A couple rays of hope

ditchparrot19

ditchparrot19

Member
I got the new Pheasants Forever Journal today and was pleasantly surprised to find two California items in the "Pheasant Country" section toward the back. I've transcribed them below for people who don't get the mag.

It seems to me that the second item is the primary answer to the questions posed in the first one, but at least somebody's going to be doing something with some dedicated funds.


PF Chapters Provide Funds for California Research

Four California Pheasants Forever chapters recently provided critical matching funds to secure a grant from the Upland Game Bird Stamp Fund of the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Funding from this program will be used to develop a status report for California pheasants.

The California upland game bird stamp validation is required for hunting migratory and resident upland game birds in California. The money generated from stamp sales is used to fund upland game bird-related conservation projects, education, public hunting opportunities and outreach. California's DFG sells almost 200,000 upland game bird stamps annually.

"If we don't know where we are, how can we possibly chart a course of where we want to go in the future? The project will use expertise within the U.S. Geologic Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to look into the current status and potential causes of pheasant declines throughout California," notes Dan Connelly, western regional biologist for Pheasants Forever.

"We are concerned about the decline of pheasants in our area, but are confident this effort will shine a light on important issues such as interpretation of scientific data for California pheasant populations, and in the long run, increase numbers," says Mark Breckner, Pheasants Forever Yolo Chapter president.


PF Provides Support for California Bill

Pheasants Forever provided critical support along with the California Waterfowl Association (CWA) to help pass a law that will promote greater upland and waterfowl conservation efforts on large areas of private land.

The bill was authored by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) and sponsored primarily by the CWA, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Cattlemen's Association and Pheasants Forever.

For the first time, it will establish a policy in the California Water Code to encourage private landowners to voluntarily establish a cover crop for waterfowl and upland gamebird nesting purposes on lands fallowed as a result of a bona fide water transfer. Currently, state water transfer regulations often hinder the establishment of cover crops.

"Water transfers will likely increase in the future, and we know that lack of adequate nesting cover is a limiting factor for mallards and pheasants in certain areas," stated Mark Hennelly, vice president of Legislative Affairs and Public Policy for CWA. "The new law will help remove regulatory hurdles for those landowners, including rice farmers, who wish to sell some of their water but also establish a cover crop during the transfer period."

"The passage of particular provisions within this bill provide a significant step forward in promoting valuable nesting habitat where little was allowed to exist before," commented Dan Connelly, Pheasants Forever regional representative for California and Nevada.

"California farmers and ranchers are good stewards over one third of this state's land. Encouraging these landowners to establish nesting cover on their lands will benefit waterfowl and upland gamebirds which nest adjacent to rice fields and other agricultural areas," stated Senator Wolk. "SB 749 builds upon the conservation work that the Central Valley Joint Venture has been doing for 25 years, and is consistent with the habitat goals in their Implementation Plan."
 
I saw it also while skimming through mine. It was a pleasant change to see this glimmer of hope in this grim time for Ca pheasants. Its time for me to double down on trying to put a chapter together to help the San Joaquin Valley.:cheers:
 
It's still pretty thin gruel that helps people like Angelo Tsakopoulos who transfers 80,000 acre feet of water South. This is slightly more than one days worth of the entire flow of Sacramento River water that passes through Sacramento. One guy transfers 1/365 of the entire flow at Sacramento which includes the American, Feather and Yuba flows.
The real issue is water transfers and this is making the best of a bad situation that the public will see no benefit from. There should be a provision that allows some public access to lands that they transfer water from. This will just give the public a chance to see pheasants behind "No Trespassing" signs as they drive by on the highway. Notice the bill's sponsor is from Davis where the Conaway Ranch that Angelo owns is located. I'm skeptical of its public benefit.

http://www.familywateralliance.com/farm_winter_11_conaway_deal.html
 
Last edited:
When I worked for Placer County the county adopted a mitigation plan for wetlands that started out as a 2/1 ratio of one acre of wetland mitigation land purchased in a mitigation bank for every two acres destroyed. A net loss of one acre. Now it is reversed and I believe it is two in the bank for each acre destroyed but that still means all the little wetlands that exist around the county can be destroyed with all the mitigation concentrated in a very small piece of land.
The actual effect of this change to water transfer law will take time to occur and I'd bet it won't be anything like what we as hunters hope for.
 
FAntasy Island

Da Plane! Da Plane!

The money from tags is already supposed to be set aside for game. It ain't happening.

Another survey? Hmm, kinda sounds like the condor program; great benefit to the state slug biologists- nothing for you and me.

Da Plane! Da Plane!
 
TonyS said:
Hmm, kinda sounds like the condor program; great benefit to the state slug biologists- nothing for you and me.
Click to expand...
I've known a number of DFW biologists and to call them slugs is both untrue and unfair. Get to know your unit biologist and find out how hard they work and then decide if they're slugs.
The provision in this legislation that allows water transferors to plant habitat makes sense from a Calif. Waterfowl standpoint. Nobody has control over migratory birds and they go where they want to go so any way you can increase their population can benefit all hunters. Pheasants however are a resident bird that doesn't move far from where it was hatched and grew up. If that's on private land only the private landowner benefits from this change. In my view, it's bad enough that landowners can profit from water transfers instead of having to leave them in the rivers if they don't use or need them. They should provide some public benefit for the damage they do to a public resource.
 
Calamari

I have gotten to know my biologists this is back several years. They are bs artists wanting to collect when they do no work.

Example: I found dusky sooty grouse in an area they claimed there are none. Others have asked me not to shoot them but my dog finds them. They are too lazy to get out of the truck. Biologists? Check scammers. Let's call it correctly.

I see their game just like here with condors. Scam the public get a check. From Saturday Night "Yeah, that's the ticket."
 
Last edited:
TonyS said:
Example: I found dusky sooty grouse in an area they claimed there are none. Others have asked me not to shoot them but my dog finds them. They are too lazy to get out of the truck. Biologists? Check scammers. Let's call it correctly.
Click to expand...
Blue Grouse are now apparently divided into two distinct populations. Dusky Grouse and Sooty Grouse. If someone approached me and said they'd found Dusky Sooty Grouse I wouldn't get out of the truck either. It's like saying you found Blue Green Wing Teal.
The differences are subtle if you look at the pictures but their range doesn't overlap in Calif. Here's the map and some information.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01312/wdfw01312.pdf


Tony, maybe you do know more than a biologist. Maybe you did find a previously unknown population of birds where they didn't think any existed before but getting a biologist to go look at something they think is unlikely to exist sometimes depends on how the information is presented. They've only got a limited amount of time to do what they do so they have to pick priorities. That can be based on attitudes.
 
That is precisely the point. They don't know and they don't care. I told them I found a population of 'blue' grouse before I knew of the name changes. "Gimme my check; I don't need to do the work I signed up for. Just gimme the check."

Meanwhile, all of us hunters suffer because they refuse to do their jobs.

Look at condors; a zoo experiment not a viable population.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top