Can Pheasant Hunting be Saved?

O

oldandnew

Active member
I am not normally a negative person, but I find I am becoming more and more convinced that wild pheasant hunting as we have known it is doomed. While I recognize the value of habitat, I no longer believe that habitat is the end all answer. In the case of both pheasants and quail, I have had the opportunity to hunt some of the same properties for 40+ years. In that time little has changed, either in crop rotation, grass cover and species, grazing patterns, hunting pressure, none of these factors are materially different. Oh here and there trees are bigger, but other areas, trees have been cut down to balance out. Yet birds are fewer or none existent. In my lifetime, we have seen wild pheasants disappear from Pennsylvania, retreat east to west in turn from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois. In the last 5 years alone, we have seen Iowa collapse as a pheasant state, NE Kansas and Eastern Nebraska, now remnant populations. I fear that the glory years past were a random, happy coincidence of factors, including ag practices, weather, lack of predators, limited herbicides and pesticides, and probably mysterious factors we don't even yet understand. Now the primary pheasant range limited to the West 1/2 of Kansas, Eastern 1/3 of Colorado, Scattered SW corner of Nebraska, Central South Dakota, Western North Dakota. All share a common trait, limited moisture areas, that are difficult and expensive to intensely manage agriculturally. Unfortunately this concentrates hunters as well, putting additional stress on the resource and creating more landowner stress and demand by the wealthy for private access. A perfect storm of factors begin to appear, land prices,even for marginal ground is at unprecidented levels, creating pressure to maximize return, making it unlikely that gamebirds which have always been "marginal" species,living on the edges that were left overs of the farming regime, can make a meaningful comeback in their former range. Habitat that is developed is fragmented , and may establish or retain, isolated populations, but will necessarily fall far short of what it would take to turn the tide in our favor on any meaningful scale. The DU example is a case in point, they have a long head start, focus on species which are concentrated in a limited breeding area, as well as limited to certain high value areas within that limited area. A great number of species nest in arboreal areas, or above the "tilled" line, where they are protected anyway, by nature. DU also benefitted by support from 3 governments who owned a great amount of the desired real estate, and by spending dollars on habitat when values were comparitively low, and purchased "swamp ", long considered low value by sellers anyway. Great Britain, with a long standing history and tradition of "wild upland gamekeeping", and astounding numbers of gamebirds, notably hns and pheasants, has been reduced to put and take shooting, in the last 30 years or so, brought to it's knees by the current agricultural model, which we share, We may be next, I'm not sure it's not here already.
 
Hey, oldandnew, I think it's already dead. I also have hunted Iowa for the past 30 years. #1 it boils down to the amount of cover and 2, how well the spring hatching is going to be. It has to be perfect in order for the birds to bounce back. Ilive in Ill. and now days if you harvest 1.2- 1.5 mil. birds a year that's concidered real good. Well back in the 60's in Ill. they use to kill over 2 mil. birds and that's with fewer hunters but a lot more cover. It was everywhere. Of cours they didn't practice the farming metheods they do today, fence to fence. Also for other reasons though, mostly the lack of hunters and their dollars going into organiztion, hunter education etc. to promote the sport. That equal less money for elected officals in key areas and key states to work for things that bennefit wildlife. These kids tht live in urban areas now days for the most part don't have a clue as to how things work. The number that fish or hunt is slowly getting smaller and smaller. Where will things be in 15 or 20 years?
 
Rugardave, not trying to call you out at all, but do you think it is really getting fewer and fewer hunters? I see lots of kids (read: younger than me) that tell me about all the stuff they hunt. Most hunt deer and fish with a few duck and pheasant hunters. But the point being probably about 60% of the kids I see in my Verizon store end up talking about some sort of hunting with me.
 
I live in oregon and its like pulling teeth to gets kids out in ghe outdoors here. My wifes nephew is 15! He has no interest in even getting his learns permit to drive. The kids these days have no drive or will it just sucks.
 
Timwald144 said:
I live in oregon and its like pulling teeth to gets kids out in ghe outdoors here. My wifes nephew is 15! He has no interest in even getting his learns permit to drive. The kids these days have no drive or will it just sucks.
Click to expand...

they most likely have their parents to thank for that....:(
 
In Southeast NE its the ag practices that are most of the issue. For starters, how many fence rows to you see? Hedgerows? Almost all have been removed whether the property lines are needed or not. That is all edge cover that provided habitat.

How about pastures, say 10-20 acres of poorer ground? Farmed now.

Waterways? Almost all tiled and removed.

While not all of that was quality winter habitat, it was for one thing nesting and brood cover, but another was bunny, mouse habitat that predators had other animals other than birds to go after.

Trapping? All but extinct. How many more skunks, possums, coon, coyotes are around because of lack of trapping? I mean it still goes on, but nothing like it did 20-30 years ago.

Farming practices. See any sorgham anymore? Sorgham was huge for daytime habitat for pheasants and quail. And the biggest is the no till farming. Not only are any types of weeds or grasses in the fields extinct, but how many times do you see a fresh tilled field not have birds of all sorts in them? Before notill and chemical, those fields were tilled 3 to 4 times a year. There is something in that turned up dirt those birds need...whether its the bugs, or the phosphates, or something...but to me the lack of time crop rotation, tilled ground, diverse cover is the #1 factor in it all.
 
I am concerned about the future but not convinced we have reached or exceeded some sort of tipping point. I think farmland wildlife and upland hunting were much closer to critical condition in 1980 than in 2010.

The 2012 Farm Bill will be a big influence on the future. Stepping up and providing vocal (email your reps) and financial (join PF, QF, DU, or TRCP) support of conservation programs will be vital. The current programs are not perfect but they are evolving for the better.

Unfortunately, I also see another farm crisis looming. Some very big & very risky bets are being made on a farm market that I feel is about as legitimately sustainable as corn ethanol. When the crash comes guaranteed long-term income to idle marginal ground will look awfully good to a lot of people.
 
oldandnew said:
I am not normally a negative person, but I find I am becoming more and more convinced that wild pheasant hunting as we have known it is doomed. While I recognize the value of habitat, I no longer believe that habitat is the end all answer. In the case of both pheasants and quail, I have had the opportunity to hunt some of the same properties for 40+ years. In that time little has changed, either in crop rotation, grass cover and species, grazing patterns, hunting pressure, none of these factors are materially different. Oh here and there trees are bigger, but other areas, trees have been cut down to balance out. Yet birds are fewer or none existent. In my lifetime, we have seen wild pheasants disappear from Pennsylvania, retreat east to west in turn from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois. In the last 5 years alone, we have seen Iowa collapse as a pheasant state, NE Kansas and Eastern Nebraska, now remnant populations. I fear that the glory years past were a random, happy coincidence of factors, including ag practices, weather, lack of predators, limited herbicides and pesticides, and probably mysterious factors we don't even yet understand. Now the primary pheasant range limited to the West 1/2 of Kansas, Eastern 1/3 of Colorado, Scattered SW corner of Nebraska, Central South Dakota, Western North Dakota. All share a common trait, limited moisture areas, that are difficult and expensive to intensely manage agriculturally. Unfortunately this concentrates hunters as well, putting additional stress on the resource and creating more landowner stress and demand by the wealthy for private access. A perfect storm of factors begin to appear, land prices,even for marginal ground is at unprecidented levels, creating pressure to maximize return, making it unlikely that gamebirds which have always been "marginal" species,living on the edges that were left overs of the farming regime, can make a meaningful comeback in their former range. Habitat that is developed is fragmented , and may establish or retain, isolated populations, but will necessarily fall far short of what it would take to turn the tide in our favor on any meaningful scale. The DU example is a case in point, they have a long head start, focus on species which are concentrated in a limited breeding area, as well as limited to certain high value areas within that limited area. A great number of species nest in arboreal areas, or above the "tilled" line, where they are protected anyway, by nature. DU also benefitted by support from 3 governments who owned a great amount of the desired real estate, and by spending dollars on habitat when values were comparitively low, and purchased "swamp ", long considered low value by sellers anyway. Great Britain, with a long standing history and tradition of "wild upland gamekeeping", and astounding numbers of gamebirds, notably hns and pheasants, has been reduced to put and take shooting, in the last 30 years or so, brought to it's knees by the current agricultural model, which we share, We may be next, I'm not sure it's not here already.
Click to expand...

While habitat may not be the end all it most certainly is the biggest factor. Weather conditions as well as spring hatch and winter carry over are responsible also, but on a much smaller basis IMO. Those states you have mentioned (most recently Iowa) has seen their CRP contracts expire in large quantities. As the CRP acres fall to the plow, so go the Phez numbers. Within a couple years you will see the same thing happen in the Dakotas unless current contracts are allowed to be re-enrolled or new sign-ups are continued. The biggest proof that habitat is the #1 reason for current and past Pheasant populations IS the CRP program. Just follow the trail from inception to now, the proof is in the puddin.

You can also look at the past when the Soil bank program was enrolled back in the late 50's and then the resulting crash to pheasant populations after the program expired. The weather in those days was still the same, but the habitat disappeared. It's not rocket science.....

I think the other thing that will affect the popularity of hunting (not so much bird populations, although the two work together) is the continued or improved opportunities for land access, whether that be public or private land. Lets face it if the quality of our public lands errode and the opportunities for the average person to harvest a pheasant on public grounds falls off, so to will be the interest.

I for one would hate for my home state of MN to get to the point of where some of the eastern states are now and that is a state controlled release program for pheasant hunting opportunities.
 
Last edited:
And, Wildlife management areas. That's what they are now days. For sure, managed for all wildlife. For the majority of the public, predators are more desirable then your gamebirds.:(
 
All of your posts have valid points, but the proliferation of pay-hunting (European style) is what will bring pheasant hunting to an end to all but well-heeled pay hunters at bird farms or on leased land.

All of the habitat questions notwithstanding, if a father/grandfather has no place to go other than crowded WIA's with not much game, will they take the kids? When the landowner finally sells or leases the land that's been your favorite annual hunting spot, where will you go?

The gov't will have to address the massive federal debt, and the farm subsidies/payments will need to be trimmed or go away. When that happens, you will again see farming fence-to-fence without much left for wildlife. At that point, the only ground farmed strictly for game habitat will be hunting preserves.

I have heard many farmers gripe about getting CRP payments instead of the high crop prices ($5 corn). With that situation in mind, what do you think will happen to many of the current enrolled CRP acres in the near future?
 
Habitat as always is key and where the birds have declined, habitat loss is at the root of the problem.

The biggest issue I see is farm policy. The biggest threat to pheasant friendly farm policy started back in early november. I've read no less than three articles talking about how now "they" finally have people in washington who will gut the farm bill and end "farm subsidies". Doesn't matter which party you are from if you are a lawmaker from a farm state, but their numbers no longer trump those who don't see pheasant friendly provisions as anything other than a boondoggle earmark that has to go....

2nd biggest threat--one which may overrun the benefit of great habitat--is the growth of pay to hunt operations.

I hunt areas with lots of public land or walk-in private land in some of the best pheasant area in the country, and have seen a dramatic loss of land signed up for walk-in areas to private pay to hunt operations. New additions (new WIA's, CREP, WRP etc.) are not making up for the loss.
 
Last edited:
mnmthunting said:
And, Wildlife management areas. That's what they are now days. For sure, managed for all wildlife. For the majority of the public, predators are more desirable then your gamebirds.:(
Click to expand...

That's very true here in Iowa. At the Annette Nature Center, there is an entire area devoted to birds. Which birds? Hawks. There are a few sparrows, but they release hawks out there. Those hawks spread quick. Also, someone mentioned trapping as well. I have seen more coons and fox this year driving from northern to southern Iowa than I ever have. I've actually never come close to hitting a fox until this year.
 
rugardave said:
Ilive in Ill. and now days if you harvest 1.2- 1.5 mil. birds a year that's concidered real good. Well back in the 60's in Ill. they use to kill over 2 mil. birds and that's with fewer hunters but a lot more cover.
Click to expand...
Dave, your perception of the state of pheasant hunting in present day Illinois is, unfortunately, overly optimistic. Illinois hasn't seen a million bird harvest since the early 70's. It's usually well under 200,000 birds per year now. Wisconsin's isn't much better and like most Midwestern states, it's heading in the wrong direction.
 
According to PF IL rooster harvest in 2009 was 64,262 by 22,244 hunters. South Dakota is the only state over 1 million at 1.6 million, Kansas was second at 746,000.
 
allow me to be the optimist, in Indiana our glory days of pheasant began the down slide with the end or reduced soil bank program, but several years back the DNR began purchasing 40 to 80 acre tracts in our northern county pheasant belt, allowing these field to grow and doing some selective plantings. There are about 70 of these properties, hunting is by draw and only 220 hunters per year are allowed in total, 2 rooster limit! Those properties are full of birds, a small dent in the overall landscape of Indiana but with small pockets and some regulation the phez will flourish. By the way I have not been drawn in 26 years of trying:mad:
 
FieldKing, that's easily the most depressing news I've heard! Really paints a picture of what I fear! Did you read the part about "pheasant hunting as we have known it" what you describe bears no resemblence to what I remember. Looks more like what I describe as "isolated remnant populations". But I do agree it's better than nothing. But it's also a long way from salvation. Pheasant hunting in Indiana bears a strong resemblence to drawing a Bighorn tag in Arizona.
 
Pheasant habitat in the eastern states was built on a VERY flimsy foundation so we shouldn't be surprised that it only lasted for "the blink of an eye".

Here's my take:

1) These eastern states were predominantly forested. Loggers and farmers aggressively cleared the land and open fields were created. Un-maticulous farmers left lots of grass around and the soil bank era gave it an additional boost. VERY IMPORTANTLY, during this era, the cities were nice, nifty, neat dots on the map and outside of the city, there was a vast countryside of mostly unspoiled farmland.

2) In the early sixties, the soil bank ended AND freeways together with low gas prices made farmland an attractive place to put houses or simply for family recreation. HUGE urban populations began to spread ever farther into this fragile pheasant habitat. And by this, I don't necessarily mean large housing developments just on the outskirts of town - I mean 5, 10, 20 acre-itis, FAR from towns, for everything from mobile homes to mansions. Farmer Joe began selling off chunks of his back forty to all sorts of "nature lovers". Pheasant habitat was quickly converted to an ugly, mutant, cross-breed of farming and suburbia called "agri-burbia". This sliced and diced eastern farmland was/is quick and aggressive to re-forest, much to the delight of these new inhabitants. With all this population pressure, keeping these easten states in pheasant habitat was/is like trying to repair huge leaks in the Hoover damn with bandaids.

For example, North Dakata has two HUGE advantages over a state like Michigan for creating AND maintaining, in LARGE significant ways, wild pheasant habitat:

1) ND has 1/15th the population of Michigan's lower peninsula. Even if you put freeways all over ND, the impact would be small on pheasant habitat.

2) The open praire is much more condusive to pheasant habitat management allowing for big habitat "home runs" at relatively low cost.

The problem is NOT pesticides or preditors. These are BY-FAR more wide-spread in ND. The problem in these eastern states, including now Iowa, is US!! - Go look in the mirror - that's who kicked pheasants out of their delicate, held together by thin threads and bobby-pins, eastern habitat. It's Pheasants or US. No way around it, except if:

1) 97% of us move back into the cities(or VERY close to them).

2) We bulldoze/abandon 90% of the structures and clear most of the trees that are beyond these cities and convert these areas to farming and CRP.

Short of this, I see NO HOPE for re-establishing any meaningful pheasant habitat in the east.

Let's concede these states to the deer and turkey hunters and focus on the low populated western states for our pheasant habitat projects. We "easteners" cling to an artificial, short-lived, aberration of history. The truth is, there are relatively few areas on this planet that can, for a long period time, support large numbers of pheasants.
 
Guess I should chime in hear!

Having just come back from Oacoma, SD for a 5 day hunt one of my biggest observations was the lack of youth that were with their fathers. We go to dinnner at Al's Oasis in Oacoma and see 50-60 hunters and we are the only ones with our sons. Seems that the cost of hunting has gotten out of control to make it a family sport these days.

Outfitters are pricing themselves out of the market..they may get these prices for the next few years but what about 10-20 years from now? If you don't establish the passion for the sport now you never will. My son refuses to hunt wild birds in IL because of the looong walks without seeing a bird. He would rather stay home in a warm house and play his X-Box.

IMHO Outfitters better make their $$ now because in 15-20 years us loyal bird hunters will not be able to hunt and the next generation doesnt have the passion.

just my .02
 
RK Special K said:
1) 97% of us move back into the cities(or VERY close to them).
Click to expand...
IMO, that is not necessary, but only if people would stop mowing their entire properties! Why in the heck some people need 5-20 acres of "lawn" is beyond me. :rolleyes: At the same time some interest in habitat for early successional species is necessary as many of the few people who don't mow their property weekly instead let it grow up into forest with a clear-out, park-like understory.
2) We bulldoze/abandon 90% of the structures and clear most of the trees that are beyond these cities and convert these areas to farming and CRP.
Click to expand...
Converting areas to farming will not work. The farming methods have changed from years ago. Around me right now in MI nearly every field is a huge expanse of dirt. Everythings been tilled under. Oh, and there are no fence rows - it's dirt from end to end.

Aside from conservation efforts via government and private interest, yes pheasants are doomed across much of this nation. I keep trying to do my little part helping the few pheasants that are left, but watching me neighbors lands convert from grass and shrubs to trees is eventually going to take it's toll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top