Roadside Counts - Uffdah

Pheasant hunter from Michigan

I was born in Council Bluffs but have lived in Michigan for the last thirty years. We hunted the Toledo-Tama area from 1990 to 2009. We witnessed the heyday of the large areas of CRP and fantastic pheasant hunting. The decline, in such a short period of time, is mind boggling. We will be making our third trip to SD this year. A good farmer friend from Tama comes with us. He has seen one pheasant all summer. Very depressing. We can thank the advent of ethanol and the huge mega farms. It is sad but the day of the small farmer is a thing of the past.
 
BirdmanMI said:
We can thank the advent of ethanol and the huge mega farms. It is sad but the day of the small farmer is a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

So for birdman and all the other "huge farms are the death of us" people out there what is an exceptable size farm? How exactly does a "small farm" mean better habitat?
 
Well I will tell you what I see in regards to the size of the farm. When we had "family farms" farmers certainly cared about making money. They had every right to make money. Nobody blames them for that. Here's the difference in my opinion. I believe we are comparing "corporate owned farms" versus "family owned farms". A family lived on their farm, many times their family had homesteaded the land. This was their home. We all talk about farmers being stewards of the land. I believe the majority of families put intrinsic value on their property. Put it this way, if you look out your living room window would you want to look at dirt plowed from one road edge to the next or would your rather mix in some landscape that makes your property appealing to you. I'm not saying all farmers of yesteryear thought this way, I know farmers that couldn't care a less. What I'm saying is I believe more times than not they did. Let's compare that to a corporate farm. A corporation buys land they have zero attachment to. They look at their reports and try to determine how they can make as much money as possible off this piece of property. Do they care if the people in the region are hunters? No. Do they care if their balance sheet shows a profit at the end of the year. Yes. Will they make money producing corn? Yes. Will they make money if some guy and his dog walks a fence line and shoots a few birds. No. Do you get my point. Land is a commodity used to make money. Not pheasants. It's the brutal truth. To all those in North Dakota and South Dakota. Remember land is used to make money. If nothing changes you too will realize that it becomes more profitable to raise corn than pheasants. I feel like the grim reaper but I want someone to tell me i'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
wispringer said:
A corporation buys land they have zero attachment to. They look at their reports and try to determine how they can make as much money as possible off this piece of property. Do they care if the people in the region are hunters? No. Do they care if their balance sheet shows a profit at the end of the year.
Click to expand...

This type of situation you describe accounts for less than 7% percent of farms in the United States. The vast majority of farmers out there are family owned. Those family operations are just as likely to pull fences, tile wet spots ect.
 
No the end result is not any different. My point is that we are trying to create some big bad monster that we can blame for the changing of farming pratices. The reality is that "family farms" is who we are really blaming.
 
Well it seems to me big farms don't like waterways'tarrecces,woodland areas or CRP.But they have a good excuse My equipments to big thats why I have to get rid of them.:thumbsup: ASk em what about the enviroment? Another good answer what do I care:thumbsup: Yep the futures so bright I'm going to have to find a new sport:(
Must are good but the ones with world domination on their minds really don't care for nature or Iowa. It's all about them and who cares about being a desant human.
 
I've been reading this and some other posts and made think of this song that I heard on the radio the other day. I had posted it the lounge and don't know if anyone seen it or not. But to some extent parts of it has come true.It's by C.W. McCALL and was made in the 1970's. The name is There won't be no country music [There won't be no rock n roll].Just listen to it whenever you get a chance to request it on the radio and you'll see what I mean.
 
wispringer said:
Well I will tell you what I see in regards to the size of the farm. When we had "family farms" farmers certainly cared about making money. They had every right to make money. Nobody blames them for that. Here's the difference in my opinion. I believe we are comparing "corporate owned farms" versus "family owned farms". A family lived on their farm, many times their family had homesteaded the land. This was their home. We all talk about farmers being stewards of the land. I believe the majority of families put intrinsic value on their property. Put it this way, if you look out your living room window would you want to look at dirt plowed from one road edge to the next or would your rather mix in some landscape that makes your property appealing to you. I'm not saying all farmers of yesteryear thought this way, I know farmers that couldn't care a less. What I'm saying is I believe more times than not they did. Let's compare that to a corporate farm. A corporation buys land they have zero attachment to. They look at their reports and try to determine how they can make as much money as possible off this piece of property. Do they care if the people in the region are hunters? No. Do they care if their balance sheet shows a profit at the end of the year. Yes. Will they make money producing corn? Yes. Will they make money if some guy and his dog walks a fence line and shoots a few birds. No. Do you get my point. Land is a commodity used to make money. Not pheasants. It's the brutal truth. To all those in North Dakota and South Dakota. Remember land is used to make money. If nothing changes you too will realize that it becomes more profitable to raise corn than pheasants. I feel like the grim reaper but I want someone to tell me i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

i have seen whole sections, 640 acres, of corn and soybeans, in SD, more than anywhere else. it is just staggering to see that much row crop and i mean fence to fence, no waterways, nothing.......it looks like something right out of a movie, very unnatural.
 
You know boys we are preaching to the choir. The people that need to hear this is our state senators and representatives. This whole ethanol thing has more implications than just us hunters. The environmental impact goes beyond growing our ditch chickens. We only have one world, it's not disposable. Our government is responsible for creating a business environment where folks can make money, but not at the expense of our environment.

One guy said he was going to find a new sport. I understand his point, but I hope he doesn't. It would be lonely after the hunt if there was no one in the bar to b.s. with after the hunt. Have a good week fellas. :cheers:
 
Last edited:
To get my two cents in on the subject. I have been hunting pheasants for 10 years, I am now 28. I remember when I started hunting you could shoot your limit in pheasants in half a day and if you didnt, you were a bad shot. Last year was the first time in 10 years that I did not shoot a bird. Blame it on what you will, but I think it goes past Big Ag. I haven't hunted private ground with wild birds for five or six years.

Farmer's are much less willing to allow the average 28 year old guy to step foot on their land like they did 20 years ago. Why is that? I have several theories, but the main theory is a group of hunters that ruin for guys that actually take care of land, etc. Those are people we need to watch out for. Guys that jump fencelines, or shoot too close to buildings, etc. The list goes on and on.

Quite frankly, I hope the the population of pheasant hunters dwindles because that just means more opportunity for guys like us. I now have a 14 month old son and I'll be damned if he doesn't get to enjoy the hunt like I used to. I'll move away from the state I love if that means I can provide a pasttime to my son and grandchildren.
 
Dcup - I know that fewer hunters sounds attractive, heck who wouldn't want a bunch of hunting land to themselves. But the reality is that we need all the hunters we can get. We are in such a minority now that its killing us. It all comes down to who has political power. I'm not sure there are any more dimwits out there than there were 20 years ago. Believe me there were plenty back then. My two cents, I don't think a lot of land owners can relate to hunters and by not letting them on their land it removes their worries of any problems.
 
Unfortunately, I agree with Dcup. In theory, it would seem that we need all the hunters we can get for political reasons. In reality, we don't vote as a block and never have. We're not of like minds politically, and we don't have an effective lobby. Heck, we can't even agree on what the problem is!

People/hunters vote on a variety of issues. Some will vote based on hunting, but it is my opinion that most cast their vote based on some other issue (political party, taxes, abortion, etc.). Statistically most don't even vote!! The short version is that we hunters don't (and never have) all pulled in one direction in the voting booth.

I think the argument can be made that with an attitude like mine, hunting could "go away" if we don't have a larger voting block. I think Dcup's argument (and mine) is that hunting IS going away.

My argument is very simple, hunting is gone (for the most part) east of the Mississippi River. This happened with a larger number of hunters voting than we have today. Why? Because they didn't vote on hunting issues. So why would a larger voting block work now if hunters don't vote based upon hunting issues? What's changed? In addition, I don't recall hunting specifically coming up in a local, primary, or general election. The second amendment comes up frequently. However, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, (only the right to bear arms).

Big farms, small farms, and all the farms in between doesn't really matter. The economic and political climate are such that Dcup's 14 month old may never get to pull the trigger on anything but a pen raised bird.

As for me, I'd like to see hunter numbers dwindle as well. Unfortunately, the numbers won't decline fast enough to provide widespread quality hunting while on the way down. We'll simply continue to see too many hunters in too small of an area with marginal habitat.

The only answer I see is a strong lobby. PF is a start and I'm a member, but it's pretty obvious that all that's happening there is the ability to slow the decline of habitat. There's only so much they can do given the amount of funds they have to work with. More members would equal more funds, but they'd have to increase membership 50 fold to be able to effectively compete with other special interests.

Hats off to PF. In the mean time, we're going to need traffic lights or perhaps traffic cops to police all the traffic that comes to the central part of the country on opening day as there are fewer and fewer places for a quality hunt!
 
At the current rate of habitat loss versus habitat developement. No disrespect to Pheasants Forever, I'm a member also, you will see the end of upland birdhunting on any scale in your lifetime if your under 40. Most of us old timers are more into the experience of the hunt, mentoring youth, and dog work. We don't have but 10-20 years of pheasant hunting left. We make up the vast majority of hunters, and an overwhelming number of traveling non-residents. Sure we take a bird nowand then, but we are not the problem. We'll begone soon enough! The die is cast, without some unforseen radical economic or ecological change, bird hunting as we know it for quail, and pheasants is doomed. Iowa in particular, with it's Dr.Bendover attitude toward agriculture, is on the fast track to oblivion. The only thing we loose faster than pheasants,is pheasant hunters. In 1967 Missouri had 180,000 quail hunters, who harvested 4,000,000 birds! In 2010 we had less than 20,000,and harvested something less than 200,000. Which would you rather have.
 
"I guess it shouldn't shock anyone to see the results of the 2011 roadside counts. Am a witness to the unbelievable string of bad winters in the NC part of the state. Tack on the loss of CRP and the result is the lowest bird count in at least 50 years. I always feel like the glass is half empty but honestly does anyone think we are going to see any progress in the next 5-10 years? Better weather will help but the loss of habitat can't be made up. The bottom line is the vast majority of people, especially in urban areas, don't care. Talk to the average person in urban areas and their response is that they have bigger concerns than wildlife. In fact its not even on their radar. Big Ag is going to maximize profits, meaning the more land they can plow up and plant, the more money they can make. To hell with the fence lines, sloughs, ditches. I believe ethanol is here to stay. The thing that is bringing jobs and money to the great state of Iowa is also helping to change its landscape forever. For a father who has two young sons its heartbreaking."

Iowa
District Name Party Room Phone Committee Assignment
1 Braley, Bruce L. D 1727 LHOB 202-225-2911
2 Loebsack, David D 1527 LHOB 202-225-6576
3 Boswell, Leonard D 1026 LHOB 202-225-3806
4 Latham, Tom R 2217 RHOB 202-225-5476
5 King, Steve R 1131 LHOB 202-225-4426

Write to these people - tell them what you are seeing. Take a stand people. Those of you hunters that are seeing birds are the exception. Bottom line is the bird population has never been this low and the chances of it coming back naturally is slim. Big Ag and the few people who are getting rich are destroying the great state of Iowa and the many reasons you live here. I'm sure there are people here that are going to tell me I'm full of it, but go out in the field, hunt pheasants, see nothing, then come back and tell me differently. Is it right that we destroy our environment so a few get incredibly rich?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top