Nat'l wild pheasant conservatoin plan

Nick, can you clarify just what you mean with the statement of justification f or the propagation of a non-native bird? I don't want to jump to any conclusion. I may have read that section differently than you did. I know that the USFWS hasn't been in favor of recognizing exotic species and on their areas regularly don't manage for them. I'm guessing that is what you're addressing, but didn't want it to be a guess! Thanks!
 
Prairie Drifter said:
Nick, can you clarify just what you mean with the statement of justification f or the propagation of a non-native bird? I don't want to jump to any conclusion. I may have read that section differently than you did. I know that the USFWS hasn't been in favor of recognizing exotic species and on their areas regularly don't manage for them. I'm guessing that is what you're addressing, but didn't want it to be a guess! Thanks!
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong but I didn't see the FWS mentioned in that section. Are the writers of this plan on this forum? Maybe they could clarify.

My experiences are the general pheasant hunting public thinks standing rows of corn and tree rows produce pheasants. My thoughts and experiences are that quality grasslands produce all wildlife whether its ducks, deer, pheasants and nongame wildlife. Quality grasslands require management (grazing, fire and even farming). And sometimes that pill is hard to swallow when the pheasant hunter shows up to shoot some roosters and its grazed fairly hard or soybean stubble. Food plots and tree rows provide hunting habitat not nesting habitat. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions as well, lol.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
Nick, can you clarify just what you mean with the statement of justification f or the propagation of a non-native bird? I don't want to jump to any conclusion. I may have read that section differently than you did. I know that the USFWS hasn't been in favor of recognizing exotic species and on their areas regularly don't manage for them. I'm guessing that is what you're addressing, but didn't want it to be a guess! Thanks!
Click to expand...

Yes---They typically are not in favor of the wild ringneck due to his "non-native" status, but what I took from pg. 4 "justification" is a (rare) argument in favor of the wild ringneck and why he should not be ignored or placed within the same category as other non-native/invasive species. He's a popular bird, therefore if we put more habitat into the ground (in order to propagate wild ringnecks) an assortment of wildlife will benefit. Soil and water quality benefit too. Plus the point was made that he seldom competes, or effects native species in a negative way. The positives of the wild ringneck far out weight the negative:).


Nick
 
With the level that our native habitats have been replaced by non-native croplands, it is/was wise to fill that void with species that were able to prosper in them and beneficial to the human condition! It is nice to see them recognize this in a written document when for some time the word was that they were only managing "native" ecosystems and the native species that inhabit them!
 
After reading this national plan it leaves me thinking about the plan and study that the state of South Dakota conducted and released last year. It sounds very similar to their findings. It basically comes out and says that pheasants need more nesting cover and winter cover in the northern reaches. No big shock there to most knowledgable pheasant enthusiasts. The second thing I took away from this is the same that I took away from the report last year from the SDGF&P about pheasants. It all takes money. Talking landowners into allowing their land to sit without planting and turning it back into grassland takes money. This day and age for most landowners money talks. The unfortunate thing is that I find it very had to believe that the state of South Dakota or a national report will be enough to get the people in congress to make the call to allocate that kind of money for such a program. Personally would love to see it happen but until they put boots to the ground and back up their research and talk it doesn't matter much. Hoping to see some of the things in the report come to fruition but not holding my breath.
 
I tried to slog through it and got lost in the weeds (no pun intended).

Looks like another giant government organized boondoggle.

Just do what works. Fund CRP at a level that makes it wise for farmers to put some cropland into fallow, native grass areas. The birds will take care of the rest. It will help out farmers, keep more land in a native state and cost less money. The downside is it won't create more jobs for bureaucrats so it has no chance of happening.
 
Sneem I totally agree with you. I think if the ethanol mandate in gas would go away or at least be decreased corn prices would tank and farmers would be wanting more CRP acres. I think everyone saw the boom to wildlife that CRP can create.
 
They should really put more of an effort into research of cellulosic ethanol. Basically turning switch grass, that is great for wildlife cover, into ethanol. If they can make it where they harvest it after July 1st it would be a win win. They would get their ethanol mandate and it would be a big plus for the wildlife. On top of that I have to believe that switch grass is something that is easier to harvest. As far as effort goes on the landowners part. Plant once instead of planting every year.
 
BigRand said:
They should really put more of an effort into research of cellulosic ethanol. Basically turning switch grass, that is great for wildlife cover, into ethanol. If they can make it where they harvest it after July 1st it would be a win win. They would get their ethanol mandate and it would be a big plus for the wildlife. On top of that I have to believe that switch grass is something that is easier to harvest. As far as effort goes on the landowners part. Plant once instead of planting every year.
Click to expand...

It would only be a positive is there were cover to move to after July 1st. Then too, if the hatch were late, it would be a serious death trap for broods and clutches. Yes, it would use less fuel to plant the crop and we wouldn't be using a potential food source as a fuel! In any event, we shouldn't be using our valuable cropland to fuel our driving. It's time to get smarter with our resources!
 
I think five year CRP contracts at competitive rental rates would work if you can fid the funding. You are going to have to out lobby Monsanto to get corn out of ethanol. They have incredible power in Washington DC.
 
I Agree with Haymaker... competitive rates which allows landowners to have an option for consideration to farm or not farm. It has to make economical sense for the landowner ( for most landowners). The ground I own (and rent out)does not qualify for any programs, so I try to maximize the income vs. Habitat.
 
Years ago my habitat director told me he had all but give up on CRP habitat projects. He'd gather volunteers, funding, etc for CRP lands just to return to a barren piece of land 10-15 years later.

With the time and $ it takes to instal habitat, plus get warm seasons to take hold, 5 years may be too short of a time frame.:confused: Maybe if a lesser grade of habitat becomes exceptionable, it may work out.:confused: Something like leaving the land alone--a resting period.

Nick
 
Last edited:
1pheas4 said:
Years ago my habitat director told me he had all but give up on CRP habitat projects. He'd gather volunteers, funding, etc for CRP lands just to return to a barren piece of land 10-15 years later.

With the time and $ it takes to instal habitat, plus get warm seasons to take hold, 5 years may be too short of a time frame.:confused: Maybe if a lesser grade of habitat becomes exceptionable, it may work out.:confused: Something like leaving the land alone--a resting period.

Nick
Click to expand...

You have a point about warm season grasses and that may be different. I have always used intermediate wheatgrass, sweet clover and alfalfa. The first five years are far more productive than the last five years, that may not be true with warm season grasses. The other thing is that historicaly rent prices have approximately doubled every ten years, so if it is competative with rent when you put it in it may be half price when it comes out. Ten years is a long time to tie up land.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
Nick, can you clarify just what you mean with the statement of justification f or the propagation of a non-native bird? I don't want to jump to any conclusion. I may have read that section differently than you did. I know that the USFWS hasn't been in favor of recognizing exotic species and on their areas regularly don't manage for them. I'm guessing that is what you're addressing, but didn't want it to be a guess! Thanks!
Click to expand...

here ya go....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top