Wheat is the crop in Kansas and eastern Colorado and this has been established for years. Back when they strip farmed the high plains with alternated rows, and left the stubble up it was paradise. Nebraska did a study 20 years ago, ( that was before Pheasants Forever, before CRP, at the tail end of soil bank), determined the value of wheat crop in Kansas, but as you go north into Nebraska, alfalfa was the crop in sub-irrigated meadows, with the area around Alliance as the best, with over 300 birds per section. Now alfalfa is heavily sprayed, matures a lot earlier, we have haybines and disc mowers, which defeats the value of alfalfa. Later harvested good crop of wheat in the southern plains is golden. If there is tall prairie grass it's a benefit, but un-interrupted praire without burning, grazing, and disturbance, gradually looses it's capacity to carry pheasants, even looses it's charm on prairie chickens, after all they had buffalo and lightning strikes to refresh the prairie. Seems like a lot of this ground has been plowed, I doubt any marvels of nature we discover now will bring back the herds. We know the reasons, it takes a commercial change in the practice of farming to reverse the trend. At least pheasants are adaptable to reasonably small acreages, not like quail, where it takes a 32 section, ( a township), managed together to have a sustainable, huntable, population. Or disturbing a pasture with a fence, a road, or a shed, or an oil well, or a windmill, causes desertion of a range for prairie chickens, or sage grouse. The magnatude of that is overwhelming, and frankly hopeless. Much more compelling to me then a excercise semantics about percentages of grass. If grass it's self is the issue, raise up a Kentucky 31 fescue pasture, there lots of that in CRP, bought and paid for by us taxpayers, let it grow dense and flat, for years, there all over Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri till they till they expire, and get plowed, tell me how many birds you have.... if you can walk in it, but there's lots of grass though, but nothing lives there but cotton rats, deer, and turkeys.
Maybe new trespass laws and waterfowl tags for Non-Res
- Thread starter UGUIDE
- Start date
Wheat is the crop in Kansas and eastern Colorado and this has been established for years. Back when they strip farmed the high plains with alternated rows, and left the stubble up it was paradise. Nebraska did a study 20 years ago, ( that was before Pheasants Forever, before CRP, at the tail end of soil bank), determined the value of wheat crop in Kansas, but as you go north into Nebraska, alfalfa was the crop in sub-irrigated meadows, with the area around Alliance as the best, with over 300 birds per section. Now alfalfa is heavily sprayed, matures a lot earlier, we have haybines and disc mowers, which defeats the value of alfalfa. Later harvested good crop of wheat in the southern plains is golden. If there is tall prairie grass it's a benefit, but un-interrupted praire without burning, grazing, and disturbance, gradually looses it's capacity to carry pheasants, even looses it's charm on prairie chickens, after all they had buffalo and lightning strikes to refresh the prairie. Seems like a lot of this ground has been plowed, I doubt any marvels of nature we discover now will bring back the herds. We know the reasons, it takes a commercial change in the practice of farming to reverse the trend. At least pheasants are adaptable to reasonably small acreages, not like quail, where it takes a 32 section, ( a township), managed together to have a sustainable, huntable, population. Or disturbing a pasture with a fence, a road, or a shed, or an oil well, or a windmill, causes desertion of a range for prairie chickens, or sage grouse. The magnatude of that is overwhelming, and frankly hopeless. Much more compelling to me then a excercise semantics about percentages of grass. If grass it's self is the issue, raise up a Kentucky 31 fescue pasture, there lots of that in CRP, bought and paid for by us taxpayers, let it grow dense and flat, for years, there all over Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri till they till they expire, and get plowed, tell me how many birds you have.... if you can walk in it, but there's lots of grass though, but nothing lives there but cotton rats, deer, and turkeys.
moellermd
Super Moderator
What is alfalfa heavily sprayed with? We don't spray our alfalfa at all nor do I know anyone that does. How do haybines defeat the value of alfalfa? You lost me on this one.
fsentkilr
Active member
In Kansas alfalfa has to be sprayed for weevil or we won't grow any.
All the disc mowers and associated equipment is more the issue as to when it's cut! With all the new strains, early maturing, etc. Because we know that we bale alfalfa with less than 10% bloom, for maximum protein. If you bale it early, we disrupt hens, or wreck nests, it's part of the program, making alfalfa less agreeable than it was previously. If we don't bale before 10% bloom it may well be infested with aphids, which are preyed upon by blister beetles. Surely you have seen nest destroyed or sliced through a brood with a disc mower? It's not like the old 5mph sickle bar, leaving a 3" stubble, and a side delivery rake. The strains, faster harvest, and close contact, doesn't leave much. Go look at whats in the hay, I have, protein content must include the dead snakes, rodents, birds, and deer in the bale.
RK Special K
New member
Ok. I think we've settled the habitat issue:
We can all agree that we need some "tall stuff" in early spring to mid-summer. "Stuff" that doesn't get sprayed, hayed, or recently grazed. I say it should be 5-20% of a diversified "mix".
Whew! Glad that's over.
On to the UN-settled issue: How we get this on the ground permanently and irrevocably so we reverse the long-term decline in pheasant numbers. DU and PF are fine organizations and make a great effort. But we, that is, me, you, and them aren't getting it done. C'mon....hello......we're fighting the good fight but we're not winning it.
Here's why:
We have no permanent National Program to establish and protect the habitat that restores pheasant numbers to their former glory. And it's hardly just about pheasant hunters. What's good for pheasants is also good for everybody via the environment and rural economies(including all the farmers). This is the key to preserving hunting as a NATIONAL TREASURE versus a small special interest group. Creating and maintaining grasslands(the "tall stuff"), whether it's CRP, wheat management, or pasture management. This should be the same as the wetland protection that improves our water quality.
If 10% of our agricultural land WAS PURCHASED(or permanently leased) and preserved we'd have the problem solved. Otherwise, we will "dibble-dabble" with the problem and wonder why our birds are all gone after 75 years.
Bring OUR money home. We'd probably only need half of it to solve most of our domestic needs. And have a "hard" asset to show for it. Hunting: it's OUR National Treasure, if we want it.
We can all agree that we need some "tall stuff" in early spring to mid-summer. "Stuff" that doesn't get sprayed, hayed, or recently grazed. I say it should be 5-20% of a diversified "mix".
Whew! Glad that's over.
On to the UN-settled issue: How we get this on the ground permanently and irrevocably so we reverse the long-term decline in pheasant numbers. DU and PF are fine organizations and make a great effort. But we, that is, me, you, and them aren't getting it done. C'mon....hello......we're fighting the good fight but we're not winning it.
Here's why:
We have no permanent National Program to establish and protect the habitat that restores pheasant numbers to their former glory. And it's hardly just about pheasant hunters. What's good for pheasants is also good for everybody via the environment and rural economies(including all the farmers). This is the key to preserving hunting as a NATIONAL TREASURE versus a small special interest group. Creating and maintaining grasslands(the "tall stuff"), whether it's CRP, wheat management, or pasture management. This should be the same as the wetland protection that improves our water quality.
If 10% of our agricultural land WAS PURCHASED(or permanently leased) and preserved we'd have the problem solved. Otherwise, we will "dibble-dabble" with the problem and wonder why our birds are all gone after 75 years.
Bring OUR money home. We'd probably only need half of it to solve most of our domestic needs. And have a "hard" asset to show for it. Hunting: it's OUR National Treasure, if we want it.
Well not so fast. I found a pheasant nest today in six inch tall grass 100 feet from my house and 100 feet from a bunch of tall trees where hawks, owls, and eagles sit, where I have been told they won't nest. Some people would cut down those trees or cut them so they bent over. I think if God wanted bent over trees he has plenty of ways do get them that way. Last year I had a hen nest in a lot where cattle are in the winter time. There was no grass there. She was the tallest thing out there, so the tall stuff is good but not needed. I will agree we spend money foolishly and it is fine with me if you can get that stopped. Permanently doing anything with land is foolish because nobody knows what the future holds. Nobody should have the right to do anything forever with land in my opinion. My land is already doing what you want so you can leave it out of your scheme. I don't mean to burst your bubble but your eminent domain plan is not going to happen. It will cost too much money, too much political capitol and too much bloodshed.
You are not Donald Trump, think along the lines that you can actually acomplish.
RK Special K
New member
haymaker.......
Hens nesting in some short stuff is the exception to the overwhelmimg norm of pheasant needs. And the "short stuff" won't produce the numbers we're looking for. You will see a smattering of hens that will use it but ask any good biologist, they PREFER the "tall stuff".
That said, you have convinced me that how you manage your grazing pastureland DOES provide a good amount of the "tall stull" at the crucial time and THAT does count. You have "resting" periods that provide "longer" grass in the spring. Is that correct?
The National freeway system, National Parks, and National Wetland regulations are VERY wise programs. And they ARE permanent! Or at least as permanent as we can make them. What I am talking about is no different. I have absolutely no problem with what you are doing. In fact, you are the shining example. But not enough farmers participate to stop the trend of loss of habitat.
On guns and hunting:
Except for extreme radical groups like PETA and the Humane Society, most Americans support hunting rights and certainly the right to own a gun for it.
Even the gun control wacko's aren't targeting hunters. They just want to get rid of(or highly control) those guns that they think kill a lot of people. Despite all the recent "hoopla" over it, I don't think they will get much traction. The Second Amendment is VERY difficult to overcome. And thank you NRA for your good work!
Hens nesting in some short stuff is the exception to the overwhelmimg norm of pheasant needs. And the "short stuff" won't produce the numbers we're looking for. You will see a smattering of hens that will use it but ask any good biologist, they PREFER the "tall stuff".
That said, you have convinced me that how you manage your grazing pastureland DOES provide a good amount of the "tall stull" at the crucial time and THAT does count. You have "resting" periods that provide "longer" grass in the spring. Is that correct?
The National freeway system, National Parks, and National Wetland regulations are VERY wise programs. And they ARE permanent! Or at least as permanent as we can make them. What I am talking about is no different. I have absolutely no problem with what you are doing. In fact, you are the shining example. But not enough farmers participate to stop the trend of loss of habitat.
On guns and hunting:
Except for extreme radical groups like PETA and the Humane Society, most Americans support hunting rights and certainly the right to own a gun for it.
Even the gun control wacko's aren't targeting hunters. They just want to get rid of(or highly control) those guns that they think kill a lot of people. Despite all the recent "hoopla" over it, I don't think they will get much traction. The Second Amendment is VERY difficult to overcome. And thank you NRA for your good work!
RK Special K
New member
And let me clarify what I mean by the "exception": Yes, a few hens will find "no room at the Inn" and resort to nesting in marginal habitat. They(and their chicks) are VERY vulnerable in this stuff to predation. If almost everything we had was 6 inches, bird numbers would rapidly dwindle.
RK Special K
New member
And thank God that the Second Amendment is permanent. Or, at least I hope it is. Don't want them fiddling much with that.
Private Property Rights? - they are vulnerable to Emeinent Domain if a good, public, worthwhile purpose is served. Otherwise, each of us would form our our "country" with our property and do whatever we want with it.
We, as a group of private citizens(aka "the government") already control a lot of what can be done. We still have MUCH more freedom than most countries have, though.
Private Property Rights? - they are vulnerable to Emeinent Domain if a good, public, worthwhile purpose is served. Otherwise, each of us would form our our "country" with our property and do whatever we want with it.
We, as a group of private citizens(aka "the government") already control a lot of what can be done. We still have MUCH more freedom than most countries have, though.
fsentkilr
Active member
I don't think providing you a place to hunt would be considered a good, public, wothwhile purpose. Eminant domain would be challenged in court, and good luck finding a group of judges without one anti hunter. Keep dreaming it will never happen.
Now something I could see happening is for them to require grass buffers along all streams and waterways. Now they pay people to put CRP along them, but I can see them making it mandatory in the future. This will be due to water quality concerns, not for pheasants. It will help the pheasants as well as lots of other wildlife if they do it. They won't make it public hunting like you want, but I can see that happening in the future.
Last edited:
First lets talk about no room in the inn. Both of the pheasants that I mentioned could have gone 100 yards either north or south and been in CRP, so plenty of room in the inn. I am glad that you can understand the benefit of grazing. I think Old & New mentioned the great relationship birds and cattle have, they both enhance the lives of the other. Like I have said before SAVE A PHEASANT EAT A STEAK. The freeway system is used by eveybody and that is different than whatever pecentage of people hunt. What you did not grasp is that I was not talking about guns, I was talking about funding. The nation is 17 trillion in debt and borrowing approximately 46% of every dollar we spend. If you want to buy that much land you are talking maybe $5000 to $9000 an acre for farmland. You are talking a half a million for the 64 acres on one section. I am not sure there is enough money to do what you are talking about. And of course you have to give up 10% of your yard too or it will be discrimination. And that will tie things up in court for along time. It has been a good bantor session but I am going to concentrate on reallity. Are you going to come along with the SWAT team when they come for my land?
fsentkilr
Active member
Yeah I agree with you. Who are they going to send out to take my land. Its not going to end good for whomever it is.
Last edited:
Good heavens guys. I don't want talk you off the roof. I think with the fiasco of the "new" proposed gun laws, and the reaction, it may push the socialists back a ways. Stealing peoples land, collectivation, sounds like a communist text book. Lots of people will take to mats. As far as gamebird populations go, and access. The first part ought to be a hold harmless insurance binder, it should make it unable for a hunter, fisherman, bird watcher, to sue a farmer or rancher, the same insurance benefits would provide coverage for accidents or damage to property, or casualty, in the event it was done by a licensed participant. Land owner who allows access is covered, like a health professional who renders assistance at an accident. There can be incentives, like walk-in areas, my opinion it should be born by the hunter, if it's $500 per license, so be it, could even be a federal stamp or license, to pay for insurance and access. To encourage this, there could be tax breaks, both state and federal to allow access. This should also be included in the new CRP where it allows "X" dollars for inclusion, with more for public access. We also need better contact information, I wonder how many don't ask for permission on a vacant parcel because of no contact information, if you want to post it, put a contact number, especially if your an insurance company, or railroad, who do not live there. A lot of these are ALL being done at least experimently by some states. In the old days, 30 years ago, ranchers in Wyoming were compensated a pittance, off a torn off tab of my hunting license for harvsting an antelope or deer on their property. My goal is to overcome objections to lack of access. If you want it to be the way it is now, it can be that way too! I will assume there will be objections from both sides.
Now there you go. Those kind of suggestions would help. Ther are things that can be done and there may not always be so much pressure on the land as there is now.
RK Special K
New member
haymaker.......
Theoretically, you could fit a thousand nesting hens on 2 acres of CRP, but in practice, hens need a good amount of "territorial elbow room". There is a spacing limitation - hens are not going to nest "side-by-side" in the wild. I stand firmly on my statement - "no (practical) room at the Inn". 100 acres of CRP might service 5?, 10?, maybe 15-20 hens? I'll say this: If there are 20 hens nesting on 100 acres of CRP, come fall, I want to be there for opening day!
EVERYBODY benefits by soil conservation, water quality, and air quailty. The benifits to hunting habitat are important but somewhat a secondary or "side" benefit.
PAGE 89, SUMMER 2013 PF magazine:
A National Wild Pheasant Conservation Plan........
The opening paragraph:
It's no secret that the amount and quaility of ring-necked pheasant habitat across the North American pheasant range is in major decline. As a result, it should come as no surprise that pheasant populations throughout large portions of the range are in significant decline, as well. The reasons are many: high grain prices, government subsidized conversion of grassland and scrubland habitat to cropland, development of "clean" farming practices, a decline in agricultural diversity, urban/suburban sprawl, new dryland seeds and reforestation........
Obviously, what we have been doing over the past 45 years is nothing more than re-arranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. Hello, IT'S NOT WORKING!
A 10% habitat easement is not a lot different than the 66 foot ROW's that criss-cross the entire country. They're used for public transportation. If there is fair compensation, the remaining land is farmed as it always has been. Nothing much changes except we turn the clock back to 1955 when pheasants were "everywhere" and in great numbers.
Just a side note:
In Michigan, I call urban/surburban sprawl, "Agriburbia" and it is MUCH worse than the simple outward expansion of metro areas. "Agriburbia" is the ugly, mutant, mutt that is the offspring of crossbreeding remote, rural farmland with residential, non-farm, dwellings on 5, 10, 20, 30 acres. It creates HUGE access problems and is exponentially harmful to the "huntability" of the surrounding landscape. Keeping farms in farmland and keeping residential living near the city, goes a long way to preserving our "National Hunting Treasure". Michigan is probably "too far gone" but we still have a chance "out west".
Theoretically, you could fit a thousand nesting hens on 2 acres of CRP, but in practice, hens need a good amount of "territorial elbow room". There is a spacing limitation - hens are not going to nest "side-by-side" in the wild. I stand firmly on my statement - "no (practical) room at the Inn". 100 acres of CRP might service 5?, 10?, maybe 15-20 hens? I'll say this: If there are 20 hens nesting on 100 acres of CRP, come fall, I want to be there for opening day!
EVERYBODY benefits by soil conservation, water quality, and air quailty. The benifits to hunting habitat are important but somewhat a secondary or "side" benefit.
PAGE 89, SUMMER 2013 PF magazine:
A National Wild Pheasant Conservation Plan........
The opening paragraph:
It's no secret that the amount and quaility of ring-necked pheasant habitat across the North American pheasant range is in major decline. As a result, it should come as no surprise that pheasant populations throughout large portions of the range are in significant decline, as well. The reasons are many: high grain prices, government subsidized conversion of grassland and scrubland habitat to cropland, development of "clean" farming practices, a decline in agricultural diversity, urban/suburban sprawl, new dryland seeds and reforestation........
Obviously, what we have been doing over the past 45 years is nothing more than re-arranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic. Hello, IT'S NOT WORKING!
A 10% habitat easement is not a lot different than the 66 foot ROW's that criss-cross the entire country. They're used for public transportation. If there is fair compensation, the remaining land is farmed as it always has been. Nothing much changes except we turn the clock back to 1955 when pheasants were "everywhere" and in great numbers.
Just a side note:
In Michigan, I call urban/surburban sprawl, "Agriburbia" and it is MUCH worse than the simple outward expansion of metro areas. "Agriburbia" is the ugly, mutant, mutt that is the offspring of crossbreeding remote, rural farmland with residential, non-farm, dwellings on 5, 10, 20, 30 acres. It creates HUGE access problems and is exponentially harmful to the "huntability" of the surrounding landscape. Keeping farms in farmland and keeping residential living near the city, goes a long way to preserving our "National Hunting Treasure". Michigan is probably "too far gone" but we still have a chance "out west".
RK Special K
New member
Please read the posts under the thread entitled "Habitat Fragmentation" in the IOWA forum. It's like reading about the "ghost of pheasant hunting future". If we don't DRASTICALLY change our ways and thinking, our pheasant hunting tradition will certainly DIE!
onpoint
Active member
The thing virtually everybody is missing...they look at a 10 acre piece of CRP and think..wow..that could raise a nice bunch of pheasants. Problem is..every single animal and predator has also been pushed onto those limited 10 acres. Fox, Coon, coyote, skunk, mink, weasel, Etc don't make very good neighbors for a pheasant. The pheasant looses EVERYTIME! Just remember that. We need far more habitat to spread out the predatory threat to the birds.
So are you getting bored? I thought we pretty well beat this to death, but I will banter a little more with you. First off the ROW takes eight acres from a section, you want 64 that is an 800% difference, but who is counting. If you take 10% of suburbia and plant it to cover it will be segmented I admit. If you and your nieghbors plant 10% of your yards to tall stuff you might get a good hatch. The hatch might be mosquitos but it is food for birds. You think the last 45 years which include all of the CRP years did not work? Yes CRP is being reduced but there are pheasants where people want them to be. Are there enough, who knows how many there should be? As far as elbow room is concerned, hens have alot of it here. I am still seeing hens in my pastures every time I check the cattle. 20 hens in a 100 acres would be dissapointing, and yes you would like to be here for opening day. That is reserved for a friends and family reunion but when we have the Wounded Warrior hunt it will still probably be good hunting and you are welcome to come. I agree with you that everybody benefits from conservation and good stewardship. If you want to do the 10% thing go ahead and tell obama that I said it was OK for you and your neighbors to plant 10% of your yards to tall stuff and he can take it by eminent domain and pay you a fair price.
RK Special K
New member
Please read: PF's, ON THE WING story entitled - Pheasant Country's Most Threatened Areas, in the e-mail issue that just came out yesterday. The Titanic is taking on water FAST and has begun listing to port. In a few short years, it will be resting forever on the bottom. Lost to the ages - a soon to be, distant memory........
UNLESS........a great rescue effort is commenced immediately.
UNLESS........a great rescue effort is commenced immediately.
