Well.... you could plant eastern red cedars. OK, I'm just being a smart ass. Down here without burning and herbivore's seems we always end up with trees & then we loose both grasses and forbs. My husband's family has 70 acres out by Norman, Until about 30 years ago they let the the neighbor graze his cows in there which maintained a nice meadow with native Little Bluestem, Sedge, Silver Beardgrass, Threeawn, Sideoats Grama, and several varieties of wildflowers and some shorter grasses that I have no idea of the ID. The grasses didn't choke out the forbs in this case. We used to go collect rose rocks there but now its so overgrown with woody plants getting denser and taller as the years go by you'd have a hard time walking through it. Its forested with eastern red cedars which were quickly followed by all kinds of junk trees, thick underbrush, vines and thorny thickets, exactly the kind of ugly 'forest' we grow here in central Oklahoma. The only part not encroached is a large red sandstone outcropping.

Judicial grazing and occasional burn-off would have made all the difference. Its too far gone to be returned to grassland.

Just one additional remark. You could always see the soil through the plants in the meadow back before it was taken over, it appeared the grasses naturally spaced themselves allowing room for the herbs. Maybe it depends on how rich the soil is, moisture etc. I remember this was the case because we'd pick up the rose rocks in between the grasses, the red soil mounds up in porous looking piles when it rains and those developed the rose rocks. The wild grasslands here seem to typically have both grasses and herbs alternating in drifts of type of grass etc making a tapestry effect you see when driving down the highway.

Maybe its a matter of natural vs man-made plantings, in other words, really authentic as opposed to a restoration?

I agree that judicious grazing could be a part of the answer. Not for that Norman site, but just generally. Funnily enough, the guy I heard on public radio talking about the warm-season grasses taking over "prairies" here in Wisconsin was none other than the very person I've hinted at numerous times on this and related boards as having spread the prairie thing beyond all reason here in this former land of Paul Bunyan. He's a smart guy-has all the answers all the time-but I wonder if he could see that he himself had folks backed into the corner on this issue.

It was mentioned-remember, this was a Wisconsin audience-that for those not opposed, herbicides could be used to diminish the dominance of the big blue, Indian grass, switch grass, etc. My how I laughed on the inside at hearing this! But again, this guy would have an answer at the ready, being the sort that is never wrong!

Thanks for posting in this, Tex. I thought it a noteworthy point of discussion.

This article doesn't address the US but I found it interesting and right on target about savannah's encroaching forests and forests encroaching savannas, as the article put it---- to their mutual detriment resulting in ecological chaos. A good description if ever I heard one describing what I constantly witness around here.

Actually it was your remark about one native species not being at war with another that got me googling because my knee jerk reaction was "Oh yes they are at war & the damn trees win it every time down here" but I figured I'd best let it slide and get online instead since I seem to have gotten on nerves making such remarks and the talk of grassland has most likely worn quite thin, especially to you Paul Bunyon types with prairie enthusiasts driving you nuts.

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/00/77Q07/

Here, which is very different from your "here", the bluestem grows in clumps and the forbs grow up through the clumps. As the grass ages, it dead lower stem kills off the smaller grass and that causes a void and forbs get MORE, woody forms establish and then trees germinate in the voids and we get small trees and the prairie disappears into a thicket. It goes the other way. Fire kills off the small trees and levels the grass, controls the woody forbs, many forbs grow back from roots, and fire encourages seeds of all sorts. Things come in thicker after a burn. Flowers too. Thicker means something different down here than up in your here.

There is a theory that the Holistic Land Management adherents hold that the herds of bison and other dense herd animals help the grassland and that the desertification of the west is due to the removal of these wild dense herds that come and go . and the manner of our ranching needs to mimic these herds. They keep the cows in much smaller denser pastures and then move that pasture around.

I can't help you in your layers of artificial environment and misplaced prairie. The wild rhododendrons , Bog Laurels and bog blueberries would be a better fit for your area and this specific use. I would think that the lake side plant communities would be good fit. I wish you well in your uphill battle.

Yes I've heard mention of some of these new grazing ideas. I think there's good potential to maybe get something right there, at least on a limited basis, here and there. Nothing's going to ever be able to bring back the big picture scene of yesteryear.

New-age boutique farmers in southwestern Wisconsin-it's kind of its own area, both nature-wise and culturally-speaking, have gone heavily into that rotational grazing thing. I've seen some systems that were extremely clever, utilizing chickens as one phase, cattle as another, cropping as another....all to avoid wearing the land out. Lots of promise in some of those systems, although they are but a drop in the bucket when set alongside big mainstream feedlot agriculture. But it's got to start somewhere.

Can I ask--- which part of the state do you deal with?

Who is asking who what? Lol...I'm confused, by this and Wanto's most resent comments. Not upset folks-just confused!

Sorry, I've known wantanamara so well and for so long and have so many native plants from the Hill Country down there in central Texas, I didn't realize it would cause confusion.

I meant which part of Wisconsin? Up north or down south? I cannot tell. I am in central Oklahoma but I figure you know that already.

I do my professional work in the Fox River Valley, which is that area including and to the south and west of the city of Green Bay. No, I don't work for that city, but another nearby one. My tree farm is 60 miles due north of where I live, so more solidly in the area usually known as northeastern Wisconsin. There's actually a fair amount of change from here to there, although even that area is still in "farm country", albeit right where it starts to peter out. Directly north of my land is where the national forests begin. It's basically all woods up there.

But my knowledge and indeed, the topics I might be discussing here come from all over the state. I have much familiarity with all of it, to say the very least.

The last glaciers that rumbled across here-the Wisconsin Glacier, lol-never quite made it down to the southwestern corner of this state. As a result, that area has been dubbed the "driftless area" and is quite different than say, around here where I live. Extremely hilly-it is said to have the same topographic relief of West Virginia-it is kind of its own place. I've got a brother that lives down there. Getting to his place is always a challenge, as the roads are crazy-winding and twisting all over the place, lots of dead curves and hills and stuff. That's certainly not the only place in WI with hilly topography, but it's one of the main areas. Up where my land is, glaciers left all kinds of drumlins, eskers, moraines, and all the other odd features that glaciers can cause, while just this 60 miles south, they laid the land almost dead-flat. Lot of variety here.

I was reading about prairie chickens last night and ran across an interesting article out of Wisconsin (it rather cheered me up to read it in fact because it seems they are nearly gone) and it went into the efforts being made about restoring the tall grass prairies up there, the amount of loss of habitat etc and suddenly I realized I had no idea where you are located.

Err, TR, I must be misunderstanding you, that you said you're glad that the prairie chickens are almost gone ? I don't think you mean that.

I blame the drugs. I had surgery Monday and I'm on pain killers and steroids. I have to keep correcting my posts cuz I keep making stupid typing blunders on nearly every word and I've made the most unbelievable blunders around the house this week, in short, I'm dangerous right now. I meant I was glad the prairie chickens were make a comeback and efforts were being made. I wish they'd leave the prairie dog towns alone.

That sounds more like you, and I whole heartedly agree.

Yes, despite my frequent rants about what I see as misplaced agenda here on the part of some towards an unwarranted belief in prairie as the original Wisconsin native plant community, there were indeed patches of grasslands and more especially "oak opening" in areas where native Americans had practiced their land-burning techniques. So those words are real, and there really were prairie chickens in a few parts of this state.

Where I get bent out of shape is in the misapplication of this factoid such that some people that should really know better think we were a major prairie area. As I said here long ago in a similar rant-lol-if one were to view a low-resolution map of the nation's original vegetation cover types prior to European settlement, the line indicating where prairie was would go around Wisconsin. Only highly detailed maps would show the blips and bleeps of prairie, and the somewhat large bleeps and blips of "oak openings". Yet far too many seem to have simply no concept of what was here, this despite this state's long-standing reputation as the lumber mill of the nation, back around the turn of the nineteenth century. My gawd, I have to wonder what they're teaching kids in school about all this!

Well, theres this notion.....a bit confusing to say the least.

then there is this map.....more of a wrap around like you describe. These maps were what got me wondering what part of the state you live in last night reading that great story about the prairie chickens increasing in numbers. Lots of tall grass prairie seems to have been converted to cropland up there just like down here. I'm not familiar with the northern portion of the Great Plains like I am in the central part so its easy to get confused.

Tex, maybe I'm missing something, but what is represented in that second map by the bright yellow shading? It has no congruency with any factor of soils, climate, vegetation, or any other that I can think of. What a weird map.

As far as this state's original vegetation, by far.....and I do mean by far...the best resource is a map simply called Original Vegetation Cover of Wisconsin. I'm looking up at my big jumbo printing of this map as I type. It was compiled by the original land surveyors of this state who started in the SE corner and worked north and west, taking copious notes everywhere they went. This is not generalized info, but rather, highly detailed fact. They used 16 designations, ranging from Boreal Forest in the far north to yup...Prairie in smatterings of the south. I'm loath to try to break this down from what it is-highly organized and scientifically worded evidence into some simple phrase or slogan. Reality just doesn't fit that. I've got to run here today, but maybe if I think of it, I can try to find where I found this map. I do, of course, have it on my hard drive as well, so I suppose if anyone is interested, I might be able to send you a digital copy. I remember the day we tried to print this big devil. We've got all manner of plotters and fancy printers and stuff here, and some people that actually know what they're doing with such equipment (unlike me!) and we did eventually get to where we were able to print out big 30 inch by 36 inch (or whatever this one is) copies of this map.

What I'd be interested in knowing is whether or not similar maps are available for the rest of the states. I love this thing, and have used it when giving talks and so on-about "native vegetation", haha....it has been invaluable. Seriously though, I'll probably not be thinking about this when I come in tomorrow morning, so feel free to remind me, and I can see if we can get this thing distributed. It's very cool.

Heck if I know. It came off this site.
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156793/

This is the prairie chicken website I stumbled across.
http://www.uwsp.edu/wildlife/pchicken/Pages/history.aspx

OK, here's my baby: http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/2009/08/poster.pdf.

Not sure you'll be able to make heads or tails out of this, at least as I've presented it. There's a color key too which I should dig up maybe and send along. If nothing else-and this only if you can blow the image up a bit-it should get across the idea of the complexity of what was here originally.

Now to the yellow-shaded map: If you read the text carefully, it reveals that nearly all of that shaded area was forest of one type or another. It's an attempt to show the ecotone that does exist across this state. Ecotones are zones of transition between one biome and another. Almost none of that area would have been actual prairie, but it is interesting to note that within that area are the largest remaining remnants of the blacksoil, high-grass prairie that exists in the world today! The soil in the southern Wisconsin ag. belt is indeed the rich, black prairie stuff, like much of central Illinois also has. Where I live, by contrast, it's red clay-based brown forest soils. Completely different and not all that far away.

Let me know if that map doesn't open properly. I'm quite the dunce at this sort of thing, and may have given you a bum steer.

The map opens completely and apparently is correct on a local scale (too many mixed dots all over the place) (lol) or maybe your state is quite a mixed bag. Interesting though to see the different biomes.

Yes. To be honest-and I know this is getting picky-there's another version, essentially the same data, but a different map. That is the one I have up in my office (and a full-scale travelling version too, lol). So in this iteration, it's even more sliced and diced than in the one I originally talked about, and the plant community naming protocol is, ironically, simplified in the one linked to here. But regardless, it does help to showcase that yes, this was a very mixed up tapestry of plant communities here. You can see the bits and pieces of prairie, where the Indians were doing their burn thing, and the "oak openings" are essentially another version of the same practice. Those guys knew what they were doing.

Where I live, the original cover type was mostly beech, sugar maple, basswood, red oak, white oak, with hemlock sprinkled in. This type of forest burned, sure. But what was the fire interval you might ask? Right around 400 years! Hardly what one would call a pyric plant community! Large areas of "swamp conifers" existed throughout the state, wherever the hydrological regime dictated that. Some of my woods up north (okay, only 60 miles north) is that, commonly called "cedar swamp". The "cedar" in that tag is not a true Cedrus but rather, Thuja occidentalis. Amazing forests these. Mine is all full of springs, which run right straight through the winter, no matter how cold it gets. Magical places.

I can see the map, it reminds me of a postage stamp patchwork quilt pattern. All I can say is no wonder you guys are fighting each other tooth and nail as to what should be growing where, every square foot looks like it could result in an argument that could go on from here to Sunday. I have to say Wisconsin would feel quite alien & chaotic, it would seem hard to catch a breath being closed in by the trees because I am used to big wide open spaces with lots of sky and wind.

Speaking of pyric, we are in the mid 80's with 50mph winds, the state is a tinderbox and the trees & grasses are firing up as I type this. I'm heading outside to trim a row of tall giant sacaton growing close to the house, its scary out there. In spite of everything, I like living down here more than I would up north, I prefer our long summers even if they do tend to reach 100 degrees in May and then go on indefinitely but I would not fare well in a long cold winter.

Thanks for taking the trouble to post the map, it helps explain your viewpoints & preferences.

S'no problem, Tex and ya'll. (There, maybe I could fit in down south!). Keep in mind, that is a depiction of original vegetation. Today, if you drove from Madison up to Appleton, where I live, you'd be in farms most of the time, and in very loose terms, that would be rather prairie-like! And the other thing-these guys did a bang-up job but it tends to make it look as if everything was all disjointed. Nothing could be further from the truth, one pocket of this type of woods blending-literally blending into the next, into the little pocket where a burn opened the land up a bit...into the next little area where the species mix of trees varied just enough to warrant a different color on that map, but if you were just the average person looking at it, all you'd see is woods....or prairie... or oak openings, which term would not even be in your vocabulary, lol!

Hope you keep things from burning up down there. I do remember the crazy wildfires you and your Texan neighbors had a few years ago. Unbelievable, except I did believe it.

Seems to me like you'd want to establish big massive rooted natives or larger plants like Ironweed (roots can travel 30 feet sending up plants at intervals, Solidago, Liatris, Woody Asters that grow in drifts, Lead Plant, Maximillian Sunflower, Compass Plant etc to compete well in a tall grass prairie situation.

Annual Cowpen Daisy, Horsemint, Yellow Plainsmen, Snow On the Mountain. Indian Blanket, Goldenwave Coreopsis, Clasping Coneflower, Baby's Breath Aster, Standing Winecup and other easy common plants seem to naturalize easily & hold their own in competition too. I'm just guessing but these are so abundant around here and cover miles along the roadsides even in previously disturbed areas that are now filled in with those big, weedy, aggressive, non native grasses that so often fill the void along with miles of those gawky annual broom weeds that send up one stem each but its like a sea of yellow haze in fall, not desirable plants, but I always think its quite pretty in masses especially contrasting with the bolder Solidago, Annual Sunflowers and the perennial Maximillian Sunflowers.

The bunch grasses I see aren't normally packed in that tight, they naturally space themselves out and in winter they 'shrink' up a lot especially at the bottom, there's always a solid covering of new green growth on the soil when you look down between them of non-grass plants that come up in fall ready take off in spring before the grasses start up. It always looks all dead out there until you look close to the ground.

We do use many of those species in our planted prairies. There's another phenomenon that I find interesting, that of the "old field". Everywhere around here-if previously-farmed land is just left alone sufficiently long, a rather nice "prairie" seems to arise all on its own. The species that always seem to be there are: New England aster, heath aster, frost aster, a variety of Solidagos but certainly especially the thuggish Canada goldenrod, uh, what am I leaving out? There might be some non-native clovers, maybe some cool-season grasses, but the main point is, this old-field thing looks great in the late-summer/fall when those items are in bloom. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes prefer this assemblage to the more diverse and supposedly, more authentic prairie mixes we seed in around our ponds, etc. I think of those asters, for example, as true remnant species for this area, not southern Wisconsin where all the prairie guys are based out of, and where the school they all went to is located.

As is always the case in these convos, I worry that I might not be making myself clear. All I'm saying really is that to me it is a mistake to automatically place these old-field assemblages of plants in a lesser category than the completely man-made, albeit perhaps more "diverse" planted prairies. I suspect that from a genetic standpoint, these might be more a reflection of what a spot might have looked like hundreds of years ago if some land-clearing event temporarily took out the woody plants, than do the stuff we're putting in on purpose now. I mean, all those gene lines came from somewhere, and as far as I can tell, they came from right here. Nobody brought New England aster seed here en masse. I'm pretty sure it was already here, as were the others.

Take that mix, tweak it with some additions like the ironweed, etc. and now you'd really have something. Still not a forest, lol, but a good thing regardless!

I think these idea of a generic ideal prairie is a mistake because prairies just plain change depending where they are. Plain and simple. Go for those field grown plants. They know the lay of the land. Plain and simple. I keep trying to get New Mexican plants to grow here because our droughts have been so hard on the plants here but it just doesn't work. The field grown come back after a few years from the seed bank and the New Mexican die out in the first summer humidity. I keep trying because TR gets them to work but she is colder than here and her summer usually breaks a month earlier than ours. TR is a better gardener than me. Boo Hoo.

I'm not really a better gardener. The difference is, I have soil. City soil at that---- with a lot of sand added to it. You have caliche. That sand we hauled in by the tons made a world of difference no matter what all the nay sayers say.

None of us can make ourselves clear on website like this, especially if we want to try to be technical and text book correct. I see what I see around me, I picture how it is here and I can't help it, those pictures will always come to mind and influence what I read concerning a topic as general as a stand of trees or a prairie etc. I don't know of a single 'planted prairie' now that I think about it, just the surrounding landscape out in the country. I guess the closest thing I can think of as a planted prairie would be something like the prairie reserve up north by Pawhuska which is sort of like a park you enter and frankly, I've never been there because those organized types of things don't appeal. I don't think it was 'planted', rather more like protected (I might be wrong). Strange, but this is the first time I have even given this thought which seems weird considering you do that for a living.

Tex, forgive me if I've misconstrued something here, but you hinted at some "naysayers" regarding the use of sand as a soil amendment. Here's what I know: Sand can be a good addition to tight, poorly-drained or poorly-aerated soil, if these two factors are in place: First, the sand must be "builder's sand", that is, large, square-grained. Then, up to 70% of the final soil mix must be this sand in order for it to work its magic. Simply put, individual grains of sand must be sufficiently large and sufficiently angular so that individual grains lodge against each other. It is this lodging, which results in relatively large pores being created, that effects drainage, aeration, et al. Just the mere presence of sand will not do this, unless those tow factors are met.

Adding less than 70% sand to a typical clay or loam soil will result in a concrete-like material....probably not what the gardener is after!

Seems whenever the subject of amending soil comes up on GW the most common remark is that adding sand is not recommended. I've posted my success but it doesn't seem to make a difference. The advice is always to add organic.

When I first started building beds my practice was to remove all the bermuda, add those huge bags of peat moss and several bags of play sand. It worked well back in the day when I had a conventional landscape. In the beginning, I just added organic, the sand seemed to me to made more difference because it helped the texture so much. I became sold on sand and never thought anything was weird or off about it.

10 years ago, we took a trip to New Mexico and I decided to rip it all out and go 100% native with no lawn. I dug out or killed off all the bermuda and then we had dump trucks bring in those big piles of coarse concrete grade sand like you see when a new house is going up and they are laying the foundation. Its not very expensive. Actually to be honest, I never looked it up, studied soil or was scientific about it. I was wanting to grow xeric plants and it just seemed logical. I also wanted the soil to be lean. In back I created large mounds piled up high with paths between them. We covered it all in river rock. When I planted anything, digging the hole would mix the soil beneath with the coarse sand above. It ranges from really deep in some spots to not so deep in others.

Weeds pull out really easy, I'll say that much. Its also easy to move plants if I decide I want to change something, I can pretty much dig up a plant and hardly loose a single root & thats how I know how dense and good the roots are compared to before.

Anyway, it worked out that I was able to grow just about anything native well because its so deep and porous and the plants send down roots that are really thick, deep and nice. The ground stays moist a lot longer, is easy to water & takes less since the water soaks right in and goes down deep. I never have mud anymore either, even during rain. Previously my soil would form large cracks in a dry summer, which is how summer typically is and it was almost impossible to get good roots established because watering was difficult. I'd water for hours only to see the soil get wet about 3" down and then dry right out again in a couple days. I thought of it as concrete, not the other way around like people predict you will have.

Maybe it was the amount of sand we brought in but in the early days when I was using peat moss I'd gauge it at about 1/3 existing soil, 1/3 peat and 1/3 play sand and it made the soil very nice. Today, I wouldn't add peat but it seems to have done no harm.

Actually the only problem I have is cats. My property is now so inviting because they like to use it like a big kitty litter box. Someone around here must be hoarding cats because lately its become ridiculous. I am at the end of my patience.

Indeed, it sounds to me as though you both used the proper type of sand-builder's sand, just as I wrote, and you used a sufficient amount. I see not a single aspect of your report that differs from what I recommended above.

Just one other thing I observed. Whenever we take the pick up truck out to Dolese to get more sand or gravel, like when I wanted to take out the bermuda and do the strip along the driveway by the neighbors yard, I noticed that at the base of the large mountains of sand there are the healthiest looking little rings of various flowers, natives etc growing with abandon all around each mountain rooted into the sand up until it gets about 4 ft high or so, higher up, its just sand. These plants look better and less stressed in summer than the ones in their decorative beds with garden soil by the weigh station when you are getting loaded up.

I also noticed the same thing happens at new building sites when those piles are left to sit a while (of course, thats a temporary situation and those plants are doomed). I noticed because I had to wait for my sand and would look longingly at those piles for quite a few months when driving around the city until I FINALLY got my sand I'd been harping for.

Oh no, I didn't think you were differing or meant to indicate that you were. I'm just saying I completely bungled into this based on a gut feeling and common sense. I'm rather surprised at how agitated people can get on the subject on some of the forums, you wouldn't believe....Its like touting heresy.

Yeah, I've run into that, although based on other ideas. I had the gall to simply suggest-for one example-that the "Al's Gritty Mix" thread, which must make up 50% of the total words in the Container Gardening forum doesn't matter so much if planting in question is all annuals (or treated as such) in that within one growing season, organic matter decomposition will not have progressed far enough to matter.......was hit by a barrage of hatred the likes of which has had me not go back there since. Who needs the grief.

Sorry for misinterpreting. Hey, it's Monday!

Hey Tom, don't you know that in nature, plants don't ever touch decaying organic matter? Yech, how unsanitary! (I'm joking...I'm joking).

About the builders sand. I've heard it must be builders sand too. But.....

We scraped off the front lawn in 2006 with a sod cutter and then put very fine grade river bottom sand on top, about 8 inches deep. The yard slants down to the street and that spring before it was planted we got a very heavy rain that went on for days. I lost a lot of sand & river rock streaming down the street for about a half block and ended up with a couple big craters. I had to retrieve it with a wheel barrow making several trips, took me all day long but I brought back every paid-for drop of it ending up using a flat putty knife tool to get the last of it. We then purchased a lot of 4" to 6 or 8" round river rocks and lined all the borders to keep the stuff in and it formed a nice looking decorative border. I had a couple more minor erosion episodes and had to retrieve sand again but nothing like that first time. Once the plants became established the problem was over.

So in 2007 when we did the back we opted for the coarse sand due to try to avoid erosion along with bigger river rock.

The point is, I do not notice any difference at all in the front where the sand is very fine and the back and as far as I can tell, neither do the plants. We do glass etching on occasion and I've also added a lot of white silica sand to areas from whats swept up, sand doesn't get any finer that that. Now we use aluminum oxide because it cuts faster and I've added that as well, its grey but seems to work quite well.

Imagine me posting this on the Soil Forum. I wouldn't dare. Its all inert material & the plants don't seem to notice one from another and neither do I.

The cats happily use all four types of sand for their potty piles (along with the grasses which they like to hit dead center) but seem to particularly favor any new addition of any type of sand to stink up. The furry little B__^&rd's don't seem to discern or maybe its just spite.

If you want to use the word 'rabid' and hit the nail square on the head in describing me Tom, I have become a Rabid Cat Hater. I used to be neutral but not anymore. Yep I admit it and don't care who knows it--RABID CAT HATER lives here. The cats know it and so do the neighbors.

Heh, well there's another point in common, lol! I suppose I'm not quite into the hate category....but hatred is a good enough word to use for those human animals that think their cats are okay running wild all day and night. Even had a close friend who would tie his and girlfriend's cat out on a long run. Cat would kill songbirds and bring them to the porch, upon which friend once said something about "hey, if they're (the birds) dumb enough to get caught by this cat, they shouldn't be living anyway" or some such nonsense...as if this was somehow a part of natural selection....as if those birds would have had any opportunity to become adapted to pet cats let outside! I didn't even have a good comeback, I was so enraged at the stupidity.

In our neighborhood, it now seems that every cat owner has simultaneously come to the conclusion that their cats should run loose all the time. I'm not naturally a mean person (at least I don't think I am) but I have contemplated a well-placed bowl or two of antifreeze! Didn't do it....yet. But those cats really piss me off with their bird-killing ways. So very stupid it is. The owners, I mean.

Hey, you can't argue with success, or so they say. I've seen pics of your yard and it is uncommonly beautiful. Whatever you're doing....it works!