Opening Weekend Results?

prairiepork

New member
Don't need to say where you were, or any specifics if you don't want to, just looking for some general stats to see how people did.

I'll start. Lots of corn in, but there was so much dew and it was so wet, I think that held the birds at least from running into the corn. With it this mild and corn in, that is all I can figure for birds holding points. However, once the covey busted and got out of thick wet grass they flushed way wild, no singles sitting.

I shot 2 quail, missed 1 rooster, and the dog got sprayed by a skunk! 3rd time that has happened, so I know the drill.
 
Pretty rough opening day as expected. We didn't see a bird all of opening morning. I think that it's a combination of the abysmal habitat (at least in my area of South Central NE) and crops still in the fields. I didn't expect much but I hoped for at least a few coveys of quail. No such luck. I have heard quite a few whistles this summer so hopefully, we might eventually have some luck with Mr. Bob. Hoping to get some hunting in in KS when I'm down there for Thanksgiving, and I did book my first ever SD hunt for Dec 5-7 in Chamberlain so maybe I can at least remember what a rooster looks like.
 
Pretty rough opening day as expected. We didn't see a bird all of opening morning. I think that it's a combination of the abysmal habitat (at least in my area of South Central NE) and crops still in the fields. I didn't expect much but I hoped for at least a few coveys of quail. No such luck. I have heard quite a few whistles this summer so hopefully, we might eventually have some luck with Mr. Bob. Hoping to get some hunting in in KS when I'm down there for Thanksgiving, and I did book my first ever SD hunt for Dec 5-7 in Chamberlain so maybe I can at least remember what a rooster looks like.

Thanks bnz for the report. I have not been out yet so I don't have anything to add yet - plan to get out in mid-November. Sorry you didn't have better luck. When you say abysmal habitat - do you mean it has been removed, didn't grow due to lack of moisture, etc.? It seems Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever are quite active in NE are their efforts not having a positive impact on habitat?

I'm also kind of surprised on the lack of birds. Read the NE Game and Fish upland forecast and it sounded like at least quail had a pretty good year there. Phez are still rebounding. Is their forecast not accurate for your area? I'm not questioning in any way what you are saying, it is just kind of hard to get an accurate assessment of things from afar:confused:

Good luck in SD you should do real well there :thumbsup:
 
Southwestern Nebraska. 6 hunters, two of which were 12, and 10. 12 roosters by 10:30 am Sat. morning. We shot well, but saw lots of birds. The area we hunted has numerous pivot corners left to weeds and grass. Shot about 1/2 the birds on private ground open to public, and the other 1/2 on private pivot corners. Lot of corn still in. Will be very good hunting out there once the corn is all out and we get some weather to bunch them up.

My opinion, the only way Nebraska will ever have a decent number of pheasants in central Nebraska again is pivot corners. Somehow we need to convince Pheasants forever, and the game and parks to put all there money into that area. Farmers (for the most part) are all about money. If they can make more money not farming pivot corners they will let them go to grass and weeds.

Our only hope as far as I'm concerned.

Had a great opening weekend!! Very fun.:10sign:
 
Yeah, I too was hopeful on the quail, but on this day they were no where to be found. I will certainly be back out again. One possible explanation is that the weather was kind of weird. It was really warm (swatting mosquito's while pheasant hunting as strange as that sounds), plus there was a really heavy dew. I won't give up hope on catching up with some of those quail and maybe even a rooster or two.:)

As far as habitat goes, the high corn prices over the last few years and end of CRP terms for a bunch of land led to a huge decline in Pheasant and Quail habitat in our area. I can think of many great old abandoned farmsteads, brushy draws and overgrown fencelines that have been bulldozed out to create more marginal farmland and to make room for more pivots. I don't blame the farmers, economic realities force them to be as efficient as possible to get the most they can from high priced land. I just wish we could find a way here to create a bit of balance and value for our wildlife like SD and to a lesser extent KS have done. I'm a PF member and we have done some good but unfortunately it's an uphill battle.

The good news is that the reasonably decent moisture has left what habitat there is in pretty good shape and I still hope that the Game and Parks forecast proves accurate as far as quail numbers are concerned.
 
Yeah, I too was hopeful on the quail, but on this day they were no where to be found. I will certainly be back out again. One possible explanation is that the weather was kind of weird. It was really warm (swatting mosquito's while pheasant hunting as strange as that sounds), plus there was a really heavy dew. I won't give up hope on catching up with some of those quail and maybe even a rooster or two.:)

As far as habitat goes, the high corn prices over the last few years and end of CRP terms for a bunch of land led to a huge decline in Pheasant and Quail habitat in our area. I can think of many great old abandoned farmsteads, brushy draws and overgrown fencelines that have been bulldozed out to create more marginal farmland and to make room for more pivots. I don't blame the farmers, economic realities force them to be as efficient as possible to get the most they can from high priced land. I just wish we could find a way here to create a bit of balance and value for our wildlife like SD and to a lesser extent KS have done. I'm a PF member and we have done some good but unfortunately it's an uphill battle.

The good news is that the reasonably decent moisture has left what habitat there is in pretty good shape and I still hope that the Game and Parks forecast proves accurate as far as quail numbers are concerned.

Thanks bnz and I agree with what you are saying - definitely need a balance and leave some habitat for wildlife to thrive. This also serves to act as a filter and to reduce erosion - lessons that should have been learned long ago but are conveniently forgotten. :(
 
Three of us shot 16 quail and 1 pheasant by 930. We pushed 6 coveys at least maybe seven. There is no telling what we missed in the fog. A lot of times we could hear them but never see them. Heard a lot of shooting everyone was finding them. There is as many as last year maybe more. Going to be a good year. Good luck and be careful.
 
bnz 41. I work with farmers, and I felt the same way, "can't blame them", but then one day a farmer called BS when I said that. He actually called most farmers greedy, and said there is a reason our grandparents didn't farm some areas, because it is crappy soil and shouldn't be farmed. Also said there is no way you can make it pay(for a very long time anyway) to take out a fencerow or shelterbelt; all the big equipment rental and time for an acre or 2? And although I want to be respectful, he is right. Problem is farming has changed so drastically, it has to go big or get out. Everything is geared towards a few crops and massive equipment. The days of 10 acre fields, multiple crops and unfarmed odd areas are gone, and consequently the birds as well. Making me depressed. Hard to stay optimistic.
 
bnz 41. I work with farmers, and I felt the same way, "can't blame them", but then one day a farmer called BS when I said that. He actually called most farmers greedy, and said there is a reason our grandparents didn't farm some areas, because it is crappy soil and shouldn't be farmed. Also said there is no way you can make it pay(for a very long time anyway) to take out a fencerow or shelterbelt; all the big equipment rental and time for an acre or 2? And although I want to be respectful, he is right. Problem is farming has changed so drastically, it has to go big or get out. Everything is geared towards a few crops and massive equipment. The days of 10 acre fields, multiple crops and unfarmed odd areas are gone, and consequently the birds as well. Making me depressed. Hard to stay optimistic.

PP - thanks for your post and I have to agree with your farmer friend when he says most farmers are greedy. I am reluctant to say that because it is easy to be blasted, and I am not a farmer and don't walk in their shoes. I have been a bird hunter for many years and have become pretty well acquainted with several farmers whose land I hunt. They don't owe me anything but I've established a relationship where they trust me to hunt their land and I reciprocate with courtesy and the occasional gift.

These are farmers who value having wildlife around and leave some habitat for the wild critters to thrive in. I don't know if it is a generational thing, but the farmers I'm talking about are getting up there in years and maybe their values are different? I don't know. But greed in this society is not limited to most farmers; it is everywhere. It seems a majority of people have lost their moral compass - I'm guilty of it myself at times and try to do better.

But back to bird hunting and habitat. There is another thread on the Nebraska forum here about eastern Nebraska. In it there is discussion about large scale, public acquisition of land and setting it aside in grassland, etc. Kind of like CRP has been but do it on a permanent basis and not subject it to renewal of a farm bill every 4 years, etc. I think the long-term answer lies in this type of approach - but how to do it? There is a private initiative to do just this type of thing going on eastern Montana now and they seem to be making good progress. If there is a will there is a way....

Here is the meat of the thread I'm referring to, and credit goes to RK Special K on this forum for offering this idea:


"Habitat and pheasant habitat specifically is a "We the People" thing. Soil Bank and CRP - we the people. NEVER expect the private sector to contribute in a significantly meaningful way to the habitat that we know is needed. The private sector does a lot of good things but it CANNOT do this.

We the People have to purchase 60 million acres for $200 billion, put it permanently to grass, and be done with this problem.

Private sector control of land is WAY, WAY, WAY out of wack and balance.

Our ancestors fought and died for the land then we handed it over to the private sector. Well enough for the majority of land but 10-15% has to be put back for other purposes besides $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!

Our NATIONAL HUNTING HERITAGE is at tremendous risk without it. It's evaporating like a mirage in the desert. That's been happening for 50+ years and is blatantly obvious.

I could almost care less what the private sector does with its 85% but this NEVER should have been done with 99.99999999% of it. NO WAY. Just plain old bad planning."
 
Last edited:
This post was in the thread entitled "Has anyone seen Eastern Nebraska"

I have other posts there that explain my views.

Here's the problem:

A very small %(maybe 2%) of Americans control 99%+ of our rural land. And the private sector that controls all this property, by its very nature and definition, has no motivation or responsibility to provide the other 98% of Americans with any of the benefits it would like to derive from this land.

Here's how it should be:

85% of rural land owned and operated with FULL private property rights and ability to squeeze every last $ from it EXCEPT those rights that would restrict the public from harvesting wild game animals on that property. The landowner doesn't own those animals - WE THE PEOPLE do. An easement for that purpose would be purchased from the landowner.

15% of rural land owned by WE THE PEOPLE, for the purpose of PERMANENTLY providing better quality soil, air, water, recreation and hunting.

I will make this statement: The BIGGEST(but not only) reason for the decline in the number of hunters is the refusal of landowners to provide habitat and unrestricted access on private property. Groups like PETA and the HUMANE SOCIETY love to see all the NO HUNTING signs. They know that making access VERY difficult and cumbersome will tremendously help their cause and eventual goal of ending ALL hunting in America. Why take away their guns. Make using them so difficult that we give up trying.

When I was a kid I hunted wherever I wanted - the farmers didn't care - usually they just waved "HI" to me. I simply walked their property - I didn't bust fences, shoot the tires or windows out of their farm equipment, encroach on the privacy of their residence or in anyway impair their ability to make a living off their land - I simply walked the property and shot a grouse or two. What? 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes max.

When I bought my 320 acres in ND, the first thing I did? Take down those ugly NO HUNTING signs. Rural litter and graffiti I call it.

Our NATIONAL HUNTING HERITAGE should be a right that's on equal footing with PRIVATE PROPERTY rights. A better balancing of our use of the land - for the benefit of the overwhelming majority.
 
I should be clear: When I say "unrestricted access" I don't mean driving vehicles on private property and, of course, there has to be safe shooting zones from occupied dwellings. Access by foot only - vehicles can be destructive no matter how careful a hunter is. If you have to walk a mile to get where you want to hunt, so sorry. Get in shape. It's called a balance between the rights of the farmer and the rights of the hunter.
 
Another point I want to emphasize:

As farming operations continually consolidate and get BIGGER, the % of Americans owning rural land is RAPIDLY declining. "Family" farms are getting larger and eventually(over the next 50-75 years) I see the vast majority of rural land being owned by a handful of corporations. A-Z MEGA-farming operations controlling everything from field to processing to supermarket shelves. They will secure a strangle-hold on the land as they hire savvy lobbyists and attorneys to "protect their private property rights". Meanwhile securing HUGE government subsidies to support low risk, high production of food - so our government can give it away to "Third World Countries". I see most of them banning hunting altogether as it will be viewed as a liability nuisance to the MUCH greater and important goal of rapid cash flow and profits for shareholders AND "to feed the world".

Under the current system of land ownership, that is my vision of Ebenezers' "Ghost of Christmas Future". Little Timmy Hunter dies.

Much like simulated golf, "hunting" will be done in large warehouses using huge simulation screens - you will even stand in real cattails, corn or shelter belts that are placed on the floors - before you on the screen, birds will flush or deer will appear from behind a tree............you get the idea........."just like Grampa used to hunt"!
 
Case in point:

I was in Idaho last year hunting quail. In my travels SE of Boise, I ran across a large area that held a good number of pheasants(and quail). However, it was heavily posted with large signs that read: Absolutely NO hunting or Trespassing - Violators will be prosecuted to the FULL extent of the law! STAY OUT.

As I found out, the SIMPLOT CORPORATION(potatoes) owns 10's of thousands of acres in Idaho including the area I was in. I talked to an employee at a warehouse and he told me that hunting is highly restricted to corporate management and Simplot customers - we employees need "special permission to hunt" but they allow NO others to hunt it. He added, "it's a waste because it hardly ever gets hunted". They just don't want to deal with the liability and hassle".

This attitude(to one degree or another), on the part of the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY(but not all) of landowners both big and small, is THE single biggest threat to the future of hunting in America.

The ONLY reason we have pheasants in significantly huntable numbers is because of a program called CRP - a WE THE PEOPLE deal. Yet, WE can't hunt unless WE pay or beg for permission. Without a grass program, there would be minor pockets here and there but numbers would COLLAPSE.

Even today, there are only "significantly huntable" numbers in about 30-40% of western "Pheasantland" because of the declining state of the CRP program.
 
RK, I respect your views, but I disagree to some extent. Having hunted Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas for pheasants over the past 15 years, I'd love to see more hunting opportunities, but I would never argue that the game on someone's land, which lives there largely because of the management practices and money spent by that landowner, should be available for me to hunt without that same ownership interest or management input. Or to be more precise, I wouldn't argue for that right if the public's money weren't being used to either develop that property for hunting (CRP), or to make it unhuntable (subsidized crops, leading to tiling, weed eradication, etc., etc.).

Where you and I probably would agree is that the farmer or landowner should not have it both ways. We've all seen CRP fields that the taxpayers helped underwrite, and we've seen what were once (not very long ago) prairie grass fields be plowed under to create marginal corn fields, so that more taxpayer subsidies can help grow that corn and then send it to subsidized ethanol refineries dotting the landscapes of rural areas in the upper midwest, to produce subsidized ethanol products that tear up my small engines -- and I helped pay for the disaster from the time the seed was put in the ground, to the time I pumped it into my engine -- unless I'm lucky enough to find a place where I can pay a little more to find ethanol-free gas.

To me, it's a lot like the debate over public-supported arts. Sure, Robert Mapplethorpe can create his grotesque "piss Christ" photos, but why in the world would he or his supporter ask the public to underwrite his work through National Endowment of the Arts grants, paid for by me? In other words, you can offend me all day long, but don't ask for me to pay for you to offend me.

That's my problem with the current state of tax-subsidized land practices. Either you do what you want with your farm without making me pay for it, or you accept the fact that if you want me to help pay for your subsidies, then you should be willing to give up certain rights in that property. If the subsidies went away, land prices for purchases and leases would settle to a more reasonable, accessible price, and we regular guys would have more access. Smaller parcels of marginal crop value would be more likely to change hands, and revert to good hunting property instead of marginal ag land, that's only in ag land because crop prices are artificially high.

But back to where we started -- I don't think public access to one's private property should be anyone's right. But I also don't think the private owner should benefit from my financial input to his property, so he can make that same property more personally beneficial to him, and less accessible to me. It's a crazy system, and it can't go on forever. But for the moment (or the past 5 or 6 years), it's a system that has created unbelievable wealth for those privileged landowners who were in the right place at the right time.
 
I would have to strongly disagree with this premise:

"the game on someone's land, which lives there largely because of the management practices and money spent by that landowner"

On the contrary, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY(but not all) of landowners are, at best, indifferent to wildlife habitat and contribute little in any way, shape, form, manner, or substance to habitat. Their priory is $ revenue ASAP-NOW! Landowners' "management practices" are for $ enhancement - NOT habitat enhancement. And I DO NOT blame or fault them one bit. It is NOT their responsibility to set aside habitat for the public to hunt it. And the history of private land ownership is one of poor stewardship practices(except to enhance $ production) and over-exploitation. That is why having 98% of the land privately owned by 2% of the people is a bad balance and is not going to benefit anybody except that 2%. The benefits that the other 98% would like to derive from the land will almost totally be disregarded. NONE OF OUR BUSINESS - STAY OUT!!!!....and leave it ALL up to the private sector to handle these matters.

Here's the answer to the dilemma:

85-90% of rural farmland should stay in private hands - they will do a lot of good with it by efficiently feeding the world. And they don't need subsidies - those that manage their risks will be in business - those that don't, won't. Farming is no different from any other business.

10-15% of rural farmland should be owned by WE THE PEOPLE for the purposes of enhancing air, water, soil, and habitat. After all, our ancestors fought and died for this land then WE THE PEOPLE handed it over to the private sector to inhabit and farm. Good idea for most of it. BAD idea for ALL of it.

All private land should be open to hunting. The public either has an implied easement to harvest what is theirs or WE THE PEOPLE need to purchase those easements in perpetuity from landowners and provide liability insurance. Farmers should farm and hunters should hunt. Landowners don't own the wildlife on the property and will do little, if anything, to support it for that purpose. Again, NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILTY nor are they motivated to do so. Less than 1% might try a bit but 99% could care less. That ratio is the scull and crossbones to hunting in America, especially pheasant hunting.

Granted, some wildlife co-exist fairly well with modern, aggressive farming practices. Even if every last acre of ground that could support a tractor were burned and tilled into food production, deer would still be around to hunt. BUT NOT PHEASANTS. Why DID we have pheasants? Because of early ragged, non-aggressive farming methods and the soil bank. Why DO we have pheasants now? C R P. Healthy, tall GRASS! The soil bank - WE THE PEOPLE. CRP - WE THE PEOPLE. Without WE THE PEOPLE - NO pheasants. If left to the profit motive of private enterprise, wild pheasants will disappear as sure as a mirage in the desert.
 
But I want to be clear: This WE THE PEOPLE property would be purchased from the private sector at fair market value. A mere $200 billion would purchase about 60 million acres - put that to grass in perpetuity and pheasants are forever.

This is not an expense - it's an ASSET on WE THE PEOPLES' balance sheet and would be a good investment.
 
Just like we have now. Reasonable safety zones from occupied dwellings and I would add - NO VEHICLES - access by foot only. Just plain common sense. All life is a balance and compromise between interests. As it stands today, it's WAY out of wack and will eventually be a BIG contributing factor in the demise of hunting in America.

When I was a kid, access was easy and almost a given. Kids today don't want the hassle of chasing down landowners and being increasingly denied permission. I'm almost at the breaking point myself and I'm a diehard. 99.9% of Western Pheasantland is posted, patrolled, and becoming more restrictive and hostile towards trespassers(I know, it's the LAW. They have every RIGHT to be mean and hostile about it). I've spent hours in just a day trying to find owners, knocking on doors but mostly admiring all the signs, tires, and buckets that scream "NO HUNTING".

The average age of a pheasant hunter has gone up a lot over the last 30 years. How many SUV's do you see in SD with those in their late teens and early twenties out hunting? They don't have $200 a day to pay a farmer and all the hassles of permission just aren't worth it. All the NO HUNTING signs simply discourage it. We older guys hang on for dear life cause we love it and learned to hunt when access was easy. Those days are over.

My Dad was 25 and my Uncle was 19 in 1949 when they first went to SD with 5 or 6 other guys that age. One of these guys grew up in SD and his parents had a big farm by the little town of Carpenter, SD. They stayed in the basement of the farmhouse in sleeping bags. In addition to hunting that farm, they were introduced to many other farmers in the area and access by both farmer and hunters was assumed but greatly appreciated. Farmers welcomed the hunters at no cost. Those days are over.

My point is simply this: When access becomes highly restrictive and costly, the activity of hunting will be greatly discouraged.

True hunting is close to the way Daniel Boone hunted. He surveyed a vast wilderness and hunted what looked promising. He wasn't restricted to a 200 acre "postage stamp" and asked to pay to hunt it. I know, those days are gone but a compromise of interests can restore it to some degree, I'm sure. And my opinion is that the future of our American Hunting Heritage depends on it.
 
I'm quite sure that even Daniel Boone wouldn't have hunted the yard areas of occupied/used cabins in the woods. I wouldn't even call that "hunting".
 
I will add this:

I live in the city. People walk by on the sidewalk all day and late at night only 10 feet from my front door. But I don't want them carrying a shotgun and hunting squirrels there. I don't feel that my privacy is compromised to any significant degree. Staying 600-900 feet from an occupied dwelling with a shotgun is not unreasonable and preserves a high degree of privacy.
 
Back
Top