Pheasants Forever on the wrong track???

moellermd

moellermd

Super Moderator
So looking at PFs 2010 project expenditure they spent.

$400,000 on Woody cover
$1.3 mil on Wetlands
$3.2 mil on Nesting cover
$10 mil on Land Acquisition
$11 mil on Food Plots

I am not a wildlife biologist, but why are they spending so much on Food Plots? By there own accounts they do not help increase pheasant numbers. It seems to me that they should be focusing on increasing bird numbers and not increasing the body count, that is what food plots really do.
 
Last edited:
I agree food plots aren't necessary for pheasants, hell grain crops aren't even necessary for pheasants. Most of that money could be spent elsewhere.
 
quail hound said:
I agree food plots aren't necessary for pheasants, hell grain crops aren't even necessary for pheasants. Most of that money could be spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the amount spent on food plots does seem high I have to totally disagree with quail hound that food plots aren't necessary. Come up to South Dakota right now where the NE quarter of the state has had 70+ inches of snow and tell me food plots aren't necessary. In many cases that is the only food source the pheasants may have had during the winter. All other sources are buried under a couple feet of snow. Food plots are an essential part of habitat in our area.
 
moellermd said:
The report gives no definition.
Click to expand...

I think the "categories" are far too vague to make any assumptions or draw any premature conclusions.

And considering the fact that most of the pheasants I shoot (at least in the late morning/afternoon) have gullets loaded with feed, I'd have to disagree that food plots aren't important.
 
I'm no biologist either, but I see some benefits from properly placed plots.
Food plots can provide high energy grain and cover when the snow gets deep.
When located near woody cover they can reduce predation from avian predators by reducing the distance that pheasants need to go in sparse or snow covered grass to get to a food source.
Food plots also increase "edge effect" and provide plant diversity which encourages nesting in areas that are a monoculture of grass.
 
Good post Dz. Sometimes I forget about the rest of the world and only think of my small area of knowledge. I see how foodplots are vital in areas such as that. Where I hunt you will never find a stitch of grain in a pheasants craw. They planted 40 acres of milo (very weak stand) in one of my favorite wildlife refuges and had no reports of any birds being harvested in it. I shot one bird within 100yds of this plot at about 11 o clock one day, when I cleaned him I expected to find milo in his craw, but there was only weed seeds and fresh grass shoots. Now when I went up north the birds were fat on rice. I guess different areas have different habitat needs.
 
Dakotazeb said:
While I agree that the amount spent on food plots does seem high I have to totally disagree with quail hound that food plots aren't necessary. Come up to South Dakota right now where the NE quarter of the state has had 70+ inches of snow and tell me food plots aren't necessary. In many cases that is the only food source the pheasants may have had during the winter. All other sources are buried under a couple feet of snow. Food plots are an essential part of habitat in our area.
Click to expand...

Dakotazeb and Quail hound I think your both correct. :)

I've been visiting some habitat areas and conducting spring crow counts for several years now. Two of them have had crops, then the crops were removed and put into habitat. (The birds have no way of getting to crops now).

Do pheasants still exist on those areas? Yes. But their #'s have dropped considerably compared to the areas that have crops. There isn't enough food to get good bird #'s through the winter. They have cover, but very little food.

Pheasants can survive the harsh winter without food plots/crops, but not in big/healthy #'s.;) I'm guessing heavy hens coming out of a winter have a better chance of hatching, brooding chicks too.

This is my observation and it may be flawed, it may be way off. I just had this conversation with the head of our IDNR and he disagrees with me.:eek:

($)-- I saw the $ spent on food plots through PF. Yeah, that's really high. It's too bad more couldn't be put into habitat. This is why I'm always asking PF members to attend meetings and get involved with their local chapters. You can have a voice in everything that goes on!;) --1pheas4
 
Last edited:
moellermd said:
So looking at PFs 2010 project expenditure they spent.

$400,000 on Woody cover
$1.3 mil on Wetlands
$3.2 mil on Nesting cover
$10 mil on Land Acquisition
$11 mil on Food Plots

I am not a wildlife biologist, but why are they spending so much on Food Plots? By there own accounts they do not help increase pheasant numbers. It seems to me that they should be focusing on increasing bird numbers and not increasing the body count, that is what food plots really do.
Click to expand...

Moeller, I am glad you are looking at this stuff and I believe PF reports on this so we can have these discussions.

The only $ I get from PF is from their local PF Biologist time in signing up CRP and the free food plots seed I get from local chapter (maybe worth about $150-$200).

Right now on my ground about the only habitat saving pheasants is from Jan-March in these food plots. It is THE critical survival habitat in my neck of the woods.

DSC01560.jpg
 
Dakotazeb said:
While I agree that the amount spent on food plots does seem high I have to totally disagree with quail hound that food plots aren't necessary. Come up to South Dakota right now where the NE quarter of the state has had 70+ inches of snow and tell me food plots aren't necessary. In many cases that is the only food source the pheasants may have had during the winter. All other sources are buried under a couple feet of snow. Food plots are an essential part of habitat in our area.
Click to expand...

This winter has been one of those that has tested us all. I left aproximateley 30 acres of corn in six different locations scattered over 2000 acres. If it wasn't for my trees and all the corn that was left there wouldn't be any pheasants living here. The corn is now buried so I have started feeding them.
 
I always thought that food plots were important in SD also, but according to PF the most important thing to do for pheasants is not food plots but winter cover. It seems that they are saying one thing and spending money on another.

Again it is not me who said that food plots are not the most critical thing to do it is PF, they had an article in their journal about this 4-5 years ago.
 
Last edited:
moellermd said:
I always thought that food plots were important in SD also, but according to PF the most important thing to do for pheasants is not food plots but winter cover. It seems that they are saying one thing and spending money on another.

Again it is not me who said that food plots are not the most critical thing to do it is PF, they had an article in their journal about this 4-5 years ago.
Click to expand...

I know what your talking about but consider that the folks at Nat'l PF have nothing to do with what chapters spend $ on. If a chapter sees a need for food plots they have the ability to go against the grain and plant food plots.:)

They also have the ability to go against the grain and remove coyotes from areas:D--1pheas4
 
1pheas4 said:
I know what your talking about but consider that the folks at Nat'l PF have nothing to do with what chapters spend $ on. If a chapter sees a need for food plots they have the ability to go against the grain and plant food plots.:)

They also have the ability to go against the grain and remove coyotes from areas:D--1pheas4
Click to expand...

Excellent point. But it begs the question is money being spent on stuff to increase pheasant numbers or stuff to increase pheasant harvest.

Uguides pictures also bring up the question of if the sorghums key function is to provide food or cover? Obvious it is doing both but which on is the more important factor.
 
Last edited:
I think all conservation organizations walk a fine line between preservation and harvest. I would suggest that without a good harvest of pheasants, most participants would quit, thus lowering contributions, and political clout, when it's needed most. The other issue that comes to mind, is that set of figures for just the national org. or does that include the money which stays with the chapters? I am thinking the impact of the organization is much more pronounced,if chapter money is included.
 
oldandnew said:
I think all conservation organizations walk a fine line between preservation and harvest. I would suggest that without a good harvest of pheasants, most participants would quit, thus lowering contributions, and political clout, when it's needed most. The other issue that comes to mind, is that set of figures for just the national org. or does that include the money which stays with the chapters? I am thinking the impact of the organization is much more pronounced,if chapter money is included.
Click to expand...


Oldandnew, from what I know Nat'l doesn't plant anything. That's up to local chapters. Nat'l plays more in the political arena, and funds states PF biologists. I'm sure there's more they fund/do too, but I really don't know.

As far as the ? from Moe. I have to say after seeing Uguides photo I'm impressed with how that stuff turned into winter habitat. So yes, your question is valid and I really don't know.:eek: Like you said "both". Maybe we'll just stick with that:) --1pheas4
 
The chapter I belong to in Minnesot has food plots on most of there WMA's. They use the money they make to help with events they hold. They also keep some of the corn for winter feeding. If food plots are done right they should not cost anything they should turn a profit that will further help the orginization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top