Hen Houses

[Bailey]

I just saw in delta waterfowl they got a grant for 36000 bucks to build and maintain 100 hen houses. Your telling me it costs 360 per hen house? I get you have to maintain them but we built 15 of them for basically nothing 10 years ago. Is this even possible?


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[tornadochaser]

Grant writer's gotta get paid.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Bailey]

Grant writer's gotta get paid.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I suppose so.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[h2ofwlr]

When was the last time you priced out steel posts at say Discount Steel in Mpls? And galv steel wire that they use (16ga 1x2) ? The Galv wire alone is $15 per nest with their "new" way of building them. Plus someone has to do the welding. And are they paying some one to build them? And then there is the time (including ATV and trailer to haul it and the vehicle to tow it) to install them. It is not cheap when it is all factored in.

Now that being said, if a person does the labor for free, no charging for gas, vehicle and ATV wear and tear a guy can do it much cheaper. And if a guy was a scrounger to find metal posts, cheaper yet. And if a guy used the 12.5 ga 2x4 wire like I use, it is $7 a nest, but have to add a 2x8 plank under it so add $3 for that, but it's cheaper than $15. Mine cost about $20 per nest for materials--but I am thrifty and make the dollar stretch as much as possible.

[Bailey]

No I was just curious. I haven given to delta and am not implying anything. I was just curious why it cost so much. Hen houses are pretty effective. When I put them out almost all of the was I checked had been used.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Bailey]

That was always one of my beefs with du was they would not do hen houses or predator control.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Fish Felon]

[youtube][/youtube]

That was always one of my beefs with du was they would not do hen houses or predator control.

Mine too...ten years ago. I was wrong and DU was smart not to promote or pay for either.

These figures aren't exact and are from years back when I still supported Delta. I'll round off so the math is easy.

Their studies have shown usage rates as high as 80% under optimal conditions. Their studies show a survival rate of 80% under optimal conditions. Let's just say the average duck using the nests lays ten eggs (much higher than any documented average across that many nests).

That means out of a 100 hen houses 80 will get used. Of the 800 eggs laid 640 ducks will reach flight stage. An extremely generous figure only reached under the most ideal and perfect conditions.

Forget the initial money, the amount of time and manpower needed to refurbish those hen houses every year to gain a couple hundred to 640 "extra" ducks in a perfect setting isn't worth it.

If someone wants to pay to build them, put 'em up and refurbish them than by all means go for it.

Using the $36K and securing a permanent easement on even just 3-5 acres of wetlands/prairie is a better investment and they can typically stretch those dollars to get a lot more acres than that with that amount of ching.

[h2ofwlr]

I don't know anyone that claims they get 80% to fledged stage. as that is not the case, This is what I figure, it is closer to 30%, basically 3 ducklings make it to fledged stage (can fly). So in reality you'll hatch 240 a year using 80% nest usage and 10 eggs per nest.

ND gets about a 115% use per nest due to back to back nesting. W Mn is closer to 85%, in the west metro it is closer to 60% use. Basically the more ducks there are, the more use they will have.

The Mn DNR did a cost comparison years ago on ducks "production" and had presented it. By far volunteer efforts of MHN were the most cost effect, then doing grants, them easements and lastly buying land.

What many many do not get is that so what would the cost be land wise to raise 240 fledged ducklings?

Ok so you you buy 1 section (640 acres) of land for say $8.2M dollars. (640 x $5,000 an acre) and have to plant it with native grasses, pull tile, etc, add another 300k up front. So you have 8.5M. Lets use 40 acres per nest, so 16 Mallards nests. but due to depredation, only 20% of the nests survive, so that is 3 nests that are pulled off. x 3 duckling to fledge = 9 ducks. Many places it is documented as low as 0%, the best is 40%, thus why I used 20%, (BTW the scientists figure 15%-20 of the nests must make it to have a stable population).

So lets look at it in a 30 year view point of cost analysis. That 640 will cost money to over see and maintain it, say $17k a year9adjusted for inflation) x 30 years = 500k. So 8.2M + .3M + .5M = $9M 9 Mallards a year x 30 years = 270 $9M divided by 270 = $33,000 per duckling to fledged stage.

MHN using the $36K per year x .5 for inflation over the 30 years = $54K average x 30 years = $1.62M divided by (240 x 30) = 7200 = $161 per mallard duck to fledgling stage.

So $33K compared to $161 looks like quite the bargain to me as that is a 200 to 1 ratio.

Now granted that 640 acreage has other benefits to other waterfowl, other game like pheasants and deer, and non game wildlife too, not to mention water quality, aesthetics, other public use like hiking, bird watching, etc. and of course hunting for hunters.

Where the MHN REALLY stands out and can make a difference is when put them on existing section of land getting only 9 Mallards year production and say you add 10 nests over water, that jumps to 24 + say 6 in the natural grasses nests = 30 a year. That is a 340% increase in production.

And about predator control, using the above numbers of $161, so how cost effective is it on existing lands to hire trappers on this 640 acres? Well you got 9 Mallards at 20%, and intensely trapping it pushes it to 50%, so 22.5 mallards. Lets say an increase of 13 x $161 = $2095. Hmmmm I bet a trapper could do it for $500. Basically it's 1/4 of the cost to raise the same amount of Mallards + there is the benefit to other nesting ducks and pheasants.

But where it gets more cost efficient on existing lands/waters is when you have volunteers to put up the and maintain the nests as it is 1/10 of the cost of hiring it out to put up and maintain MHN.

Are MHN nests the cure all? No, not at all. Should they have a place in the tool bag for increasing Mallard production? Yes.

[Bailey]

[youtube][/youtube][quote="Bailey"]That was always one of my beefs with du was they would not do hen houses or predator control.

Mine too...ten years ago. I was wrong and DU was smart not to promote or pay for either.

These figures aren't exact and are from years back when I still supported Delta. I'll round off so the math is easy.

Their studies have shown usage rates as high as 80% under optimal conditions. Their studies show a survival rate of 80% under optimal conditions. Let's just say the average duck using the nests lays ten eggs (much higher than any documented average across that many nests).

That means out of a 100 hen houses 80 will get used. Of the 800 eggs laid 640 ducks will reach flight stage. An extremely generous figure only reached under the most ideal and perfect conditions.

Forget the initial money, the amount of time and manpower needed to refurbish those hen houses every year to gain a couple hundred to 640 "extra" ducks in a perfect setting isn't worth it.

If someone wants to pay to build them, put 'em up and refurbish them than by all means go for it.

Using the $36K and securing a permanent easement on even just 3-5 acres of wetlands/prairie is a better investment and they can typically stretch those dollars to get a lot more acres than that with that amount of ching.[/quote]
Du has always been about securing land but in areas like minnedosa manitoba I've read nest success can be less then 5% so what good is buying more land when nest success is so low? Predator control really seems to up the percentages and seems needed in Canada where there is no crp.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Nershi]

I don't see predator control as the answer. Sure it works well but there aren't the resources to do it on a mass scale to have a substantial impact IMO.