Covered Some Ground

[Upland4Ever]

So I took the dog out just thought I see what was out there and stop and do a little dove hunting as well. I drove a big area of eastern Nebraska and I would have to say this side of the state could careless about bird hunting all I saw was waterfowl habitat and farming up to the roads. So much for getting out every weekend and bird hunting, unless I duck hunt.

 

[Upland4Ever]

O I won't give up, it's just hard watching the eastern side of the state not really caring about bird hunting anymore. It's all about ducks ducks ducks.

 

[pineridge uplander]

So I took the dog out just thought I see what was out there and stop and do a little dove hunting as well. I drove a big area of eastern Nebraska and I would have to say this side of the state could careless about bird hunting all I saw was waterfowl habitat and farming up to the roads. So much for getting out every weekend and bird hunting, unless I duck hunt.

It is sad what has taken place in the last 20 years in that part of our state. With commodity prices high, new equipment offering very high effiency, the proliferation of soy beans which have replaced wheat, milo and sorghum, all of which the pheasant relied on for food and cover. At this point I am not sure there is a complete answer to the question of what can be done, I have asked myself if hunters would pay a greater fee on the habitat stamp in return the state would go to landowners and provide monies for acres set aside for nesting and feed such as durham and milo, myself, i would have no problem paying a $50 stamp, if ALL money collected actually went to nesting cover and feed. Would you pay a higher stamp fee if it actually would do some good???

 

[carptom1]

It is sad what has taken place in the last 20 years in that part of our state. With commodity prices high, new equipment offering very high effiency, the proliferation of soy beans which have replaced wheat, milo and sorghum, all of which the pheasant relied on for food and cover. At this point I am not sure there is a complete answer to the question of what can be done, I have asked myself if hunters would pay a greater fee on the habitat stamp in return the state would go to landowners and provide monies for acres set aside for nesting and feed such as durham and milo, myself, i would have no problem paying a $50 stamp, if ALL money collected actually went to nesting cover and feed. Would you pay a higher stamp fee if it actually would do some good???

I would but....... Anytime this is brought up there is a huge uproar about keeping hunting affordable, or that it will become a rich man's game. 20 bucks for a resident hunting license is rediculous. I can't buy my kid's Mcdonalds for the price of a hunting license. If you can't afford 75-100 buck's, you probably should take care of some other priorities first. I think poor hunting sucess is a greater threat to hunting than creating a habitat stamp or something like that. If you don't hunt wiha, than you don't pay it.

 

[mustistuff]

fees

i pay about $75 for my kansas lic. and i can hunt more than 3 mo. take that money and see how many days you can play golf, go to the amusement park or whatever. i do here the howls but most of them are coming from people that have no interest except in taking, and those same people feel that the taking should be just about free. for a six pac of bud a month we could change the landscape

cheers

 

[Hobie1026]

i pay about $75 for my kansas lic. and i can hunt more than 3 mo. take that money and see how many days you can play golf, go to the amusement park or whatever. i do here the howls but most of them are coming from people that have no interest except in taking, and those same people feel that the taking should be just about free. for a six pac of bud a month we could change the landscape

cheers

A thousand time this. I would gladly pay a $100 annual habitat stamp if I knew the money was going to states/farmers/ranchers/land owners for seed, field work, and land leasing.

Old CRP that is longer useful can be disced, reseeded with a mix from PF and become productive for brood rearing and roosting in one year.


Just wanted to add I've been guilty of screaming about a richman's sport myself. I think hunting opportunities need to remain available to the public. But I think it only becomes a rich mans game when you're ONLY option is a $300 a day trespass fee or membership at a club for $1000 a year or more. But $100? I spend that in a month on other recreational hobbies. I might target shoot a little less or drive the gas guzzler less but $100 is manageable.

Curious how others on the board would feel about such a fee.

 

[mustistuff]

cost

a little of this was bounced around some time ago and the squeals were heard. a lot of guys hunt but hunt barely and for some the cost hurt, the bud doesn't though, these are the guy's that are bitching about the price of shells. it has gotten expensive to hunt and if you want to drag a kid along it get worse but then most of us don't work for $1.75 per hour any more and so neither has the cost of hunting gone down to me and many other's is the lack of trust in the fish and game dept. give them some money and they will spend it, better trucks, more secretaries, wardens and the lists go on and of course the people responsible for all this, the hunter comes last. so the fear is as to where the money would go and or who would get their hands on it. not sure you could trust all of the farmers either, if more of them cared, more cover would be available and less crops touching the edge of the road. hell, we can't even get the highyway dept. to not mow the ditches. money does talk and if we want to continue at a high level we are going to have to join the game some how and asking for donations ain't gonna cut it, it will have to be a mandatory contribution like a tax that applies to all who enjoy wildlife, not just hunters and those that use the land, not just hunters but everybody needs to contribute as they all in one way or the other partake.

cheers

 

[carptom1]

a little of this was bounced around some time ago and the squeals were heard. a lot of guys hunt but hunt barely and for some the cost hurt, the bud doesn't though, these are the guy's that are bitching about the price of shells. it has gotten expensive to hunt and if you want to drag a kid along it get worse but then most of us don't work for $1.75 per hour any more and so neither has the cost of hunting gone down to me and many other's is the lack of trust in the fish and game dept. give them some money and they will spend it, better trucks, more secretaries, wardens and the lists go on and of course the people responsible for all this, the hunter comes last. so the fear is as to where the money would go and or who would get their hands on it. not sure you could trust all of the farmers either, if more of them cared, more cover would be available and less crops touching the edge of the road. hell, we can't even get the highyway dept. to not mow the ditches. money does talk and if we want to continue at a high level we are going to have to join the game some how and asking for donations ain't gonna cut it, it will have to be a mandatory contribution like a tax that applies to all who enjoy wildlife, not just hunters and those that use the land, not just hunters but everybody needs to contribute as they all in one way or the other partake.

cheers

That's my point. If you can't scratch together an extra hundred to hunt, your time should probably be spent doing something more productive anyway. Changing things has to be a priority. It's going to take a little skin, bottom line.

 

[pineridge uplander]

That's my point. If you can't scratch together an extra hundred to hunt, your time should probably be spent doing something more productive anyway. Changing things has to be a priority. It's going to take a little skin, bottom line.

I agree totally, how much do most guys spend scouting for hunting, quite a bit more then a hundred i am guessing with the cost of fuel now days. The key point I would make is that such money MUST be used for bird enhancement projects with landowners, and NOT to line the pockets of bereaucrats!

 

[Upland4Ever]

It is sad what has taken place in the last 20 years in that part of our state. With commodity prices high, new equipment offering very high effiency, the proliferation of soy beans which have replaced wheat, milo and sorghum, all of which the pheasant relied on for food and cover. At this point I am not sure there is a complete answer to the question of what can be done, I have asked myself if hunters would pay a greater fee on the habitat stamp in return the state would go to landowners and provide monies for acres set aside for nesting and feed such as durham and milo, myself, i would have no problem paying a $50 stamp, if ALL money collected actually went to nesting cover and feed. Would you pay a higher stamp fee if it actually would do some good???

I sure would, and if they used it to watch out for road hunters a little harder also.

 

[UplandLevi]

A thousand time this. I would gladly pay a $100 annual habitat stamp if I knew the money was going to states/farmers/ranchers/land owners for seed, field work, and land leasing.

Old CRP that is longer useful can be disced, reseeded with a mix from PF and become productive for brood rearing and roosting in one year.


Just wanted to add I've been guilty of screaming about a richman's sport myself. I think hunting opportunities need to remain available to the public. But I think it only becomes a rich mans game when you're ONLY option is a $300 a day trespass fee or membership at a club for $1000 a year or more. But $100? I spend that in a month on other recreational hobbies. I might target shoot a little less or drive the gas guzzler less but $100 is manageable.

Curious how others on the board would feel about such a fee.

I would absolutely be willing to pay. The problem is though, like mustistuff said, it's likely that this money would be spent on other things first, and if it did make it to the farmers then it would really only be worth it if the farmer cared to improve habitat. I would still pay it though; if i'm gonna keep talking about how something has to be done to change the habitat for the better, i have to be wiling to do something myself. Even if it means all my money doesn't actually directly help, it's better than spending money on something that can't do anything to help at all.

 

[Bullshirt]

I would gladly pay a couple hundred bucks for good accessable land to hunt. Just compare that to one of those South Dakota hunting packages it dosent take a mathematician to figure out that it would be a great deal. I have even asked most of my friends and they also agree that a higher license fee in turn for quality hunting opportunities would be a bargain. If the game and parks didn't use the money to benefit pheasant habitat then don't pay it simple as that. One thing is for sure unless its economically to the land owners advantage we will never see hunting like we did in the good old days.

 

[UplandHntr]

If you cant donate via a stamp or license you can send a check to Pheasants Forever - above and beyond the $35 annual membership fee. I do.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I might suggest what we do. A group of us pay a farmer to not farm about 12 acres of his ground. We planted pheasant cover. We also hunt all around this area on his farm and on neighbors. (ditches with grass strips mostly)

Twice or three times a year we hunt this 12 ac. piece too.

It's amazing how many more birds we see. It's a couple hundred a man on average. Some of us put in more because we can. Farmer is happy, we're happy and we all have a good time and place to go.

We'll regularly kick 50 birds out of that patch and in the evening see a hundred or more fly/walk in to roost.

 

[Hobie1026]

How did you find the farmer willing to negotiate such an arrangement?