Kansas reports not accurate by dnr

B

badgerfb

New member
We have been coming to Kansas for 10 years in good and not so good years to pheasant hunt but this year was more disappointing then ever. We are lucky to have farm friends where we can hunt both private and public land . We came last year knowing what the forecast was for pheasants and had a decent time so when we read the reports stating numbers were up had some optimism about this year. We pulled into the hotel where we have stayed every year which always hunters at and noticed the absence of hunters. There was a truck.
With hunters from New Mexico that were there 2 days already and not happy. They were already packing to go home. We hunted hard 4 days and never saw any other pheasant hunters and less birds then last year. The issue we have is who wrote the crazy report that numbers were up in that area? I am sure that we are not alone in the misleading information. The only thing that might bring us back in future years would be to visit the farmers that have became part of our family but trying to get them to take a trip our way instead. Iowa or South Dakota next on our stops for now 🙁
 
I appreciate your frustration. I've always suspected an element of boosterism in the KDWPT's upland reports. If they were bluntly honest, many people wouldn't hunt and there would be a negative economic impact. I will say that there appears to be a slight increase in pheasants where I hunt in the NW - nothing really significant - and a definite increase in quail. But overall, it's limited.

If you're making a big trip for pheasant hunting you can never go wrong with the Dakotas, especially in the western half of those states. They are in a class by themselves. You may have to pay but I think it is worth it for a big trip.
 
Last edited:
Quail were about the same as last year in the spots I hunt. Pheasants down from last year but the weather has been pretty warm both times I have been out. I think weather plays a big factor here.
 
I will say that we saw fewer birds this year than we did last year in the fields we hunted. But, we did see a high number of birds in the evenings when driving around. I'm not sure the birds are necessarily down in that area but that the cover is so good the birds are just so spread out. Last year the CRP field that we mainly hunt was the best cover within a few miles, so the birds were stacked in there. This year there was sufficient cover on 3 of the 4 adjacent properties for birds to hang out in.
 
My belief is that Kansas' reports are as accurate as any other state's, given the data available, the nature of wildlife predictions, and the obvious tendency among all states with wildlife-based revenue opportunities to spin the data in the most favorable light. But the data are the data, dig around a little about harvest numbers, hunter days afeild, etc., and make an informed decision about where to best spend your time.

I'm not questioning your experience, but that's only 1 point in a data set, and to extrapolate from that sample size isn't a wise proposition. Here's an example: I have a pheasant honey hole in northeast Kansas that I have never been skunked in. I have been skunked in the Smoky Hills, in Southwest KS, and in Southcentral Kansas. In fact, I have killed more pheasants in northeast Kansas as a whole, than any other region of the state. There's lot's of reasons why, but it would be unreasonable of me to infer from that the the KDWPT is lying, and that Kansas pheasant populations are highest in the Northeastern quadrant of the state.
 
No one said they are lying should just maybe validate their information it appeared from the lack of hunters in the area and the only 1 group we ran into had same experience as we did . We hunt hard from sun up to sun down and covered a lot of land .
 
May I ask, what part of the State where you in? Just wondering. I was very happy with the amount of birds we saw, and the Upland Report had indicated that.
We hunted around Dodge City, all on private ground, and all heavy CRP.
 
I saw a lot more pheasants than last year, and have never seen as many quail as I saw in western Kansas.I think there 2 or 3 times more birds, but 20 times more cover. Even the pastures have good cover. With the warm weather we have had they could be anywhere. I shot 9 roosters by myself in one evening, the next morning, and the next morning, and 13 quail. I could have limited on quail but left them for later when my wife will be along. I also saw a lot more birds driving around than I have since 2011. Every year no matter how good or bad the hunting is, you get varying success depending on lots of factors. Talking to the farmers, and I talk to a lot of them, there are definitely more birds in the areas I hunt.
 
fsentkilr said:
I saw a lot more pheasants than last year, and have never seen as many quail as I saw in western Kansas.I think there 2 or 3 times more birds, but 20 times more cover. Even the pastures have good cover. With the warm weather we have had they could be anywhere. I shot 9 roosters by myself in one evening, the next morning, and the next morning, and 13 quail. I could have limited on quail but left them for later when my wife will be along. I also saw a lot more birds driving around than I have since 2011. Every year no matter how good or bad the hunting is, you get varying success depending on lots of factors. Talking to the farmers, and I talk to a lot of them, there are definitely more birds in the areas I hunt.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking , mild weather and widespread cover and likely birds spread out because of mild weather . Bird numbers up across the board
 
s.davis said:
My belief is that Kansas' reports are as accurate as any other state's, given the data available, the nature of wildlife predictions, and the obvious tendency among all states with wildlife-based revenue opportunities to spin the data in the most favorable light. But the data are the data, dig around a little about harvest numbers, hunter days afeild, etc., and make an informed decision about where to best spend your time.

I'm not questioning your experience, but that's only 1 point in a data set, and to extrapolate from that sample size isn't a wise proposition. Here's an example: I have a pheasant honey hole in northeast Kansas that I have never been skunked in. I have been skunked in the Smoky Hills, in Southwest KS, and in Southcentral Kansas. In fact, I have killed more pheasants in northeast Kansas as a whole, than any other region of the state. There's lot's of reasons why, but it would be unreasonable of me to infer from that the the KDWPT is lying, and that Kansas pheasant populations are highest in the Northeastern quadrant of the state.
Click to expand...


Very well said. I will also add this... I assume the report your referring to is the one put out by KDWPT summarizing the late summer brood survey. It is just that a summary of broods seen during the survey conducted by a number of KDWPT biologists and employees from across the state. If there was an intent to mislead then all these folks would have to be in on the plan, I just don't think the biologists are out there making up numbers of birds they see to make the state look good, they are just reporting what they see. KDWPT publishes the entire survey, including the methods used to collect the data, and the results of the surveys completed by the biologists. The summary is just that a summary of what the data says, I think any info from KDWPT I have seen pretty accurately represents what the data in the report says, and the data in the report accurately reflects the populations I have seen when out hunting in a few different areas of the state. You can go look at the entire report and draw your own conclusions from the data. Some areas of the state saw big increases in numbers from last year...but remember we are still recovering from a serious drought and numbers were waaaay down so an increase of 100 or 200 percent doesn't mean bird numbers are back to the numbers of the glory days. From what I recall reading KDWPT mentioned this very fact.

Sure KDWPT has a need to promote Kansas but I don't think the KDWPT folks are trying to mislead. They work pretty hard day in and day out to provide what they do - it's not easy to convince landowners to enroll in programs like WIHA and to make improvements on land to provide good habitat with minimal funding, minimal staff, and Mother Nature working against you. Almost every inch of land in Kansas is privately owned, the fact that we have the amount of ground open to hunting that we do is really pretty amazing.
 
Last edited:
badgerfb said:
No one said they are lying should just maybe validate their information it appeared from the lack of hunters in the area and the only 1 group we ran into had same experience as we did . We hunt hard from sun up to sun down and covered a lot of land .
Click to expand...


Not sure where you went but I'd agree the reports are sometimes overly optimistic, that being said it was somewhat warm and dry opening weekend.

Not the best conditions the past week or so either. I hunt the most December and January and find more birds plus the weather is normally better so you and the dogs can hunt all day.
 
KSBrittman said:
Exactly what I was thinking , mild weather and widespread cover and likely birds spread out because of mild weather . Bird numbers up across the board
Click to expand...

Hopefully this means a high winter survival rate. If we could just have one more good year of weather. WOW!!!
 
If it gets back pheasant # wise to what it was in 2008-2010 people were wasting their money going to South Dakota -- While I'd like to remain optimistic we lost too much habitat to get back there even with favorable weather conditions -- we will still have pockets but not as widespread as it was.

Can only hope for more changes in the farm bill that are mutually beneficial for Ag producer/wildlife alike. Would love to see more corners of irrigated crop fields be planted back to grass where there is now wheat and maybe a 20 acre patch here and there at least of crp in the middle of miles/miles of cropland.


There are some pretty sterile regions devoid of a lot of wildlife due to the super clean farming practices of some.
 
It's been said, but I think it needs to be stressed again.

The cover is thick, and I mean the thickest it's been in years. Even the farmers I talked to, would laugh and say, you just wait to see how thick it is. They weren't lying. We had a couple of roosters get up behind us in one field, after we had stomped out the corner.

Conditions have also been less than ideal. With the warmer temps, birds don't have wings, they have track shoes. The scenting conditions have been non-existent because of how dry it is, so there's no telling how many birds we're walking past. You know it's bad when you can see the covey of quail as the dogs run right past within 10 feet and don't pick up any scent. Also, as warm as it's been, the birds probably are still loafing in stubble, especially if there is water close.

When we've found quail, the numbers have been outstanding. The pheasants are there, they just have the best hiding conditions they could ask for.
 
I am not buying that the pheasant numbers are up from last year or the year before or......
I did not hunt the opener, so I guess it is possible that a bunch of people showed up, trespassed on the private property I, and only I, have access to and shot all the birds before I got there, but it is highly unlikely. There were several groups of hunters in the area that I spoke with and they all had similar experiences as I did, lots of quail, very few pheasants. I am not sure how prolific pheasants are, but we have been in a steady decline for almost a decade, in some areas there just are not any birds. PERIOD. How are numbers supposed to come up when you are starting with zero? I saw fewer pheasants than I have seen in the last 15 years, I saw zero birds while driving around, I only heard 1 bird crowing in the evening. I had a friend with some of the finest dogs around hunting 2 hours to the west of me and had almost the same results. I am curious as to how the quail population exploded but the pheasants declined, are their habitats, food sources, predators not the same?

Rut
 
RuttCrazed said:
I am curious as to how the quail population exploded but the pheasants declined, are their habitats, food sources, predators not the same?

Rut
Click to expand...

Very much not the same on habitat. Pheasants are highly associated with croplands in much of their range and changes in the cropping patterns and damage to the same has a distinct influence on them. Changes in crop types, harvest dates, tillage methods, herbicide usage, etc. can have a significant negative effect. So too can federal ag policy and severe weather events.

Quail, on the other hand, are largely associated with perennial grassland/shrubland habitat which "can" be more stable. During the drought, all of these habitats suffered. Fortunately, in much of the grassland/shrubland cover, the damage done in the drought resulted in an improvement in the brood-rearing capabilities of those covers once adequate rainfall returned. As a result, the quail have responded more positively. In addition, quail have a slightly higher reproductive potential than pheasants. So they can recover more quickly.
 
The area I hunt has been farmed the same for decades, the drought has effected most of the state, yet some areas bounce right back and others never recover. Thoughts?

Also, while we are at it, are there so few pheasants in the eastern portion of the state, but still present to the north, north east and east? There is tremendous habitat available and a stable quail population (and turkeys) but almost no pheasants?

Rut
 
Ehhhh...I seriously doubt there is any real effort to make the numbers sound better that they are. They are scientists -- they have a system, count stuff, compile it and report it. Done. Next project. The idea that somehow there's pressure to overstate things is kinda conspiracy theory stuff.

I hunted SW opening weekend. Saw a lot more quail and a few more pheasants than previous years. A week later a friend of mine hunted within a couple miles of where I did and saw a ton of quail and pheasants and did far better than me. The motel where I stayed was packed, and in the few conversations I had with folks, things were looking good.

Don't judge an entire state and a bunch of biologists by one crappy weekend. Or do. Won't affect me much one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
s.davis said:
My belief is that Kansas' reports are as accurate as any other state's, given the data available, the nature of wildlife predictions, and the obvious tendency among all states with wildlife-based revenue opportunities to spin the data in the most favorable light. But the data are the data, dig around a little about harvest numbers, hunter days afeild, etc., and make an informed decision about where to best spend your time.

I'm not questioning your experience, but that's only 1 point in a data set, and to extrapolate from that sample size isn't a wise proposition. Here's an example: I have a pheasant honey hole in northeast Kansas that I have never been skunked in. I have been skunked in the Smoky Hills, in Southwest KS, and in Southcentral Kansas. In fact, I have killed more pheasants in northeast Kansas as a whole, than any other region of the state. There's lot's of reasons why, but it would be unreasonable of me to infer from that the the KDWPT is lying, and that Kansas pheasant populations are highest in the Northeastern quadrant of the state.
Click to expand...
Good post.

I usd to have access to a great spot in ... sit down for this ... Northwest Missouri. Tons of CRP and crops mixed together. 15 miles from Bilby, so these birds weren't being babied. Always saw pheasants there, and some quail.

Firm believer in finding the birds by finding the right habitat..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top