Colorado to Release Pheasants? Yes Please

[Upland Hunter]

Double Trigger you are right on! I don't know where Retrvrman hunts, but I have seen plenty of work that has been done by PF out there in eastern Colorado. It's hard to drive far in Phillips, Yuma and Logan counties without encountering their good work. Many of their plantings are maturing nicely and are providing good cover.
Pheasant stocking is not the answer. Habitat is the key to better pheasant populations. I'd much rather see CPW spend money on improving habitat and providing more Walk In areas to reduce crowding than on planting put & take pen raised birds.

 

[BleuBijou]

I personally would like them to purchase land, do a share rent on some of the ground . Wheat could only be cut with a stripper head an leave some food plots. Gas companies pay for leases per acre they never or have not used. We need to find a way to own the property while have it make some money for you! Look how much ground over the last 20 years would be owned now and not leased. Example: Bosque del Oso SWA down near Trinidad was purchased with DOW money. They did not get the mineral rights for the gas as they went for 10 times what the ground went for. However, they did get the rights to the coal. Which they have been taking out from under the ground without causing widespread damage to the property. This money from the coal should be DOW money! Bought and paid for by Sportsman's Dollar's!!! I am guessing a lot of it is not getting back to the DOW. Somebody needs to look at it like running a business. I think a majority of the ground could actually make some money for further ventures. Seem like we just keep throwing money at the fan now. Think out of the box for a change. If they could purchase 10,000 acres a year, in 20 years we could have as much ground as we lease.

 

[mustistuff]

pf

None of it would matter if the habitat in Colorado isn't improved. Habitat is the key. All these PF chapters in this state and the habitat in Colorado has not been improved that I am aware of!!

I mean I go to banquets, spend $$ and what has been shown for it.

I agree with the fee/stamp if the $$$ can be shown how and where it was spent, otherwise NO!!

Greg

you better like them, they are the best we have and the best we are likely to get, the state does nearly nothing.

cheers

 

[double trigger]

I personally would like them to purchase land, do a share rent on some of the ground . Wheat could only be cut with a stripper head an leave some food plots. Gas companies pay for leases per acre they never or have not used. We need to find a way to own the property while have it make some money for you! Look how much ground over the last 20 years would be owned now and not leased. Example: Bosque del Oso SWA down near Trinidad was purchased with DOW money. They did not get the mineral rights for the gas as they went for 10 times what the ground went for. However, they did get the rights to the coal. Which they have been taking out from under the ground without causing widespread damage to the property. This money from the coal should be DOW money! Bought and paid for by Sportsman's Dollar's!!! I am guessing a lot of it is not getting back to the DOW. Somebody needs to look at it like running a business. I think a majority of the ground could actually make some money for further ventures. Seem like we just keep throwing money at the fan now. Think out of the box for a change. If they could purchase 10,000 acres a year, in 20 years we could have as much ground as we lease.

Bleu,

I agree with you everyone needs to be thinking out of the box so we can get some more permanent solutions for quality land for hunting. Maybe I'm wrong but there has to be a better way to provide more long-lasting habitat than the way it's being done now. This is true for other pheasant states as well as Colorado. For example, North Dakota is considering legislation to levy a portion of oil and gas revenues to be earmarked for creating and setting aside more wildlife habitat - and if passed this would be some serious money. This makes sense because addressing the detrimental effects of the energy industry on the environment should be funded by those causing the detrimental effects in the first place.

The way it stands now a lot of pheasant habitat is at the mercy of conservation programs contained in the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill of course has to be renewed every 4 or 5 years (a new one is way overdue) and everything is put on the chopping block. If conservation of prairie and grasslands is vital to the health of the land and water (it is!), then we need some more permanent solutions to preserve rather than going through this hand-wringing every 4-5 years. Got to be a better way.

 

[mustistuff]

land

i think there are already lots and lots of people/groups that have their eye on that money. i also believe that except in rare cases, the fish and game is forbidden to purchase property. you can thank the farmers and ranchers for that law. it seems like if the state owns the land it can't be plowed up at some time, here comes the agri. business. another thought though is the state owns thousands of acres call school properties, these have been leased out to various people/groups for various reasons and the public is left out so that a few can use it. this is bullshit as far as i am concerned but at the moment, the idea is not being challenged. what is being paid for it, we could afford

cheers

 

[dead pheasants forever]

i think there are already lots and lots of people/groups that have their eye on that money. i also believe that except in rare cases, the fish and game is forbidden to purchase property. you can thank the farmers and ranchers for that law. it seems like if the state owns the land it can't be plowed up at some time, here comes the agri. business. another thought though is the state owns thousands of acres call school properties, these have been leased out to various people/groups for various reasons and the public is left out so that a few can use it. this is bullshit as far as i am concerned but at the moment, the idea is not being challenged. what is being paid for it, we could afford

cheers

The DOW can use money from the habitat stamps you buy with your license to purchase private property. I know this because that's how many of the SWAs came into existence. However, it would be prohibitively expensive for the DOW to buy enough land to make any difference with prices for irrigated cropland being sky high. Take all the money from a $25 pheasant stamp and perhaps you could buy a half section each year.

Bottom line: We're never going to have consistently good public hunting opportunities for CO pheasants. We've only got 3-4 counties with prime habitat (in good years). Those counties are within 2.5 hours of 4 million people. You'd still see a lot of hunting pressure even if the state owned half of the two best pheasant counties. Far as I can tell, the people on here who shoot lots of birds are doing it on private property or in another state. There are still plenty of places out of state to get into good bird numbers on public land if you're willing to drive, but those places ain't here. Not saying the DOW shouldn't do its best to increase opportunities anyway.

 

[BleuBijou]

i think there are already lots and lots of people/groups that have their eye on that money. i also believe that except in rare cases, the fish and game is forbidden to purchase property. you can thank the farmers and ranchers for that law. it seems like if the state owns the land it can't be plowed up at some time, here comes the agri. business. another thought though is the state owns thousands of acres call school properties, these have been leased out to various people/groups for various reasons and the public is left out so that a few can use it. this is bullshit as far as i am concerned but at the moment, the idea is not being challenged. what is being paid for it, we could afford

cheers

School board properties are bought and sold to the highest bidder. Usually to developers. Ranchers lease grazing rights on most of these until the cities encroach upon them where developers buy them up. Money is then suppose to go to the State for schools. We all know how much makes it to the schools. Dry land farming is where most of our hunting ground comes from. Yes, it is harder for the birds and populations will follow the moisture aspect of it. I still think a solution can be had by thinking outside the norm for DOW practices and what other states do. It will be more difficult and especially since they are part of Parks now. Someone with more brain power then me could crunch all the numbers and really come up with a sustainable idea!!! It is good everyone here can chime in with their thoughts and ideas as this is what is needed to make it all happen.