I brought D.U. in to the original conversation because it is the poster child of success over a long span of time, and is the model followed by P.F. and other like minded organizations. Having said that, the difficulty of the misson is much more difficult. Cost of the land, is a deteriment, scope of the project is massive, as it is currently structured. D.U. benefits from the gregarious nature of waterfowl, 160@ here and there for nesting,stop over locations during migration, do wonders. 160@ in on the prairie of Illinois might raise a 100 pheasants a year, but would probably if in wet prairie raise as many ducks, and offer rest areas for 1000's. 100 pheasants is not going to satisfy the demand for the sport as it exists today. It is merely a band aid, remnant population. D.U.benefitted by virtue of the fact that 3 differnet governments were eager participants in continental waterfowl management, and owned a great deal of the ground necessary to build refuge systems. P.F. on the other hand has to deal with individual states, and rely on the benevolent nature of individual landowners to accomplish much. Some help comes from CRP, Crp-33 and SAFE programs, but by and large meaningful accomplishments are difficult. My point is, I guess, that starting from where we are, pheasants for all practical purposes exstinct, in Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Indiana, (read post above), on the brink in Missouri, Iowa, declining in Eastern S.D., Doing well in Western 1/2 Kansas, Eastern 1/3 of colorado, patches here and there in Nebraska, most of North Dakota, and the central 1/3 of South Dakota. Agricultural changes could cause that small area to evaporate in 5 years. Pressure to pay for high priced ground, a thirst for ethanol, necessity of reduced government debt. Look at the budgets for P.F. and D.U. D.U.dwarfs P.F. and I question if they were starting out now, if they could accomplish what they have in the last 70+ years. Look at Great Britain for a look into the future, 40 years ago a vibrant hunting community with lots of natural production huns and pheasants, now all put and take hunting. Easy to compare where we are now to GB 40 years ago, and see the roadmap of where we will be 40 years from now. Look at where we were 40 years ago here? Pennsylvania harvested over a million birds annually, Wisconsin had wild pheasants, huns up by Green Bay, quail in the south west and central, to go with woodcock and ruffed grouse, there are still people who remember a prairie chicken, and sharptail season in Wisconsin. Now what? Put and take pheasants, huns gone, quail and prairie chickens are museum residents, in micro habitats.
Can Pheasant Hunting be Saved?
- Thread starter oldandnew
- Start date
Wow, O&N, you're really depressing me! I'd love to disagree with you, but what you're saying has at least something of the "ring of truth" to it, along with some of the other negative posts. For me, it's not just pheasants either, but a whole host of wild things/areas that end up being "down the list" in terms of private and public concerns. As you mentioned about DU, if they started now, they probably wouldn't have had the success they have, and even now, if push comes to shove with some of their properties, I can easily see those governments and partners changing their minds about their cooperation (can you say, oil and gas leases?).
As for pheasants, even though you put Eastern CO on your list of viable habitat, I have already noticed the increase in leased properties lately, including a few that used to be great WIA but are now off-limits. Plus, if the other states and areas you mention do follow the UK model, that means more pressure on the smaller, "marginal" regions like CO - typically overlooked by anyone who doesn't live here, but less so the last few years. I suspect it won't change all that much for the remainder of my hunting lifetime (15-25 years, God willing), but for my daughters' lifetimes (they've recently shown an interest) - I don't have a lot of hope. Furthermore, even with our support for PF, you describe well how much more difficult the challenge is for them than for waterfowl. I don't really see how the microcosm represented by the members of this forum is going to be able to make much of a difference. Not that I won't try, but - like I said, you're depressing me! Guess I need to get out and chase some long-tails, while I still can!
As for pheasants, even though you put Eastern CO on your list of viable habitat, I have already noticed the increase in leased properties lately, including a few that used to be great WIA but are now off-limits. Plus, if the other states and areas you mention do follow the UK model, that means more pressure on the smaller, "marginal" regions like CO - typically overlooked by anyone who doesn't live here, but less so the last few years. I suspect it won't change all that much for the remainder of my hunting lifetime (15-25 years, God willing), but for my daughters' lifetimes (they've recently shown an interest) - I don't have a lot of hope. Furthermore, even with our support for PF, you describe well how much more difficult the challenge is for them than for waterfowl. I don't really see how the microcosm represented by the members of this forum is going to be able to make much of a difference. Not that I won't try, but - like I said, you're depressing me! Guess I need to get out and chase some long-tails, while I still can!
1pheas4
Moderator
In 2003 fI ound a VHS video. Someone dropped it off at my office. Who gave it to me? I don't know but the video had my name on. I put the video into the VCR and hit play.
It turns out the video was produced and put into circulation back in 1995. The point of the video? To warn U.S. citizens about the terrible economic conditions coming within a year or two. Those years would be 1996, 1997. What happened? So many predicting the "end" of the U.S. economy and yet look at the run of prosperity we’ve enjoyed up until these last few years.
If you’ve ever talked with someone who lived through the dust bowl era, they’d tell you they thought “wildlife was gone forever”. A few decades later the 60’s hit and many witnessed the "pheasant boom" for themselves.……… Surly a few decades is not forever?
Now I hear people basically saying "it's all over"! "What's our hope for the ring-necked pheasant and pheasant hunting"? "There is NONE"!
True, looking down the road a bit things don't look good. What the hell’s around the corner for the next decade or two?? Can any one of you see around that bend? I sure as hell can’t.
Indicators? Maybe, but the point is not one of us can tell what the future holds. 180 degree changes could be just on the other side of all this. Changes that may be for the best but the truth is, we really don't know.
Maybe in the mean time we shouldn’t wallow in this thick pessimistic slop so much. All it’s accomplishing is sucking hope and enthusiasm out of people. It’s that hope and enthusiasm that’s going to make positive changes for the pheasant and pheasant hunting. On the other hand Pessimistic slop? Where is that going to get us? --1pheas4
It turns out the video was produced and put into circulation back in 1995. The point of the video? To warn U.S. citizens about the terrible economic conditions coming within a year or two. Those years would be 1996, 1997. What happened? So many predicting the "end" of the U.S. economy and yet look at the run of prosperity we’ve enjoyed up until these last few years.
If you’ve ever talked with someone who lived through the dust bowl era, they’d tell you they thought “wildlife was gone forever”. A few decades later the 60’s hit and many witnessed the "pheasant boom" for themselves.……… Surly a few decades is not forever?
Now I hear people basically saying "it's all over"! "What's our hope for the ring-necked pheasant and pheasant hunting"? "There is NONE"!
True, looking down the road a bit things don't look good. What the hell’s around the corner for the next decade or two?? Can any one of you see around that bend? I sure as hell can’t.
Indicators? Maybe, but the point is not one of us can tell what the future holds. 180 degree changes could be just on the other side of all this. Changes that may be for the best but the truth is, we really don't know.
Maybe in the mean time we shouldn’t wallow in this thick pessimistic slop so much. All it’s accomplishing is sucking hope and enthusiasm out of people. It’s that hope and enthusiasm that’s going to make positive changes for the pheasant and pheasant hunting. On the other hand Pessimistic slop? Where is that going to get us? --1pheas4
1pheas4, My goal is to galvanize each and every one of us to save and expand what we have. I will tell you that I'm 56 and my time is limited, my daughters are 13, 13, and 7. The two older are hunting now with me. I have hunted since I was a little younger than they are now, and I will tell you that in no instance, is upland bird huntng better now than it was 40 years ago. This isn't a decade of decline, this is a long term trend, slowed by CRP and few years of decent weather. Pessamistic crap? as apposed to what? "I feel good, you feel good? I'd like to find ways to reverse this trend so when I go to the grave, some where out there on the prairie some wild rooster has a place to roam! I'd really like to see some quail too, but I fear the ship may have sailed on those. I'll tell you this, my friend $50.00 a year to PF, and or QF, isn't going to cut it! It's going to take some cataclismic event of biblical proportions to turn the tide. Or one hell of an effort by a whole lot of individuals to make it happen. My generation fiddled while Rome burned, we were disorganized, and disbelieving. The one before us the same. We can't afford it anymore.
I know PF generated funds go to influential game farms and other high-profile landowners for habitat improvement, but could any PF members tell us how much (if any) funding goes to WIA's or gov't land where the non well-heeled hunt. Do PF member dues end up actually benefiting mainly pay-hunting operations?
1pheas4
Moderator
Okay oldandnew, thank you for your reply.
I gues I'm just one of those guys who gives a lot of time to volentering in hopes to improve matters. Snuff out the "feel good" vision of what the future may bring because of my hard work (and that of others) and the engine starts to shut down.
Gotta keep that engine going. There's a lot of work to be done out there.
--1pheas4
I gues I'm just one of those guys who gives a lot of time to volentering in hopes to improve matters. Snuff out the "feel good" vision of what the future may bring because of my hard work (and that of others) and the engine starts to shut down.
Gotta keep that engine going. There's a lot of work to be done out there.
--1pheas4
UGUIDE
Active member
CRP, where are you getting your info from? I've never seen $1 available from PF for habitat on my farm or anyone elses. Maybe you might see a few bags of free food plot seed but for the most part I assume those are donated from seed companies to PF anyways.
PF Member dollars goes to support habitat biologists, education, lobbyists for conservation in Washington, etc.
UGUIDE
Active member
U ain't a kiddin my friend. I am hoping for the latter......
PF, QF, DU, QDMA are all great conservation organizations and represent different species. The combined efforts of all is one thing that is needed. Keep in mind DU cares for a migratory species and the others are focused on local species. BIG difference and don't compare organizations thinking one is better than the other. Different goals. Whitetails are not pheasant but both can utilize and prosper in the same habitat and ducks too.
South Dakota just happens to have a huge duck nesting area and also good pheasant populations and oh by the way CRP can rent ground for as low as $30/acre. Illinois is a different story for example. Ground might rent for $300/acre. Someone has determined to rent that with CRP money is not a good use of taxpayer money. Every state has conservation issues from wildlfie to water quality and that is why I think the future is in the continuous CRP program and better deployment of acres across the country and not just "getting to the cap" because states with marginal acres will consume it all where the healty soil states will say "no thank you".
henhenROOSTER!!!
New member
@Chris/UGuide - Do you mean you ain't a hoping for oldandnew's first option of the two??? 
Tough, deep subject here with no easy answers - but it can be done if enough people want it to happen. Problem is not nearly enough people on the same page...
Tough, deep subject here with no easy answers - but it can be done if enough people want it to happen. Problem is not nearly enough people on the same page...
Last edited:
UGUIDE
Active member
@Chris/UGuide - Do you mean you ain't a hoping for oldandnew's first option of the two???
Tough, deep subject here with no easy answers - but it can be done if enough people want it to happen. Problem is not nearly enough people on the same page...
HHR, I don't have the answer but I do know this: the PF Farm Bill Biologist staffinf is a huge success in SD and is being modeled and proliferated across the nation. I encourage anyone interested in conservation efforts to contact the PF Biologist for you area and work closely with them and your local FSA/NRCS offices. I have a great FSA/NRCS office but in some areas I hear they are not as helpful and that is where the PF Biologist comes in since they have CRP writing authority in each county.
Additionally, let's save 5 conservation organizations each have $20/acre to put towards a conservation project. Separated it is still worth $20 but combined it is now worth $100 as an example. I know that combined efforts can be extremely powerful and has been the case in South Dakota. Takes alot of facilitation to get parties talking but 1 acre of new grass can benefit a lot of wildlife species, conservation issues and potential stakeholders. Facilitation, communication and implementation is the barrier.
We got Big Ag and we now need Big Conservation. What is they could work together?
RK Special K
New member
The point of my previous commentary was not as much to be pessimistic, but to be realistic. There are great opportunities to maintain and create huge expanses of fantastic pheasant habitat in the right areas of this country.
Putting pheasant habitat money and effort into these eastern states is throwing good after bad, again for the follow reasons:
1)These areas have WAY to many people in them.
2) The cost of maintaining and creating pheasant habitat is WAY too high
because:
a) these are basically forrested states, not easily suited for pheasants
b) the cost of property is too high.
Whereas, out west, there really are huge areas, that with relatively low cost, can be vastly improved for pheasants, such as:
1) the Texas panhandle
2) the Oklahoma panhandle
3) any marginal areas of Kansas and Nebraska
4) western South Dakota
5) eastern Montana
6) parts of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington?
7) western, yes WESTERN, Colorado?
Basically, anything that is flat to rolling praire with VERY few people.
Putting pheasant habitat money and effort into these eastern states is throwing good after bad, again for the follow reasons:
1)These areas have WAY to many people in them.
2) The cost of maintaining and creating pheasant habitat is WAY too high
because:
a) these are basically forrested states, not easily suited for pheasants
b) the cost of property is too high.
Whereas, out west, there really are huge areas, that with relatively low cost, can be vastly improved for pheasants, such as:
1) the Texas panhandle
2) the Oklahoma panhandle
3) any marginal areas of Kansas and Nebraska
4) western South Dakota
5) eastern Montana
6) parts of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington?
7) western, yes WESTERN, Colorado?
Basically, anything that is flat to rolling praire with VERY few people.
Downtown Bang!
Member
I had a response typed out to this comment a couple days ago buy my laptop froze up and I lost it.
I understand the point your trying to convey with this comment but I have to say I very much disagree. The future of upland hunting "in the middle" and any chance we have at a heathly farm land ecosystem pretty much depends on future federal farm poilicy and upcoming Farm Bills.
I have seen the number multiple times in the past and I believe it to be accurate. There are upwards of Two Million pheasant hunters in the U.S. but only 125,000 members of PF. PF does a lot of positive things but the most vital thing they do is advocate our cause in Washington DC. If even 1/4 of all pheasant hunters would step up and buy a membership in PF those dollars, membership numbers and voices would increase PF's effectiveness tremendously.
More than anything else elected representative want to be re-elected. Well funded, well organized, sizeable, determined and vocal interest groups get their attention fast.
It is true $50.00 spent on seed for food plots, or shelterbelt plantings don't have much big picture impact. That is what locally raised $$$ from banquets etc. is for. The membership dues are for the bigger fight.
I think Uguide said it above this ultimately needs to be a coalition thing. DU needs to grow it's membership and resources. QF, WU & TRCP as well. Position those resources correctly, stick to a consistent message and I believe Big Conservation could become a reality.
To get it done though the average hunter needs to open the eyes, see where the real hay is made, give a few dollars back and do it with the right people. When the time comes a few well worded emails to congressman and senators from a hundred thousand or so hunters would drive the overall point home quite nicely.
DB
Well said,and from the voter numbers and political action perspective I agree wholeheartedly. I certainly am not cutting back my support to any of the organizations mentioned. I merely want tomake the point that we can't just sing the habitat choir, write a painless check and expect things to get better. The task is huge and grows larger by the day, going forward it's a fight for zealots, a kind of life and death, visceral, pitched battle, an all in effort. I've spent to much time already lamenting the passing, heard about in the east, but had to experience it upclose and personal to really see it can happen anywhere. No time to grieve now. I'm looking at all options, property to buy and preserve in currently sustainable habitat nationwide, working with client farmers. Organizing financial resource groups such as D.U. to buy tracts of ground, to hold, develop, resell with conservation easements, as DU has done.
RK Special K
New member
One big part of "keeping what we have" is more restrictive zoning that keeps housing IN or IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT to existing cities and towns. We need to keep the city IN the city, and keep farming IN the farmland.
Putting non-farmstead housing on ag property is a VERY poor use of our natural resourses. Each home, for all practical purposes, eliminates 20-40 acres of hunting land because of proximity issues. And it really revs up the posting and NO HUNTING influences and attitudes out in the country - WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG. The city-slickers don't have a clue about what they are DESTROYING - believe me, this has been RAMPANT in Michigan during the last forty years - and it's UGLY. I see it as nothing more than residential litter/junk strewn willy-nilly about the countryside - it's really SAD.
Sorry farmers, on this issue, you either have to stay in farming or sell the farm, unless you're lucky enough to be within a mile or less of the city limits.
Commercial buildings are almost never the problem. These naturally expand immediately next to the urban areas - right where we want them. I know, a seventy-year old guy may lament losing a field that he once hunting as a ten-year kid, but something has to give.
Putting non-farmstead housing on ag property is a VERY poor use of our natural resourses. Each home, for all practical purposes, eliminates 20-40 acres of hunting land because of proximity issues. And it really revs up the posting and NO HUNTING influences and attitudes out in the country - WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG. The city-slickers don't have a clue about what they are DESTROYING - believe me, this has been RAMPANT in Michigan during the last forty years - and it's UGLY. I see it as nothing more than residential litter/junk strewn willy-nilly about the countryside - it's really SAD.
Sorry farmers, on this issue, you either have to stay in farming or sell the farm, unless you're lucky enough to be within a mile or less of the city limits.
Commercial buildings are almost never the problem. These naturally expand immediately next to the urban areas - right where we want them. I know, a seventy-year old guy may lament losing a field that he once hunting as a ten-year kid, but something has to give.