Challenges of living in the woods with chickens

Pics
I live in the woods, relatively. Our property is about an acre of clearing which our house sits on, and an acre of woods surrounded by... Lots more woods.

Our current setup is on the side of the house but we're planning on converting an old playhouse at the edge of the woods into a coop/run. Much larger and won't get direct sun to bake them in summer like our current south-ish facing setup does.

My flock of 5 will be a year old at the beginning of July. We started letting them range with supervision when they were about 3 months old. Had plenty of hawk scares (mostly Cooper's, known chicken hunters). We stopped letting them out of the run around late November when there was less cover for them with the leaves gone off the trees and bushes, because a Cooper's had them pinned under a brush pile after nearly grabbing one of the girls.

We have a pair of red-shouldered hawks that fly over almost daily and watch the girls but haven't hunted them, even while nesting and raising chicks themselves in a tree on a neighbor's property. I've seen/heard red tails, but they don't seem interested, so far.

We have confirmed raccoons, foxes, and large cats (domestic and potentially bobcat). Coyotes and stray dogs and weasels wouldn't be a surprise either. Or fishers, despite them not being confirmed in this area of Michigan. There are several dens/burrows from all different critters on our property.

From my personal experience chickens who have access to both wooded and open areas prefer to stay near the woods so they can dart to the relative safety of the underbrush. They tend to stick to the shade and near covered areas (a large stump surrounded by ferns, a patch of fir trees, an upturned wheelbarrow...) on their way back up to the run.

My chickens aren't very flighty. They can fly and jump up onto (very) low branches but it seems like they'd rather escape under rather than above.

They know what "hawk" means so if I manage to spot one before they do and shout a warning, they freeze and look around. But I trust that they instinctually know what they're doing, so I try not to stress about it much. Most of their ranging time is unsupervised. I check on them every half hour or so and sometimes accompany them while they forage for a few minutes, but mostly, they're on their own. I only tend to intervene when one is by herself, and I lead her back to her sisters (or the nest box, depending on the situation). I don't follow them into the woods because 1) they rarely go more than 5 meters or so in, and 2) it's too overgrown with invasive autumn olive and honeysuckle. Can hardly pick my way through the path anymore that used to cut through the woods when we first moved here :th

Grass holds a lot of yummy critters for chooks to eat like moths, flies, caterpillars, and spiders, and while my girls enjoy picking through the grass in the yard for goodies (and eating the grass itself), they seem to have more success under leaf litter. Lots of worms, earwigs, ants, spiders, slugs, mice, shrews... Grass is easier for prey to escape into and hide within than dead leaves which are easily scratched away.

That's what I've observed, at least. They also have some luck picking bugs off of low hanging branches and smaller plants that grow on the forest floor like mayapples, raspberry, and virginia creeper.

How long they spend ranging varies day by day and by season. Currently they're getting at least 2 or 3 hours a day. Sometimes more, if I let them out again for an hour or 2 before roosting time.

As far as I know, everybody lays in the nest boxes. Wouldn't be surprised to find a hidden nest somewhere though, there's so many potentially great spots for a hen to hunker down and go broody.

I sometimes throw eggs out into the yard/woods for the wild animals, if they're extra dirty or cracked for example. The wild animals rarely find them before the chickens do and sometimes the eggs sit on the ground for days before something finally gets to them. I don't know what does take them, other than the chickens. Maybe squirrels, maybe crows, maybe raccoons or foxes. We don't have trail cams but dad and I would love to have them.

I don't worry about my egg offerings attracting predators. I'm not one to assume that the mere presence of a predator means my chickens are in immediate danger. If that were the case then my girls would all be dead by now. I do believe however that you can strike a balance with nature through lots of education on one's own part about the local ecosystem and some trial and error. Losing chickens is inevitable at some point, either way.

Personally, I'd rather my flock be happy and able to live as close to natural as possible, able to be active chickens and risk the predators, than keep them always shut in a run of any size.

Generally, I think the more chickens allowed to experience, and when they're allowed to use most or all of their chicken senses and behaviors, the more they learn from and adapt to a variety of situations, including dangerous ones.

That's not to say I'd just let a predator take one of my girls without at least trying to drive it off first. My role in the flock is basically part-time weird-looking rooster. I escort them to and from the nest box. When they squat for me I "breed" them by petting their backs. I find and give them treats. I guard them while they dirt bathe, separate them when their fights get too serious, scold them when they peck me too hard, herd/lead them around the yard as they forage, and when I see a hawk watching them I alert them, keep an eye on it, and wave my arms and shout at it if it gets too close until it flies away. I'd do the same for any other predator.

Lots of chicken shelters throughout the area if you don't have much underbrush are essential. Many birds of prey hunt by waiting on high branches and scanning the forest floor. Accipiters like Cooper's are notoriously agile in forest habitats and will chase birds and squirrels through the trees like it's nothing. Juveniles are especially bold but less successful hunters. That doesn't mean they won't injure or kill a chicken on impact, though.

Fishers also hunt from up in trees and are very agile both in the trees and on the ground.

Brush piles can serve as great shelter for chickens but also for certain predators (and pests) so it's a good idea to check/rotate (burn and replace/relocate) them often.

Flies love the shade and relative dampness of forests so definitely keep things clean to prevent flystrike.

Oh! The wildlife also serve as great alarm systems that my chickens really pay attention and react to. Blue jays, crows, robins, chipmunks, chickadees, titmice, sparrows, finches, woodpeckers... They all have specific alarm calls for different types of predators and my girls seem to have picked up on at least a few of them! Maybe it's just me but sometimes it seems like they follow the wild birds as they forage around the yard, maybe so they can take cues from them about what's happening in the area (as well as steal the goodies) 🤔

(Not to mention the delicious fledglings they find when they follow the chipping sparrows 🤦‍♂️)

What I worry about most (besides flystrike. 3/5 girls have lazy cloaca and/or mega butt fluff, dangit) is branches and trees falling. It happens all the time in our woods. Lots of poplars that don't live long but grow fast and fall virtually every windstorm. Dead and heavy limbs come down a lot too, especially in winter. Not sure what to do about that, we have no money to hire someone to take out the widowmakers.

Anyway.

I think once we start building the new setup, critter-proofing it will be the most annoying part. Mice, squirrels, skunks, voles, probably rats too and who knows what else use it as their own personal clubhouse and cafeteria, there's a groundhog that has lived underneath it in previous years... There's going to be so much hardware cloth involved...

Ok I've blabbed on long enough (can't think of what else to bring up :duc😆)
 
As a native plant enthusiast, might I put in a plea for growing Arundinaria, a river cane that is the only bamboo native to North America? It used to be plentiful and grew in dense stands called canebreaks. Because it is native, it isn't invasive.
If I recall correctly there used to be hundreds of thousands of acres of bamboo in America before it was all burned down and destroyed. It's a terrible shame how much the environment has been devastated

I know my phyllostachys bamboo isn't native but I haven't personally observed any negative effects at all. In fact I believe it's filling an empty ecological niche that's been empty for quite a while now

Phyllostachys bamboo can't compete against a forest at all. It only ever grows in areas that humans have already heavily ecologically damaged. When I planted bamboo next to the woods over the course of years it's spread directly away from the forest (where it can't get sunlight) and into my driveway and all of the areas I have cleared. It literally grows away from established vegetation and into human damaged environments specifically

This reminds me of the story of Ascension Island. Charles Darwin sailed there 400 years ago and called it a "desolate cinder". However sailors planted phyllostachys bamboo there where it began capturing passing clouds near the top of the volcano, and the entire island has since been transformed into a lush cloud rainforest. Hundreds of species now roam the island that was once a lifeless rock thanks to "invasive" bamboo
 
If I recall correctly there used to be hundreds of thousands of acres of bamboo in America before it was all burned down and destroyed. It's a terrible shame how much the environment has been devastated

I know my phyllostachys bamboo isn't native but I haven't personally observed any negative effects at all. In fact I believe it's filling an empty ecological niche that's been empty for quite a while now

Phyllostachys bamboo can't compete against a forest at all. It only ever grows in areas that humans have already heavily ecologically damaged. When I planted bamboo next to the woods over the course of years it's spread directly away from the forest (where it can't get sunlight) and into my driveway and all of the areas I have cleared. It literally grows away from established vegetation and into human damaged environments specifically

This reminds me of the story of Ascension Island. Charles Darwin sailed there 400 years ago and called it a "desolate cinder". However sailors planted phyllostachys bamboo there where it began capturing passing clouds near the top of the volcano, and the entire island has since been transformed into a lush cloud rainforest. Hundreds of species now roam the island that was once a lifeless rock thanks to "invasive" bamboo
What will happen when a non-native species is introduced widely varies. Nobody should be planting anything non-native (and especially invasive) without checking local restrictions on your DNR/other similar organizations because invasives can and will damage different ecosystems. Sometimes there's subtle changes or things you can't see because they happen underground, for example (like earthworms messing up the soil layers of the forests here in Michigan— remains to be seen if it's a positive, negative, or neutral thing). Just because the bamboo works for you and others doesn't mean it'll be good for everyone and every environment. This goes for any organism, not just bamboo or plants in general.
 
Hundreds of species now roam the island that was once a lifeless rock thanks to "invasive" bamboo
This also makes me think... If it truly was a lifeless rock, where did all these animal species come from in the past couple hundred years, then? If they migrated from off island and/or were brought there by humans then they're not native species, they've just colonized the island since the sailors planted the bamboo, which also colonized the island. Was there evidence that those species occupied the island before? Was Ascension Island meant to be rocky and bare? What's its story and history before Darwin stopped there? Are we sure there weren't highly specialized species on the island before other people came and "discovered" it (Darwin is a big name but he wasn't perfect and made many mistakes; It's easy to overlook organisms in a "desolate" environment). What if it was in its natural state as a "desolate cinder"? Why is a lush rainforest better than a rocky island in this case, specifically? Is that just an assumption or is it backed up by science? Genuinely wondering. Invasive in quotes doesn't make sense here because if didn't naturally grow on that island, and it changed the environment that drastically, then it is/was invasive, no quotes. Maybe not every piece of land is meant to be populated by life that we can see. The ocean is relatively bare and desolate but it's far from devoid of life.

Sorry for the off topic. I'm also big into native plants and ecology 😆
 
Last edited:
What will happen when a non-native species is introduced widely varies.
Very true. All species should be considered on a case-by-case basis
This also makes me think... If it truly was a lifeless rock, where did all these animal species come from in the past couple hundred years, then?
99.9% of life there was introduced by British sailors using the island as a port for global trade. The land was mostly desolate and bare except for a few spare species of grass and maybe a couple of birds that existed in very small numbers IIRC
Was Ascension Island meant to be rocky and bare? What's its story and history before Darwin stopped there?
There's no such thing as "meant to be" ecologically speaking. Volcanic islands may exist as lifeless forever or they may be transformed by various species that happen to arrive. Hawaii was a completely lifeless island chain quite recently as well, until animals and plants began arriving there. Eventually Polynesian sailors found the islands (800 years ago?) and they introduced a great many species they had domesticated. Was Hawaii meant to be desolate, lifeless volcanos?
What if it was in its natural state as a "desolate cinder"? Why is a lush rainforest better than a rocky island in this case, specifically?
More biomass and biodiversity. As a living organism I personally value environments that support life
Invasive in quotes doesn't make sense here because if didn't naturally grow on that island, and it changed the environment that drastically, then it is/was invasive, no quotes.
You're correct, it did in fact invade the barren volcanic land and help in creating a cloud rainforest
 
As a living organism I personally value environments that support life
Deserts, volcanoes, and other environments generally described as desolate do support many forms of life. Just because you can't or don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there and thriving, and not every environment needs to be habitable to humans to be healthy ;)

99.9% of life there was introduced by British sailors using the island as a port for global trade. The land was mostly desolate and bare except for a few spare species of grass and maybe a couple of birds that existed in very small numbers IIRC
Is that based on British surveys from hundreds of years ago (outdated, less informed about natural sciences in general), potential Indigenous accounts (much more reliable than surveys done by early colonists), and/or recent looks at what the island used to look like with the added bonus of modern science?

There might not be a technical "meant to be" ecologically but there definitely is a "not supposed to be" when it comes to human interference in natural environments. Like the disappearance of prairies and wetlands across the US in favor of farmland and sub/urban development.
 
Deserts, volcanoes, and other environments generally described as desolate do support many forms of life. Just because you can't or don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there and thriving, and not every environment needs to be habitable to humans to be healthy ;)


Is that based on British surveys from hundreds of years ago (outdated, less informed about natural sciences in general), potential Indigenous accounts (much more reliable than surveys done by early colonists), and/or recent looks at what the island used to look like with the added bonus of modern science?

There might not be a technical "meant to be" ecologically but there definitely is a "not supposed to be" when it comes to human interference in natural environments. Like the disappearance of prairies and wetlands across the US in favor of farmland and sub/urban development.

Humans are natural, too. Everything changes, if it’s us or not, we wouldn’t have the soil without the death of things.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom