Nationalizes the Emigrants!

[wesslpointer]

For over 100 years these Emigrants have served us well! Its time that we ask the STATES to declare them "ESSENTIAL" game birds. Why? The federal national wildlife refuge system has kicked them OUT! Because there non-native! You can boat,water ski, ride horse's, fish, walk trails est. there just cant be PHEASANTS! Remember that the NWR is run with sportsman money. How long before all federal lands and federal sponsored habitat restoration program lands make non-natives unwelcome? By declaring non-natives "ESSENTIAL" we can ask the Fed"s that unless there is a clear danger to the native wildlife they MUST be concereted in there management plans.

 

[1pheas4]

This is a great point wesslpointer. I'm also seeing a "non-native" movement against our beloved ring-necked pheasant. I bumped into this movement within our county conservation land mangers a couple months ago. I did my best to defend the ring neck. Whether or not the facts stuck with them, I'm not sure.

One thing is for sure; something is going to have to be done about this before it gets to the point of destroying nests and shooting hens located on gov't lands. I know down state (IL) our DNR has already killed off hen pheasants on a project to "help" the prairie chicken. Nevertheless the prairie chicken is still not doing so well (from what I've heard from our local DNR rep).

As far as the rest of the state goes, the prairie chicken is NOT coming back any time soon. The Ring-neck pheasant is all we have to fill that gaping hole the prairie chicken once filled.

Besides that, I can't think of any other SINGLE/bird besides the ring-necked pheasant that has done so much (through sportsman/hunters/conservationists) to improve our grasslands/habitat. So much $, so many funds are raised in pursuit of this great bird! And now to demonize it!


You don't see too many promo videos put out by our gov't agencies like this anymore; (FUNNY) http://youtu.be/bwR_HF8jjks

 

[oldandnew]

I find the whole idea revolting. Game management gone insane. If the idiots want to control and eradicate species, looks like they would have their hands full with emerald tree borers, gypsy moths, zebra mussles, and kudzu. Why anyone would want to discourage a beneficial game species is beyond me. I have made this statement before here, the prairie grouse have no bigger admirer than me, but it's not the pheasant that destroyed the prairie chicken and the sage grouse, it's the plow. Correct statement made above, the tiny,sad, comical zoo like populations in Missouri and Illinios, are not going to accomplish anything more than provide an amusing science project funded by some federal grant. Besides, what's good for prairie chickens, large unbroken tracts of grasslands provides benefit for quail and pheasant alike. Fear I have is that as wildlife management plan, this sounds like instead of expanding the carrying capacity of ground already held, or expanding the ground under management, the plan is to ration, the existing habitat on a priority basis, favoring in some cases wildlife which is not even currently viable. I am a bobwhite quail enthusiast, but despite the noble talk and efforts underway, we are not likely to see a return to the small farm mosaic of habitat that favors quail, in my lifetime, if ever. I have to conclude that like the prairie chicken, the bobwhite is headed for a sunset as a novelty bird on preserved reservations. The pheasant fills a niche currently under-utilized or often completely unoccuppied by "natives". As far as the debate, "native" or non-native, the pheasant has a heritage on the continent which rivals most of ours. With this rationale we should repatriate the Indians to the plains as the "native" homo sapiens of the continent, while "discouraging" white americans, as non-native. Oh I forgot,we would actually have to return it to whatever subspecies of man the Indians drove out! If we contnue down this road we would be fortunate to have a self-sustaining, huntable, gamebird population left anywhere. I wonder if that's not the point!

 

[haymaker]

Old and New,
Game management is usually in some stage of insanity.

 

[1pheas4]

The pheasant fills a niche currently under-utilized or often completely unoccuppied by "natives". As far as the debate, "native" or non-native, the pheasant has a heritage on the continent which rivals most of ours. With this rationale we should repatriate the Indians to the plains as the "native" homo sapiens of the continent, while "discouraging" white americans, as non-native. Oh I forgot,we would actually have to return it to whatever subspecies of man the Indians drove out! If we contnue down this road we would be fortunate to have a self-sustaining, huntable, gamebird population left anywhere. I wonder if that's not the point!

All very well said Oldandnew. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[wesslpointer]

New plan

In the new management plan at the National wildlife refuge next to me. It states INCREASE EFFORTS TO CONTROL,REDUCE AND REMOVE FERAL,INVASIVE,EXOTIC AND NOXIOUS NON-NATIVE SPECIES. 1] Who paid the salaries for the people who wrote this? 2] Is the refuge required by law to follow its management plan? 3] Can the refuge pick and chose witch species it removes are is it required to treat them equally? Well this spread to all federal lands.? AND the biggest OUESTION of all is why are not the organizations we give time and money to not fighting this tooth and nail?????

 

[1GB]

If the idiots want to control and eradicate species, looks like they would have their hands full with emerald tree borers, gypsy moths, zebra mussles, and kudzu. Why anyone would want to discourage a beneficial game species is beyond me.

Reading that statement, one thing that jumped out to me is that eliminating pheasants is easier than any of those detrimental invasives. They've tried to control the ash borer, zebra mussels, etc, and failed. The pheasant would be an easy way for them to pat themselves on the back for accomplishing something.

And I agree, the prairie chicken is probably not coming back, simply because the wide open habitat they need is not coming back. There's an ever increasing population which in turn leads to more demand for food and more people who have no appreciation for wildlife mowing their entire 1-5 acre plot in the country, further fragmenting what remaining habitat there is!

As someone else mentioned, while the pheasant isn't non-native, it's done wonders for promoting grassland restoration that's helping many other less well known species that require such habitats.

I think we should embrace such a species, even if it's non-native, since it's making the best of what we have, indirectly promoting a positive impact on other native species, and not throwing the environments it inhabits into a tailspin like other non-natives may (hogs, carp, etc).

 

[haymaker]

I think that is going to be a tough sell in South Dakota. We have made it our state bird as well as a large revenue producer. Maybe we still have enough Praire Chickens that they will leave us alone.

 

[Preston1]

This subject (non-native) should be a big part of the main forum because it is a big deal for those environmental people.

It is time for the people that really care about the future of wild reproducing pheasants, in N. America, to speak up and clearly articulate their stand on this pheasant non-native business, because this issue will come back up again and again.

Maybe this information will a useful to other people in dealing with this issue.

First, some of our founding fathers released pheasants in an attempt to get a wild reproducing population started. George Washington released pheasants on his Mt. Vernon farm.

Second, look at a few wild emigrants that most people think are native but they are not native.
Ornithologists who study the Mallard duck will tell you the his range is the entire northern hemisphere, you will see wild mallards all over the world.
Most ornithologist believe that they came to N. America 5 to 10 thousand years ago. The came over from N. China, over the Bering Straits or over the Arctic circle which they still do to this day.
The Magpie that is common out west (and is expanding its range eastward) came over the same route but more recently.

Oldandnew mentioned heritage, that is a great point. I think of the Horse and the Cow (two non-native species that went wild) brought over by the Spaniards in the 15th century. These two non-native animal lead to a western/cowboy culture/heritage.
If it wasn't for those two animals we would not have words like "get the heck out of Dodge", the Dallas Cowboys, the Maverick, the Denver Broncos, Roy Rogers etc... I could go on.

The true pheasants were brought or introduced to Europe between 500 and 800 AD. The people over there know very well that wild pheasants are not native to Europe, but they treat the wild pheasants as a valuable resource that they enjoy having around. They don't look at the wild pheasant as "aliens" .

See the article below ( the last part of the article is in English):

http://www.zgap.de/pdfs/25_2.pdf

Food for thought.

 

[1pheas4]

I first came across this "anti" pheasant movement when I was working for a habitat restoration company in '09. Many of the younger "earth" friendly workers had a vile view of pheasants.

Seeing a storm brewing on the horizon, I mentioned it to the head of our DNR habitat rep here in N. IL. He was surprised to hear what I had to tell him. The same thing was true with our IL Pheasants Forever rep. For what ever reason there doesn't seem to be all that much concern over this issue

I made mention to our PF rep to get ready for this growing movement. Whether or not anything is being done I'm not sure. I really think at this point it's time to get the pheasant facts out such as in these posts.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I was confronted with a strong anti pheasant point of view from a near by county conservation worker. After laying out just a few positives about the pheasant she could only stand there in silence. Did I change her opinion on pheasants? Probably not. Nevertheless, as Preston1 made mention, we still need to be armed with an creditable argument in favor of the ringneck.

 

[oldandnew]

I can't even wrap my mind around the idea that certain naturalists would espouse openly, the idea that we would be better off eliminating species which are in large part benign or heaven forbid actually a benefit to an ecosystem. Why not put the genie back in the bottle and asail house sparrows and european starlings, a true blight on the landscape, and a direct numerous competitor to native species. If we decimate the pheasant population, what fills the void, the niche now occupiied by pheasants, a few more starlings perhaps? More likely nothing. I suspect the real purpose is to end sport hunting, if you can't get rid of the guns, and the sportsmen keep coming, elimination of the game seems like the next best option. Next step is to eliminate hunting on certain national wildlife refuges, paid for and maintained by hunters and fishermen, with Pittman-Robertson taxes, in the theory that human activity disrupts the re-establishment of a forlorn flock of Sage Hens, or an isolated flock of Prairie Chickens. If there are no pheasants or huns to speak of, it will lessen the outcry from the few remaining hunting public.