Pheasant survey is out
- Thread starter landman
- Start date
I will end on one positive note and maybe a hint at where I might go this year. I predict that the state of Kansas still has some upside potential and that bird numbers will post a 3rd consecutive year of increases there. May even push total harvest towards 1 million. No it is still not as good as SD at the moment but is headed in a positive direction atleast in the near term.
benelli-banger
Well-known member
That is good to hear. I have never hunted pheasants there but I hear it is nice country. I did hunt turkeys there in 2002--though not in the pheasant range--but it is a state that I would love to hunt for upland birds sometime, especially since the late season is probably more temperate than some of the more northerly states that I hunt. I also suspect that it is "bigger country" as far as size of farms/ranches are concerned, and maybe less commercialized. Would have to imagine that access may be a bit easier? Don't know if I am correct there or not...either way, I hope it is a good season for you, and for all who frequent this board.
moellermd
Super Moderator
I am happy with the results of the report. The area that I hunt is up. Almost a whole whopping 2 birds per square mile. My regular group of 4 will go out almost every weekend. And we will all maybe get our limit 2 or 3 times all year. But that is ok. We get to hunt the whole day and have a great time.
UGUIDE
Active member
I spoke with a farmer from Illinois yesterday who likes to hunt birds and ""used to" in his state. He admitted to the fact that with ground going for $5000 acre you have to make it pay and that does not mean farming for pheasants. Even in MN I found that CRP rent is about half of want cash rent is going for.
That is not the case in SD but if that type of imbalance comes into SD then that is when I could see things really starting to slide for the worse.
Right now CRP rent is on par with CASH rent and farmers a liking the good programs and cost share to take out just the marginal acres.
Uncle Buck
New member
In the past, CRP was not utilized 100% with hunting in mind. As the program changes, I beleive many of the new contracts will be aquired by hunting and conservation interests. I see areas of concentrated holdings were crop prices have less effect. In the good old days of the late 50s and 60s I would also note there was far less public land than there is today, and no walk in. Private land was easier to access. Starting my 52nd season in SD AND WOULD NOT WANT TO BE ANYWHERE ELSE!!!!
________
Mac Game
________
Mac Game
Last edited:
NOW you see why I am so concerened..I dont want large areas of SD to turn into just another area that "used to have birds". That is why I have stated, based on fact, that this very scenario IS happening in SD right now "from east to west". The pheasant surveys and CRP expirations the past 2 years make this painfully obvious.
benelli-banger
Well-known member
Do you think that nobody else is aware of this? This is another "blinding flash of the obvious"...if land was still worth what it was 10 or 15 years ago, and cash rents were based on those levels, of course everyone would be fighting to keep CRP enrolled. It is all about economics.
But, those very economics motivate certain guys to enroll smaller tracts of marginal land into certain CRP programs, because it pays, and, because he can create an income stream based on hunting as well. Big block CRP will be much less prevelant. But like Uncle Buck said, the amount of public land, preserves, and smaller pay to hunt operations are much more prevalent than 30 or 35 years ago. Yes, SD may fall to 3 million or 4 million birds...my best year ever in SD as far as birds observed was a year when the statewide # totalled 3.6 million. It's about what is happening in your own area. You know, as I have said before, if numbers really dropped, and hunter #'s really fell, which they would most likely, gaining access would change again for the better. Pheasant hunting for me is split equally between the dogwork, the friendships (hunting buddies + farmers), the landscape of the prairies, and the pursuit of the quarry itself. It would take at least two of those components to disappear before I would even consider giving it up...more than likely it would be a reduction in trips vs. quitting. But I can control two of those items, the prairie landscape is gonna be there, so really, the quarry is the one component that could change the most in the shortest timeframe. And I will always have a huntable population of pheasants on my 1/4 section, given the fact that it is 100% habitat, and it is surrounded by both public land that is great wildlife habitat and 2 other private landowners who are very wildlife oriented. So, from there it is just a matter of maintaining the relationships I have with the 4-6 other farmers that let me hunt their ground. They are all involved in the pay to hunt game during the first 2-4 weeks of the season, so they have an interest in habitat development in varying degrees. Yes, some of their CRP has already come out, and more will, but more has been put in, and even more will be put in in the future.
I have never felt like it was my birthright to have the Dow at 14,000 or the SD pheasant population at 12,000,000 birds...it is great when they are at those levels, but it is just great to be alive and healthy, to walk those beautiful prairies behind a couple of loyal dogs, to have many, many great friends who like this stuff as much as me, and to have the time and money to do it, not to mention a family that wants me to take time for myself come fall and go be giddy. To each his own.
10-4 You and landman are in good shape for the future. It is just the scale at which things are happeing is what scares me. I appreciate the small, continuous tracts that are being enrolled.
You think about 200,000 acres. That is over 300 sections..an area that is 2 miles wide by 150 miles long that is going in one swipe here in 30 days. Scares me to death.
UGUIDE
Active member
Safari, I disagree. When you see farmers not able to sign up land they want to because CP37 and CP-38 are capped because everybody grabbed as much as they could is an indicator that the demand and desire is there.
I was told by a landowner near Aberdeen that when he signed up his CRP 15 years ago it was paying 2X the amount that cash rent was. Now it is just at par and is still desireable.
Because of previous general signup, good productive farmland is tied up and should be farmed.
The continuous programs of CRP do a MUCH better job of delivering value back to the tax payer by implementing conservation solutions that affect a whole community like soil erosion and water quality issues (aka, FWP, CP-37, 38, CP-5, etc.)
PF Biologists in Sd have doen an excellent job by working with farmers to sho them how they are lsoing money on their marginal acres and how these key CRP programs can actually make their whole operation more profitable. It works!
As I have stated I am all for the continuous programs BUT we are going to need a whole lot more allocation to even put a dent into what is going out. I dont know if I agree that General CRP rental rates are desirable as evidenced by the poor CRP extension acceptance rates that were offered prior to the massive 2007 expirations. This is especially true in eastern SD where land values are higher and farmland better. SD had the lowest acceptance rate in the country with regards to the aforementioned pre 2007 contract extension offers.
Bring on atleast another 50K in Safe..ditto duck nesting throw in 50-100K James River Valley CREP and you will see me a bit more optimistic.
UGUIDE
Active member
Where is that going to come from? Isn't the state and country capped on acres? Won't more have to expire to get new allocations? What am I missing?
benelli-banger
Well-known member
Yup, that is alot of land, no question about it. And, with that much coming out annually, for year after year, it will reduce the statewide bird count. But, the tide will turn at some point, and new enrollments will occur. The good news is that this bird can proliferate pretty rapidly given proper circumstances. I will personally have less land to hunt this fall due to CRP expirations. But, the piece that is expiring that I am thinking of I have been hunting in varying amounts since 1993, and the quality of that stand has been going downhill substantially for the past 5-7 years. The guy across the road put a stand in in about 2002, and that is the better stand now, and it has held the birds more consistently over the past few years...both are 1/4 sections...will bird #'s go down dramatically? Maybe, but I doubt it. The big difference for me will be that I don't have permission to hunt the piece across the road, but my guy will put food plots in (or leave corn stripped) on his side of the road, thereby keeping some hunting on his ground. I would love for his CRP to get re-enrolled, but at this time it isn't competetive enough. Things change. But, just a few years ago, DU acquired 2100 acres just a mile or so from this farm and did a "prairie restoration" project, and then sold the land back to SD GFP and opened it to hunting...it is full of small lakes as well, and they put in food plots on portions of this 3.5 sections of prairie. As desirable to hunt as the private land? Of course not. But I am damn glad it is there! It supports wildlife like you can't believe, and it ain't ever going away!
landman
New member
I don't think its going away either. As long as we have folks who love pheasant hunting, like benelli, Uguide and many others on this site, then good hunting is going to be around for a long time. I know that the USDA is considering a general sign-up next summer to replace the CRP that is expiring. Some CRP fields will be converted to crop and some crop fields will be converted to CRP in the next few years. Idealily the price per acre for CRP is set just high enough to get the number of acres that are desired. That is economics 101 also. We also must consider that pheasant habitat goes with soil conservation. If we lose pheasant habitat we also suffer more soil erosion and degradation in water quality in our streams. And that is not going to happen because there is a hightened awareness among the public about the importance of soil conservation.
UGUIDE
Active member
Landman, not to be a Safari here but....., USDA has considered ALOT of things that never happened. I consider this response from USDA as a "forward looking statement" which BB can attest to is a dangerous non-productive thing in the investment world which is why financial planners now have to put disclaimers on statements describing what might happen in the future.
I think the PF biologists are having such a dramatic impact and success in a new model (farm best buffer rest) that it will impact Washington and NRCS in such a way that General Sign-ups will not happen. Why? Because it is a shotgun approach to enrolling acres and does not fit the "farm best buffer rest" best practice. There is a lot of new data and info we have now that we did not have even 5 years ago and also a lot of new environmental issues on table.
I believe CRP will be more surgical in future. Ratio's like in FWP and CP-37 will be used to say, "you can enroll upland or croppable acres (good farmland) if you have so many acres of high priority land to enroll".
Another could argue that these CRP "tools" can add to bottom line of farmers where the general signup might not. And, they are a better return to the shareholder (landowners and taxpayers).
There's a battle going on right now with the cropping years history. The new change pass the EIS study but now is in a lawsuit with group of wildlife organizations that essentially have villagers with torches for members and don't have a clue as to what is going on in the field. These battles need to be fought on won in order for conservation to move forward. I'm told PF is staying out of this issue am I am not sure why but will have to trust judgement. I see the cropping years measure as well as the general sign-up as antaquated obsolete tools to determine viability, eligibility and value and far as public conservation dollars are concerned.
landman
New member
You're assessment may be correct but I hope that the USDA will use the general sign-ups to enroll enough acres to stay around that 32 million acre limit set by the 2008 farm program. Certainly the goal is to enroll enough acres in the Riparian Buffers, filter strips, wetland restorations and so forth but with so many acres expiring now I wonder if those programs will enroll enough acres. The rumer is that the next general signup could happen next summer. The SAFE CP38 program is essentually a general sign-up type of program since its only requirement is crop land eligibility.
I used to be a member of the Wildlife Federation but since they seem to be in the business of hindering our conservation efforts I've decided to drop them. I think they are in the middle of this cropping history fiasco.
UGUIDE
Active member
I forgot that CP-38 was that open. It does work like general but is capped now. I think it has to be 200 or 600' wide and minimum of 20 acres I believe.
I've gotten used to farm policy moving along at snails pace but stuff does get done and changes do get made. As long as smart people continue to battle for what is right hopefully the best management practices will prevail.
These last 2 FWP projects will essentially take the last maginal acreage out of production on the farm. There is one small riparian project, and some tree belt windbreaks a guy could put in but those are all dependent on cropping years eligibility which I do not have now unless it gets rolled forward.
There is one 80 acre field with erosion potential that could be enrolled fully on the CP-37 if that comes back into play but would also need the new cropping history.
I figure if everyone put in 25% of their acres in CRP we'd be in really good shape on a lot of different fronts.
If everyone put 25% of their acres in CRP that would probably amount to about 4 million acres in SD...just a guess.
In 30 days there will be approximately 1.5 million acres under the nationwide CRP cap (30.5 million acres). I agree that that is probably not enough cushion yet for a general sign up right now. However we are looking at more big roll outs in 2010. So there could be a signup at some point in 2010 with those new acres coming under contract after 10/1/2010. Either way I think we could free up some additional SAFE (CP - 38) acres in SD, MN, NB, IA and MO where they have currently "hit the wall". Ditto Duck Nesting in SD (CP-37). Those acres could actually come from within the existing SAFE allotment of 500,000 nationwide as some states are not getting good participation. Either way they should allot more acres immediately after 10/1/2009 to the above mentioned just to keep the ball rolling.
But yes there could be a general sign up in mid 2010 with contracts effective after 10/1/10.
Oh boy look at the time and date of this post...got to get to the dove field!
landman
New member
There are similarities between the CP38 and the General. Both must meet the same cropping history. The CP38 has some size requirements and it pays a little better than the General. The CP38 has its acres capped as a way to control how many acres are enrolled whereas the General is a competitive bid process to control how many acres get enrolled. The USDA could simply put enough acres into the CP38 program to bring enrollment to desired level but then you have the mad dash to get in before acres run out. The nice thing about the General is that it is competitive so you take the applications and enroll those with the most points until the money runs out. The CP38, since it pays more per acre and cost share is higher, costs the government more per acre than the General.
You very obviously have the crystal ball so you tell us.
It is patently obvious that most of the participants on this board enjoy the sport for much more than you can obviously appreciate, and certainly don't appreciate your supposed clairvoyance as if you were the lone warning cry.
There were hay days in the past, some real low points , too, and there will be the "good old days" again. Those of us who chase waterfowl probably didn't think in the 80's that we would see the tremendous surge in waterfowl that the water and crp of the 90's brought. Those who saw pheasant numbers plummet in the 70's and early 80's and again in the 90's probably didn't think we'd see pheasants like the golden days of the 60's but this decade has been the good old days for many of us.
Heck, in the early 80's, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had all but written off the the ringneck pheasants as a bird that would survive, and a few would be shot, but never again inhabit Minnesota in numbers enough to be considered a popularly pursued game bird. But some dogged bird hunters wouldn't accept that fate, organized a little grassroots conservation organization, got a state pheasant stamp passed, grew large enough to help lobby for CRP in the Farm Title, and now for the better part of the decade, Minnesota hunters have been harvesting about 1/2 million birds per season, and I would guess that about 499,995 thousand of those birds were harvested but a hunter who was enjoying himself immensely. Not millions of birds numbers like SD, but respectable numbers of birds that are just as enjoyable to hunt.
You are right. There is work to be done. SAFE was a start. General sign-up should be on the horizon. Producers, policy setters, and the general public will hopefully have learned the lesson of their shortsightedness of the last few years. But CRP has not gone the way of Soil Bank. There still are programs out there and demand still outpaces supply. Some will fatalistically throw in the towel and resign themselves to the country club. Those of us that care about more than headline setting numbers will pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and do our part to see to it that the last few years were not the sunset of the good old days but the sunrise, and the current "crisis" merely a rainy day. In the meantime, we'll enjoy every moment chasing the bird we love, whether we see one or we see a thousand.