Road Survey

RK Special K, I remember those 1970's well, as that's when I got started. In those days, getting limts was unusual, if not downright a pipedream. However, worse than that was listening to all of the older relatives talk of the "good-old-days of the 1950's and 1960's, and how the birds were as thick as chickens....

Aside from mother nature, you can track the rise/fall of bird populations by the amount of soilbank (old days) and CRP (now). During those awful 70's, the soilbank program was over and farmers farmed fence to fence. With no winter food or cover, you know what happened to the bird population.

Talk is always cheap, as witnessed by the SD govenor calling for a "pheasant summit". As good as that may sound, they are simply whisling Dixie unless the CRP acres get fully restored (and soon). Without nesting cover, food, and winter protection cover, the bird populations will fall just like in the 1970's. If that happens, wild bird hunting will be replaced by expensive pen-bird hunting only at preserves or lodges.
 
It would only take about 20% of what we spent on foreign middle east boondoggles the last 20 years to purchase 10-12% of "pheasantland" and seed it to grass. $200 billion would purchase about 60 million acres. PF and state game departments would cooperate to get this done. Problem solved. No need to have PF spend endless amounts of effort on fickle, unreliable CRP programs. This would be a permanent soil bank that's NOT an expense - it's a hard asset that "we the people" own. Anything short of this is pure folly and is spending money to watch the island of "pheasantland" slowly shrink, shrivel up and blow away.

Let's face facts: Pheasants are not native to North America nor do they survive in intensely farmed areas. Our intervention is required for them to flourish by injecting sufficient amounts of TALL grass to the landscape. This happened with the soil bank and with CRP. Just have to make it more "permanent" - but nothing really is infinitely permanent. This land, if it ever was truly needed, could again be sold off. Good place for us taxpayers to park our hard-earned cash. And the benefits to the soil, air and water go far beyond the benefits to hunters and rural economies.
 
RK Special K said:
It would only take about 20% of what we spent on foreign middle east boondoggles the last 20 years to purchase 10-12% of "pheasantland" and seed it to grass. $200 billion would purchase about 60 million acres. PF and state game departments would cooperate to get this done. Problem solved. No need to have PF spend endless amounts of effort on fickle, unreliable CRP programs. This would be a permanent soil bank that's NOT an expense - it's a hard asset that "we the people" own. Anything short of this is pure folly and is spending money to watch the island of "pheasantland" slowly shrink, shrivel up and blow away.

Let's face facts: Pheasants are not native to North America nor do they survive in intensely farmed areas. Our intervention is required for them to flourish by injecting sufficient amounts of TALL grass to the landscape. This happened with the soil bank and with CRP. Just have to make it more "permanent" - but nothing really is infinitely permanent. This land, if it ever was truly needed, could again be sold off. Good place for us taxpayers to park our hard-earned cash. And the benefits to the soil, air and water go far beyond the benefits to hunters and rural economies.
Click to expand...

in other words, the fact that we have even had pheasants is nothing more than shit house luck?
 
Pheasants are very tough birds, and have survived here for over a century. However, the difference between seldom seeing one vs. good huntable populations is habitat and predator control. Even during the dust bowl days of the 1930's, there were good numbers of birds, surviving on the large number of grasshoppers.
 
hunter94......

On the contrary, pheasant success in North America was the result of many trial and error releases in the late 1700's and into the 1800's. Nothing seemed to work until..........

they were released in 1891 in Oregon's Willamette Valley, a raggedly farmed area with lots of tall weeds and grass mixed with some farm crops. They EXPLODED in numbers......"finally, we dialed it in! - we figured it out!

I think if they had paid more attention to where they came from in China, this may have happened sooner. But I don't think China ever had the numbers that we eventually achieved here. A checkerboard mix of crops and grass was a "super-charged steroid" habitat that sent numbers through the roof.
 
I'm not a believer in predator control, here's my theory:

If you provide lots of good pheasant habitat, there will be more predators BUT there will be LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of more pheasants. More than predators can take a significant percentage of.

I see a LOT more predators in SD than I do here in Michigan but the favorable habitat for birds in SD literally overwhelms the ability of predators to impact them much.

If there is good bird habitat there WILL be more predators but MANY more pheasants. So I welcome the predators.......enjoy the bounty. Also, predator control is not a cost-benefit winning proposition.
 
RK Special K said:
hunter94......

On the contrary, pheasant success in North America was the result of many trial and error releases in the late 1700's and into the 1800's. Nothing seemed to work until..........

they were released in 1891 in Oregon's Willamette Valley, a raggedly farmed area with lots of tall weeds and grass mixed with some farm crops. They EXPLODED in numbers......"finally, we dialed it in! - we figured it out!

I think if they had paid more attention to where they came from in China, this may have happened sooner. But I don't think China ever had the numbers that we eventually achieved here. A checkerboard mix of crops and grass was a "super-charged steroid" habitat that sent numbers through the roof.
Click to expand...

ya, the pheasants started the made in china problem

cheers
 
UGUIDE said:
All the locals I know, that know a local outfitter, says they are putting birds out.

The economics is exactly the incentive to do it. You can put a lot of birds out on the same acres every day and pressure is not an issue. Cost of land rent is down.

Fair Chase requires acres, quality and management.
Click to expand...

A lot of questionable activities can be financially attractive in specific situations. Rarely does that equate to a substantial impact on the integrity of a market, interest or a pursuit as a whole. Pheasant hunting in SD is no different.

According to a pretty thorough SD GF&P report roughly 13% of the wild pheasant hunting efforts in 2012 took place on private land fee hunting operations. Even if every single rooster taken by those individuals (and we know that is not the case) was a planted bird it would not invalidate the states survey results or their conclusions.

Also the idea that planted birds truly endanger pheasant hunting or the pheasant hunting "brand" in South Dakota is simply urban legend, gossip & hyperbole. The truth is the odds of running into a planted rooster during the 80 plus % of the time hunters chase wild roosters away from private outfitting operations & away from licensed preserves is negligible to the extreme.
 
Downtown Bang! said:
A lot of questionable activities can be financially attractive in specific situations. Rarely does that equate to a substantial impact on the integrity of a market, interest or a pursuit as a whole. Pheasant hunting in SD is no different.

According to a pretty thorough SD GF&P report roughly 13% of the wild pheasant hunting efforts in 2012 took place on private land fee hunting operations. Even if every single rooster taken by those individuals (and we know that is not the case) was a planted bird it would not invalidate the states survey results or their conclusions.

Also the idea that planted birds truly endanger pheasant hunting or the pheasant hunting "brand" in South Dakota is simply urban legend, gossip & hyperbole. The truth is the odds of running into a planted rooster during the 80 plus % of the time hunters chase wild roosters away from private outfitting operations & away from licensed preserves is negligible to the extreme.
Click to expand...

Bang, I concur with your latter 2 statements. The former rings of resonance with my first attendance at the SD Dept of Tourism's annual Tourism conference in Pierre in Jan. One of the speakers they hired said "Don't lie to your customers". It does not take much die in the water to stain it.

I do like that SD does not have a licensing process for being an outfitter except for preserves. Always thought this was a quality trade-off.

Caveat Emptor!
 
I wish pheasants were like ruffed grouse - impossible to pen-rear and release.

That would keep the phony, canned-hunt operations from tainting the concept of real hunting.
 
RK Special K said:
I wish pheasants were like ruffed grouse - impossible to pen-rear and release.

That would keep the phony, canned-hunt operations from tainting the concept of real hunting.
Click to expand...

What you have to understand is that there is a segment of the population that doesn't care if they are wild or pen raised birds. They come from out of state, pay the big bucks and shoot some pheasants. And as long as there are enough willing to pay the hunting operations will continue. I have a friend that has a hunting operation on the family farm. 100% wild birds, no pen raised at all. They manage the property very well but his fees have steadily increased. Years ago it was like $150/day to hunt, then $200, then $250, then $275, and now he's up to $350/day and booked full. That's just to hunt. No lodging or meals, that's extra. Lodging with meals is another $125/day.
 
:thumbsup: More power to him. I think it's a good thing that a farmer can make his farm profitable.
Here in WA State, you're almost forced to to hunt a private pheasant preserve
if you want to get your young dog in front of some birds. All of the pheasants are released birds in WA.
 
Boy, am I itching to move to SD!
 
As soon as I retire I'll be in Pierre with a smile on my face.
 
RKSpecialK, you are correct about when birds are plentiful predators are plentiful. However, when the bird count is down, the lack of predator control will keep the numbers down. Have you ever actually visited a fox den littered with mass qtys. of pheasant feathers and bones? Or, have you ever seen the empty nests in an alfalfa field after the skunks and coons have made a raid?

I have witnessed both while growing up on a farm. In recent years, pelt prices have been down, and predator numbers have gone through the roof, especially in eastern SD.
 
I haven't seen what you mention but I certainly believe you. Predators enjoy hunting as much as we do.

They also act like us. When bird numbers are down predator pressure is WAY down.

Habitat enhancement is the key to numbers. I believe the theory goes something like this:

For every $1000 spent on habitat, you get 50 more birds

For every $1000 spent on predator control, you save 5 birds

It's a cost-benefit thing. My money is on habitat and I'll welcome the predators in sharing the bounty. But I do "take them out" whenever given the opportunity.

Here in Michigan, I believe that if every last predator was exterminated, the effect on numbers would be negligible(if not non-existent). Why? Cause the habitat here is VERY, VERY poor. NOT because the predators ate all the birds.
 
Decided since I had the day off today to do a little road survey of my own. Took majority back roads the whole trip. Also got the dog a bit of pre season work. Drove from Sioux Falls to west of Mitchell this morning. Stopped at a couple areas that I had great luck with last year and let the dog get a bit of work in. First field and first bird got a nice lock up point from my 2 year old black lab, great sign of thing for years to come. Found a good number of birds in every public area we walked. Saw plenty of birds the whole drive along the roads picking up gravel. Cover looks great in 95 percent of public lands that I drove by and walked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top