Party hunting pheasants in Iowa?

As far as bird populations are concerned, I have seen absolutely no correlation between hunting and bird numbers. For example, some of the best fields I hunt, we hunt with a few people, multiple times a year. We shoot several roosters each time, and each year, those spots are still the best. The same goes with public ground. IMO, if hunting pressure was negatively correlated with hunting pressure/harvest numbers, the public ground would be decimated. That's just not the case in my experience.

Obviously, it's an easy thing for us hunters to quote when the Iowa DNR says that more than 90% of roosters could be harvested each year without any negative impact on reproduction the following spring. However, I do genuinely believe this. On our own farm, we try and kill as many roosters as possible the last few days of the season to make sure the hens have access to the best cover and food sources through the tough winter. I am open to other theories, but I genuinely believe you could kill 95% of roosters off a given field and still have plenty of roosters to shoot the following year.
 
Birdman2 said:
Question. Why have limits on birds?
Click to expand...

I would assume to give everyone a more fair shake at the birds out there, particularly on public. For example, I was out in the snow last Friday and could have easily shot 10+ roosters on a piece of public ground that gets a ton of pressure. Situations like that happen rarely, but it certainly would have been to the detriment of future hunters this year..
 
That makes sense. I believe I read in Canada non-residents can't shoot Pheasants. They can only shoot Sharptails and Huns.
 
I'm glad there are parts of Iowa that have good populations of birds. I started hunting there in the 60's. Always hunted the SW corner of the state.
 
Birdman2 said:
That makes sense. I believe I read in Canada non-residents can't shoot Pheasants. They can only shoot Sharptails and Huns.
Click to expand...
There's other states that have similar regs for other species. I'm assuming Canada has it on pheasants due to a lack of population and they want to keep the opportunities to their residents.

In MN you can only be a resident to apply for a Prairie Chicken license. We also have an elk hunt in MN, also residents only. So that isn't a unique situation.
 
Elk hunting in Nebraska and South Dakota are resident only I believe. Just as musnster stated as to the limited populations.
 
Last edited:
So in some states and Countries we have laws that state only residents hunt on certain animals. I think this is protect their wildlife resources. Just like limits on birds. How long would we have Pheasants if there were no limits?
 
Birdman2 said:
So in some states and Countries we have laws that state only residents hunt on certain animals. I think this is protect their wildlife resources. Just like limits on birds. How long would we have Pheasants if there were no limits?
Click to expand...
Personally I don’t think it would have any meaningful impact on pheasant numbers. Pheasants are different than other animals mentioned. You can only shoot roosters, and they are easily distinguished in hunting situations. When only roosters can be harvested (everywhere with wild birds), hunting does very little other than gradually reduce the rooster count throughout the year. Pheasants are polygamous, and a single rooster can breed dozens of hens in the fall. As long as not every single rooster in a range was harvested (impossible, other than maybe for small isolated populations), then there will be little to no impact on the reproduction success of hens the following year. Considering that 80%+ of the roosters we shoot each year are young of the year, the impact would likely be very limited if anything at all over the long-term.
 
cyclonenation10 said:
Personally I don’t think it would have any meaningful impact on pheasant numbers. Pheasants are different than other animals mentioned. You can only shoot roosters, and they are easily distinguished in hunting situations. When only roosters can be harvested (everywhere with wild birds), hunting does very little other than gradually reduce the rooster count throughout the year. Pheasants are polygamous, and a single rooster can breed dozens of hens in the fall. As long as not every single rooster in a range was harvested (impossible, other than maybe for small isolated populations), then there will be little to no impact on the reproduction success of hens the following year. Considering that 80%+ of the roosters we shoot each year are young of the year, the impact would likely be very limited if anything at all over the long-term.
Click to expand...
*Spring*
 
People are greedy it seems, they would hunt a species to near extinction if allowed. I for one, don't think the roosters need to be harvested to a point of "just enough to reproduce efficiently"....I want to see an abundance so there are many that we can harvest without getting to the minimum point to sustain a population.
 
I do agree with Cylclone to some degree. Really, nature is the pheasants worst enemy. Poor nesting years result in low bird numbers, plain and simple. I live in Wisconsin and in 70% of the state there basically isn't a limit on Whitetail deer. I can shoot 6 deer right off the bat for $48 and it is $2 for every additional deer. I say no limit because there are very few guys that would ever shoot that many or even have enough time to shoot that many. I think the same applies to pheasants. You may have guys or groups that expose the situation, but a vast majority of sportsman are conservationist and would never shoot and shoot. I think harvest limits are definitely put in place to keep everyone honest. Like fishing, I don't set out to get a limit of whatever species I'm targeting rather looking for a taste for the family and a good time. On the other hand I know guys that will in fact not go home until they have a limit and do so day in day out. But, like Cyclone says if you leave the females to breed they will keep going. Just like a Tom Turkey or Buck, they are going to find and breed as many Hens and Does as they can physically do.
 
I would disagree that no limits would have any impact. Maybe in modern society, but the numbers would definitely go down in the long term. Case in point, prairie chickens in Minnesota. They were harvested by corporate hunting for food (using that term lightly as it was the 1800s) to near extinction in this state. Old pictures of PILES of birds. Eventually the population got so low they stopped harvesting them.

One could point to the buffalo as well. Of course there are habitat considerations as well. But I think it's a naive viewpoint to say that humans, given time, couldn't wipeout large populations of pheasants.

What you would have instead, are those pay to play places pulling up to public land and letting loose their hunters. Versus now they have to stay on their properties if they want to allow their hunters to shoot more than the daily limits because they are "planted birds" and don't count for the states bag limit (at least here in MN).
 
The part you left out was restrictions against harvesting females. In your examples, females were harvested in both cases.
 
CDUBS said:
The part you left out was restrictions against harvesting females. In your examples, females were harvested in both cases.
Click to expand...
Well sure. If there were no bag limits but you could still target roosters only, it would take time. But eventually the hens would be left with who to breed with? I fully agree that in this alternate universe were speaking of, that it would take years to get to that point. But eventually you would. And if you disagree I guess that's your call.

All I know is when someone says "we couldn't possibly make that species go extinct" humans are good at saying "watch me".
 
Yes, it's a dumb discussion because there should and always will be limits and quotas for harvesting game. I was simply pointing out that the comparisons weren't fair. Again, not an argument rather just friendly chat as the season nears the end for most or has already ended for some. I'm truly jealous of Iowa pheasant hunting as I live in Wisconsin which has little to no sustainable hunting population of pheasants, most are planted birds. I enjoy every minute I'm able to hunt in Iowa and would never do anything to hurt it!
 
I think the key distinction that CDUBS pointed out between every other example is that the pheasant harvest is limited to *MALES* only. Excluding poaching (shooting birds out of the ditch with rifles, hunting out of season, etc.), I don't think even the most pressured hunting areas in the country could get to the point of not having enough roosters around to breed hens in the spring. Just my 2 cents.

For what it's worth, I'm definitely in favor of bag limits, but for pheasants I don't think it's as much of a population concern as it is a "spreading the wealth" type of thing.
 
The problem that I have with 90 to 95 % number is that it's probably accurate in a vacuum. But as we all know there are always other variables that need to be factored in. High harvest numbers coupled with harsh winters, poor nesting conditions in the spring and increased predators will lead to decreases in the overall population.

So yes in a perfect setting 90 to 95% can be harvested but how often do we see that perfect setting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top