, disking for 
brood habitat, leaving stands undisturbed, 
and some light-to-moderate grazing. Most soil 
types supporting Illinois prairie chickens were 
derived from prairie vegetation on level-to-
gently rolling terrain between wooded stream 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
corridors. Woodlots totaling about 160 acres 
(65 ha) remain on 5 sanctuaries. 
Methods 
BOOMING GROUND SURVEYS 
Ellis (1964} used questionnaire cards distribut-
ed to vocational agriculture students in 47 
high school districts over 20 southern Illinois 
counties to determine relative abundance and 
distribution of prairie chickens in fall 1962. 
Beginning in the spring of 1963, Ellis and col-
leagues also conducted booming ground sur-
veys on 1 0 census areas in the occupied 
range which were surveyed until extirpation 
occurred. Surveys eventually involved 23 
areas in 1 0 southern counties (Westemeier 
1985a}. 
Booming ground surveys generally followed 
the Hamerstrom (1973} methodology, em-
phasizing counts during the peak of hen visi-
tation. Peak visitation by hens occurs during 
the first 2 weeks of April in Illinois. At least 3 
usable counts for each booming ground were 
obtained during this period to determine the 
number of regularly present males. Listening 
stop routes were run during calm (<1 0 mph 
(16 kmph ]), rainless mornings by stopping at 
1-mile (1.6 km) intervals for ?.1 min to ensure 
detection of all grounds. Volunteers in obser-
vation blinds on or near booming grounds 
often supplemented numerical data from 
standard surveys. In addition, booming 
grounds were checked for activity at least 
monthly during fall and winter. 
TRANSLOCAT/ONS OF NONRESIDENT 
PRAIRIE CHICKENS 
The translocations of greater prairie chickens 
during 7 years included 2 summer releases 
(August of 1992, 1993} and 5 spring releases 
(April of 1994-98}. These were cooperative 
efforts with colleagues in Minnesota, Kansas, 
and Nebraska. Trapping methods followed 
those developed by Toepfer et al. (1988}, as 
well as unpublished methods by Toepfer for 
summer trapping. All birds were leg banded. 
145 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
146 
Holding and shipping boxes were designed 
with individual compartments, buffered with 
cardboard to minimize injuries to birds. Trans-
portation of prairie chickens to Illinois was via 
air-conditioned vehicles or aircraft. The aver-
age time from capture to release was 30 
hours. Most birds were released at daybreak, 
as close to active booming grounds as possi-
ble. Radiotelemetry was used with all 27 of 
the Minnesota birds and 29 of those from 
Kansas (Rubin 1994, Westemeier et al. 1994, 
1995). Booming grounds were monitored 
before and after April releases to obtain a 
rough estimation of the number of males that 
integrated into the populations in jasper and 
Marion counties. 
Results & Discussion 
ABUNDANCE, DISTRIBUTION, 
DENSITIES, AND DECIMATING 
FACTORS 
In contrast to the legendary abundance of 
prairie chickens throughout the state in about 
1860 (Forbes 1912, Yeatter 1943, Westemei-
er 1985a,b), Illinois prairie chickens reached 
their lowest point in the spring of 1994 with 
an estimated 46 Illinois birds in jasper and 
Marion counties combined. Ralph Yeatter 
(1943, 1963) started his booming ground 
surveys on about 4 mF (1 0.4 km2), near Hunt 
City in jasper County in 1936, recording a 
peak of 131 booming males in 1939. These 
had declined to 4 by 1963. Extirpation of prai-
rie chickens at Hunt City occurred by 1969 
(Vance 1976). 
Ellis' (1964) questionnaire results revealed 
1 79 reported flocks estimated at 2,000 prairie 
chickens distributed over 16 counties in 1962. 
These dwindled to the 2 sanctuary popula-
tions by 1984; a 1 00% loss of unmanaged 
populations in about 2 decades. A small rem-
nant (1-7 males) reappeared in Clay County, 
between the 2 sanctuary populations for a 
decade only to disappear by 1994. 
Two encouraging population highs were not-
ed during the past 3.5 decades of managing 
remnant Illinois prairie chickens; one in jasper 
County and the other in Marion County. In 
jasper County, counts averaged about 40 
booming males during the mid-1960s during 
a surge of land acquisition, seeding, growth, 
and management of sanctuary grasslands. 
Counts then steadily increased, beginning 
in 1968, reaching 206 and 205 males in 1972 
and 1973, respectively (Westemeier 1985a). 
This occurred with only 660 acres (267 ha) 
of sanctuary grassland availal:Jie to the birds 
by spring 1972. In Marion County, counts 
averaged 43 booming males during the 
1970s, where sanctuaries were developing 
more slowly than those in jasper County. 
Increases in Marion County during 1979-81 
brought the count to 116 males in spring 
1982 with only 450 acres (182 ha) of sanctu-
ary grassland. Redtop and timothy were the 
primary sanctuary grass species, and grass 
seed harvesting was the main form of man-
agement that fostered both population highs 
(Westemeier 1985a,b). 
During 19-year periods, breeding densities 
averaged 94 and 83 males/mi2 (36 and 32 
males/km2) of managed grassland in jasper 
and Marion counties, respectively. Hence, for 
nearly 2 decades 1 00 malesjmi2 (39 males/ 
km2) of managed grassland was apparently 
a realistic density goal for Illinois. This density 
goal was proposed for prairie chickens by 
Kirsch (1974). Expressing breeding density to 
include both grassland and surrounding crop-
land as Yeatter (1943) did for about 4 mF 
(1 0.4 km2), yields similar mean density esti-
mates of about 20 males/mi2 (7.7 males/km2) 
for both the Hunt City and Bogota study ar-
eas (Westemeier, unpublished data). Two 
sanctuary systems, each with 1,500 acres 
(607 ha), well-situated, properly managed, 
and well-used by prairie chickens, appeared 
to be at least minimum goals with which to 
achieve preservation of the species. 
Unfortunately, minimum land acquisition 
goals were not attained, other factors inter-
ceded, and the favorable population respons-
es did not continue into the current decade. 
By the spring of 1994, the count of prairie 
chickens on booming grounds had declined 
to 5-6 Illinois males and 2 translocated Min-
nesota males in jasper County. This brink of 
extirpation occurred despite a new record of 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Figure 2. Estimated number of prairie chicken cocks in spring, before (1990-91), during (1992-96), 
and after (1997-98) releases of translocated birds from Minnesota (15 hens, August 1992; 8 cocks, 
4 hens, August 1993), Kansas (a total of94 cocks, 100 hens, April1994 and 1995), Nebraska (25 
cocks, 25 hens, April1996), Bogota Study Area, Jasper County, Illinois, USA. Open bars represent 
cock numbers observed during the early part (late March-early April) of booming seasons just pri-
or to each April release. Shaded bars represent estimated cock numbers observed early to mid April 
after each April release. The difference in numbers before and after each of the 3 spring releases 
was believed to roughly represent the number of translocated cocks integrated into the breeding 
population. 
100 JASPER COUNTY 
~NO RELEASE 
80 D BEFORE RELEASE 
~ 
• AFTER RELEASE z 
t2 
a.. 
<n 60 
;!; 
C/) 
::.::: 
(.) 40 0 (.) MN2 (.) 
Q. It 5-6 
20 
1990 1991 1992 1993 
about 1,000 acres (405 ha) of managed grass-
land available in 1993 to the prairie chickens 
at Bogota. 
The situation was not much better in Marion 
County where the number of males ranged 
from 9 to 18 from 1989 to 1996, with about 
600 acres (243 ha) of sanctuary grassland. 
In addition to poor nest success due to preda-
tion in some years, intense interactions with 
pheasants, intensifying land use on private 
cropland adjacent to the sanctuaries, declin-
ing egg viability symptomatic of genetic defi-
ciencies also became evident. Moreover, the 
more-peripheral sanctuaries in jasper County 
continued to be little used by prairie chickens 
because of close proximity to woodlands and 
probably other factors. In Marion County, the 
3 northern-most sanctuaries remained essen-
tially unused since 1990, perhaps due in part 
to intensive spreading of domestic chicken 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
\ 
\ 
60 
21 
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 
manure that began in 1987 on nearby private 
farmland. Tall wooded fencerows were also 
negative factors on some Marion County 
tracts. Hence, only about half of the "avail-
able" managed grasslands on sanctuaries 
were being regularly utilized by prairie chick-
ens in each county. 
RESPONSES FOLLOWING RELEASES OF 
TRANSLOCATED PRAIRIE CHICKENS 
Between August 1992 and April 1998, 518 
greater prairie chickens (268 hens, 250 males) 
were tranlocated from 3 states and released 
in Illinois sanctuary areas. Responses were 
initally slow. Little change in numbers were 
evident after the 2 initial releases of 27 radio-
tagged birds made in the summers of 1992 
and 1993 in jasper County (Fig. 2). The same 
was true for Marion County after a first spring 
147 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
148 
Figure 3. Estimated number of prairie chicken cocks in spring before (crosshatching, 1990-95) and 
during (eachApril1996-98) releases oftranlocated birds from Nebraska (25 cocks, 25 hens in 
1996) and Kansas (50 cocks, 50 hens in 1997; 50 cocks, 50 hens in 1998), Kinmundy Study Area, 
Marion County, Illinois, USA. Open bars represent cock numbers observed during the early part 
(late March-early April) of booming seasons just prior to each release. Shaded bars represent cock 
numbers observed early-to-mid April after each release. The difference in numbers before and 
after each of the 3 spring releases was believed to roughly represent the number of translocated 
cocks integrated into the breeding population. 
0 
60 MARION COUNTY 
z ~NO RELEASE a: 
a. D BEFORE RELEASE 40 VJ 40 
z 
• AFTER RELEASE 
VJ 
~ 
u 20 0 
u 
u 
a.. 
1990 1991 1992 1993 
release there, of 49 unradioed birds in 1996 
(Fig 3). However, both remnant populations 
were revived from lows with no more than 6 
Illinois males and probably fewer hens. 
In jasper County, the number of males by 
spring 1998 reached 84 males (Fig. 2) on at 
least 1 0 booming grounds, the highest level 
attained since 1982. All but 3 males were 
focused on or near the 3 central-most sanctu-
aries (Fig. 1 ), containing approximately 700 
acres (283 ha) of managed grassland in 1998. 
Thus, the density of breeding prairie chickens 
on these 3 units was once again relatively 
high. Viewing breeding density in a conven-
tional way, the 81 booming cocks in the inte-
riors of 3 adjacent sections of mixed cropland 
and grassland translate into 27 males/mi2 
(1 0.4 males/km2). This density, for example, 
nearly matched Wisconsin's top density of 
"28.0-29.5 cocks per section" on a "2x2 mile 
subsample" in 1950 (Hamerstrom et al. 
1957:91 ). 
In Marion County, virtually no change fol-
lowed the first release in spring 1996. But 
increases of 300% (6 to 24 males) and 60% 
(25 to 40 males) were observed after the 
25 
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 
spring releases were made in 1997 and 1998, 
respectively (Fig. 3). Thirty-three (83%) of the 
post-release prairie chickens in 1998 were 
observed on or near the southern 3 sanctuary 
units (400 acres) in Marion County (Fig. 1 ). 
Surprisingly, a new booming ground appeared 
with 5 males in the spring of 1997 near the 
commercial egg-production facility. It had 6 
males prior to the 1998 release, and gained 
another male after the 1998 release. The 
1998 count for Marion County was the high-
est since 1987. 
In addition to the marked responses in the 2 
sanctuary areas, we verified 1 to 2 males in at 
least 4 other areas. In 1997 and 1998, 1 male 
was located on Ralph Yeatter's old study area 
near Hunt City, in northeastern jasper Coun-
ty. There were unverified reports of prairie 
chickens in several other areas as well, follow-
ing releases of translocated birds. 
The positive responses attained thus far by 
the translocations from Minnesota, Kansas, 
and Nebraska are indeed encouraging, at 
least for the short term. However, given the 
amount of habitat available, and the size of 
the current populations in Illinois, they may 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
--------------------~------
not remain viable for long. On the basis of 
historical evidence, Toepfer et al. (1990:575) 
called for minimum populations of at least 
"200 birds or 1 00 displaying cocks" because 
populations of lesser size are likely to "eventu-
ally disappear without habitat improvement or 
acquisition." Significant habitat improvements 
are ongoing in Illinois and new acquisitions 
totaled 275 well-situated acres in 1995, near 
Bogota in jasper County (Simpson and Esker 
1997). As noted above, roughly only half of 
the managed grasslands in both counties are 
currently well utilized by prairie chickens. 
However, the distribution of prairie chickens 
could improve greatly in response to the 
stepped-up levels of tree removal, new grass 
seedings, prescribed burning, and other im-
provements now underway. The high densi-
ties attained from the late 1960s through the 
mid 1980s, and again in 1998 in jasper Coun-
ty, offer hope that favorable increases in pop-
ulation size are indeed possible. 
A combination of high densities and fullest 
possible utilization of available grasslands by 
prairie chickens may be essential because 
minimum viable population size could well be 
more than twice that (1 00 males) proposed 
by Toepfer et al. (1990). Westemeier and 
Gough (1999) base this contention on long-
term booming ground surveys, especially in 
Wisconsin, which suggest minimum popula-
tions to be those with >250 males. 
BENEFITS TO OTHER GRASSLAND 
SPECIES 
Species other than prairie chickens, especially 
those endangered and threatened, on or near 
sanctuary grasslands in Illinois, have not been 
overlooked. A holistic approach may be espe-
cially important for promoting needed im-
provements and increased habitat protection 
and development at PRSNA of jasper and 
Marion counties. Reports on grassland-
dependent species (other than prairie chick-
ens and pheasants) using Illinois sanctuaries 
include those by Buhnerkempe (1979), West-
emeier and Buhnerkempe {1983), Westemei-
er (1985a), Buhnerkempe and Westemeier 
(1984a,b; 1988), Westemeier (1986, 1989, 
1991, 1994), Westemeier et al. (1989, 1997), 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Simpson and Esker (1997), Walk et al. (1998), 
Walk (1998a,b), and Herkert et al. (1999). 
Current management for the PRSNA empha-
sizes 36 species of special concern (31 birds, 
2 reptiles, and 3 plants) which occur at this 
site. These include 17 state-endangered 
species, 8 state-threatened species, 6 watch-
listed species, and 5 additional area-sensitive 
species (Simpson and Esker 1997). In short, 
the PRSNA has become "home to the most 
significant grassland bird populations in the 
state" (Walk et al. 1998:22). For example, 
the area hosts the state's largest breeding 
population of northern harriers (Circus cya-
neus) and short-eared owls (Asia flammeus) 
(Simpson and Esker 1997) and the largest 
wintering populations of these raptors in the 
Midwest (Walk et al. 1998). Further, as Walk 
(1998a:1 0) noted, the PRSNA "has not been 
fully appreciated for its grassland bird density 
and diversity." Thus, greater concern for bio-
diversity and an ecosystem approach to grass-
land management for prairie chickens seems 
warranted. 
Management Implications 
Despite past successes, minimum viable pop-
ulations (MVPs) of prairie chickens have not 
been maintained in either jasper or Marion 
counties of Illinois. To attain MVPs, more 
managed grasslands with plant structures suit-
able to meet the year-round needs of prairie 
chickens must become a reality. The 2 scatter-
patterns of grasslands may require 4,000 
acres (1 ,620 ha) of habitat protection and 
development in each county (Simpson and 
Esker 1997). This level of management allows 
for (1) tracts that may never be well utilized 
by prairie chickens, (2) providing adequate 
brood cover for prairie chickens, (3) greater 
consideration for other endangered and 
threatened species, and (4) restoration of 
Southern Till Plain prairies. 
Ongoing, or at least periodic, nest studies 
and/or genetic evaluations will likely be need-
ed to assess fitness and genetic variation 
in prairie chickens. If new research reveals 
another decline in fitness and more genetic 
149 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
150 
deficiencies, translocations of prairie chickens 
from large populations may again be needed. 
Recent responses by prairie chickens and 
by the array of other grassland and wetland 
species are encouraging, at least in the short 
term. For the long term, however, more 
suitable grasslands are urgently needed for 
increased biodiversity, grassland species in 
particular. 
Acknowledgments 
In the initial translocations of prairie chickens 
(1992-93), we are grateful for the support 
of the Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources, the Minnesota Prairie Chicken Soci-
ety, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 
and the North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife 
Society. J.E. Toepfer played an integral role 
in initial and follow-up efforts. R. Koerken-
meier directed most of the trapping efforts. 
Much support came from R.D. Applegate 
and his colleagues in the Kansas Department 
of Wildlife and Parks in 1994, 1995, 1997, 
and 1998, as well as from W.L. Vodehnal 
and colleagues of the Nebraska Game 
and Parks Commission in 1996. We thank 
S. Gough, R.W. Jansen, and P.W. Brown for 
reviews of the manuscript. T.E. Rice did the 
figure graphics. This study was funded by the 
Illinois Natural History Survey and the Divi-
sion of Natural Heritage, both within the Illi-
nois Department of Natural Resources. Coop-
erators also included The Nature Conservancy, 
the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission, the 
Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board, 
and the I DNR Division of Wildlife Resources. 
Literature Cited 
Bouzat, J.L., H.A. Lewin, and K.N. Paige. 
1998a. The ghost of genetic diversity past: 
historical DNA analysis of the greater prairie 
chicken. The American Naturalist 152:1-6. 
-----' H.H. Cheng, H.A. Lewin, R.L. 
Westemeier, J.D. Brawn, and K.N. Paige. 
1998b. Genetic evaluation of a demographic 
bottleneck in the greater prairie chicken 
(Tympanuchus cupido). Conservation Biology 
12:836-843. 
Buhnerkempe, J.E. 1979. Habitat utilization 
and partitioning within a community of nesting 
grassland birds. Thesis, Eastern Illinois Univer-
sity, Charleston,lllinois, USA. 
____ _, and R.L. Westemeier. 1984a. 
Nest-sites of Turkey vultures in buildings 
in southeastern Illinois. Wilson Bulletin 
96:495-496. 
----' and ____ ,. 1984b. North-
ern harrier nests on a prairie chicken sanctu-
ary in Jasper County. Illinois Audubon Bulletin 
208:28-29. 
____ _, and . 1988. Breeding 
biology and habitat of upland sandpipers on 
prairie chicken sanctuaries in Illinois. Transac-
tions of the Illinois Academy of Science 
81:153-162. 
Ellis, R.J. 1964. Responses of prairie chickens 
to habitat manipulation. P-R Job Completion 
Report W-66-R-3, Illinois. 
Forbes, S.A. 1912. The native animal resourc-
es of the state. Transactions of the Illinois State 
Academy of Science 5:3 7-48. 
Hamerstrom, F.N., and F. Hamerstrom. 1973. 
The prairie chicken in Wisconsin: highlights 
of a 22-year study of counts, behavior, move-
ments, turnover, and habitat. Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources Technical 
Bulletin 64. 
____ _, O.E. Mattson, and F. Hamer-
strom. 1957. A guide to prairie chicken man-
agement. Wisconsin Conservation Depart-
ment Technical Bulletin 15. 
Herkert, J.R., S.A. Simpson, R.L. Westemeier, 
T.L. Esker, and J.W. Walk. 1999. Response 
of northern harriers and short-eared owls to 
grassland management in Illinois. journal of 
Wildlife Management 63:517-523. 
Kirsch, L.M. 1974. Habitat management con-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
siderations for prairie chickens. Wildlife Soci-
ety Bulletin 2:124-129. 
Rubin, C.S. 1994. Survival, movements, and 
habitat use of female greater prairie chickens 
translocated from Minnesota to Illinois. Thesis, 
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA. 
Sanderson, G.C., and W.R. Edwards. 1966. 
Efforts to prevent the extinction of the prairie 
chicken in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois 
State Academy of Science 59:326-333. 
____ _, R.L. Westemeier, and W.R. Ed-
wards. 1973. Acquisition and management of 
prairie chicken sanctuaries in Illinois. Pages 
59-79 in W.D. Svedarsky and T. Wolfe, edi-
tors. The Prairie Chicken in Minnesota. Univer-
sity of Minnesota, Crookston, Minnesota, 
USA. 
Simpson, S.A., and T.E. Esker. 1997. Prairie 
Ridge State Natural Area habitat plan. Illinois 
Department of Natural Resources- Division 
of Natural Heritage, Springfield, Illinois, USA. 
Svedarsky, W.O. 1988. Reproductive ecology 
of female greater prairie chickens in Minne-
sota. Pages 193-239 in A.T. Bergerud and 
M.W. Gratson, editors. Adaptive strategies 
and population ecology of northern grouse. 
Wildlife Management Institute and University 
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 
USA. 
Toepfer, J.E., J.A. Newell, and j. Monarch. 
1988. A method for trapping prairie grouse 
hens on display grounds. Pages 21-23 in A.j. 
Bjugstad, Technical Coordinator. Prairie chick-
ens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. 
U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report 
RM-159. 
____ _, R.L. Eng, and R.K. Anderson. 
1990. Translocating prairie grouse- What 
have we learned? Transactions of North Ameri-
can Wildlife and Natural Resources Confer-
ence 55:569-579. 
Vance, D.R. 1976. Changes in land use and 
wildlife populations in southeastern Illinois. 
Wildlife Society Bulletin 4:11-15. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Vance, D.R., and R.L. Westemeier. 1979. In-
teractions of pheasants and prairie chickens in 
Illinois. Wildlife Society Bulletin 7:221-225. 
Walk, J.W. 1998a. Birds of Prairie Ridge State 
Natural Area. Meadowlark 7:8-11. 
_____ . 1998b. Winter roost sites of 
northern harriers and short-eared owls on 
Illinois grasslands. journal of Rap tor Research 
32:116-119. 
____ _, E.L. Kershner, and R.E. Warner. 
1998. Songs of the grassland. The Illinois 
Steward 7:20-24. 
Westemeier, R.L. 1973. Prescribed burning in 
grassland management for prairie chickens in 
Illinois. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire 
Ecology Conference 12:317-338. 
____ . 1985a. Management plan for 
native prairie chickens in Illinois. Illinois Natu-
ral History Survey, Effingham, Illinois, USA. 
_____ . 1985b. The history of prairie 
chickens and their management in Illinois. 
Pages 17-27 in R.W. McCiuggage, editor. 
Selected papers in Illinois history 1983. Fourth 
Annual Illinois History Symposium of the Illi-
nois State Historical Society, Springfield, Illi-
nois, USA. 
_____ . 1986. Endangered prairie chick-
ens and some species interactions. Illinois 
Natural History Survey Reports 262:1-2. 
____ . 1988. An evaluation of methods 
for controlling pheasants on Illinois prairie 
chicken sanctuaries. Pages 267-288 in D.L. 
Hallett, W.R. Edwards, and G.V. Burger, edi-
tors. Pheasants: symptoms of wildlife problems 
on agricultural lands. North Central Section, 
The Wildlife Society, Bloomington, Indiana, 
USA. 
_____ . 1989. Upland sandpipers on 
Illinois prairie chicken sanctuaries. Illinois Nat-
ural History Survey Reports 284:1-2. 
_____ . 1991. New residents on sanctu-
aries. Illinois Natural History Survey Reports 
306:1. 
151 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
152 
____ . 1994. More than prairie chick-
ens. Illinois Natural History Survey Reports 
325:6-7. 
_____ ,. 1997. Grassland for prairie chick-
ens: how much is enough? Jllinois Natural 
History Survey Reports 343:1,8. 
____ , and j.E. Buhnerkempe. 1983. 
Responses of nesting wildlife to prairie grass 
management on prairie chicken sanctuaries in 
Illinois. Proceedings of the North American 
Prairie Conference 8:39-46. 
____ _, and W.R. Edwards. 1987. Prairie 
chickens:survival in the Midwest. Pages 119-
131 in H. Kallman, C.P. Agee, W.R. Goforth, 
and J.P. Linduska, editors. Restoring America's 
wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash-
ington, DC, USA. 
------' T.E. Esker, and S.A. Simpson. 
1989. An unsuccessful clutch of northern bob-
whites with hatched pheasant eggs. Wilson 
Bulletin 101 :640-642. 
____ , S.A. Simpson, and D.A. Cooper. 
1991. Successful exchange of prairie chickens 
eggs between nests in two remnant popula-
tions. Wilson Bulletin 103:717-720. 
------' C.S. Rubin, R.E. Warner, T.L. Es-
ker, S.A. Simpson, and j.E. Toepfer. 1994. Sur-
vival, movements, habitat use, and reproduc-
tion of greater prairie chickens translocated 
from Minnesota to Jllinois: Phase I. (Progress 
Report) Illinois Natural History Survey, Effing-
ham, Illinois, USA. 
------' R.W. jansen, and S.A. Simpson. 
1995. Nest and brood habitats used by trans-
located greater prairie chickens in Illinois (Ab-
stract). Page 17 in j. Kobriger, compiler. Pro-
ceedings of 21st Prairie Crouse Technical 
Council meeting, Medora, North Dakota, 
USA. 
____ _, S.A. Simpson, and j.W. Walk. 
1997. Nesting and brooding by king rails in 
upland cool-season grasses in a southern Illi-
nois sanctuary. Meadowlark 6:12-13. 
------' J.D. Brawn, S.A. Simpson, T.L. 
Esker, R.W. jansen, j.W. Walk, E.L. Kershner, 
j.L. Bouzat, and K.N. Paige. 1998a. Tracking 
the long-term decline and recovery of an iso-
lated population. Science 282:1695-1698. 
------' j.E. Buhnerkempe, W.R. Edwards, 
J.D. Brawn, and S.A. Simpson. 1998b. Parasit-
ism of greater prairie chicken nests by ring-
necked pheasants. journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 62:854-863. 
___ ___, and S. Gough. 1999. National 
outlook and conservation needs for greater 
prairie chickens. Pages 169-187 in Svedarsky, 
W.O., R.H.Hier, and N.J. Silvy, editors. The 
greater prairie chicken: a national/oak. Minne-
sota Agricultural Experiment Station Miscella-
neous Publication 99-1999, University of Min-
nesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 
Yeatter, R.E. 1943. The prairie chicken in Jlli-
nois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 
22. 
____ . 1963. Population responses of 
prairie chickens to land-use changes in Illinois. 
journal of Wildlife Management 27:739-757. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
The Attwater's Prairie Chicken 
A Lesson in Conservation 
Biology Research 
-
Nova J. Silvy, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M 
University, College Station 
Clifton P. Griffin, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M 
University, College Station 
Mitchell A. Lockwood, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas 
A&M University, College Station 
Michael E. Morrow, Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, Eagle 
Lake 
Markus J. Peterson, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin 
Introduction 
In 1967, when the Attwater's prairie chicken 
(APC; Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) was 
listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS), approximately 1,070 
individuals resided in 14 counties (Lehmann 
1968; Aransas, Austin, Brazoria, Calhoun, 
Chambers, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, 
Goliad, Harris, Jefferson, Refugio, Wharton, 
and Victoria). Its original range extended from 
the Nueces River in Texas to Abbeyville, Loui-
siana, and peak numbers were estimated at 
between 300,000 and 1 million individuals 
on 5.5 million acres (2.4 million ha) (Lehmann 
1941, 1965). 
Numbers of APC declined to 8,700 individu-
als on 450,158 acres (182,250 ha) by 1937 
(Lehmann 1941 ), 4,200 individuals by 1950 
(Jennings 1950), 1,335 individuals by 1963 
(Lehmann and Mauermann 1963), and 1,070 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
on 234,082 acres (94,770 ha) by 1967 (Leh-
mann 1968). In 1980, when the last status 
update was published (Lawrence and Silvy 
1980), the population had increased to 1,584 
individuals on 297,413 acres (120,41 0 ha). 
The distribution of APC in 1 980 had de-
creased to 10 Texas counties: Aransas, Austin, 
Brazoria, Colorado, Fort Bend, Galveston, 
Goliad, Harr-is, Refugio, and Victoria. Law-
rence and Silvy (1980) predicted the APC 
population would remain relatively stable dur-
ing the 1980s, given no catastrophic events; 
'then a long-term downward trend was pre-
dicted if additional lands were not managed 
to benefit the APC. In 1980, less then 9,880 
acres ( 4,000 ha) were managed for the APC 
on the Attwater Prairie Chicken National 
Wildlife Refuge (APCNWR) and the Aransas 
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). 
In an effort to save the APC from extinction, 
many government agencies (Texas and Feder-
153 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
154 
al) and non-profit organizations have worked 
together to help the APC. Past and current 
efforts (published and non-published) by these 
agencies and organizations have and are con-
tributing greatly to save the APC from extinc-
tion. This paper chronicles only conservation 
research efforts by the senior author and his 
students to help in this effort to prevent the 
extinction of the APC. The authors recognize 
that conservation biology includes more areas 
than research, however, only research at Tex-
as A&M University (TAMU) will be dealt with 
in this paper. This paper also updates the sta-
tus of the APC since 1980 and discusses the 
bird's future. 
Current Status 
The APC had a spring 1998 population of 56 
individuals inhabiting the coastal prairies of 
Texas (FWS, unpublished data). This estimate 
represents a 96% decrease from the 1980 
estimate of 1,584 birds. Estimates between 
1980 and 1998 ranged from a high of 1,620 
birds in 1984 to a low of 42 birds in 1996 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished 
data). As predicted by Lawrence and Silvy 
(1980), the population remained relatively 
stable for nearly 8 years then declined more 
than 53% from 1988 to 1989. 
Lawrence and Silvy (1980) estimated the 
APC occupied 297,413 acres (120,41 0 ha) 
in 1980. In 1998, 3 populations of APC occu-
pied about 17,784 acres (7,200 ha) of this 
former range. Although occupied range has 
decreased by at least 94% from that used in 
1980, there are still sizeable areas that appear 
to offer all the requisites to support APC. 
However, populations have gone extinct in 
these areas. Many of these areas are now 
isolated from remaining APC populations and 
repopulating them would require reintroduc-
tion. Less than 145,730 acres (59,000 ha) of 
occupied and potential prairie chicken habitat 
remain in 1998. This estimate is less than 49% 
of the habitat used by APC in 1980. 
In spring 1998, the largest population of APC 
was in Galveston County where 18 males 
were seen on display grounds on one ranch 
of about 1,729 acres (700 ha). This is down 
from the 96 birds and 6694 acres (2,71 0 ha) 
of estimated habitat in 1980. Urban-industrial 
development led to this decline. The pop-
ulation in Galveston County peaked at 110 
individuals in 1981 and continued to decline 
to 16 individuals in 1996. In july 1996, 19 
captive-reared birds were released into the 
Galveston population. Additional birds were 
released in late summer 1997. Following 
release of captive-reared birds (19 in 1996 
and 18 in 1997), the population has gradually 
increased to an estimated 36 individuals in 
spring 1998. The population in Galveston 
County came under the control of the Texas 
Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TN C) 
through a donation by Amoco Oil Company 
in 1995. 
In 1980, Refugio County held the largest pop-
ulation of APC. In spring 1998, only 6 males 
were sighted in Refugio County. The birds 
were located on a single display ground in an 
8,000-acre (3,200-ha) pasture. This is a 94% 
reduction from the 7,904 acres (49,540 ha) 
occupied in 1980 (Lawrence and Silvy 1980). 
The estimated 12 individuals for 1998 is a 
98% reduction from the number of birds 
(726) found in Refugio County during 1980. 
The population in Refugio County peaked in 
1984 with an estimated 838 birds and is cur-
rently at an all time low. 
The third population of APC (8 individuals) is 
found on the APCNWR in Colorado County. 
The APCNWR was supplemented with 13 
male APC in 1995, 50 birds of both sexes in 
1996, and 33 birds of both sexes in 1997. In 
1980, there were 186 chickens using 37,396 
acres (15,140 ha) of habitat in Colorado 
County. In 1998, all 8 remaining birds were 
located on the 7904-acre (3,200-ha) APCN-
WR. Little, if any, potential habitat remains 
elsewhere in Colorado County. The Colorado 
County population peaked at 320 birds in 
1983. 
Continuous with the Colorado County popu-
lation in 1980 was the Austin County popula-
tion of 326 chickens on 38,507 acres (15,590 
ha). Birds in Austin County declined after 
1980 and were last seen in 1995. During the 
past 18 years, populations of APC have gone 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
extinct in Aransas, Austin, Brazoria, Fort Bend, 
Goliad, Harris and Victoria counties. Birds 
were no longer found in Aransas or Fort Bend 
counties after 1991, in Goliad County after 
1993, and Victoria County after 1992. In 
1982, the remaining 20 individuals in Brazoria 
County were lost when hurricane Alicia hit 
this area (Silvy and Morrow 1988}. This poten-
tial habitat in Brazoria County remains and is 
now part of the Brazoria National Wildlife 
Refuge (BNWR) . 
Research 
HABITAT STUDIES 
Research on the APC began during fall1974 
when the FWS requested assistance in deter-
mining why numbers of APC on the ANWR 
were decreasing. Refuge personnel were 
particularly interested in determining which 
vegetation types were most used by the APC 
so they could both better manage public 
lands and use these data when evaluating 
potential land purchases. Because the APC 
on ANWR was considered a "spill-over" pop-
ulation from the much larger population in 
adjoining Refugio County, research was initi-
ated in Refugio County where all APC oc-
curred on private lands. Ranchers in Refugio 
County encouraged research conducted on 
their properties. Trapping and radio-telemetry 
tagging of APC started in January 1975 in 
Refugio County. 
Horkel (1979} determined cover and space 
requirements for APC in Refugio County. He 
noted that of 8 major vegetation types recog-
nized, the birds were located 76% of the time 
in 1 vegetation type (clumped midgrass) and 
all APC nests were located within 2 types 
even though they comprised only 52% of the 
area. It was then apparent that future land 
purchases should include these 2 vegetation 
types (clumped and unclumped midgrass). It 
appeared that APC used these types because 
they had a mean annual vegetation height 
below 22 inches (55 em) and an annual mean 
visual obstruction (Robel et al. 1970} of 2.5 
dm or less (Cogar et al. 1977}. Cogar (1980} 
determined that food was not limiting in all 5 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
of the 8 vegetation types the APC used and 
they fed mostly on forbs, with insects being 
important in summer . 
Horkel and Silvy (1980} compared the behav-
ior of APC to that of the greater prairie chick-
en (GPC; T. c. pinnatus) and found the breed-
ing hierarchy of APC leks were unstable. The 
apparent breakdown of territories was related 
to extreme linearity of the leks (roads and oil 
pipelines being used as leks). They proposed 
the increased number of leks caused by oil 
development and the instability of linear leks 
might lead to less "fit" males breeding, there-
by degrading the genetic fitness of the popu-
lations. Lutz (1979} determined that oil devel-
opment positively affected food availability 
due to the mowing of oil pipeline rights-of-
way. Lutz and Silvy (1980} studied artificial 
nests and found few differences in the vegeta-
tive cover at nests disturbed or undisturbed 
by predators. Predation on artificial nests ap-
peared to be area specific and was influenced 
by vegetation at the nest site. 
Lawrence and Silvy (1987} evaluated the ef-
fectiveness of a 1979 transplant of APC from 
Galveston County to Victoria County. Twenty-
five (12 males and 13 females) birds were 
radio-tagged when released. Only 1 bird sur-
vived >1 year and no hens produced young. 
Reasons for the transplant failure included 
translocating adults only, inappropriate 
release habitat, and drought. Horkel et al. 
( 1981) looked at rights-of-way as potential 
habitat for APC and noted APC used mowed 
rights-of-way as feeding sites. Lawrence 
(1982} found that controlling small mammal-
ian predators increased nesting success by 
about 50%, but that limiting the raptorial prey 
base caused raptors to increase predation on 
older APC, thereby negating the benefits of 
the increased nesting success . 
Morrow (1986}, also using radio telemetry, 
collected data on habitat use, movement, and 
survival of APC on the APCNWR. He estimat-
ed annual adult survival at between 1 0.8 and 
35.5%. Nesting success averaged 35% during 
his 3-year study. Survival of broods was 34% 
for 8 weeks post hatching. Annual range size 
for females and males averaged 1470 and 
889 acres (595 and 360 ha), respectively. 
155 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
156 
Morrow (1986) found that APC selected sec-
ond-year and older burns on loamy grasslands 
during winter. During spring, males and non-
reproductive females also selected for these 
range types. Additionally, grassland cover 
with an obstruction of vision value in the 
2-dm range was important during the critical 
winter and nesting periods. Eighty-five percent 
of nests were found in third-year or older 
burns. Broods of young birds used grassland 
typified by second-year and older burns 
on loamy and sandy areas. After mid-june, 
broods used more open coarse sand and first-
year burn areas. 
DiMare (1991) observed APC at 3 leks of 
different shape (circular, intermediate, and 
linear) in Refugio County and compared re-
productive success of dominant males on 
these grounds. The number of males regularly 
attending each lek did not differ across leks 
and years. More males were involved in copu-
lation at the circular lek than either the inter-
mediate or linear leks. Mating success was 
higher at the linear lek than either the inter-
mediate and circular leks. There was no evi-
dence females were delayed or prevented 
from mating on linear leks. DiMare (1991) 
also noted that total frequency of a booming 
call and frequency of the third note alone 
could be used to separate males that copulat-
ed from most males that did not copulate. It 
appears that calls of males that mated differed 
from those of non-mating males. Further re-
search is needed to determine if females are 
keying on such males. 
GENETIC STUDIES 
Ellsworth (1991) and Ellsworth et al. (1994) 
examined the prairie grouse complex (Tympa-
nuchus) which occurs throughout the Central 
Plains of North America to assay patterns 
of extranuclear and nuclear gene variation 
among these species. The phylogenetic distri-
bution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes and 
the pattern of allozymic variation in prairie 
grouse were neither geographically parti-
tioned nor taxonomically constrained. Mito-
chondrial DNA variation was characterized 
by limited differentiation from a predominant 
haplotype common to all taxa. This suggests 
-------- ~~ ~---~~-~-
a recent speciation (<1 00,000 years before 
present) with the prairie grouse complex. 
Thus, considerable morphological divergence 
in prairie grouse, perhaps accentuated by 
behavioral isolating mechanisms, appears to 
have progressed with relatively little accompa-
nying extranuclear or nuclear gene differentia-
tion among species. Despite the absence of 
interspecific genetic differentiation, there was 
indication of subdivision among conspecific 
populations. The propensity for allozymic dif-
ferentiation among prairie grouse populations 
relative to other avian species may reflect 
components of prairie grouse reproductive 
behavior, social organization, and contempo-
rary alterations of prairie grouse habitat. 
Ellsworth et al. (1995) used mitochondrial 
DNA to generate a phylogeny for North 
American tetraonides. Using the northern 
bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) as an out 
group, the molecular phylogeny partitioned 
species into 3 primary groups: (1) GPC, lesser 
prairie chicken (T. pallidicinctus), and sharp-
tailed grouse (T. phasianel/us); (2) willow ptar-
migan (Lagopus lagopus), white-tailed ptarmi-
gan (L leucurus), rock ptarmigan (L mutus), 
and blue grouse (Oendragapus obscurus); 
and, (3) ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbel/us), 
spruce grouse (0. canadensis), and sage 
grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Hence 
prairie grouse were genetically distinct from 
other grouse species. Willow and rock ptarmi-
gans were more closely related to each other 
than either was to the white-tailed ptarmigan. 
The spruce grouse grouped with the ruffed 
grouse, whereas the blue grouse was allied 
with the ptarmigans. Thus, the genus Den-
dragapus as currently constructed is polyphyl-
. etic (spruce grouse and blue grouse have 
had separate evolutionary histories). The mor-
phological similarities between the 2 species 
may be attributable to convergent adaptation 
to coniferous forest. 
Osterndorff (1995) used high molecular 
weight genomic DNA isolated from chorioal-
lantoic membranes of hatched APC eggshells 
and successfully obtained DNA fingerprints. 
Results indicated chorioallantoic membranes 
could provide a non-invasive means of geneti-
cally sampling the endangered APC and other 
avian species. Osterndorff (1995) also used 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
DNA fingerprints to assess genetic variability 
of captive and natural populations of APC. 
Levels of genetic variability in the 3 remaining 
natural populations were compared to one 
population of greater prairie chickens from 
Kansas. At least 2 of the 3 remaining APC 
populations have suffered a reduction in ge-
netic variability, presumably as a result of pro-
longed small size. 
LIMITING FACTORS 
As predicted by Lawrence and Silvy (1980), 
habitat loss has gradually reduced APC num-
bers. However, the dramatic decrease in num-
bers observed during the last 18 years cannot 
be attributed solely to habitat loss. Reduced 
environmental quality, infectious agents, in-
breeding, and environmental stochasticity 
might have contributed to this rapid decline. 
Horkel et al. (1978) looked at the influence 
of environmental parameters on APC nesting 
success in Refugio County and found nests 
located in fragmented habitats were de-
stroyed by predators more than were nests 
in non-fragmented habitats. Lutz et al. (1994), 
also working in Refugio County, noted that 
initial nest success ranged between 19 and 
64% annually. Renesting success varied from 
0-51% and did not occur in 2 of 5 years. Hen 
survival averaged 36% during spring. They 
hypothesized that observed declines in abun-
dance were caused by low female survival 
during nesting and limited renesting. 
Peterson (1994) evaluated numerous factors 
that might limit numbers of APC throughout 
their range. The accepted hypotheses (Leh-
mann 1941) that greater than normal spring 
(March-june) or May precipitation led to de-
creased APC breeding numbers the following 
spring, while drought during this period led 
to increased numbers, were not supported by 
the data (Peterson and Silvy 1994). However, 
reproductive success could account for breed-
ing numbers the following spring . 
To delineate which reproductive stages were 
most limiting to APC numbers, Peterson and 
Silvy (1996) tested the hypotheses that APC 
reproductive productivity (as measured by 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
summer number of juveniles per adult), clutch 
size, egg hatchability, nesting success, brood 
survival, and chick survivorship were less than 
those of GPC. The APC ratio of juveniles per 
adult, nesting success, and number of chicks 
per brood prior to brood breakup were signifi-
cantly less than those typically seen for the 
GPC. Insufficient data were available to com-
pare brood survival. Peterson et al. (1998a) 
used a computerized model that explicitly 
represented prairie chicken clutch size, egg 
hatchability, nesting success, brood survival, 
survivorship of chicks within successful 
broods, and juvenile and adult survival to 
evaluate parameters Peterson and Silvy 
(1996) found might limit APC reproductive 
productivity. When long-term nesting success, 
brood survival, and the number of chicks per 
brood prior to brood breakup were individ-
ually increased, values for each parameter 
had to be substantially greater than typically 
seen in GPC populations before the decline 
in APC numbers was reversed (Peterson et al. 
1998a). When these 3 variables were in-
creased simultaneously, approximately 90% 
of the difference between APC and GPC val-
ues had to be closed before the decline in 
number was reversed . 
Peterson (1996) analyzed the geographic in-
cidence of prairie grouse helminthic endopar-
asitism and predicted APC populations should 
maintain parasite diversity similar to GPC 
populations surveyed in Illinois, Kansas, and 
Missouri. Additionally, he predicted that APC 
might be expected to harbor parasites not 
previously identified in prairie grouse. When 
these hypotheses were tested, Peterson et al. 
(1998b) identified Dispharynx nasuta and Tri-
chostrongylus cramae in 1 of 3 and 8 of 9 suit-
able APC samples, respectively. Although 0. 
nasuta had been observed in GPC parasite 
surveys in Kansas and Missouri, T. cramae had 
not previously been documented for prairie 
grouse. Additionally, samples from 4 of 2 7 
adult males were serologically positive for 
Pasteurella multocida antibody, while anti-
bodies for 8 other infectious agents were not 
detected (n = 19). No hemoparasites were 
observed (n = 24 samples, Peterson 1994). 
Purvis (1995) compared infectious agents 
found in sympatric geese, northern bobwhite, 
157 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
158 
and APC populations. Geese harbored 3 ces-
todes, 7 nematodes, and 3 trematodes (Purvis 
et al. 1997). Northern bobwhite harbored 
1 cestode, 4 nematodes including T. cramae 
(Purvis et al. 1998), and numerous unidenti-
fied lice and mite species (Purvis 1995). 
Geese appeared to harbor fewer parasites 
potentially harmful to APC than did northern 
bobwhite. However, geese, quail, and APC 
had positive antibodies for P. multocida and 
all 3 harbored nematodes of the genus Tricho-
strongylus (Purvis et al. 1997, 1998; Peterson 
et al. 1998b). This finding could be of concern 
because T. tenuis has been shown to limit 
red grouse (Lagopus /agopus) populations 
in northern England and Scotland (Peterson 
et al. 1998a). 
CAPTIVE PROPAGATION 
In spring 1991, TAMU received wild-caught 
GPC from Kansas to develop captive tech-
niques for future use with APC. Drake (1994) 
found that chicks generally died before they 
would adapt to commercial turkey starter. He 
solved this problem by feeding young prairie 
chickens wild-caught insects during their first 
8 weeks of life, gradually converting them 
to commercial feeds after 4 weeks of age. 
He experimented with rearing chicks by: 
(1) hand-rearing GPC chicks in an indoor 
brood pen; (2) using a domestic bantam hen 
and letting her rear the chicks in an indoor 
brood pen; and (3) using domestic trainer 
chicks with GPC chicks to encourage them 
to eat chick starter sooner. All methods pro-
duced similar results, however, both the do-
mestic hen and trainer chicks competed with 
the prairie chickens for insects, so he conclud-
ed that chicks reared by hand was the best 
method for rearing GPC. 
In January 1993, a Population and Habitat 
Viability Assessment for the APC was con-
ducted (Seal 1994). Participants concluded 
the APC would face immediate extinction if 
captive propagation was not intensified. Fossil 
Rim Wildlife Center (FRWC) had established 
a captive flock of APC in 1992 and TAMU 
obtained eggs from wild nests in 1994 and 
successfully started a second captive APC 
flock. The Houston Zoo (HZ) established a 
third flock in 1994 and San Antonio Zoo 
(SAZ) a fourth flock in 1996. 
In July 1995, 13 excess males from FRWC 
and HZ were released on the APCNWR. Two 
birds survived to the breeding season and 
1 survived to 1 year post-release. During sum-
mer and fall 1996 and 1997, 120 captive-
reared birds of both sexes were released 
on the APCNWR and on the TNC property 
in Galveston County. All released birds were 
monitored using radio-telemetry techniques 
(Lockwood 1998). About 40% of all birds 
survived to 1 January and both males and 
females were reproductively active during 
the spring breeding season. 
During fall 1994, the T AMU captive flock 
contracted reticuloendothiosis virus (REV), 
which is an immunosuppressive retrovirus 
(Drew et al.1998). Captive flocks had not pre-
viously been tested for this infectious agent. 
The disease was discovered after testing a 
histological section of external lesions resem-
bling avian pox. Although the avian-pox virus 
was isolated from these samples, REV also 
was discovered. REV now has been isolated 
from both APC and GPC at the TAMU facility, 
HZ, FRWC, TAMU-Kingsville (an APC holding 
facility), and a wild male from Refugio County 
was found positive for REV antibody. As a 
result, TAMU implemented a plan to eradi-
cate the disease from the facility by isolating 
all positive APC in a quarantine room and 
euthanizing all positive GPC once the virus 
was isolated. Griffin (1998) found these meth-
ods successful for controlling REV at the 
TAMU facility. 
Griffin (1998) developed methods of photo-
period manipulation to produce laying peri-
ods outside the normal laying periods for both 
APC and GPC. Using photoperiod manipula-
tion, he was able to hybridize APC and GPC. 
He later successfully crossed hybrid hens to 
both male APC and GPC, producing second 
generation hybrids . 
When a pilot release of excess male APC de-
termined that many of the released birds died 
from starvation, Griffin (1998) evaluated the 
effects of food and water deprivation on GPC. 
It appears that birds can obtain sufficient wa-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
ter if vegetation is available, however, APC 
needed to go through a preconditioning peri-
od at the breeding facility prior to shipment to 
release pens. In addition, food and water 
should be made available at the release pens 
to aid the birds in their transition to the wild. 
Research Relevance 
In the field of conservation biology, research 
in itself has little value unless it can be put to 
use. Research during the past 24 years by the 
senior author and his students has provided 
knowledge that has been incorporated into 
conservation efforts to save the APC from 
extinction. Research on APC habitat use and 
factors limiting APC populations have lead to 
more focused management efforts, including 
land acquisition . 
Understanding the phylogenetic relationship 
of APC with GPC and other tetraonides pro-
vided information on possible inbreeding in 
the small APC populations. Hybridization may 
become important as a population manage-
ment tool if on-going management efforts 
prove futile. The development of genetic tools 
to sex chicks, determine adult relationships, 
and determine female-offspring relationships 
from egg-shell membranes has helped captive 
breeding facilities better manage their flocks. 
Research must play an integral role in the 
development of new programs and tech-
niques. The program for rearing APC in captiv-
ity and subsequently releasing them into the 
wild is still in its infancy. We, along with other 
participants in the APC recovery program, 
have actively contributed to the captive rear-
ing methods for APC chicks, preconditioning 
methods for chicks prior to release, and meth-
ods to control disease spread within captive 
facilities have and will increase production of 
captive APC. Knowledge gained by following 
radio-equipped captive APC at release sites, 
has and will continue to provide insight into 
methods that will improve bird survival. Un-
derstanding the physiological changes that 
released captive APC experience has led to 
better release methods and also has increased 
survival of these birds. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Knowledge is never complete and our re-
search will continue in an effort to prevent 
extinction of the APC. Currently, research 
focuses on the determination of methods by 
which REV is transmitted within and between 
flocks of captive APC. New methods are 
always being tried in order to make captive 
breeding and reintroductions more efficient. 
Allowing hen APC to rear their own young 
offers some promise, however, there is a 
trade-off in chick survival (greater with hen-
reared) and the number of eggs that can be 
obtained from a single hen (if allowed to rear 
her own young, only 1 clutch of eggs will be 
produced). Further research is needed on the 
use of photo stimulation to produce multiple 
breeding seasons during a single year . 
If APC populations are to become self suffi-
cient, there needs to be a better understand-
ing of why APC nest success and brood sur-
vival are lower than those of GPC. Concurrent 
studies of APC and GPC (within the heart of 
the GPC range in Kansas) are needed to un-
derstand these differences. It also would be 
of interest to compare the results of these 
2 studies to areas where GPC are decreasing 
(e.g., on the periphery of their range in Kan-
sas). Future research also is needed on the 
role of environmental stochasticity in the 
population dynamics of small isolated prairie 
chicken populations. Specifically, information 
is needed to maintain populations capable 
of withstanding the adverse effects of future 
environmental variability. 
Future Outlook 
Currently, the APC is probably the most en-
dangered bird in the United States. A regres-
sion of estimated numbers and time (1972-
92) indicated the APC would be extinct by 
the year 2000. Only through supplementation 
of the existing populations with captive-reared 
birds will the current populations survive be-
yond the year 2000. All remaining wild birds 
were probably gone from APCNWR by 1998 
as no wild males were seen in spring 1998. 
Supplementation (1996-97) led to increased 
numbers of APC on TNC lands. Supplementa-
tion offers hope for these 2 populations. How-
159 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
160 
ever, prospects for population supplementa-
tion in Refugio County are not good as local 
ranchers currently view endangered species 
and private property rights as incompatible. 
We therefore predict the Refugio County pop-
ulation will be extinct by the year 2000. How-
ever, with extinction may come hope for APC 
in Refugio County. For once the original birds 
are gone, ranchers may be favorable to rees-
tablish an "experimental population" on these 
areas. Under the Endangered Species Act, 
these populations do not carry the real or 
perceived private-lands rights problems asso-
ciated with an endangered species. 
Future reintroductions, using captive-reared 
birds, into Brazoria County on BNWR lands, 
into Aransas County on ANWR lands, and 
in Matagorda County on The Nature Conser-
vancy's Mad Island Preserve offer additional 
possibilities for reestablishment of small popu-
lations. However, continued brush encroach-
ment from adjoining lands may limit the 
potential of these areas. Efforts should begin 
now on these areas to maximize the habitat 
required by APC before future releases are 
made. 
It appears the near future of the APC is in 
the hands of the captive breeding programs 
(FRWC, TAMU, HZ, and SAZ). Continued 
supplementation will probably be needed to 
support current populations and reintroduc-
tions. However, supplemental releases and 
reintroductions are limited to a few areas and 
at some point populations must become self-
sustaining if our efforts are to be of value. 
If the cost of water used for rice farming con-
tinues to rise, much of the rice farming will 
cease in Texas. With this will come the oppor-
tunity to convert some of these areas back to 
native prairie and cattle production. Efforts 
are needed to encourage farmers to return 
these areas to native prairie. By sustaining the 
current populations of APC through contin-
ued supplementation, we hope the time will 
come when these populations will naturally 
repopulate restored prairies. There are many 
"ifs" in the future for the APC, but there is 
hope so long as the APC is only down and 
not out. Even if conservation efforts to save 
the APC fail, lessons learned from the efforts 
should be helpful to others working on endan-
gered species conservation biology. 
Acknowledgments 
First and foremost, we would like to acknowl-
edge fellow graduate students (J. Horkel, V. 
Cogar, R. Lutz, J. Lawrence, D. Ellsworth, M. 
DiMare, D. Drake, E. Osterndorff, and J. Pur-
vis) who have worked with the APC project, 
personnel (D. Brown, B. Brownlee, L. Linum, 
R. Jurries, and L. Schatz) of the Texas Parks 
and Wildlife Department, and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (APCNWR) for data. This 
research has been supported by the Texas 
Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M 
University System; Texas Parks and Wildlife 
Department; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice; and the Welder Wildlife Foundation. 
Literature Cited 
Cogar, V.F. 1980. Food habits of Attwater's 
prairie chicken in Refugio County, Texas. Dis-
sertation, Texas A&M University, College Sta-
tion, Texas, USA. 
Cogar, V.F., J.D. Horkel, and N.J. Silvy. 1977. 
Vegetation type preference of Attwater's prai-
rie chicken in coastal prairie. Proceedings of 
Annual Conference Southeastern Association 
of Fish and Wild/life Agencies 31 :41-50 . 
DiMare, M.l. 1991. Effects of lek shape on 
reproductive behavior of Attwater's prairie 
chicken. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 
College Station, Texas, USA. 
Drake, D. 1994. Captive propagation and 
brood behavior of greater prairie chickens. 
Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Sta-
tion, Texas, USA. 
Drew, M.L., W.L. Wigle, D.L. Graham, C.P. 
Griffin, N.J. Silvy, A.M. Fadly, and R.L. Witter. 
1998. Reticuloendotheliosis in captive greater 
and Attwater's prairie chickens. journal of 
Wildlife Diseases 34: 783-791. 
Ellsworth, D.L. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA and 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
nuclear gene diversity among white-tailed deer 
{Odocoileus virginianus) populations in the 
southeastern United States and within the 
North American prairie grouse {Tympanuchus) 
complex. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 
College Station, Texas, USA. 
Ellsworth, D.L., R.L. Honeycutt, N.J. Silvy, K.D. 
Rittenhouse, and M.H. Smith. 1994. Mito-
chondrial-DNA and nuclear-gene differentia-
tion in North American prairie grouse {Genus 
Tympanuchus). Auk 111 :661-671. 
Ellsworth, D.L., R.L. Honeycutt, and N.J. Silvy. 
1995. Phylogenetic relationships among 
North American grouse inferred from restric-
tion endonuclease analysis of mitochondrial 
DNA. Condor 97:492-502. 
Griffin, C.P. 1998. Factors affecting captive 
prairie chicken production. Dissertation, Texas 
A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. 
Horkel, J.D. 1979. Cover and space require-
ments for Attwater's prairie chicken {Tympanu-
chus cupido attwateri) in Refugio County, 
Texas. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 
College Station, Texas, USA. 
Horkel, J.D., R.S. Lutz, and N.J. Silvy. 1978. 
The influence of environmental parameters 
on nesting success of upland game birds. 
Proceedings of Annual Conference Southeast-
ern Association Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
32:234-241. 
Horkel, J.D., R.S. Lutz, and N.J. Silvy. 1981. 
Rights-of-ways as habitat for endangered Att-
water's prairie chickens. Symposium on Envi-
ronmental Concerns of Rights-of-Ways Manage-
ment 2 {Paper 65):1-6. 
Horkel, J.D., and N.J. Silvy. 1980. Evolutionary 
considerations in creating artificial leks for 
Attwater's prairie chicken. Pages 42-47 in P. 
A Vohs, Jr. and F. L. Knopf, editors. Proceed-
ing of the Prairie Grouse Symposium, Oklaho-
ma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 
USA 
Jennings, W.S. 1950. Abundance, distribution, 
and present status of Attwater's prairie chick-
en. Final Report, Texas Cooperative Wildlife 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
Unit, Texas A&M University, College Station, 
Texas, USA 
Lawrence, J.S. 1982. Effect of predator reduc-
tion on the reproductive success of Attwater's 
prairie chicken. Thesis, Texas A&M University, 
College Station, Texas, USA. 
Lawrence, J.S., and N.J. Silvy. 1980. Status of 
the Attwater's prairie chicken-an update. 
Pages 29-33 in P. A Vohs, Jr. and F. L. Knopf, 
editors. Proceedings of the Prairie Crouse Sym-
posium. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, 
Oklahoma, USA 
Lawrence, J.S., and N.J. Silvy. 1987. Move-
ment and mortality of transplanted Attwater's 
prairie chicken. journal of World Pheasant 
Association 12:57-65. 
Lehmann, V.W. 1941. Attwater's prairie chick-
en: its life history and management. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service North American Fauna 57. 
Lehmann, V.W. 1965. Fire in the range of 
Attwater's prairie chicken. Proceedings of Tall 
Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 4:12 7-143. 
Lehmann, V.W. 1968. The Attwater's prairie 
chicken, current status and restoration 
opportunities. Transactions of North American 
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 
33:398-407. 
Lehmann, V.W., and R.G. Mauermann. 1963. 
Status of Attwater's prairie chicken. journal of 
Wildlife Management 27:713-725. 
Lockwood, M.A. 1998. Survival, reproduction, 
and habitat use of captive-reared Attwater's 
prairie chicken. Thesis, Texas A&M University, 
College Station, Texas, USA 
Lutz, R.S. 1979. The response of Attwater's 
prairie chicken to petroleum development 
Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Sta-
tion, Texas, USA 
Lutz, R.S., and N.J. Silvy. 1980. Predator re-
sponse to artificial nests in Attwater's prairie 
chicken habitat. Pages 48-51 in P. A Vohs, Jr. 
and F. L. Knopf, editors. Proceedings of the 
Prairie Crouse Symposium. Oklahoma State 
University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA . 
161 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
162 
Lutz, R.S., j.S. Lawrence, and N.j. Silvy. 1994. 
Nesting ecology of Attwater's prairie chicken. 
journal of Wildlife Management 58:230-233. 
Morrow, M.E. 1986. Ecology of Attwater's 
prairie chicken in relation to land management 
practices on the Attwater Prairie Chicken Na-
tional Refuge. Dissertation, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, Texas, USA. 
Osterndorff, E.A. 1995. Conservation genetics 
of the endangered Attwater's prairie chicken. 
Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Sta-
tion, Texas, USA. 
Peterson, M.j. 1994. Factors limiting popula-
tion size of the endangered Attwater's prairie 
chicken. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 
College Station, Texas, USA. 
Peterson, M.J. 1996. The endangered Attwa-
ter's prairie chicken and an analysis of prairie 
grouse helminthic endoparasitism. Ecography 
19:424-431. 
Peterson, M.j., and N.j. Silvy. 1994. Spring 
precipitation and fluctuations in Attwater's 
prairie chicken numbers: hypotheses revisited. 
journal of Wildlife Management 58:222-229. 
Peterson, M.j., and N.j. Silvy. 1996. Reproduc-
tive stages limiting productivity of the endan-
gered Attwater's prairie chicken. Conservation 
Biology 10:1264-1276. 
Peterson, M.j., W.E. Grant, and N.J. Silvy. 
1998a. Simulation of reproductive stages limit-
ing productivity of the endangered Attwater's 
prairie chicken. Ecological Modeling (in press). 
Peterson, M.j., J.R. Purvis, j.R. Lichtenfels, T.M. 
Craig, N.O. Dronen, Jr., and N.j. Silvy. 1998b. 
Serologic and parasitologic survey of the en-
dangered Attwater's prairie chicken. journal 
of Wildlife Disease 34:13 7-144. 
Purvis, j.R. 1995. Implications of Canada, 
snow, and white-fronted geese and northern 
bobwhite as disease reservoirs for the Attwa-
ter's prairie chicken. Thesis, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, College Station, Texas, USA. 
Purvis, J.R., D.E. Gawlik, N.O. Dronen, 
and N.j. Silvy. 1997. Helminths of wintering 
geese in Texas. journal of Wildlife Disease 
33:660-663. 
Purvis, j.R., M.j. Peterson, N.O. Dronen, j.R. 
Lichtenfels, and N.j. Silvy. 1998. Northern 
bobwhites as disease indicators for the endan-
gered Attwater's prairie chicken. journal of 
Wildlife Disease 34:348-354. 
Robel, R.j., j.N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton, and L.C. 
Hulbert. 1970. Relationships between visual 
obstruction measurements and weight of 
grassland vegetation. journal of Range Man-
agement 23:295-297. 
Seal, U.S. (editor). 1994. Attwater's prairie 
chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri): 
population and habitat viability assessment. 
A collaborative workshop report. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Texas Wildlife and Parks 
Department, Texas A&M University, Fossil 
Rim Wildlife Center, and IUCN/SSC Captive 
Breeding Specialist Group. Glen Rose, Texas, 
USA. 
Silvy, N.j., and M.W. Morrow. 1988. Dimin-
ishing prairies and their effects on the endan-
gered Attwater's prairie chicken. Section 
13.02, Pages 1-3, in A. Davis and G. Stanford, 
editors. Proceedings of Tenth North American 
Prairie Conference. Texas Women's Universi-
ty, Denton, Texas, USA. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
History and Hunting the Greater 
Prairie Chicken: A Rich Tradition 
Ross H. Hier, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Crookston 
People tend to think of this grand gamebird 
as belonging to the era of black and white 
photographs but it doesn't need to be that 
way (Fig. 1 ). Prairie chicken hunting is directly 
bound to the color and grandeur of the bird 
and its amazing habitats. If you are a "chicken 
hunter," you're not obsessed with them only 
in the fall. Odds are it was their primeval 
courtship antics that drew you to them and 
their vast grassland kingdom in the first place. 
In most areas, this is a kingdom whose bound-
aries seem defined only by the horizon your 
eyes could see, a kingdom so powerful it 
caused many humans to stare in disbelief for 
hours. Later, many scribbled down notes that 
eventually become sentences which eventual-
ly become books describing their intimate 
thoughts on the land of the prairie chicken. 
Paul Gruchow, William Least Heat-Moon and 
Tom Huggler come to mind when thinking 
about some of the descriptions of "a prairie 
chicken's backyard." They can lead you to 
it, but it is much better when observed first-
hand. As you explore it, you walk among 
bluestem, dropseed, and grama grasses, and 
blazingstars, purple coneflowers and sunflow-
ers. Although it may not happen on your first 
hunt, or even your second, eventually you will 
fall into the grip of the grassland mystique and 
then immediately realize that every fallen bird 
is but the ultimate gift from an already giving 
landscape. 
As a Euro-descended man, I cannot claim 
bragging rights on being the first to hunt this 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
prairie grouse. Although many Plains Indians 
hunted them and honored them in story, song 
and dance; they cannot make such a claim 
either. The first hunters prairie chickens feared 
for thousands of years came in the form of 
feathered lightening bolts and fur-covered 
Figure 1. Home from the hunt in Crookston, 
Minnesota, 1907. Caption on back of old pho-
to, "In Harry Stair's backyard and the pup that 
died in October." 
163 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
wraiths. We know them as peregrine and prai-
rie falcons and red fox, just to mention a few. 
In the relatively recent historical era, chickens 
expanded their range and increased in num-
ber as settlers moved onto the plains and 
broke-out small cropfields within the sea of 
grass. As more cropland was created, chick-
ens did well until the ideal ratio of grass to 
cropland was exceeded. 
Chickens were extremely important to pio-
neer families (Fig 2.). Their abundance in the 
late nineteenth century kept many homestead 
families in fine red meat when other foods 
were scarce. Their exceptional populations 
also provided for phenomenal kills for com-
mercial markets and sportsmen of that era. 
For a period of years in the late 1800s and 
early 1900s, prairie chicken numbers were so 
tremendous in a vast area of the Great Plains 
that they more or less created a "chicken 
hunting culture." This culture was epitomized 
by large gatherings of high society folks who 
had the dollars and time to attend wild bird 
dog trialing events, or individual outings ca-
tered to hunting chickens. Many local train 
lines established special rates for prairie chick-
en hunters, even providing fine quarters for 
their hunting dogs. Other private sector entre-
preneurs created items specifically designed 
for the prairie grouse hunter, such as a horse-
drawn wagon which came complete with gun 
racks, dog kennels and large ice-boxes. 
This era of "super-abundance" eventually end-
ed as habitat loss, habitat succession, exces-
sive market kills, weather, and other factors 
led to declining populations in many states. 
Concern by admirers for the pinnates' plight 
led to improved management, habitat acquisi-
tion, and other work to secure and strengthen 
dwindling chicken populations. 
What follows, below, are some prairie chicken 
hunting notes from various states: 
Figure 2. Members of the Ousefamily near Rothsay, Minnesota in the early 1900s. 
164 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
---------------------- ~ --~----~~ 
Iowa 
(Moe 1999) 
This state set the first daily bag limit on great-
er prairie chickens at 25 birds/day. 
• 1880s = Peak numbers of chickens 
• 1915 =Restriction of 8 birds/day and a 
season from September to December 
• 1916 = Season closed (not reopened yet) 
Minnesota 
(Swanson 1940) 
The first market quotes for "pinnates" was in 
1859. 
• 1870 = Duluth hotel managers ordered 
1,200 chickens from the St. Paul markets 
• 1876 =Season opener for prairie chickens 
was 15 August 
• 1894 =Markets paid 30 cents/pair of 
chickens in August 1859; 70 cents/pair in 
September 
• By late 1800s = farmers lobbied for later 
season openers to allow chickens to con-
sume crop insect pests 
• 1880s = Peak chicken numbers. The abun-
dant prairie chicken was a major "tourist" 
attraction in much of western Minnesota 
where it was estimated that 1,000 hunters 
spent an average of 15 days and $60,000 
annually 
• 1870s =chicken hunters and Northern 
Pacific Railroad doing business 
• 1899 = the Great Northern and Soo Line 
Railroads still held special chicken excur-
sions with a 25-cent fee for dog care 
• From 1850 through the 1870s = daily bags 
were commonly 35-50 birds/hunter 
• Special "sporting wagons" were produced 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
by several companies from which to hunt 
chickens; they came complete with 4-6 
dog kennels, ice chests, gun racks and 
ammunition holds 
• 1942 = Season closed (not yet reopened) 
Nebraska 
(Vodehnal 1999) 
By most accounts chickens were not abun-
dant in much of Nebraska prior to the 1850s. 
• Early chicken populations bound to small 
farms at Indian village sites 
• 1863 = Homestead Act played a major 
role in the future of chickens in Nebraska 
• By late 1860s = settlers opened many 
small fields in the grassland sea and chick-
en numbers exploded; birds became a 
staple in settlers' diets and the railroads 
brought market gunning 
• 1874 = 300,000 chickens were shipped to 
market from 30 eastern counties; birds 
brought $4/dozen 
• Late 1800s = Peak numbers of chickens 
• 1930s = Lowest numbers of chickens 
• Prairie grouse hunter numbers = 7,000+ in 
1950s; 20,800 in 1973; 13,000+ in 1990s 
• 1950s to present= Prairie chicken popu-
lations more closely managed and annual 
season held (typically with 2-3 bird/day 
bag limits) 
North Dakota 
(Johnson and Kane 1989) 
• Chickens came into North Dakota Territo-
ry in the early 1880s, eventually residing in 
most of the state except the Badlands. 
• 1897 =In October, a hunting party from 
Massachusetts occupied a private train car 
at Dawson where they received the best 
165 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
of everything during their 30-day chicken 
hunting trip at, a cost of $200/person 
• 1929-30 =Charles Wenz of New Rockford 
recalled that his family and many others 
survived those 2 drought/depression years 
by eating prairie chickens and jackrabbits; 
H.B. Spiller in Dickey County, said his fami-
ly tired of eating prairie chickens but ate 
Figure 3. Chicken hunting on South Dakota grass. 
166 
them rather than butcher their domestic 
chickens 
• 1930s =Most hunters agreed: September 
was the best time to hunt for prairie 
chickens 
• 1938-42 =The only years there are harvest 
estimates for prairie chickens; hunters av-
eraged 39,400 birds during those years 
• 1945 = Last season for prairie chickens 
(not reopened yet) 
Oklahoma 
(Horton and Wolfe 1999) 
In 1959, a license to hunt chickens was $2 
plus a $1 permit; the season was 2 days with 
a bag of 2 birds/day. 
• Greater/lesser prairie chicken harvest= 
low of 671 in 1996; a high of 9,651 in 
1982 
• Chicken hunter numbers were highest in 
1960s with 14,000 hunters 
• Season is now closed for both species of 
prairie chickens 
South Dakota 
(Fredrickson eta/. 1999) 
Most birds are thought to have "come in with 
the settlers" in 1870s. 
• 1870-1900 =Years of heaviest harvest 
(market/subsistence) 
• Prairie grouse harvest varied greatly; a low 
of 64,300 in 1977 and a high of 174,300 
in 1979 
• Annual average harvest of chickens falls to 
between 4,000-6,400 
• Prairie grouse hunters numbers have held 
steady at 20,000-25,000 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
In the present era, one has to be overjoyed 
just to get the occasional chance at these 
grand gamebirds. In my opinion, chicken 
hunting is being in the "big-wide open/' walk-
ing prairie landscapes so immense that even 
those with the greatest human egos will feel 
humbled. Chicken hunting is the chance to 
meet other prairie inhabitants; fellow crea-
tures of the grassland sea such as pronghorns, 
mule deer, short-eared owls, peregrine falcons 
and prairie rattlesnakes. Chicken hunting is 
setting-up grouse camp in places where the 
Red Gods liberally paint the sky with unforget-
table washes of reds and yellows. Chicken 
hunting is being with best friends and a hot 
meal after a long day of walking crisp, prairie 
air. Chicken hunting is that moment when 
miles of walking and good dogwork reward 
you with a bird or better yet, seeing excellent 
dogwork followed by a fine wingshot by your 
hunting partner (Fig. 3). Chicken hunting is 
sometimes saying goodbye to old canine 
friends and then starting anew with a young 
pup. Chicken hunting is the scent of gun pow-
der in chilly, clean air and sometimes plump 
birds for supper. Chicken hunting is admira-
tion and deep respect for your quarry. Chick-
en hunting is a rest on a prairie knob with 
your best friends and maybe some weight in 
your gamebag. 
When I talk to the Red Gods, I often ask that 
there be more moments such as these for 
those of us who have a spiritual bond with the 
great pinnates and the grand places in which 
they live. 
Literature Cited 
Fredrickson, L., B. Crouch, and G.L. Heismey-
er. 1999. Status and management of the 
·f-· . 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
greater prairie chicken in South Dakota. 
Pages 75-80 in W.O. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, 
and N.j. Silvy, editors. The greater prairie 
chicken: a national/oak. Minnesota Agricultur-
al Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publica-
tion 99-1999. University of Minnesota, St. 
Paul, USA. 
Horton, R., and D. Wolfe. 1999. Status and 
management of the greater prairie chicken in 
Oklahoma. Pages 105-111 in W.O. Svedar-
sky, R.H. Hier, and N.J. Silvy, editors. The 
greater prairie chicken: a national/oak. Minne-
sota Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscella-
neous Publication 99-1999. University of Min-
nesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 
Johnson, M.D., and J. Knue. 1989. Feathers 
from the prairie. North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department, Bismarck, North Dakota, USA. 
Moe, M. 1999. Status and management of 
the greater prairie chicken in Iowa. Pages 
123-127 in W.O. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and 
N.J. Silvy. 1999. The greater prairie chicken: 
a national/oak. Minnesota Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 
99-1999. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 
Minnesota, USA. 
Swanson, E.B. 1940. The use and conservation 
of Minnesota game, 1850-1900. Dissertation, 
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minne-
sota, USA. 
Vodehnal, W. 1999. Status and management 
of the greater prairie chicken in Nebraska. 
Pages 81-98 in W.O. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, 
and N.J. Silvy, editors. The greater prairie 
chicken: A national/oak. Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 
99-1999. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 
Minnesota, USA. 
. ·f-· 
.. · ~~-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 167 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
168 Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
National Outlook and 
Conservation Needs for Greater 
Prairie Chickens 
Ronald L. Westemeier, lflinois Natural History Survey, Effingham 
Sharron Gough, Missouri Department of Conservation, ElDorado Springs 
Past rangewide appraisals of the status, out-
look, and needs of greater prairie chickens 
(Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) include those 
by Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom ( 1961, 
1963), Christisen (1969), Westemeier (1980, 
Westemeier and Edwards (1987), Gough 
(1990), and Schroeder and Robb (1993). 
Since then, changes in human pressures, farm 
legislation, habitat quality, and translocation 
techniques for greater prairie chickens have 
been steadily developing. As intensified land 
use causes habitat loss, wildlife declines are 
being registered on many fronts, with recent 
Breeding Bird Surveys indicating problems 
of particular concern for grassland species. 
Conversely, new farm bill legislation requires 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands 
to provide more benefits to wildlife, and 
offers incentives and cost sharing programs 
such as Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program 
(WHIP) and Environmental Quality Incentive 
Program (EQIP) for habitat development 
projects (Gough 1998). 
The various grassland restoration projects 
can play significant roles in providing habitat 
for grassland-dependent species. Another 
dynamic affecting the prairie chicken's status 
is improved prospects for success with trans-
locations as documented in several states. All 
of these changes precipitate the need for new 
information. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
This paper updates and summarizes the sta-
tus, outlook, and needs of greater prairie 
chickens in the 11 states where the species 
occurs. We include information on transloca-
tions made for purposes of reintroduction, 
demographic and genetic enhancement, and 
public enjoyment. We emphasize manage-
ment-oriented information because that is the 
most critical need of greater prairie chicken 
managers throughout the range. 
Methods 
Much of the information in this paper was 
provided by responses to a mailed question-
naire originally developed by Christisen 
(1969) and modified by Westemeier (1980). 
In addition to general coverage of the 11 
states with populations of greater prairie 
chickens, we sought information for selected 
preserves, refuges, ranches, and other grass-
lands. Abundance estimates are based on 
spring booming ground surveys using cock 
counts, or fall populations using booming 
ground surveys plus age ratios from harvest 
data (e.g., Vodehnal 1999). Hunter reports are 
notoriously biased (Keith 1963). For the 4 
states with hunting seasons, prairie chicken 
distributions were so extensive that estimates 
of abundance were at best, educated guesses. 
We used the most liberal estimates given for 
169 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
each state. A 50:50 ratio of both sexes was 
assumed for spring counts of males, doubling 
the count to estimate abundance. The sex-
ratio assumption may not be valid; hence, 
one may divide by 2 to determine the count 
of males. Our mention of 1 0-year cyclic 
tendencies of prairie chickens "is used with 
no connotation of strict regularity" (Keith 
1963:118}. We also reviewed the most cur-
rent literature available from each state for 
additional information. 
Results and Discussion 
ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION OF 
UNHUNTED POPULATIONS 
Colorado- Current estimate of abundance 
(1997} is 10,000 prairie chickens (Giesen and 
Schroeder 1999}, which continues an increas-
ing trend from 760 in the 1960s, 3,000-6,000 
in 1983 (Van Sant and Braun 1990}; and 
6,000-8,000 in 1989 (K. Giesen in Gough 
1990} (Table 1 ). When the species was de-
clared endangered in 1973, only 1 distinct 
Figure 1. Greater prairie chicken range in 1997 with larger 
black areas df!picting main ranges. Small dots and crosshatch-
ing depict more localized populations. 
170 
breeding population was known in Colorado 
"and it occurred almost exclusively on private 
land" (Hoffman et al. 1992:197}. This informa-
tion amends estimates reported by Evans 
(1963} in Christisen (1969:209, "7,600" birds) 
and by Schroeder and Robb (1993:20; "no 
change ... during the last 25 years"). 
Currently, the main range occurs in Yuma and 
Washington counties, but smaller populations 
exist in 5 other northeastern counties (Fig. 1) 
as a result of transplants. The Tamarack Area 
transplants were particularly successful, as at 
least 15 booming grounds were noted on or 
nearby the 4,714 acres (1 ,907 ha) of restored 
native grasses (Hoffman et al. 1992}. 
The outlook in Colorado is for stable to in-
creasing numbers. The disjunct arrangement 
in the amount of "irrigated corn to rangeland 
in a configuration that allows greater prairie 
chickens to take advantage of both" is consid-
ered the limiting factor (M. Schroeder, person-
al communication). 
Illinois- The current spring estimates were 
168 prairie chickens in 1997 and 256 in 1998, 
both of which indicate population increases 
up from near extirpation, when only 46 native 
birds were counted in spring 1994 (Weste-
meier et al. 1999}. Genetic defiencies were 
evident in these Illinois remnants (Bouzat et 
al. 1998a,b) and their fitness, as based on 
declines in egg fertility and success, had also 
declined (Westemeier et al. 1991, 1998a}. 
Translocations totaling 518 birds from Minne-
sota, Kansas, and Nebraska were made from 
August 1992 through April 1998 to demo-
graphically and genetically enhance remnant 
populations. 
The range is mainly limited to parts of jasper 
and Marion counties (Fig. 1) with about 1,400 
and 700 acres (567 and 283 ha), respectively, 
of intensively managed sanctuary grasslands, 
and very little CRP grassland. An exception 
was a confirmed boomer in 1997 and 1998 
near Hunt City in northeastern jasper County 
where the late Ralph Yeatter conducted his 
studies in the 1930s (Yeatter 1943}. Other 
confirmations were in Effingham and White 
counties. New populations are possible from 
the translocations because CRP grasslands 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
exist considerably farther south of this range. 
The outlook is guardedly optimistic in Jasper 
County where new managed grasslands 
(Westemeier 1997), successful control of 
pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) (Westemeier 
1988; Westemeier et al. 1998b) and nest 
predators, an enhanced gene pool, and appar-
ent restoration of egg viability (Westemeier 
et al. 1998a) are positive factors -at least for 
the short term. 
Iowa- The current estimate (1997) was 100-
200 prairie chickens in contrast to virtually 
none between 1955-86. The most current 
translocations began in 1987 and ended in 
1994 with a total of 549 birds released (Moe 
1999). The confirmed range includes parts of 
Ringgold (mainly), Adair, and Decatur coun-
ties (Fig. 1 ). Prairie chickens may be using 
parts of 4 other southwestern counties. The 
outlook is optimistic for the next 1 0 years 
because of a good CRP signup in those coun-
ties and the prospects of increased grassland 
habitat that will result from the proposed Kel-
lerton Bird Conservation Area. Success with 
prairie chickens in Ringgold County can be 
partially linked to a well-managed native prai-
rie pasture of 1,200 acres (486 ha) in Missouri 
(McMillen 1998). Other tracts of CRP and 
managed grasslands in northwest Missouri 
have positively influenced Iowa's prairie chick-
en restoration efforts (Moe 1999). 
Table 1. Most liberal estimates of abundance of greater prairie chickens in the United 
States, 1968-1997. 
State 1968a 1979b 1985C 1989d 1997 
Unhunted populations 
Colorado 760 3,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 
Illinois 300 230 300 68 168 
Iowa 0 0 0 ? 200 
Minnesota 5,000 2,000 1,600 2,000 1,868 
Missouri 10,000 9,600 6,000 3,000 1,000 
North Dakota 1,800 1,000 800 ? 300 
Wisconsin 1,000 1,842 1,354 1,200 1,222 
Hunted populations 
Kansas-total 750,000 200,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 178,000e 
Kansas-harvest 46,000 40,000 54,000 53,000 16,000 
Nebraska-total 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 131 ,484f 
Nebraska-harvest 15,000 8,200 5,000 35,000 ? 
Oklahoma-total 130,000 80,000 ? 12,000 1,500 
Oklahoma-harvest 14,000 8,000 5,000 ? <200 
S. Dakota-total 80,000 40,000 ? ? 65,000 
S. Dakota-harvest 10,000 5,233 4,000 ? 8,000 
a Christisen 1969 (estimate for Colorado amended). 
b Westemeier 1980 . 
c Westemeier and Edwards 1987 (Colorado estimate for 1983 from VanSant and Braun 1990; 
Kansas estimate is for 1982). 
d Gough 1990. 
e Derived estimate - see text. 
' Estimate for Sandhi/Is only. 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 171 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
172 
Minnesota- Since 1974, Minnesota prairie 
chickens have shown 2 strong peaks in abun-
dance, spaced 1 0 years apart, with the last 
high (1992) showing 3,826 birds (Wolfe 
1997). The most current estimates are 1,868 
(1997) and 2,924 (1998) prairie chickens 
(Wolfe 1999 ). Whether or not the peaks in 
numbers are statistically significant, they at 
least appear to be convincing evidence for 
a 1 0-year cycle. The occupied range includes 
parts of 11 northwestern and north central 
counties. The outlook is optimistic, owing to 
80,972 acres (32,769 ha) of grassland habitat 
owned by the Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources (MNDNR) (49%), the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (39%), and The Na-
ture Conservancy (TN C) (12%), all of which 
are managed at least in part for prairie chick-
ens. Moreover, CRP grasslands within the 
prairie chicken range total 148,260 acres 
(60,000 ha), nearly twice that of the public 
grasslands (Svedarsky et al. 1997). 
Missouri- The 1997 estimate for resident 
prairie chickens is 1,000 birds (Mechlin 1999), 
a stark contrast to the 1 0,000 birds estimated 
in 1967 (Table 1; Christisen 1969). Worse, 
the trend over the past 28 years indicates 
they will be gone by 2009; the last 7 years 
suggest extirpation by 2002 (Mechlin 1999)! 
On a more hopeful note, birds associated 
with public prairies are not declining as rapid-
ly as those depending solely on private land. 
Also, reintroduced populations in north Mis-
souri have shown relative stability, with the 
1997 survey reporting 22 males in Harrison 
County, 57 males in Sullivan County, and 
a new confirmed booming ground in Nod-
away County. 
Missouri's chickens occur in 21 counties 
mostly in the southwest and westcentral part 
of the state (Fig. 1 ). Public grasslands with 
potential for chickens total about 21,000 
acres (8,500 ha). Thus, although the current 
outlook is alarming, a series of years with 
good weather for reproduction could turn 
things around as occurred for continental 
waterfowl numbers. Improved weather for 
hatching and early brooding have resulted 
in more and bigger broods being reported 
on several Missouri prairies in 1997 and 
1998. 
--------··----. 
Recent land acquisitions may have favorable 
impacts on local flocks. The Nature Conser-
vancy (TNC) continues to expand its grass-
land acreages in Missouri. The owners of 
Dunn Ranch, a 1,200-acre (486 ha) native 
prairie in Harrison County (northwest Missou-
ri), are negotiating with TNC for sale of the 
ranch. Prairie chickens associated with Dunn 
Ranch are linked with releases of chickens in 
nearby Iowa. 
North Dakota -The current statewide esti-
mate (1997) was 300 prairie chickens (Ko-
briger 1999). The Sheyenne Grasslands in 
Ransom and Richland counties, because of 
their size (134,788 acres [54,548 ha]), 52% 
under Federal administration and 48% private 
land), should have the greatest potential for 
chickens. A "density of 16 male prairie chick-
ens per square mile" (/259 ha) or about 1,600 
males is a realistic goal for "1 00 square miles 
of potential prairie chicken habitat ... in the 
Sheyenne National Grasslands (Manske and 
Barker [1981] in Kobriger et al. 1988:4). How-
ever, only 69 males were counted there in 
1997 in contrast to 410 males in 1982 (Ko-
briger 1999). 
Reintroductions resulted in 53 males (mini-
mum count) on the Bry Area in Grand Forks 
County. Six males were found in Sargent 
County. A management objective for North 
Dakota was to establish 3 viable populations 
by 1995 on the Sheyenne, Grand Forks, and 
Englevale areas, with releases augmenting 
establishment efforts on the latter 2 areas. The 
Englevale release of 1993 appears unsuccess-
ful. This failure, coupled with an overall down-
ward trend in numbers, creates a poor out-
look for North Dakota. 
Wisconsin -The 1997 estimate was 1,222 
prairie chickens, based on a count of 611 
males; and similar counts in 1998 (J. Keir, T. 
Meier, j. Toepfer, University of Wisconsin-
Stevens Point, and others, personal communi-
cation). Buena Vista Grasslands continued to 
be the stronghold with 324 males. Significant 
counts of males were reported for the Leola 
Grasslands (97), Paul Olsen Area ( 1 00), Mead 
(60), and the north range (30) areas as well. 
Survey numbers suggest 1 0-year cycles, simi-
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
lar to Minnesota's, with a strong peak of 550 
males on Buena Vista in 1981-82 (Anderson 
and Toepfer 1999) that matched 1950-51 
counts. Counts on Paul Olson (302 cocks) 
and Mead areas were also at peak levels in 
1981 (or nearby years), bringing 1981's total 
to 1,121 cocks in the known range. Impor-
tantly, the current range is likely interconnect-
ed (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1973: 
28-29), including 6 counties and extending 
over 75 miles (120 km) in length (Fig. 1 ). 
The outlook is that the current level of man-
agement on 16,000 acres (6,475 ha) will 
maintain prairie chickens in Wisconsin (Keir 
1999). This is based on counts during the 
1990s, which through 1998, have ranged be-
tween 300-421 cocks on the most-intensively 
managed areas (Buena Vista and Leola com-
bined). In contrast, counts on the same areas 
in the 1960s were as low as 132 cocks (1969) 
when drought, brush clearing on management 
lands, and intensive farming on private lands 
were factors (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 
1973). Should public policy dictate, expanded 
management could increase not only overall 
numbers, but long-term population security as 
well. Cranberry production, however, pre-
sents a relatively new threat on Buena Vista 
Grasslands. 
ABUNDANCE & DISTRIBUTION OF 
HUNTED POPULATIONS 
Kansas- A current estimate of abundance 
was unavailable, but the statewide distribu-
tion includes all but the southwestern coun-
ties and half of the southcentral counties (Fig. 
1 ). Populations in the occupied portion of the 
state are thought to be contiguous or nearly 
so (R. Applegate, personal communication). 
In 1989, the estimate of total birds ranged 
from 200,000 to as high as 1 million, with a 
hunter harvest of 53,000 greater prairie chick-
ens (K. Church in Gough 1990). Dividing that 
harvest by a median estimate of total birds 
(53,000/600,000) yields a 9% harvest rate. 
If that harvest rate applies to the 1996 esti-
mated harvest of 16,000 birds, prehunt pop-
ulations would have totaled about 1 78,000 
birds in 1996 (Table 1 ). The 1996 harvest was 
the second lowest on record, tying with that 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
reported in 1975. In contrast, the 1982 har-
vest was estimated at 109,000 greater prairie 
chickens. Apart from a slight recovery in 
1997, since 1982, the trend based on boom-
ing ground surveys has been downward in all 
4 regions, including the prime Flint Hills range 
(Applegate and Horak 1999). Annual burning, 
coupled with widespread, early intensive graz-
ing, impacts nest success and probably brood-
rearing success as well. With no significant 
areas under management for chickens, the 
outlook for Kansas is uncertain, at best. 
Nebraska -The main range of prairie chick-
ens in Nebraska includes the eastern and 
southern periphery of the Sandhills where 
abundance was estimated at 131,484 in 1996 
(Vodehnal 1999). The overall distribution is 
thought to include all of central Nebraska, 
overlapping the entire boundary with Kansas, 
the center of the boundary with South Dako-
ta, and the northeast corner of Colorado 
(S. Taylor and W. Vodehnal, personal com-
munication; Fig. 1 ). This distribution includes 
localized populations in fragmented habitat 
outside the Sandhills range. Based on boom-
ing ground surveys between 1982-97, abun-
dance appears to be relatively stable (Vodeh-
nal 1999). Current numbers may be at least 
similar to 75,000-200,000 birds reported in 
1979 (Westemeier 1980); and to 150,000-
200,000 reported in 1985 (W. Vodehnal in 
Westemeier and Edwards 1987) and 1989 
(W. Vodehnal in Gough 1990). The annual 
harvest estimate in 1989 was 35,000 chick-
ens, well above estimates of 15,000 and 
8,200 in 1967 and 1977, respectively (Weste-
meier 1980). Thus, the outlook is for relatively 
stable populations. 
On federal refuges in Nebraska, the most sig-
nificant hunted population occurs on the Val-
entine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) where 
269 males were counted on 33 booming 
grounds in 1997 (L. McDaniel, personal com-
munication). From 1988 through 1994, counts 
at Valentine ranged from about 400 to more 
than 500 booming males, with a peak of 538 
in 1991 (McDaniel 1989; Svedarsky and Van 
Amburg 1996). The recorded hunter harvest 
on Valentine NWR was 136 chickens in 1991, 
even though grassland management is not 
directed specifically toward prairie chickens. 
173 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
(Sharptails [T. phasianellus] are the principal 
prairie grouse taken on Valentine Refuge.) 
Few if any prairie chickens occur on Fort Nio-
brara and Crescent Lake NWRs. 
Oklahoma -A current estimate of prairie 
chicken abundance was 1 ,500, or about 1% 
of the 130,000-bird reported for 1968 (Table 
1 ). Recent surveys indicate that greater prairie 
chickens occur in 11 northeastern counties 
(Horton and Wolfe 1999) (Fig. 1 ). Total abun-
dance was estimated at 1 0,000-12,000 birds 
in 1989 with optimism that populations would 
remain steady (R. Horton in Gough 1990). 
However, the trend has been downward 
since 1979, and especially since 1990 (Hor-
ton and Wolfe 1999). The 1997 hunter har-
vest likely comprised less than 200 birds. 
Thus, the hunting season on prairie chickens 
will be closed for a minimum of 4 years begin-
ning in fall 1998. Despite the grim trend in 
numbers, the outlook for greater prairie chick-
ens in Oklahoma is stability, with hopes for a 
steady (although likely quite slow) increase. 
The Nature Conservancy's new Tallgrass Prai-
rie Preserve in Osage County offers long-term 
promise for Oklahoma prairie chickens be-
Figure 2. Estimates of population size of greater prairie chick-
ens in 7 states without current hunting seasons including Colo-
rado, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and 
Wisconsin during 5 approximate years from 1969-97. 
U) 
C) 
a.. 
(!) 
0 
U) 
"0 
c: 
m 
U) 
::J 
0 
.1: 
I-
174 
9 
8 
7 
6 
5 
4 
3 
2 
Unhunted Populations 
LEGEND: 
cncn~t.~cn,.., 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (APPROX. YR-) 
co IL lA MN MO ND WI 
cause of its size (38,000 acres [15,378 ha]) 
and commitment to management. Current 
estimates (1991-97, except 1992) of prairie 
chicken numbers range from 58 males on 
8 leks to 126 males on 15 leks (R. Hamilton, 
personal communication). Initial management 
on this large, unhunted tract included con-
trolled burns of up to 6,000 acres (2,428 ha) 
and grazing with 300 bison on 5,000 acres 
(2,023 ha) (Ackerman 1993, Hamilton 1996). 
South Dakota- Total abundance for 1997 
was estimated to be between 60,000 and 
65,000 prairie chickens, with an estimated 
harvest of 8,000 birds (harvest rate equals 
12-13%) (G. Heismeyer, personal communi-
cation). While this harvest was not as high as 
that of 1967 ( 1 0,000; Christisen 1969), it dou-
bled the 29-year annual harvest average of 
4,000 birds (L. Fredrickson in Gough 1990). 
In 1996, Fredrickson et al. (1999) estimated 
the prairie chicken harvest at 10,900. The 
main range occurs in the south central coun-
ties of Lyman, Brule, Buffalo, and Gregory, 
and in portions of 8 other counties. Localized 
populations occur in 14 additional counties 
(Fig. 1 ). CRP grasslands have increased prairie 
chicken abundance and distribution over the 
past 10-15 years. Many of the significant CRP 
contracts in southcentral South Dakota are 
reverting back to agriculture. However, these 
losses may be counteracted by increased CRP 
acres in eastern counties that may enable 
prairie chickens to continue expansion in that 
direction. The outlook is for declines in some 
areas and significant potential for expansions 
in others. 
Outlook Summary- Although greater prairie 
chickens are distributed over 11 states, their 
status varies greatly from state to state. Illinois 
populations are probably most endangered 
because of their small size, isolation, and 
relative lack of supporting grasslands. Pop-
ulations in Iowa and North Dakota are similar 
in size to Illinois flocks (Fig. 2), but the birds 
and grasslands of Iowa are linked to those in 
Missouri; and possibly to those of Nebraska 
and Kansas (Fig. 1 ), giving these populations 
potential avenues of expansion. North Dakota 
prairie chickens and grasslands seem reason-
ably close to Minnesota and possibly South 
Dakota flocks, but they probably are not 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
-~---- ----~ 
--------···----. ------
close enough for significant interchange. Un-
like the situation in Illinois, some connectivity 
of populations seems a possible feature in 
these 4 states. Whether such connections 
are sufficient to provide demographic and 
genetic rescue remains questionable. Current 
downward trends in numbers appear most 
serious in Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota, 
and possibly even Kansas (Table 1, Figs. 2 
and 3). 
Relative stability seems to exist in Nebraska, 
South Dakota (Fig. 3), Minnesota, and Wis-
consin (Fig. 2), notwithstanding several strong 
peaks suggestive of cyclic tendencies during 
some of the years ending in 0, 1, or 2 in the 
latter 2 states. The steady upswing in Colo-
rado (Fig. 2) portends a bright outlook for 
prairie chickens there, especially with a land-
scape ratio of 84% rangeland {20% classed as 
"good quality") and 13% cropland, especially 
corn (Schroeder and Braun 1992). However, 
with most birds occurring on private land, 
Colorado prairie chickens could be in trouble 
if land-use patterns follow those of Kansas and 
Oklahoma. 
CONSERVATION NEEDS 
Minimum Viable Populations (MVP}- Esti-
mates by conservation biologists of the num-
ber of individuals of a species that constitutes 
a minimum viable population have ranged 
from 50-500, the latter allowing for evolution-
ary processes to continue (Franklin 1980, 
Schaffer 1981, Simberloff 1982, Brussard 
1985). Matings by closely related individuals 
lead to decreased heterozygosity, causing 
small populations to lose fitness and become 
less fecund and vigorous (Westemeier et al. 
1998a). Geneticists studying fruit flies (Droso-
phila melanogaster) calculate that 5,000-
10,000 or more individuals might be needed 
to ensure long-term species survival (Lande 
1995). Alternatively, it can be speculated that 
prairie chickens are adapted for inbreeding 
because of their lek breeding system. 
Toepfer et al. (1990:575) reported historical 
evidence suggesting "that once prairie grouse 
fall below 100 cocks ... [200 total birds] ... 
they will eventually disappear without habitat 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
improvement or acquisition." Attwater's prai-
rie chickens (T. c. attwateri) showed a steady 
upward trend (1973-87) from about 40-100 
males on the Attwater's Prairie Chicken NWR, 
but when the decline in surrounding off-ref-
uge numbers brought the total males to under 
250, that population dropped to near extinc-
tion (Morrow et al. 1996). Yet, prairie chick-
ens on the Sheyenne Grasslands in North 
Dakota declined to extremely low numbers 
(3-9 cocks) in the 1960s and rebounded to 
41 0 males by 1980 (Kobriger et al. 1988). 
Similarly, isolated prairie chickens in Audrain 
County, in eastern Missouri have persisted at 
low numbers for several decades (Christisen 
1985), and continue to do so. 
Many existing isolated populations are likely 
doomed if >200 prairie chickens are indeed 
necessary for long-term viability. This would 
include most present reintroduced popula-
tions and even those on large prairies like 
the Sheyenne Grasslands and Oklahoma's 
Tallgrass Prairie Preserve. Scenarios of heath 
hens (T. c. cupido) on Martha's Vineyard, AU-
water's prairie chickens in Texas (Silvy et al. 
Figure 3. Estimates of population size of greater prairie chick-
ens in 4 states with current hunting seasons including Kansas, 
Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Black portions of bars 
depict hunter harvest estimates and open bars depict estimates of 
population totals during 5 approximate years from 1969-97. 
0 
0 
0 
>< 
t/) 
(.) 
ll. 
(!) 
-0 
.. 
Cl) 
.Q 
E 
::::s 
z 
Hunted Populations 
D 
KS NE 
LEGEND: 
rlrrh-TOTAL. 
UJ.U.J-HARVEST 
I I I J l 
ocn~ncn,.._ ! E!!; (APPROX. VR.) 
175 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
176 
1999), greater prairie chickens in Illinois, and 
probably elsewhere, suggest failure if num-
bers are not increased and maintained above 
the 1 00-cock lower limit suggested by Toepfer 
et al. (1990). In this regard, population sizes in 
Minnesota for 2.5 decades and Wisconsin for 
5 decades are encouraging. These suggest 
that self-contained ("closed") populations with 
.2:250 (Wisconsin) to .2:500 males (Minnesota), 
even through possible cyclic lows (with similar 
numbers), may be adequate MVPs. 
So far, it does not appear that the numbers 
of chickens in either Minnesota or Wisconsin 
are too few to keep these populations viable. 
If adequate booming ground surveys can be 
continued, the Wisconsin data may provide 
the best insight into what a MVP for prairie 
chickens should be. The Wisconsin counts are 
not only longest term, they are of high quality, 
and they provide the lowest dosed-population 
size that appears to be maintaining reason-
able long-term stability. The emerging value of 
these data underscores the critical importance 
of good spring counts. 
Habitat Needs -The literature is replete with 
conclusions emphasizing the need for ade-
quate grassland suitable for successful nesting 
and brooding as the most critical rangewide 
need for greater prairie chickens (e.g., Hamer-
strom et al. 1957, Kirsch 1974, Wisdom and 
Mills 1997). Also, all states emphasized the 
need for grassland habitat with suitable struc-
tures to meet the needs of the species year-
round. Kansas, for example, has vast native 
grasslands but annual burning of entire pas-
tures (even entire landscapes horizon to hori-
zon) and early intensive grazing does not 
provide residual vegetation for nesting prairie 
chickens (Applegate and Horak 1 999). The 
productivity of prairies under such intensive 
land use is in jeopardy, and the sustainability 
questionable even for livestock production. 
At the other extreme, vegetative litter (i.e., 
horizontally-oriented residual cover) exceed-
ing 25% at nest sites may result in nests fail-
ing at twice the rate of nests with <25% litter 
(McKee et al. 1998). Managers must seek a 
"happy medium" in litter cover for nesting 
prairie chickens. Moreover, too many pre-
served prairies are being set aside as "muse-
um specimens" with fall burning the only 
management approach. Such prairies some-
times involve very large tracts (S. Clubine, 
personal communication). 
Another consideration is the juxtaposition of 
crop areas that provide concentrated feeding 
sites. Optimally, about 20-30% of the land-
scape should be in crops (especially corn), to 
provide winter food, and balance year-round 
needs for prairie chickens. Too little corn, in 
concert with overgrazing and annual burning, 
may limit prairie chicken distribution in por-
tions of all grasslands of the Great Plains. At 
the other extreme, Illinois has vast croplands 
but far too few suitable grassland acres. 
How much grassland is enough? The quantity 
of grassland needed depends on the densities 
of prairie chickens that realistically can be 
attained. Densities vary greatly throughout the 
species' range. For nearly 2 decades, a densi-
ty of 100 males/square mile (39 males/km2) of 
managed grassland appeared to be realistic in 
Illinois (Westemeier 1980, 1997). Such a goal 
was proposed for prairie chickens by Kirsch 
(1974). Unfortunately, land acquisition goals 
were not attained in Illinois, other negative 
factors intervened, and high densities did not 
continue into the 1990s. 
Estimates derived by the Toepfer model 
(Toepfer et al. 1990) suggest a need for about 
4,000 acres (1,619 ha) of suitable grassland 
to sustain a population containing 200-250 
prairie chicken cocks. The estimate from this 
model was based on research in Minnesota 
and Wisconsin conducted on range acquired 
after European settlement, that is, not the spe-
cies' original range (Hamerstrom and Hamer-
strom 1963:884). Application of the same 
formula to Illinois data (using means for inter-
booming ground distances and cock numbers 
per booming ground) suggests that only 
1,500 acres (607 ha) may indeed be signifi-
cant on Illinois' original prairie chicken range. 
This quantity of grassland is a minimum, that 
assumes managed grasslands are well situat-
ed, properly managed, and well utilized by 
prairie chickens. Several other estimation 
approaches, suggest a need for several thou-
sand acres (e.g., 4,000 acres [1,619 ha]; West-
emeier, unpublished data). If management 
addresses other threatened and endangered 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
grassland species, 1,500 acres is far too little 
grassland (Simpson and Esker 1997). 
Intensive management of 13,000 acres (5,261 
ha) on Wisconsin's Buena Vista and Leola 
Grasslands maintained 300-421 cocks during 
the 1990s (Anderson and Toepfer 1999, 
j. Keir, personal communication). This is well 
above Toepfer's minimum limit of 100 cocks 
(Toepfer et al. 1990), and an excellent density 
of 15-21 cocks/square mile (5.8-8.1 cocks/ 
km 2) of managed grassland. The density of 1 6 
cocks/square mile (6.2 cocks/km2) (Manske 
and Barker [1981] in Kobriger 1988:4) seems 
equally feasible for the Sheyenne Grasslands 
in North Dakota. 
Thus, the area of suitable grasslands required 
to support a minimum viable population, 
assuming it is well-sited and used by prairie 
chickens, may range from a minimum of 
1,500 acres (607 ha) in Illinois to 13,000 
acres (5,261 ha) or more in the northern and 
western range, to support a minimum viable 
population. If the ratio of nesting and roosting 
cover to brooding cover should be 50:50, 
these area estimates may need to be doubled, 
as nesting and roosting cover often differs 
greatly from quality brood cover. Moreover, 
brood cover should be adjacent to nest cover 
and both should be within 1-2 miles (1.6-3.2 
km) of booming grounds (Svedarsky and Van 
Amburg 1996). 
The above requisites for prairie chicken habi-
tat must occur within "large areas of open 
country- wide horizons" (Hamerstrom et al. 
195 7:11 ). High-rainfall states are struggling 
with the encroachment of trees and brush 
into existing grasslands. A Missouri Depart-
ment of Conservation study estimated that 
Missouri gained 1 million acres (404,694 ha) 
of trees in a 1 7-year time span, most of which 
occurred along fencerows and draws. The 
new treelines have severely fragmented grass-
land habitat, eliminating vistas and adding the 
type of habitat preferred by raccoons (Procy-
on lotor) and other mammalian predators. 
Unfortunately, large areas of habitat do not 
necessarily guarantee preservation of prairie 
chickens. In Texas, Silvy et al. (1999) report 
extirpation of Attwater's prairie chickens 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
(APC) in sizeable areas that appear to offer 
all the requisites to support APC. Other deci-
mating factors in Texas apparently include 
reduced environmental quality, infectious 
agents, inbreeding, and environmental sto-
chasticity. 
Management Needs on Manageable Land-
The importance of adequate booming ground 
surveys cannot be overemphasized. Without 
them "there is no way to biologically measure 
the effectivness of management actions" (Sve-
darsky and VanAmburg 1996:93). Long-term 
survey efforts in Minnesota and Wisconsin 
are especially important because they may 
provide the best estimates of what the size 
of minimum viable populations should be for 
greater prairie chickens. Moreover, "booming 
grounds are an important reference point for 
management and an essential orientation and 
breeding center for prairie chickens" (Svedar-
sky and VanAmburg 1996:94). Prairie chick-
en managers should be keenly aware of the 
locations of all booming grounds on/near 
lands under their charge and strive for opti-
mum habitats for nesting, brooding, and 
roosting within 1-2 miles (1.6-3.2 km) of 
the booming grounds (Hamerstrom 1957, 
Westemeier 1971, Hamerstrom and Hamer-
strom 1973, J. Toepfer in Svedarsky and Van 
Amburg 1996). Management for booming 
grounds per se should not be "just a little hole 
in the weeds. It would be well to mow about 
40 acres with the booming ground in the cen-
ter" (Hamerstrom et al. 1957:48). In Illinois, 
sites 10 acres (4 ha) in size, mowed, burned, 
disked, or in soybean stubble, and available 
to the birds in early fall, have worked well for 
booming grounds. 
Management emphasis within close proximity 
of booming grounds is most pertinent and 
feasible when land control is attained by gov-
ernmental or corporate agency ownership. 
A 4-year rotation of prescribed burning, late 
high mowing, late haying, or light grazing, and 
various rest-rotation schemes seems to be (or 
should be) standard approaches to grassland 
maintenance for prairie chickens. Rotations 
may be lengthened to 6 years on droughty 
sandy soils or on peat soils subject to peat 
fires. Visual obstruction readings (VOR, Robel 
et al. 1970) provide useful measurements of 
177 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
178 
grassland height and density for prairie chick-
ens. The aim should be to have at least 50% 
of spring residual grasslands around key 
booming grounds measuring 700% VORs 
at 8 inches (2.0 dm) or slightly more for nest-
ing and roosting. Fields intended for brood 
cover can be essentially bare at the beginning 
of the growing season, but they should pro-
vide screening with VORs measuring 8-16 
inches (2-4 dm), an abundance of grasshop-
pers, and ease of movement for broods by 
hatching time. 
Current references with excellent prescrip-
tions for habitat management for prairie chick-
ens include Svedarsky and Van Amburg 
(1996), Toepfer in Svedarsky and Van Am-
burg (1996), Svedarsky et al. (1997), and Mc-
Kee et al. 1998). Recommendations by Rice 
and Carter ( 1982) for rest-rotation and winter 
grazing are especially appropriate for prairie 
chickens in South Dakota and the Great 
Plains in general. 
Other management needs may include tree 
and brush removal, control of invasive exotic 
plants (particularly tall fescue Festuca elatior 
var. arundinacea] in Missouri and Illinois, seri-
cea lespedeza [Lespedeza cuneata]in Kansas, 
Oklahoma, and Missouri, and leafy spurge 
[Euphorbia esula L.] in North Dakota), nest 
predators, pheasants, and a myriad of other 
problems associated with maintaining quality 
grasslands. A laissez-faire management philos-
ophy will not save prairie chickens. 
A Management Approach on Private Lands -
Given the increasing opposition to govern-
ment or agency ownership of land in Missou-
ri, the Missouri Department of Conservation 
has developed a private land program called 
"Partners for Prairie Wildlife" (PPW). This 
project was developed to find out if grassland 
management practices could be promoted 
on private lands sufficient to improve the sur-
vival outlook of prairie chickens and other 
grassland species. Two project areas were 
selected of about 40 square miles (1 04 km2) 
each. These were chosen based on the pres-
ence of core habitat on public lands, a history 
of good cooperation with area landowners 
and related agencies, relatively healthy prairie 
chicken populations, and the presence of 
ample grassland resources on private lands. 
Objectives of the program were to: (1) En-
hance grassland diversity and structure so 
that suitable nesting and brood-rearing habitat 
for prairie wildlife is distributed over 40% 
of target areas; (2) Reduce fragmentation of 
the prairie landscape by removing invasive 
trees from prairie soils that obscure vistas and 
contribute to reduced nesting success due 
to predation; and (3) Demonstrate to land-
owners that forage production and habitat 
improvement for prairie wildlife can be com-
patible. Ten practices (with incentives) were 
offered to landowners: 
1. Convert fescue to native warm-season 
grasses ($55.00/acre). 
2. Convert fescue to alternative cool-season 
grasses (not fescue) and legumes (herbi-
cide only). 
3. Control introduced cool-season grasses in 
native prairie (herbicide). 
4-6. Overseed lespedeza into existing stands 
of cool-season grasses, planted warm-
season grasses, or small grains ($12.00/ 
acre). 
7. Rest prairie ($25.00/acre). 
8. Implement rotation grazing ($4.00/acre). 
9. Restore prairie wildlife habitat fragment-
ed by tree invasion (MDC pays all costs 
associated with tree removal in areas 
where prairie species gain ?.20 acres of 
"open" grassland for nesting. 
10. Fence replacement for fence damaged 
during removal of trees ($0.25/lineal 
foot). 
A recent progress summary tallied over 90 
miles (144 km) of treelines removed. Tree 
removal was by far the most popular incen-
tive because it often entailed fence replace-
ment. It was also the most expensive. Howev-
er, contracts required 10 years of tree-free 
maintenance. Tree removal opened up about 
1,400 acres (567 ha), at a cost of $59,000. 
Spaced over the 1 0-year contract period the 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
-------------
cost is $4.20/acre (1 0.38/ha) /year. All prac-
tices were used at least once by cooperators 
in Missouri's PPW program. It is expected that 
it will take several years before desired re-
sponses are discernible. 
Tree removal enhances the open space for 
prairie wildlife and reduces predator dens and 
raptor perches. It is also part of various open 
space enhancement efforts in Illinois, Iowa, 
and Wisconsin. 
Other Management Approaches - Native 
warm-season grass (NWSG) plantings that 
are not managed do not make suitable nest-
ing or brood-rearing habitat [for prairie chick-
ens] in the tallgrass prairie regions where soil 
fertility and rainfall are high (S. Clubine, 
personal communication, Westemeier and 
Buhnerkempe 1983, Westemeier et al. 1995). 
Incorporating NWSG plantings into low-to-
medium-grazing systems that leave 8-10 
inches (20-25 em) of growth throughout the 
summer is a good management option. Over-
seeding pasture with alfalfa, Korean lespedeza 
(Lespedeza stipulacea), and/or native forbs 
adds to their value for brood rearing. Haying 
NWSG only once in July, at about 4-6 inches 
(1 0-15 em), will keep stands vigorous and 
allow for ample regrowth for roosting, and 
perhaps for nesting the following spring. CRP 
tracts should be high-mowed 8-1 0 inches 
(20-25 em) in July and allowed to regrow 
to 18 inches (46 em) by frost, to provide opti-
mum cover height for wintering and nesting 
(Gough 1997). Legumes or native forbs 
should be introduced as well to increase 
diversity of both structure and food sources. 
Both CRP and other grasslands should have 
periodic fire, taking care to rotate the burns 
to avoid eliminating nesting cover on more 
than 25-50% of the units (acreage) in any 
given year. 
Several hundred thousand acres of tall fescue 
on CRP land are being converted to cool-
season grass/legume or native warm-season 
grass mixtures in Missouri (Ciubine 1998). 
Moreover, fescue conversion techniques are 
steadily improving. Similarly, there appears to 
be hope for control of leafy spurge on prai-
ries, at least on the Turner ranch in Montana, 
using "combinations of chemicals, conserva-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
tive grazing [with bison], and fire" (Manning 
1995:234) 
Research Needs- "What's enough? ... In 
other words, what's enough conservation?" is 
the "deceptively simple question" posed by 
Sawhill (1996:9). The question applies to mini-
mum viable populations, the quantity of suit-
able grassland needed, and the level of man-
agement needed to support populations. 
These questions may override all others in 
importance in many areas of remaining prairie 
chicken range. 
Translocations of greater prairie chickens have 
been working quite well over the last decade 
or so. However, if MVPs are not attained, 
how frequently must translocations occur to 
maintain numbers, genetic diversity, and pop-
ulation fitness? If "200 birds or 100 displaying 
cocks" and about 2,100 acres (850 ha) of 
suitable grasslands, or one third of a 6,300-
acre (2,550 ha) open area are the critical mini-
mums (Toepfer et al. 1990:575), we'd better 
know all that we can about what constitutes 
"suitable" grasslands for prairie chickens. How 
do such minimums vary throughout the bird's 
range? How do we allow for weather ex-
tremes, cyclic lows in numbers, excessive 
predation, interactions with pheasants, and a 
myriad other variables? What should be the 
relative proportions of nest cover and brood-
ing habitats on management tracts for prairie 
chickens? 
If "ecosystem management" is employed on 
lands originally acquired for prairie chickens, 
how will extensive tracts of undisturbed grass-
land for Henslow's sparrows (Ammodramus 
henslowii) affect nest success for the chick-
ens? Recent research findings by McKee et al. 
(1998) indicate a negative impact. The list of 
questions is endless and the task of obtaining 
answers will increase in complexity as human 
pressures increase. 
Research currently underway includes studies 
on habitat use, nesting, brood-rearing success, 
and dispersal. These are being conducted by 
the George M. Sutton Avian Research Center 
in Oklahoma (Horton and Wolfe 1999) and 
by John Toepfer (personal communication) of 
the Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pinnatus, 
179 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
180 
Ltd. and his students in Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
and North Dakota. Similar studies are needed 
in Nebraska, particularly to forecast pre-hunt 
population levels (Vodehnal 1999). Better 
harvest data are needed in South Dakota 
(J. Heismeyer, personal communication) and 
probably in Kansas and Nebraska. In Missouri, 
field work was completed in 1997 on a study 
evaluating area-size effects on grassland birds 
(Winter 1998). In Minnesota, a feasibility 
study on reintroducing prairie chickens at 
Lac Qui Parle Wildlife Management Area, 
and other studies are underway. In Kansas, 
research is underway by the Department of 
Wildlife and Parks, and by Kansas State Uni-
versity, to evaluate effects of observer varia-
bility on booming ground counts. Additional 
efforts are being made to assess effects of 
route-specific land use changes on lek survey 
results. Models will be developed to correct 
future surveys for variables such as starting 
time and duration of count (Applegate and 
Horak 1999). Many research needs previously 
outlined by Robel (1980) remain unanswered 
and these answers should be sought. 
Can there be too much research? This ques-
tion was prompted by evidence that prairie 
chickens have been virtually evicted from the 
8,616-acre (3,787-ha) Konza Prairie Research 
Natural Area in Kansas. According to R.j. Ro-
bel, in a personal communication, various 
counts of booming cocks and booming 
grounds showed respective "declines of 63% 
and 38% between 1980 and 1990, even as 
research activity increased from 26-77 pro-
jects. Populations of lekking birds in the sur-
rounding grasslands remained stable during 
the 1 0-year period," but currently, "there are 
virtually no prairie chickens on Konza Prairie." 
Prairie chickens can be remarkably tolerant of 
human intrusions, but these observations sug-
gest tolerance limits have been exceeded at 
Konza. Can we expect better consideration 
for prairie chickens on the new Tallgrass Prai-
rie National Preserve ( 1 0,800 acres [ 4,3 71 
ha]) in Kansas, under the partnership of the 
National Park Service and the National Park 
Trust? 
On The Nature Conservancy's Tallgrass Prairie 
Preserve (TGPP) in Oklahoma there are, or 
recently have been, 43 research projects. 
Counts of 58-126 male prairie chickens (R. 
Hamilton, personal communication) seem far 
too few for the entire preserve of 38,000 
acres (15,378 ha). Will the "Konza scenario" 
be repeated at the TGPP? Who should be the 
judge of too much research? 
Human intrusions should be minimal during 
4 critical stages of the breeding season. These 
include: (1) the early morning and late after-
noon periods during the peak of hen visitation 
on booming grounds, (2) the midday period 
when hens are laying eggs, (3) during incuba-
tion including morning and evening feeding 
periods (Westemeier et al. 1998c), and (4) the 
first 6 weeks of brooding (J. Toepfer, personal 
communication). These events typically in-
clude at least April, May, june, and the first 
half of july, throughout the range of the great-
er prairie chicken. 
Public Needs- Perhaps the key question to 
ask the public is "Do you care if the prairie 
chicken is in trouble?" One cogent response 
came from an individual who subsequently 
became one of the best friends to Wisconsin 
prairie chickens: "Hell, I didn't even know he 
was in trouble" (Salsini 1991 :17). Thus, a well-
informed public is critical for public support. 
The bird will basically "sell itself" with its spec-
tacular courtship ritual. Sitting in a blind on a 
booming ground in late March or April is one 
of the best ways to build public support for 
prairie chickens and associated grassland wild-
life as well. To paraphrase Aida Leopold, "rele-
gating prairie chickens to Kansas is like rele-
gating happiness to heaven; one may never 
get there. It is better to keep the prairie chick-
en that we have at home where they belong, 
.now and tomorrow." 
Public visitation can also garner valuable re-
search partnerships (e.g., Hamerstrom and 
Hamerstrom 1973, Anderson and Toepfer 
1999). However, such activities require care-
ful supervision to avoid undue harassment 
during the critical breeding season. Supervi-
sion requires man-hours at a busy time of year 
for grassland managers. With careful attention 
to instruction on viewing etiquette, public 
viewing can often be accommodated from 
a roadside for those who do not wish to sit 
in a cold cramped blind for 2 or 3 hours (or 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
------------
------------·----- . ---------.------
as long as it takes for all hens to leave on their 
own volition). Currently, about 900 persons 
view the courtship ritual of prairie chickens 
on Wisconsin's Buena Vista Marsh each April 
(Anderson and Toepfer 1999). 
Summary of Conservation Needs- Booming 
ground surveys covering 5 decades in Wis-
consin and 2.5 decades in Minnesota offer 
reassurance that a metapopulation intercon-
nected with subpopulations totaling about 
250-1,000 booming males in Wisconsin, 
and between 500-2,000 males in Minnesota, 
may be sufficient to stave off genetic depau-
peration. The declines of Attwater's prairie 
chicken in Texas (Morrow et al. 1996) and 
greater prairie chickens in Illinois also showed 
a need for metapopulations containing .:::.250 
males. Unlike theoretical models, these are 
"real world" indications of what minimum 
viable populations might be for greater prairie 
chickens. 
The quantity of suitable grasslands needed to 
support an isolated minimum viable popula-
tion of prairie chickens may range from 1,500 
acres (607 ha) in Illinois to 13,000 acres 
(5,261 ha) or more in the northern and west-
ern range. Much depends on the quality and 
intensity of management once land control is 
gained, and on the density limits of chickens 
in different geographies and habitats. Secur-
ing habitat necessary to support minimum 
viable populations involves factors that vary 
widely across the greater prairie chicken 
range. States have varying degrees of support 
in terms of funding for land acquisition and 
land management. In the long run, funding, 
agency policy, and the ability to work with 
private landowners when public land acquisi-
tion is not possible, may mean as much to 
the stability of prairie chicken populations as 
habitat management. 
As the climate changes, so also does manage-
ment needs. In the higher-rainfall states, con-
trol of brush and exotic plants is a necessity. 
Farther west, grazing economics is the more 
crucial factor. Wherever prairie chicken sur-
vival is tied to private lands, it is also neces-
sary to consider agriculture economics in 
conjunction with the development of manage-
ment strategies that provide for both livestock 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
and grassland wildlife. Various government 
and private cost sharing programs can be of 
great help. Research is needed on many 
fronts. Procuring a broad base of public sup-
port is fundamental to attracting monies, both 
private and public, for management and re-
search purposes. 
Recommendations 
1. Among the 11 states with greater prairie 
chicken populations, we recommend vig-
orous programs that address both the 
needs of the birds and those of the pub-
lic. Hunting at current regulatory levels 
appears warranted in 2 (Nebraska and 
South Dakota) of the 4 states that have 
enjoyed seasons in recent times. Some 
restrictions of hunting may be in order in 
Kansas. Season closure appears warrant-
ed in Oklahoma. Among the 7 states with 
no hunting seasons in recent times, Colo-
rado, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, 
and Wisconsin indicated that while pres-
ervation was their basic present concern, 
their hope was for limited hunting in the 
future. Missouri and Illinois are currently 
focusing only on preservation. 
2. Annual booming ground surveys are a 
basic ongoing need in all states. Count 
procedures should follow the Hamer-
strom method (1973), but we should re-
main open to refinements in survey meth-
odology based on new research findings. 
3. Strive for minimum viable populations 
with .:::100 males, but preferably >250 
booming males that are sufficiently inter-
connected for regular demographic and 
genetic exchange. Isolation of small popu-
lations (<1 00 males) is probably occurring 
rangewide. There is wisdom in suggesting 
closure of hunting in range so affected. 
4. Provide sufficient quantity and quality of 
grasslands suitable for successful nesting 
and brood rearing for at least minimum 
viable populations. Winter grains, particu-
larly corn, are needed in close association 
with suitable roosting cover, especially in 
181 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
182 
the Great Plains and northern prairie 
chicken range. A grassland:cropland inter-
spersion ratio of 75:25 on the landscape 
is generally ideal. 
5. Maintain grasslands, particularly with the 
use of prescribed burning, light-to-moder-
ate intensity rotational grazing, and/or 
high mowing on both public and private 
land. Frequency of rotations should not 
exceed every other year. Controlled burn-
ing every 3 or 4 years is generally accept-
ed, except on sand or peat soils where 
burn frequency may be lengthened to 5 
or 6 years. 
6. We agree with the recommendation by 
Svedarsky and VanAmburg (1996:94) for 
the Sheyenne National Grasslands, in 
having at least "30% of the habitat 
around key booming grounds with spring 
residual vegetation measuring 700% visu-
al obstruction (VOR} at 2.0 dm" as a man-
agement goal. Further, "juxtaposition of 
habitat components is important in land 
management planning for prairie chicken. 
Nesting cover should be within 1-2 miles 
(1.6-3.2 km)of booming grounds and 
optimum brood cover should be adjacent 
to optimum nest cover. Winter food plots 
should be close to roosting cover. The 
overriding concern is to minimize move-
ments and exposure to predators." 
7. Restore highly fragmented grasslands by 
removing tree lines from fences and 
draws. This is essential to provide open, 
wide horizons and to minimize hunting 
perches for avian predators and denning 
sites for mammalian predators. 
8. Promote incentive programs such as Part-
ners for Prairie Wildlife (Missouri), state 
wetland and prairie tax credits, Prairie 
Bank, and Reinvest-in-Minnesota. Contin-
ue to promote wildlife incentives such as 
WHIP and EQUIP and improve wildlife 
benefits on Conservation Reserve Pro-
gram grasslands with particular emphasis 
on grassland wildlife. 
9. States like Illinois, or areas with small 
grassland tracts, may need intensive pred-
ator control during nesting seasons to 
keep apparent nest success above 50%. 
Similarly, control of pheasants (cocks and 
hens) may be necessary to minimize ha-
rassment of prairie chickens on booming 
grounds and parasitism of chicken nests. 
1 0. Conduct research programs that do not 
jeopardize reproductive success of great-
er prairie chickens, especially during the 
peak hen visitation of booming season, 
mid-day egg laying, incubation (including 
twice-daily feeding flights), and brood 
rearing during the first 6 weeks of growth. 
11. Create and maintain an informed public 
and encourage partnerships through a 
variety of programs, including supervised 
viewing of booming prairie chickens from 
blinds or from a safe distance without 
blinds. 
12. Funding, staff, and equipment should be 
commensurate with the land available for 
management so as to maintain grasslands 
in attractive structures for the year-round 
needs of prairie chickens and other grass-
land wildlife. 
13. Finally, communication channels need to 
be improved so that research findings can 
be quickly incorporated into management 
agendas. Because of the great time de-
mand (several years or even decades) 
between data collection and publication 
in peer-reviewed journals, interim report-
ing (via newsletter, etc.) and meetings by 
groups such as the Prairie Grouse Techni-
cal Council should occur more frequently. 
Acknowledgments 
Colorado- Kenneth M. Giesen, Colorado 
Division of Wildlife; Michael A. Schroeder, 
Colorado Division of Wildlife (formerly) 
Illinois- L Scott A. Simpson, Illinois Depart-
ment of Natural Resources; Terry L. Esker, 
Illinois Department of Natural Resources 
Iowa - Melvin Moe, Iowa Department of 
Natural Resources 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Kansas- Roger D. Applegate, Kansas De-
partment of Wildlife & Parks; Gerald J. Horak, 
Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks; 
Robert J. Robel, Kansas State University-
Manhatten 
Minnesota - W. Daniel Svedarsky, University 
of Minnesota-Crookston; Terrance J. Wolfe, 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 
Missouri- Steve Clubine, Missouri Depart-
ment of Conservation; Larry Mechlin, Missou-
ri Department of Conservation 
Nebraska - Leonard L. McDaniel, US Fish 
and Wildlife Service; Scott Taylor, Nebraska 
Game & Parks Commission; William Vodeh-
nal, Nebraska Game & Parks Commission 
North Dakota -Jerry Kobriger, North Dakota 
Game & Fish Department 
Oklahoma - Robert G. Hamilton, The Nature 
Conservancy-Tallgrass Prairie Preserve-Okla-
homa; Russ Horton, Oklahoma Department 
of Wildlife Conservation 
South Dakota -- Gerald L. Heismeyer, South 
Dakota Department of Game, Fish & Parks 
Wisconsin- Raymond K. Anderson, Universi-
ty of Wisconsin-Stevens Point; James R. Keir, 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; 
John E. Toepfer, Society ofTympanuchus Cu-
pido Pinnatus. Ltd. 
We also thank W.O. Svedarsky for his encour-
agement to do this study, and for his technical 
review and edit of the manuscript. S. Clubine 
also reviewed the manuscript and made help-
ful suggestions. P.W. Brown provided supervi-
sory and editorial assistance. T.E. Rice did the 
technical illustrations. This study was funded 
by the Illinois Natural History Survey and the 
Missouri Department of Conservation. 
Literature Cited 
Ackerman, J. 1993. Carrying the torch. Nature 
Conservancy 43:16-23. 
Applegate, R.D., and G.J. Horak. 1999. Histo-
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
ry and status of the greater prairie-chicken in 
Kansas. Pages 113-121 in W.D. Svedarsky, 
R.H. Hier, and N.j. Silvy, editors. The greater 
prairie chicken: a national/oak. Minnesota 
Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous 
Publication 99-1999, University of Minnesota, 
St. Paul, Minnesota, USA 
Anderson, R.K., and J.E. Toepfer. 1999. Histo-
ry, status and management of the greater 
prairie chicken in Wisconsin. Pages 39-58 in 
W.O. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and N.J. Silvy, 
editors. The greater prairie chicken: a national 
look. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment 
Station, Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999, 
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 
USA 
Bouzat, J.L., H.A. Lewin, and K.N. Paige. 
1998a. The ghost of genetic diversity past: 
historical DNA analysis of the greater prairie 
chicken. The American Naturalist 152:1-6. 
____ _, H.H. Cheng, H.A. Lewin, R.L. 
Westemeier, J.D. Brawn, and K.N. Paige. 
1998b. Genetic evaluation of a demographic 
bottleneck in the greater prairie chicken (Tym-
panuchus cupido). Conservation Biology 
12:836-843. 
Brussard, P.F. 1985. Minimum viable popula-
tions: How many are too few? Restoration and 
Management Notes 3:21-25. 
Christisen, D.M. 1969. National status 
and management of the greater prairie chick-
en. North American Wildlife and Natural Re-
sources Conference 34:207-217. 
_____ .. 1985. The greater prairie chicken 
and Missouri's land-use pattern. Missouri De-
partment of Conservation Terrestrial Series 
No. 15. 
Clubine, S. 1998. Editorial. Native warm sea-
son grass newsletter. Missouri Department of 
Conservation 17:2. 
Evans, K.E. 1963. Inventory of greater prairie 
chickens. Colorado Game, Fish and Parks De-
partment, Federal Aid Quarterly. 
Franklin, I.A. 1980. Evolutionary change in 
183 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
184 
small populations. Pages 135-149 in M.E. 
Soule' and B.A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation 
biology: An evolutionary-ecological perspec-
tive. Sinauer Associates, Incorporated, Sunder-
land, Massachusetts, USA. 
Fredrickson, L.F., B. Crouch, and G.L. Heism-
eyer. 1999. Status and management of the 
greater prairie chicken in South Dakota. Pages 
75-80 in W.D. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and N.j. 
Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chicken: a 
national/oak. Minnesota Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 99-
1999, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Min-
nesota, USA. 
Giesen, K.N., and M.A. Schroeder. 1999. Pop-
ulation status and distribution of greater prai-
rie chickens in Colorado. Pages 99-1 04 in 
W.O. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and N.j. Silvy, edi-
tors. The greater prairie chicken: a national 
look. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 
USA. 
Gough, S. 1990. Overview of prairie chicken 
status outside Missouri. (white paper) Missouri 
Department of Conservation, Columbia, Mis-
souri, USA. 
____ ,. 1997. Making the most of CRP 
grasslands. Prairie Chicken Newsletter. Mis-
souri Department of Conservation. 2:3-4. 
_____ . 1998. Cost share programs-
wildlife is dealt a hand. Prairie Chicken News-
letter. Missouri Department of Conservation. 
2:3. 
Hamerstrom, F.N., and F. Hamerstrom. 1961. 
Status and problems of North American 
grouse. Wilson Bulletin 73:284-294. 
___ _,and . 1963. The sym-
posium in review. journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 27: 868-887. 
___ _,and ____ . 1973. The 
prairie chicken in Wisconsin: highlights of a 
22-year study of counts, behavior, movements, 
turnover, and habitat. Wisconsin Department 
of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 64. 
------------------
____ _, O.E. Mattson, and F. Hamer-
strom. 1957. A guide to prairie chicken man-
agement. Wisconsin Conservation Depart-
ment Technical Bulletin 15. 
Hamilton, R.G. 1996. Using fire and bison to 
restore a functional tallgrass prairie landscape. 
North American Wildlife and Natural Resourc-
es Conference 61:208-214. 
Hoffman, R.W., W.O. Snyder, G.C. Miller, and 
C.E. Braun. 1992. Reintroduction of greater 
prairie chickens in northeastern Colorado. 
Prairie Naturalist 24:197-204. 
Horton, R.E. and D.H. Wolfe. 1999. Status 
and management of the greater prairie chick-
en in Oklahoma. Pages 1 05-111 in W.D. Sve-
darsky, R.H. Hier, and N.j. Silvy, editors. The 
greater prairie chicken: a national/oak. Minne-
sota Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscella-
neous Publication 99-1999, University of Min-
nesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 
Keith, LB. 1963. Wildlife's Ten-Year Cycle. The 
University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wis-
consin, USA. 
Keir, j.R. 1999. Prairie chicken management 
in Wisconsin: An agency perspective. Pages 
59-62 in W.D. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and N.j. 
Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chicken: a 
national/oak. Minnesota Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 
99-1999, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 
Minnesota, USA. 
Kirsch, L.M. 1974. Habitat management con-
siderations for prairie chickens. Wildlife Soci-
ety Bulletin 2:124- 12 9. 
Kobriger, G.D. 1999. Status and management 
of the greater prairie chicken in North Dakota. 
Pages 63-74 in W.O. Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, 
and N.j. Silvy, editors. The greater prairie 
chicken: a national/oak. Minnesota Agricultur-
al Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publica-
tion 99-1999, University of Minnesota, St. 
Paul, Minnesota, USA. 
___ _, D.P. Vollink, M.E. McNeill, and 
K.F. Higgins. 1988. Prairie chicken popula-
tions of the Sheyenne Delta in North Dakota. 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
Pages 1-7 in A. J. Bjugstad, technical cordina-
tor. Prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National 
Grasslands. U.S. Forest Service General Tech-
nical Report RM-159. 
Lande, R. 1995. Mutations and conservation. 
Conservation Biology 9:782-791. 
Manning, R. 1995. Grassland: The history, biol-
ogy, politics and promise of the American prai-
rie. Viking Penguin, New York, New York, 
USA. 
Manske, L.L., and W.T. Barker. 1981. The prai-
rie grouse on the Sheyenne National Grass-
lands. North Dakota State University Research 
Report. Fargo, North Dakota, USA. 
McDaniel, L.L. 1989. Greater prairie chickens 
and land-use management on Valentine Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge. Pages 7-8 in Proceed-
ings of the Prairie Grouse Technical Council 
18:7-8. 
McKee, G., M.R. Ryan, and L.M. Mechlin. 
1998. Predicting greater prairie chicken nest 
success from vegetation and landscape char-
acteristics. journal of Wildlife Management 
62:314-321. 
McMillen, M. 1998. Profiting from prairie. 
Missouri Conservationist 59:21-23. 
Mechlin, L.M., R.W. Cannon, and D.M. Chris-
tisen. 1999. Status and management of the 
greater prairie chicken in Missouri. Pages 
129-142 in W.O. Svedarsky, R.H.Hier, and 
N.J. Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chicken: 
a national look. Minnesota Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 
99-1999, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 
Minnesota, USA. 
Moe, M. 1999. Status and management of 
the greater prairie chicken in Iowa. Pages 
123-127 in W.O. Svedarsky, R.H.Hier, and 
N.J.Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chicken: 
a national/oak. Minnesota Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 
99-1999, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 
Minnesota, USA. 
Morrow, M.E., R.S. Adamcik, J.D. Friday, and 
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
LB. McKinney. 1996. Factors affecting Attwa-
ter's prairie chicken decline on the Attwater 
Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge. 
Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:593-601. 
Rice, L.A., and A.V. Carter. 1982. Evaluation of 
South Dakota grassland management practices 
as they affect prairie chicken populations, 
1974-1978. Completion Report No. 84-11, 
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and 
Parks, Pierre, South Dakota, USA. 
Robel, R.J., J.N. Briggs, A.D. Dayton, and L.C. 
Hulbert. 1970. Relationship between visual 
obstruction measurements and weight of 
grassland vegetation. journal of Range Man-
agement 23:295-297. 
____ . 1980. Current and future re-
search needs for prairie grouse. Pages 34-41 
in P.A. Vohs and F.L. Knopf, editors. Proceed-
ings of the Prairie Grouse Symposium. Oklaho-
ma State University, Oklahoma, USA. 
Salsini, B. 1991 (1995}. Prairie Grouse! A histo-
ry of the Society of Tympanuchus Cupido Pin-
natus, Ltd. Montgomery Media, Inc., Milwau-
kee, Wisconsin, USA. 
Sawhill, J.C. 1996. Conservation science 
comes of age. Nature Conservancy 46:6-9. 
Schaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population 
sizes for species conservation. BioScience 
31:131-134. 
Schroeder M.A., and C.E. Braun. 1992. Sea-
sonal movement and habitat use by greater 
prairie chicken in northeastern Colorado. Col-
orado Division of Wildlife Special Report 68. 
___ _,and L.A. Robb. 1993. Greater 
Prairie Chicken. In The Birds of North Ameri-
ca, No. 36 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and 
F. Gill, editors.). Philadelphia: The Academy 
of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The 
American Ornithologists' Union. 
Silvy, N.J., C.P. Griffin, M.A. Lockwood, M.E. 
Morrow, and M.J. Peterson. 1999. Attwater's 
prairie chicken: A lesson in conservation biol-
ogy research.Pages 153-162 in W.O. Svedar-
sky, R.H. Hier, and N.J. Silvy, editors. The 
185 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
186 
greater prairie chicken: a national/oak. Minne-
sota Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscella-
neous Publication 99-1999, University of Min-
nesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 
Simberloff, D.S. 1982. Big advantages of small 
refuges. Natural History 4:6-14. 
Simpson, S.A., and T.E. Esker. 1997. Prairie 
Ridge State Natural Area habitat plan. Illinois 
Department of Natural Resources. Springfield, 
Illinois, USA. 
Svedarsky, W.O., and G.L. Van Amburg. 1996. 
Integrated management of the greater prairie 
chicken and livestock on the Sheyenne Nation-
al Grasslands. Northwest Experiment Station, 
University of Minnesota, Crookston, Minneso-
ta, USA. 
___ _, T.J. Wolfe, and J.E. Toepfer. 
1997. The greater prairie chicken in Minneso-
ta. Minnesota Department of Natural Resourc-
es Wildlife Report 11. 
Toepfer, J.E., R.L. Eng, and R.K. Anderson. 
1990. Translocating prairie grouse-What have 
we learned? North American Wildlife and Nat-
ural Resources Conference 55:569-579. 
Vance, D.R., and R.L. Westemeier. 1979. In-
teractions of pheasants and prairie chickens in 
Illinois. Wildlife Society Bulletin 7:221-225. 
Van Sant, B.F., and C.E. Braun. 1990. Distribu-
tion and status of greater prairie chickens in 
Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 22:225-230. 
Vodehnal, W.L. 1999. Status and manage-
ment of the greater prairie chicken in Nebras-
ka. Pages 81-98 in W.D.Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, 
and N.J.Silvy, editors. The greater prairie chick-
en: a national/oak. Minnesota Agricultural 
Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication 
99-1999, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 
Minnesota, USA. 
Westemeier, R.L. 1971. The history and ecolo-
gy of prairie chickens in central Wisconsin. 
University of Wisconsin Research Bulletin 
281. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 
_____ . 1980. Greater prairie chicken 
status and management- 1968-1979. Pages 
8-17 in P.A. Vohs and F.L. Knopf, editors. 
Proceedings of the Prairie Crouse Symposium. 
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklaho-
ma, USA. 
___ _, and J.E. Buhnerkempe. 1983. 
Responses of nesting wildlife to prairie grass 
management on prairie chicken sanctuaries in 
Illinois. North American Prairie Conference 
8:39-46. 
____ _, and W.R. Edwards. 1987. Prairie 
chickens: survival in the Midwest. Pages 119-
131 in H. Kallman, C.P. Agee, W.R. Goforth, 
and J.P. Linduska, editors. Restoring America's 
wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash-
ington, D.C., USA. 
_____ . 1988. An evaluation of methods 
for controlling pheasants on Illinois prairie-
chicken sanctuaries. Pages 267-288 in D.L. 
Hallet, W.R. Edwards, and G.V. Burger, edi-
tors. Pheasants: symptoms of wildlife problems 
on agricultural lands. North Central Section of 
The Wildlife Society, Bloomington, Indiana, 
USA. 
_____ . 1997. Grassland for prairie chick-
ens: How much is enough? Illinois Natural 
History Survey Reports 343:1, 8. 
____ _, S.A. Simpson, and D.A. Cooper. 
1991. Successful exchange of prairie chicken 
eggs between nests in two remnant popula-
tions. Wilson Bulletin 103:717-720. 
____ _, R.W. Jansen, and S.A. Simpson. 
1995. Nest and brood habitats used by trans-
located greater prairie chickens in Illinois (Ab-
stract). Page 17 in J. Kobriger, compiler. Pro-
ceedings of 21st Prairie Crouse Technical 
Council meeting, Medora, North Dakota, 
USA. 
-----J J.D. Brawn, S.A. Simpson, T.L. 
Esker, R.W. Jansen, J.W. Walk, E.L. Kershner, 
J.L. Bouzat, and K.N. Paige. 1998a. Tracking 
the long-term decline and recovery of an iso-
lated population. Science 282: 1695-1698. 
___ _, ___ _, W.R. Edwards, J.D. 
Brawn, and S.A. Simpson. 1998b. Parasitism 
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station 
The Greater Prairie Chicken: A National Look 
of greater prairie chicken nests by ring-necked 
pheasants. journal of Wildlife Management 
62:854-863. 
____ _, j.E. Buhnerkempe, and J.D. 
Brawn. 1998c. Effects of flushing nesting 
greater prairie chickens in Illinois. Wilson Bul-
letin 110:190-197. 
____ _, S.A. Simpson, and T.E. Esker. 
1999. Status and management of greater prai-
rie chickens in Illinois. Pages 143-152 in W.D. 
Svedarsky, R.H. Hier, and N.j. Silvy, editors. 
1999. The greater prairie chicken: a national 
look. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 
USA. 
Wisdom, M.j., and L.S. Mills. 1997. Sensitivity 
analysis to guide population recovery: prairie 
chickens as an example. journal of Wildlife 
Management 61 :302-312. 
Winter, M. 1998. Effect of habitat fragmenta-
tion on grassland-nesting birds in southwestern 
Missouri. Dissertation, University of Missouri, 
Columbia, Missouri, USA. 
Wolfe, T.j. 1997. 1996 Inventory of prairie 
chicken booming grounds. Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society Newsletter 23(1 ):3-5. 
Wolfe, T. 1999. 1998 Inventory of prairie 
chicken booming grounds. Minnesota Prairie 
Chicken Society Newsletter 25(1 ): 3-5. 
Yeatter, R.E. 1943. The prairie chicken in Illi-
nois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 22. 
~~~----~~ 
~ ~ CrQ.Nle- dKlJppi1J! 
ik~'re. ~ s(lppej ~~~­
Ca.df.le... .- .. c.c:ldle.--! 
-----
Miscellaneous Publication 99-1999 187 
I -