Uncle Buck,The government stole the land fair and square from the indians and bought title to it from the French, who probably sold us something they didn't own in the first place! Upside is no matter how few pheasants we have now, it's more than we had under the previous management. Of course we have a whole lot less of a lot of other things!
Pheasants are way down!!!!
- Thread starter hazzard
- Start date
So there may not be tornadoes of birds, but still having a carry over of ~5.5mil plus any youngsters that get color in time. Still sounds good to me, and I'm coming from CO. where my PPM is like 1 per 200 miles. I can only shoot 3 a day and if I come home with 10 instead of 15, me and the dog will be jumping up and down.
Michigan Gunner
Member
Still OK
It looks like bird counts similar to 2002 as noted by others here. Hmmm......I shot a lot of birds in 2002. It was a great year. So, I'll be going. It's a 16 hour drive for me. The number of pheasants in my area of Michigan is about zero. I'm sure the numbers around Redfield will be much better than that!
Lock and Load!
It looks like bird counts similar to 2002 as noted by others here. Hmmm......I shot a lot of birds in 2002. It was a great year. So, I'll be going. It's a 16 hour drive for me. The number of pheasants in my area of Michigan is about zero. I'm sure the numbers around Redfield will be much better than that!
Lock and Load!
Cobblestone
New member
If, and that's a big IF, I change my plans of going back to KS for a 4th year in a row, and going back for another round of SD. I could give a rats butt if I kill a bird or if I see 1000 in a day.
I get to see my dogs doing what they do best and I don't have to deal with kids in my classroom and their parental units. Sucks that I have to leave my wife behind, but who would care for the dogs that don't get to go. I also get to hang-out with my 72yo step-dad on what may be his last bird hunting trip. God-bless I hope it's not, he's more of a father than you know who.
And back to the real point. I get to see my dogs having a great time, doing what they love to do.
I get to see my dogs doing what they do best and I don't have to deal with kids in my classroom and their parental units. Sucks that I have to leave my wife behind, but who would care for the dogs that don't get to go. I also get to hang-out with my 72yo step-dad on what may be his last bird hunting trip. God-bless I hope it's not, he's more of a father than you know who.
And back to the real point. I get to see my dogs having a great time, doing what they love to do.
moellermd
Super Moderator
Your right, Marx would be proud would be a better statement. But lets call a spade a spade the economic theory you are talking about falls right in line with the failed system of communism.
If you would actually like to articulate a contrasting point, I would welcome the debate. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, (I'll try and save you the trouble of coming up with yet another tired old "hero of the revolution", none would endorse what I describe because they believed that you and I should work for for the collective government, return ALL of the fruits of our labor to the government, and then allow the government to realocate to us each individually what the government believes we NEED. Allocation being the way it is,what you may think you need is probably not what the Government thinks you need, no matter how hard you work, you get the same thing the rumpot down the road gets, who does not reap or sow. We now have borrowed the best of that,( as you say failed), theory. Indigents are not allowed to fail, we have welfare, food stamps, medicaid. Banks aren't allowed to fail. Now we see congress holding hearings to pass legislation to save dairy farmers as we speak, in the face of a huge budget crisis, we see that along with grain subsidies we paid for years, subsidized loans we underwrote, farmers aren't allowed to fail either. Unless your business model is truly hopeless, like borrowing to buy $2500 per acre ground, and using it to background steers you also bought with borrowed dollars, or decide to start farming and borrow money to buy $7500 per acre farm ground in the belief that it will cash flow, and become more valuable. These are two real examples I have dealt with recently. Now If you belong to a CO-OP, farm ground that was originally made available to homesteaded by the government at the time, or have received government loan guarantees, interst rate subsidies, subsidized crop insurance, or just good old grants or cash subsidy payments, directly or indirectly, and in possibly been told in exchange by your government what you can or can't grow, what you must comply with, or how you market and to who, than my friend you are much closer to a practicing Marxist, or socialist than I am. But I'm sure you feel that's different, I'm sure the banks, auto manufacturers and welfare recipients feel that it's different too. I'm subsidized as well, my kids go to a public school district, in no way do my property taxes cover the cost of their education, my neighbors do! If the topic is failing systems, and you truly believe our system is just fine, and not in need of at least a refreshing tuneup, take a hard look around. Back to bird numbers in South Dakota, it will still be better than anywhere else. I hunt areas where we used to have a reasonable opportunity to shoot a 3-4 bird limit in a solid half a day, meanwhile being pretty much constantly into quail. Now walk a whole day for a decent shot at a rooster or two, and a covey or two of quail, I'm reluctant to shoot. So driving up I-29 and seeing nothing in Iowa, and getting north of Souix Falls, and begin to see hens and broods and the occassional rooster this last summer was a real thrill. As a kid I remember when pheasants were still basically an exotic unknown down here. Take a summer trip through SD and you were amazed. So a down year is relative.
Natty Bumpo
Member
The worst day in SoDak is better than the best day in Michigan.
NB
NB
Ranger Rick
Member
SD hear I come.
I'm still coming regardless of "official" reports. While I acknowledge that the population is down, especially since I trust the individual reports from guys on this site, there will still be good hunting to be experienced.
My first trip to SD was amazing. The birds came up in clouds. The following year only 3 went of the original 7 from the year before. Population estimates that year were only slightly down from a near record the previous year. We got out late at night and in the morning got moving to find that the season's drought had left the area looking as if a nuclear bomb had gone off. We shot 10 roosters in 4 days of hunting. My brother said he would never go back again because you couldn't trust the reports from SD Fish and Game. I've also been out years when the road surverys revealved a down population, but enjoyed decent hunting, shooting limits every day that were worthwhile as we earned them through hard work.
I'm still coming regardless of "official" reports. While I acknowledge that the population is down, especially since I trust the individual reports from guys on this site, there will still be good hunting to be experienced.
My first trip to SD was amazing. The birds came up in clouds. The following year only 3 went of the original 7 from the year before. Population estimates that year were only slightly down from a near record the previous year. We got out late at night and in the morning got moving to find that the season's drought had left the area looking as if a nuclear bomb had gone off. We shot 10 roosters in 4 days of hunting. My brother said he would never go back again because you couldn't trust the reports from SD Fish and Game. I've also been out years when the road surverys revealved a down population, but enjoyed decent hunting, shooting limits every day that were worthwhile as we earned them through hard work.
As others stated the decline in bird numbers may seem drastic but I am willing to wager that most of that is on private land where the winter cover is not that abundant.
My personal observation is that the amount of birds on private land is way way over the amount that the habitat can support.
I hunted private land a few times, and the amount of birds that flew out of a very small patch of weeds was mind boggling. We would hit a 10 acre or smaller weed or cattails patch, and have 100 plus birds come out.
When the hard winter comes the birds will adjust to normal levels. But pheasants are very good a rebounding, so we may see a 20% or more upswing next year if the winter is not severe.
One would have a better chance of seeing les birds just by doing all the wrong things while hunting, then by the decline of overall numbers.
So we hunt a few hours longer before limiting out.
My personal observation is that the amount of birds on private land is way way over the amount that the habitat can support.
I hunted private land a few times, and the amount of birds that flew out of a very small patch of weeds was mind boggling. We would hit a 10 acre or smaller weed or cattails patch, and have 100 plus birds come out.
When the hard winter comes the birds will adjust to normal levels. But pheasants are very good a rebounding, so we may see a 20% or more upswing next year if the winter is not severe.
One would have a better chance of seeing les birds just by doing all the wrong things while hunting, then by the decline of overall numbers.
So we hunt a few hours longer before limiting out.
Old and New
Wild produced birds are owned by all citizens. But if privately owned winter cover and feed were not made available the citizens would not own very many birds. So which would you prefer that I do? Be a ditch to ditch farmer or care for the wildlife like it was my own and produce more than we can harvest so there is extra for the citizens even though I get paid by some for access.
Haymaker, I have no issue with whatever you do. I merely stated an opinion of what might have been done differently 200 years ago. We went a different direction, the results have largely been disasterous for wildlife, water quality, soil fertility, erosion control, and in many cases farmer survival, input costs, and farmer profits. As I stated in reply number 46, it's of no consequence because the horse is out of the barn! I applaud your efforts to do things right, it's your ground, you can do what you want, even up to and including the ruinous plowing road to road, as practiced by some of your neighbors. I only hope you have a succesion plan to continue on when your gone, and don't have to sell out, or your heirs sell out to the plow jockey's. Good fortune and good health.
That goes for Maryland too!
carptom1
Well-known member
totally agree. Game is just another commodity, like corn or wheat. If you feed them and provide them cover every year, i certainly won't begrudge you a few bucks when they are harvested. Like others, paying to hunt is sort of a new concept. But my time is limited sometimes, and I don't mind paying a little for someone else to scout and put me on some game.
i don't disagree, but there has to be value in the commodity for me to pay for it.....$200 per day for 3 pheasants is just not my idea of value....if i am going to pay that much, i would rather drive 20 miles and shoot 6 pen raised birds for that kind of money. just my opinion of it all.....it is a bargain for some, some not so much.....on top of that i pay SD $110 for the privilege to hunt AND pay trespass fees......i think it is only fair to ask, where does it end?
The point I am trying to make is that wild bird pay hunting is probably doing as much good for the sport as anything because it competes with the ditch to ditch farmers. We produce more wildlife of many kinds than we harvest, so that should be good for alot of sportsmen. It is really a partnership between the hunter and the landowner that creates habitat. If I was running a preserve and turning loose so many birds a day then I would feel differently about it. I certainly understand that when you grew up hunting somewhere and now you can't because there is money involved that causes a little heart burn. I don't have a good answer to that. Sometimes late season if there are too many roosters I call people and tell them they can hunt.
Haymaker, I understand your theory completely. There is a direct expense to providing nesting , rearing, and winter food and cover for wildlife. Like you, I am totally turned off by the planted birds marketed as natural and wild. I realize most nimrods don't care, and the bird shooting, (not hunting), is just a small part of the experience no more or less important than the drinking, cigar bar, and carrousing. I agree if and only if, the game has real cash value, will there be hunting of wild birds in the future. 50 years ago a farmer could make a decent living on the farm and afford to be generous, now with inputs, equipment costs, seed cost, health insurance, cash demands have forced everybody to maximize, justify and gleen whatever income there is to make the deal work. I see it everyday. I'd gladly pay to hunt your ground. just two weeks ago I bought a hedgerow, it was slated for dozing and I paid a farmer/customer cash not to do it. Sort of a private CRP plan.That row is a mile long and houses two coveys of quail, without it the quail won't make it, now they have a reprieve and it's a lot cheaper to save it before it's gone than try to replace it later! Good Hunting.
Thank you old for seeing my point and thank you for saving some habitat for the quail. We don't have quail here but I can tell by the way people on here talk about them that they are special. We used to have huns here and I have bought and released some for a few years hoping to get them going again around here. No luck so far.
Maybe if people understood the value in $$$ that farmers are giving up by providing habitat for wildlife. They may understand why the have to pay a few dollars to hunt.
Right now I can sell grass hay for $65-75 per ton. Usually can get 2+ ton per acre.... thats over $130 per acre that I'm leaving on the table for wildlife. Also with the price of corn at around $7 per bushel. We plant over 100 acres of food plots. If I only got 100 bu per those acres.... that is around $70,000 to promote wildlife. Yes, there are expences to plant and harvest the corn but you have roughly the same expenses to plant the food plots minus the harvesting. I love the wildlife and will continue to do it if we can make ends meet. Hope you can now value "why you have to pay a bit to get some good hunting. Where farmers don't leave grass or do food plots, there are few birds. Just look at eastern SD.
Right now I can sell grass hay for $65-75 per ton. Usually can get 2+ ton per acre.... thats over $130 per acre that I'm leaving on the table for wildlife. Also with the price of corn at around $7 per bushel. We plant over 100 acres of food plots. If I only got 100 bu per those acres.... that is around $70,000 to promote wildlife. Yes, there are expences to plant and harvest the corn but you have roughly the same expenses to plant the food plots minus the harvesting. I love the wildlife and will continue to do it if we can make ends meet. Hope you can now value "why you have to pay a bit to get some good hunting. Where farmers don't leave grass or do food plots, there are few birds. Just look at eastern SD.
Unfortunately the CRP rates don't compare very favorably at the moment to the crop alternative. I sure don't see any relief in the next year or so. Hunting income doesn't compare either, but helps a little. Fortunately for all of us just seeing the wildlife is worth something! as the commercial says priceless.
Downtown Bang!
Member
There is no doubt if we are to save huntable numbers of wild birds upland hunters must be prepared to make habitat creation economically viable for property owners.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to private pay-to-hunt operations and in the right circumstances would definately use one. However I have serious doubts this type system will ever be the answer to preserving our sport.
IMO truly effective competition for habitat will need to be a collective effort. Dollars and legislative influence must be pooled and leveraged.
Hunters must be willing to financially support multiple habitat organizations and encourage them to partner up with non-hunting environmental groups. Strong collective lobbying efforts will be key to securing long term environmental health (and habitat) with what will likely be shrinking federal resources.
Hunters must be prepared to pay higher license fees in order to better fund state agencies. Also support stamps or other fees that will purchase public access to existing habitat.
It seems like the James River CREP program in SD is a great example of multiple groups coming together in an effective way. A huge percentage of the acreage in that program will be available for walk-in access. In large part because PF provided resources to identify the appropriate interested land owners, SDGF&P offered good value for the walk-in rights & the USDA offered competative rental rates to protect sensitive areas. A great situation where all interests came out a winner.
DB
I'm not fundamentally opposed to private pay-to-hunt operations and in the right circumstances would definately use one. However I have serious doubts this type system will ever be the answer to preserving our sport.
IMO truly effective competition for habitat will need to be a collective effort. Dollars and legislative influence must be pooled and leveraged.
Hunters must be willing to financially support multiple habitat organizations and encourage them to partner up with non-hunting environmental groups. Strong collective lobbying efforts will be key to securing long term environmental health (and habitat) with what will likely be shrinking federal resources.
Hunters must be prepared to pay higher license fees in order to better fund state agencies. Also support stamps or other fees that will purchase public access to existing habitat.
It seems like the James River CREP program in SD is a great example of multiple groups coming together in an effective way. A huge percentage of the acreage in that program will be available for walk-in access. In large part because PF provided resources to identify the appropriate interested land owners, SDGF&P offered good value for the walk-in rights & the USDA offered competative rental rates to protect sensitive areas. A great situation where all interests came out a winner.
DB