Near Extinction

winchestermodel50 · Post by **winchestermodel50** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:14 pm

I went hunting last weekend about 40 miles Northeast of Dodge City. I live in Kansas and have hunted in this area for the last 35 years. I went to college with a fairly large farmer in the area and he can get access to some of the best stuff in that area so it has been a beneficial relationship for me over the years. We went out earlier in the year to no avail. I wouldn't have shot a bird anyway because of the low numbers. I restrained myself on 3 opportunities opening day last year and never got another one that year. My farmer friend told me that in nearly the last 50 years, he has never gone without shooting a bird and he wasn't going to get skunked this year. He did a little scouting and got some permission on 80 acres of uncut milo that was starting to lay down. It was poor milo but actually had quite a bit of grain in it. Ordinarily, birds would call in from miles around and this stuff would be crawling.
I dropped 3 "Sonny" bred shorthairs on this 80 and we sectioned it 4 times back and forth working to the West edge. The ground was soft from a recent snow and we never cut a track, a bird dropping or a feather. We then went to a pet 80 of CRP with milo across from it that we are pretty sure hasn't been hunted this year. We worked it hard back and forth to the North end with 3 live dogs down and we never cut a track, dropping or feather. We couldn't find any tracks on the road along the milo.
I then drove to a half section of CRP that is a sanctuary. I don't think anyone has been allowed to hunt it in a number of years. It's a half section of CRP with milo and other crops adjacent to it on 3 sides. This place has crawled for years. I walked the road for a quarter mile without seeing a track until I hit a draw of large sunflowers in the CRP feeding out to the road and the milo. I finally found one pheasant track going across the road.
This area has had a 95-99% bird kill. Wildlife and Parks says birds can bounce back surprisingly fast, but my experience after seeing a large area hit by 3 concurrent hailstorms in a years time, is that it took a full 3 or four years to get back significant numbers. The hail kill was really bad, but nowhere near this bad. Birds from outside the area helped fill it in but there a very few birds left outside this area due to these same drought and heat conditions.
I hear the Northern part of the state is better with some areas actually being fair. Guys tell me they hit some pretty good pockets of birds around some irrigation tailwater pits. I have doubts that Western Kansas will ever recover from this setback. When numbers get this low, predation and changing farm practices are going to play heck on any kind of recovery. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but Shucks!

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:12 pm

Extirpation, perhaps.
Pheasants are lucky regarding the ease with which they can return to an area.
Some other gamebirds are not so blessed.

Considering the lack of young pheasants that survived in some areas of Kansas last year, this next spring season will really tell the tale for a few years.

whatsnext · Post by **whatsnext** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:42 pm

Last week i hunted three days in NE Kansas and only saw 4 pheasants and the cover looked good to me, I think the heat had a big part in pheasant numbers around the area i was.

4ShotB · Post by **4ShotB** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:57 pm

I think you would be surprised at how well they can recover (given the right conditions). I have hunted OK/KS for a number of years. Wouldn't mind seeing the season shortened a bit for at least a year. With that being said, let's all pray for a good season weather wise out in your neck of the woods. A buddy of mine said he saw more pheasants this year in a part of OK than he had seen in at least 4 years..this in an area that i had given up on. I thgink when bird numbers decrease, so does hunting pressure.

tfbirddog2 · Post by **tfbirddog2** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:39 pm

I am 36 years of age and have been hunting the great state of Kansas since I was 8 years of age, I'm a professional guide now and love what I do. I sit on the Pheasents Forever Board of the local chapter. I to actaully have to agree it wouldnt hurt me if that took the limit to 3 aday even 2 if it had to be, due to it seems Kansas Dept of Wildlife never really looks at numbers and the year in which perhaps may have not been a good year from population outlook. I can recall in 93 floods all over the state North Central was hit hard( Glen Elder,Cawker City area) were hit hard from the rains and floods at crucial times nesting and chick time, yet came back 4 years later and the birds were back and doing well! The ringneck is the most prelific concuror of any mammal from starting from hundreds of pairs in the 1860's It will take them time to repopulate, but I think some measures need to be taken by the state!

codym · Post by **codym** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:19 pm

I've never hunted Kansas and i'm not as fimiliar with them as I am with the desert species, but it seems like there should be more concern over the rapid and wide spread decline of the bobwhite quail. It seems like phez can rebound much better than the gentleman bob. I am really worried that I may see the end of wild bobwhite hunting in my lifetime.

Tejas · Post by **Tejas** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:17 pm

codym wrote:I've never hunted Kansas and i'm not as fimiliar with them as I am with the desert species, but it seems like there should be more concern over the rapid and wide spread decline of the bobwhite quail. It seems like phez can rebound much better than the gentleman bob. I am really worried that I may see the end of wild bobwhite hunting in my lifetime.

I'm with you. There have been many causes postulated, but I think the proliferation of deer hunters has to have something to do with it. There are large areas of Texas that are virtually unchanged over the past 50 years, yet the quail just seem to dissipate.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:29 am

tfbirddog2 wrote:I am 36 years of age and have been hunting the great state of Kansas since I was 8 years of age, I'm a professional guide now and love what I do. I sit on the Pheasents Forever Board of the local chapter. I to actaully have to agree it wouldnt hurt me if that took the limit to 3 aday even 2 if it had to be, due to it seems Kansas Dept of Wildlife never really looks at numbers and the year in which perhaps may have not been a good year from population outlook. I can recall in 93 floods all over the state North Central was hit hard( Glen Elder,Cawker City area) were hit hard from the rains and floods at crucial times nesting and chick time, yet came back 4 years later and the birds were back and doing well! The ringneck is the most prelific concuror of any mammal from starting from hundreds of pairs in the 1860's It will take them time to repopulate, but I think some measures need to be taken by the state!

"Hundreds of pairs in the 1860's" ??? It has been my understanding it was less than a hundred in 1881 in Oregon. Unless there was a special Kansas release, their spread is even more amazing. But 130 years have brought a lot of changes to the habitat.

tfbirddog2 · Post by **tfbirddog2** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:11 am

Well I have heard it both 100 and 300, and sorry I was off 20 years, never the less the most prolifect concur of any mammal on earth. My point being they cover this continent from almost one end to the other. And no special release in Kansas. They will survie, but we need to help them.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:17 am

tfbirddog2 wrote:.....never the less the most prolifect concur of any mammal on earth. My point being they cover this continent from almost one end to the other. ....

Could you explain both those sentences a bit more.
Having difficulty following.

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:17 am

tfbirddog2 wrote:Well I have heard it both 100 and 300, and sorry I was off 20 years, never the less the most prolifect concur of any mammal on earth. My point being they cover this continent from almost one end to the other. And no special release in Kansas. They will survie, but we need to help them.

Birds aren't mammals but you are right, birds are more prolific than mammals. As far as covering the country I am not aware of many in the southern 1/3 ot the forest of the eastern states and the northeast. You might be lucky to find a population in a 1/3 of the country or there abouts.

Ezzy

Brazosvalleyvizslas · Post by **Brazosvalleyvizslas** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:29 am

We release hundreds every year and they are all gone in a matter of months so I'm not sure how prolific they are.

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:04 am

Releasing young birds and having them disappear has nothing to do with prolific. But there is no point in worrying about prolific if the habitat is not adequate for them.

Ezzy

Brazosvalleyvizslas · Post by **Brazosvalleyvizslas** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:35 am

Who said anything about young birds and how would you know about the habitat that we release them in?

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:51 am

It's pretty obvious that pheasants are prolific.....given the rooster to hen ratio.
The condition of the released pheasants does matter re the habitat released into and that which surrounds the habitat...watching.
However, not many would argue that pheasants, comparably, do not rebound vey quickly given opportunity.

Quail are also a reasonable bird to raise and release...they tho are far more touchy under survival's touch.

Some birds tho do not have the advantages of either the lucky quail or more lucky pheasant....ie the ruffed grouse.
Trap and transfer of Bonasa U has been done with poor results and raise and release has never been profitable in any measure whatsoever....however, both failures are indeed a good thing.
I would never wish for a ruffed grouse to be level with either a pheasant or a bobwhite.
Too much would be lost.

Kansas will cycle back with pheasants but, as I mentioned, this Spring will go far in determining how quickly, how strongly and for how long the return will be in several areas of the plains.
Lomg term is still up in the air.
Likely it will be positive as set-asides cycle thru their popularity but more folks with more self-focus is an unstoppable trend facing all gamebirds....and then there is that pesky declining Ogallala to consider into the longterm mix.

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:59 am

Brazosvalleyvizslas wrote:Who said anything about young birds and how would you know about the habitat that we release them in?

I have never heard of anyone keeping old birds for releasing.
My first clue about habitat is that you have a need to release.
Second clue is they all disappeared.
Third reason is there is precious little good habitat left for the birds.
But maybe I should have included environment to be more accurate.

I really wasn't trying to judge your release but was making a point that what you described has nothing to do with prolific. Prolific is usually used to describe how rapidly they reproduce.

Ezzy

tfbirddog2 · Post by **tfbirddog2** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:02 pm

I have done pheasent and quail releasing projects over the years. You can do it all you want but you have to release them into habitat, into spring wheat fields, draws, tree rows ect... Here is a tid bit for you a pheasant will range approximantly up to 2 to 3 ,miles from where there are hatched. There is plenty of habitat out there, but the problem with that is, is it chick habitat. Last year in Kansas our Harvest was a month to a month and half early making it tough for chicks without there usuall habitat of green wheat for bugs and dew. And 17 days staraight of 100 to 100+ degrees during chick time change alot of things for the birds. A old tale for the birds out here is " If you raise a wheat crop, you raise a pheasant crop", we had wheat, but it was harvested early, cuase other wise we would have one.

Fester · Post by **Fester** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:52 pm

areas are experiencing what we went thru in western Ky 15 years ago, there are some birds here now but I won't shoot them as much as I love wild birds I will go to a canned hunt or travel, I would give anything for them to return to 25 years ago
Fester

tfbirddog2 · Post by **tfbirddog2** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:58 pm

I hear you Fester, 90% of the time I guide for a preserve, and not to much for myslef. But this year I have turned down 44 hunters to guide for myself on all of my leases and this being the awful year for birds and I have the number of people that have called me, when I have averaged maybe 8 to 12 guys, doesnt even make since. I've turned them away as to not hurt my spots for next year.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:34 pm

"tfbirddog2 wrote:.....never the less the most prolifect concur of any mammal on earth. My point being they cover this continent from almost one end to the other. ...."

"Could you explain both those sentences a bit more.
Having difficulty following."

Still wondering,t.

I also have heard the old saying that "it takes 7 years to make a crop of wheat."

The lack of dew past April in a large part of Kansas is what did in the chicks as much as anything.
Post-hatch weather will be critical in 2013.

tfbirddog2 · Post by **tfbirddog2** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:10 pm

Well the ringneck is not native to North America, they were brought here in small numbers yet have populated them selves and can be found through out most of the U.S., not all but most.
Are chicks here are born in late May early June, usually you see month old chicks when the combines are rolling at there regular time at the end of June. If we get the spring rains to make weeds grow and the wheat grow, with a good canopy there will be bugs, we didnt even really have grasshoppers, and mosquitos werent a issue this year. Our 100+ temps arent usually til late July and August.
IMO it's going to be 3 years with good springs that will rebound these birds quickly.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:21 pm

tfbirddog2 wrote:...IMO it's going to be 3 years with good springs that will rebound these birds quickly.

I would agree...it will require a weather trend rather than an event to most help the pheasants in the plains.

I would disagree that pheasants have populated themselves over most of the United States.
The nature of raise and release, served up by Preserves and DNR programs, artificially accomplished that in the largest part.
Failures, once habitat changed with progress, has been the rule in some states that once harvested large numbers of birds, some reaching at or close to a million pheasants.
Pheasants have always needed help...it is just that the help they require can be, comparably, child's play...apart from Ma Nature of course.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:28 pm

The nature of raise and release, served up by Preserves and DNR programs, artificially accomplished that in the largest part.

If this was true we would have pheasants running all over anywhere near a relese point and it just doesn't happen. I can take you to several local areas where somewhere near 10 to 20 thousand have been released and there isn't a pheasant to be found. We even tried releasing hens in the spring and I think we had a few nest and hatch but not sure there were any young that survived till fall.

Ezzy

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:04 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
The nature of raise and release, served up by Preserves and DNR programs, artificially accomplished that in the largest part.
If this was true we would have pheasants running all over anywhere near a relese point and it just doesn't happen. I can take you to several local areas where somewhere near 10 to 20 thousand have been released and there isn't a pheasant to be found. We even tried releasing hens in the spring and I think we had a few nest and hatch but not sure there were any young that survived till fall.

Ezzy

Not sure of your point.
I was addressing the previous poster's comment about pheasant populations over most of the US.
The sentences before and after the above quote serving to explain....I thought.
Those two sources mentioned, in this area, are the lion's share of releasers.
In other words, if you find pheasants pretty much east of the Big River, they have originated from those two sources, to my eye.
There is also a point to be understood concerning the viability of a pheasant population...rather than the existence of an artifical population....they should not be considered the same tho often, they are.

I did not address or intend to address the success or failure of raise and release.
Pennsylvania R&Red 200K this season....I reckon only a small % remain alive....some will, but released birds can face a tough go even with a good hand dealt.
Not sure how many Ohio released as I never buy a license here any more.
Could it help jump start some areas?...possibly, given a bit of luck and habitat but released birds are often a weak bird when they need most to be tough.

My only other point re R&R is that it's success with pheasants is comparably better...miles better in fact, than with a bird such as the ruffed grouse.
As also noted, that is a very, very good thing.

tfbirddog2 · Post by **tfbirddog2** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:25 pm

Sorry Mountaineer, but the pheasant populated itself across most of the U.S. before the coming of the preseves, and bird ranches.
And sorry but Im not going to get into with some jackwagon either that wants to respond to this thread, but sorry your right there is help of releasing and the State of S. Dakota does release cuase the guy we buy our birds from is contracted through Macfarland Hatchery to deliver birds and release them for the state, you cant have a Billion dollars industry for a state harvest 1 million plus birds have the hard winters they have and not have birds the way they have for years!!!! It is not possible! Duh they release million dollar tag birds to draw revenue to the state!
Anyways yes the state of Kansas personally needs to get on board! I will get off my soap box! Take my post for what its worth my opinion or if you want 36 years old,28 years of hunting, and professional hunting in Kansas for 11 years. P.F. Board member for 8 yrs. Just stating what i know, what Ive seen. Not meaning to get anybodies hackles up.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:04 pm

tfbirddog2 wrote:Sorry Mountaineer, but the pheasant populated itself across most of the U.S. before the coming of the preseves, and bird ranches.
And sorry but Im not going to get into with some jackwagon either that wants to respond to this thread, but sorry your right there is help of releasing and the State of S. Dakota does release cuase the guy we buy our birds from is contracted through Macfarland Hatchery to deliver birds and release them for the state, you cant have a Billion dollars industry for a state harvest 1 million plus birds have the hard winters they have and not have birds the way they have for years!!!! It is not possible! Duh they release million dollar tag birds to draw revenue to the state!
Anyways yes the state of Kansas personally needs to get on board! I will get off my soap box! Take my post for what its worth my opinion or if you want 36 years old,28 years of hunting, and professional hunting in Kansas for 11 years. P.F. Board member for 8 yrs. Just stating what i know, what Ive seen. Not meaning to get anybodies hackles up.

Lad,
Private stabs at pheasant stocking occurred slightly before 1900 in Pennsylvania with the PGC itself stocking pre-WWI.
They got going into gear in the 20s.
"Bird ranches" are a plains thing....private stocking tho was not.
Private stocking was indeed a Preserve of a sort...only more private...for example, LaBranche, the dry fly guy, on the NY-Conn. border was releasing a bunch of pheasants pre-depression....along with importing some of the first GSPs.
The pheasant did not populate itself across the length and breadth of the United States....unaided....or in wide measure outside of the factors I mentioned.
You appear to be drinking some pheasant kool-aid.

Still having trouble following you but not sure that anyone does not know that SD releases pheasants...they are required to release in fact on Preserves, to the tune of some 125% or thereabouts of harvest.
Preserves of whatever name, are a business...who believes they are not?

No hackles raised...just need to get your facts straight.
Read a bit more on your bird of choice....and we will both keep our fingers crossed for some consistently good Kansas Springs.

Jackwagon?

Brazosvalleyvizslas · Post by **Brazosvalleyvizslas** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:00 pm

I challenge the statement that pheasants populated through "MOST" of the U.S.. Maybe we can hear from people who live in states that don't have any kinda like a roll call. I'll start, there's none in Cali, how about AZ, LA, TX, AL, MS, FL, AR, NM, VA, UT, WA? Notice the question mark and if anyone has experience in those states and they had wild Phez. Populations please tell u's.

Quail and chukar numbers are way down as well.

brad27 · Post by **brad27** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:42 pm

there's none in Cali,

There used to be................

Hattrick · Post by **Hattrick** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:09 pm

We had huge numbers in MD an PA up intill the mid 80s. in about 5-8 yrs there was nothing an now more of nothing. Sucks!! The state did have a dry up program thru the early 80s to make more ground farmable. Alot of the drain ditchs and wet lands that once made perfect habitate was removed and made farmable. I feel that the lack crp ground being given up in Kanas will resolt in the same thing that happen here. No cover the predators take over and birds cant recover. I hope im wrong

tommyboy72 · Post by **tommyboy72** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:33 pm

I think current farming practices have a lot to do with it as well as the droughts we have been experiencing here in the Oklahoma panhandle. The CRP is so thinned out and short that it doesn't make for good nesting sights and the fact that more and more farmers are planting cotton and cleaning up their farming to the point that there is not a morsel of grain left on the ground or stalks for the birds to eat through the winter that really does a number on the birds. Birds can't eat dirt and the blowing dust and dirt around where I live has gotten worse and worse over the years. There are large tracts of CRP but the land that is farmed is never left with anything on it to hold the soil in place during times when there are no crops planted on it. The wind blows constantly out here so you would think some of these guys would want to leave some stalks or blowdown or something on it to keep the soil in place but they don't. The state of the CRP around here is due in large part to the droughts we have experienced the last couple of years. The days of seeing large fields of wheat, milo, corn, soybeans and sunflowers are largely over in my area of the country. The development of different strains of wheat and corn that are shorter so that they don't blow over in heavy wind doesn't do much for overhead cover for pheasant and quail trying to hide in crop fields either. I don't farm and don't fault farmers for wanting to make as much money as they can but I believe their practices are inadvertently effecting upland bird populations around here anyway.

Post by **Sharon** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:54 pm

Excellent video on what Britain is doing to restore the Gray partridge (Huns).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG5y6EEz5ho

Brazosvalleyvizslas · Post by **Brazosvalleyvizslas** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:18 pm

I agree Brad but what has caused the drop in numbers here in Cali?

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:26 pm

Brazosvalleyvizslas wrote:I challenge the statement that pheasants populated through "MOST" of the U.S.. Maybe we can hear from people who live in states that don't have any kinda like a roll call. I'll start, there's none in Cali, how about AZ, LA, TX, AL, MS, FL, AR, NM, VA, UT, WA? Notice the question mark and if anyone has experience in those states and they had wild Phez. Populations please tell u's.

Quail and chukar numbers are way down as well.

You mentioned some, but it we be easier to just say the Southeast and most everywhere east of the Mississippi.

Brazosvalleyvizslas · Post by **Brazosvalleyvizslas** » Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:41 pm

Exactly! So we can't say that pheasants inhabibited MOST of the US. Sorry I'm not trying to be abrasive but realistic.

whatsnext · Post by **whatsnext** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:06 am

If it is not profitable to have good habitat for hunting than why should farmers care ? Unless they are hunters or have family that are they are going to continue to try and increase profit .I know everyone on this forum is aware of what i just said, but i think we as hunters and people who care about wildlife and the future of our sport need to realize that we have more of a financial obligation than just buying a hunting license and hoping some farmer with decent habitat will let us hunt on their land.I think we can all agree that those situations are fading away and fast,we need to find a way to make it worth while for land owners to have and keep good habitat which we all know is difficult to say the least with the way land and crop prices are.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:44 am

At one time and perhaps still today, Pennsylvania led the nation in CREP enrollment designed to protect the Cheasapeake. That is basically why there is a limited and hopefull pheasant resurgence in the Susquehanna today. There is no resurgence to mention in the remainder of the state that once helped the commonwealth reach a pheasant harvest near or at one million birds. Decline there began in the 70s and originated basically from changes in volume and attitudes of people, with farming and haying practices being altered and with an increase in land use/values....the same as in many places in the country not blessed with low population.

Competing for economic draws that may be real, temporary or pie-in-the-sky to the farmer would be nice but tough.
Will of both the politico and the voter is fickle.
There are indeed set-asides wich do carry a greater benefit than others and, hopefully, those benefits rate evermore highly but the Will I mentioned is as cyclic as the weather.

Britain would do well to concentrate on the red grouse and nearly gone black game rather than the grey partridge....an introduced specie by and large, I believe.
Therein lies something to learn.
But gamebird threats in the UK loom higher than only the loss of the heather.

winchestermodel50 · Post by **winchestermodel50** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:44 pm

This is financially prohibitive, but in Kansas, rotation of CRP every 5 years and not spraying fallow wheat stubble, would boost pheasant and quail populations more than any other practice available. New CRP with cover crop and weed infestation blows up bird numbers more than anything I have ever seen. Coupled with dirty wheat stubble, it is the most prolific chick factory on earth. You need some rain to go with it. Mature CRP offers birds nothing but protective cover. When it fills in it is just grass without weed seeds or insects.
These were the conditions provided in the formative years of CRP where in reality the weeds, more than anything else, were the key to the heavy bird numbers. I don't think this practice will be allowed again on any substantial scale.

deseeker · Post by **deseeker** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:28 pm

winchestermodel50 wrote:This is financially prohibitive, but in Kansas, rotation of CRP every 5 years and not spraying fallow wheat stubble, would boost pheasant and quail populations more than any other practice available. New CRP with cover crop and weed infestation blows up bird numbers more than anything I have ever seen. Coupled with dirty wheat stubble, it is the most prolific chick factory on earth. You need some rain to go with it. Mature CRP offers birds nothing but protective cover. When it fills in it is just grass without weed seeds or insects.
These were the conditions provided in the formative years of CRP where in reality the weeds, more than anything else, were the key to the heavy bird numbers. I don't think this practice will be allowed again on any substantial scale.

Very true words--CRP in the first few years is the best for chicks

tommyboy72 · Post by **tommyboy72** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:31 pm

Where I live dryland farming is extremely unsuccessful so my thought would be for farmers to water their CRP during times that they were not using sprinkler systems for cropfields. Weed seeds and grasshoppers are a main food source for both pheasant and quail chicks on top of the fact that there is nutrition needed by hens to start the laying process contained in only the green vegetation which has been almost non existent here the last couple of years. Watering CRP would help to thicken it, grow it taller, help the russian thistle, ragweed, etc. to produce the seeds necessary for chicks and young birds to eat and also encourage insects like grasshoppers to inhabit the fields. Probably won't ever happen but something needs to happen to change CRP practices as well as farming practices. Placing a section into dormancy and allowing weeds and native grasses to grow on it is nice but as was stated when the native grasses get older and are no longer producing they need to be burned, mowed and watered to encourage new growth and seed production. The CRP program as a whole does not seem to be growing so new fields are not being put into the program to allow for young grasses and weeds so something needs to be done with some of the older fields. Encouraging farmers to plant bordering crops around the CRP and leaving some of the crop for wildlife is also helpful but probably not practical either. It doesn't pay to spend money on equipment and fuel to tend to non crop producing fields as much as it does to sit in the coffee shop and just let the government pay you for allowing your land to sit dormant and do nothing with it.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:20 pm

tommyboy72 wrote:Where I live dryland farming is extremely unsuccessful so my thought would be for farmers to water their CRP during times that they were not using sprinkler systems for cropfields. Weed seeds and grasshoppers are a main food source for both pheasant and quail chicks on top of the fact that there is nutrition needed by hens to start the laying process contained in only the green vegetation which has been almost non existent here the last couple of years. Watering CRP would help to thicken it, grow it taller, help the russian thistle, ragweed, etc. to produce the seeds necessary for chicks and young birds to eat and also encourage insects like grasshoppers to inhabit the fields. Probably won't ever happen but something needs to happen to change CRP practices as well as farming practices. Placing a section into dormancy and allowing weeds and native grasses to grow on it is nice but as was stated when the native grasses get older and are no longer producing they need to be burned, mowed and watered to encourage new growth and seed production. The CRP program as a whole does not seem to be growing so new fields are not being put into the program to allow for young grasses and weeds so something needs to be done with some of the older fields. Encouraging farmers to plant bordering crops around the CRP and leaving some of the crop for wildlife is also helpful but probably not practical either. It doesn't pay to spend money on equipment and fuel to tend to non crop producing fields as much as it does to sit in the coffee shop and just let the government pay you for allowing your land to sit dormant and do nothing with it.

So you think the farmer should spend a few thousand to raise birds for you to shoot? If that is feasible then why don't you and the rest of us too, just put the 30,000 dollar well in and then buy the sprinkler and pay for the electricity to run it while hoping the aquifer we are pulling water out of will last long enough for the weeds to grow and the insects to gather and eat the weeds.

Tommy, I understand what you are wishing for but we can not put the burden of raising birds for our enjoyment squarely on the farmers back. Remember he has already rented that ground to the government and they are the ones that make the decisions on what can and can not be done to that acreage while they have it under contract.

Ezzy

ACooper · Post by **ACooper** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:10 pm

There are dang sure wild pheasants in Texas, drought has hurt them but I've had some great hunts south of Amarillo.

duckn66 · Post by **duckn66** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 10:12 pm

Driving about and hunting and scouting this year in NE KS I have seen more habitat destruction this year than any years previous. Entire hedge rows bulldozed in to piles and burned. Where there was a hedge row last year will be corn next. Also a bunch of CRP being disced under and corns or beans planted in its place. Once upon a time NE KS had a decent, huntable pheasant population but not so much anymore. It's almost to the point now that you may happen across a few while quail hunting now. Where I live now it was nothing to have pheasants in my drive way or in my pastures around the house. Used to love to sit in the spring and listen to them crow. Haven't heard one crow around my house in probably 10 yrs.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:50 am

I sure don't want to turn every thread political, but when the government pays people to not do something (grow crops) for the public good it is socialism.

I have some good friends that are farmers, I not only like them, but admire them. However in recent years they spend more time working the government programs than farming.

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:16 am

Neil wrote:I sure don't want to turn every thread political, but when the government pays people to not do something (grow crops) for the public good it is socialism.

If you do, then at least do it acccurately.
Set-aside programs like CREP designed to protect water quality would fail to match the strict definition of socialism.
Unless there is a bit of frustration in the political climate today, agendas are present or, straws are grabbed for.

I believe most everyone realizes that pheasants never prospered and spread by natural means over most of the United States.
The fella who began that thought may have been thinking of the European starling.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:10 am

Actually from the time it was called the soil bank it was said to curtail wind and water errosion, but going back to the 30's it was for price support. There has never been a farm bill that did not contain a sportsman provission.

When we can afford it, I really have little problem with the government doing good things, like most of us I embrace actions and laws that benefit me personally.

But it is socialism my most all definitions.

We need to own it.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:30 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Neil wrote:I sure don't want to turn every thread political, but when the government pays people to not do something (grow crops) for the public good it is socialism.
If you do, then at least do it acccurately.
Set-aside programs like CREP designed to protect water quality would fail to match the strict definition of socialism.
Unless there is a bit of frustration in the political climate today, agendas are present or, straws are grabbed for.

I believe most everyone realizes that pheasants never prospered and spread by natural means over most of the United States.
The fella who began that thought may have been thinking of the European starling.

Problem here is that Neil is exactly right. When ever tax money is used for someone else's advantage it is a form of socialism. That does not mean it is always wrong but the records show it is often wrong.

By the way, we have pheasants moving further south now due to the removal of fences it seems. Just another small expansion of their habitat. Don't think it will include the whole country but much of our wildlife has expanded, contracted or just plain moved naturally with out someone moving them while others have needed more help.

And think I typed that without making any derogitory remarks about someone else's opinion.

Ezzy

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:35 pm

Neil wrote:I sure don't want to turn every thread political, but when the government pays people to not do something (grow crops) for the public good it is socialism.

I have some good friends that are farmers, I not only like them, but admire them. However in recent years they spend more time working the government programs than farming.

Once again, you are exactly right!!!

Charlie

Mountaineer · Post by **Mountaineer** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:13 pm

Socialism has been defined evermore widely in recent years, I agree.....likely a reason there.
Lot of frustrated folks out and about.

Comparably, pheasants expand easily.
Success at maintaining viability in their new digs is not always so easy.

tommyboy72 · Post by **tommyboy72** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:40 pm

Neil wrote:I sure don't want to turn every thread political, but when the government pays people to not do something (grow crops) for the public good it is socialism.

I have some good friends that are farmers, I not only like them, but admire them. However in recent years they spend more time working the government programs than farming.

Same feeling here Neil

ezzy333 wrote:
tommyboy72 wrote:Where I live dryland farming is extremely unsuccessful so my thought would be for farmers to water their CRP during times that they were not using sprinkler systems for cropfields. Weed seeds and grasshoppers are a main food source for both pheasant and quail chicks on top of the fact that there is nutrition needed by hens to start the laying process contained in only the green vegetation which has been almost non existent here the last couple of years. Watering CRP would help to thicken it, grow it taller, help the russian thistle, ragweed, etc. to produce the seeds necessary for chicks and young birds to eat and also encourage insects like grasshoppers to inhabit the fields. Probably won't ever happen but something needs to happen to change CRP practices as well as farming practices. Placing a section into dormancy and allowing weeds and native grasses to grow on it is nice but as was stated when the native grasses get older and are no longer producing they need to be burned, mowed and watered to encourage new growth and seed production. The CRP program as a whole does not seem to be growing so new fields are not being put into the program to allow for young grasses and weeds so something needs to be done with some of the older fields. Encouraging farmers to plant bordering crops around the CRP and leaving some of the crop for wildlife is also helpful but probably not practical either. It doesn't pay to spend money on equipment and fuel to tend to non crop producing fields as much as it does to sit in the coffee shop and just let the government pay you for allowing your land to sit dormant and do nothing with it.
So you think the farmer should spend a few thousand to raise birds for you to shoot? If that is feasible then why don't you and the rest of us too, just put the 30,000 dollar well in and then buy the sprinkler and pay for the electricity to run it while hoping the aquifer we are pulling water out of will last long enough for the weeds to grow and the insects to gather and eat the weeds.

Tommy, I understand what you are wishing for but we can not put the burden of raising birds for our enjoyment squarely on the farmers back. Remember he has already rented that ground to the government and they are the ones that make the decisions on what can and can not be done to that acreage while they have it under contract.

Ezzy

No, Ezzy I don't think farmers should raise birds just for me to shoot but when they are using my tax dollars not only to leave land dormant but also to offset their property taxes, and yes there are programs that give large landowners such as farmers and ranchers money to offset the taxes on large tracts of land whether it is used or unused and there is a website where you can verify this, then I believe I should have input into what is done with the land and how these programs are managed. I guess I look at farmers and ranchers as more stewards of the land and wildlife more than just agricultural businessmen. I understand that the government establishes and regulates these programs, I just wish they were a bit more mindful of how these programs are managed. I have nothing against farmers and ranchers, I also admire and like them and have several friends who are ranchers and farmers. Many of them recieved what they have from family. The land has been passed down through the generations but like a businessman I believe that if you cannot afford to or choose not to take care of your business it should be sold not bailed out by the American taxpayer and government. There is a reason it is called conservation reserve program and it doesn't just apply to the soil. JMO

asc · Post by **asc** » Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:06 pm

tfbirddog2 wrote:I am 36 years of age and have been hunting the great state of Kansas since I was 8 years of age, I'm a professional guide now and love what I do. I sit on the Pheasents Forever Board of the local chapter. I to actaully have to agree it wouldnt hurt me if that took the limit to 3 aday even 2 if it had to be, due to it seems Kansas Dept of Wildlife never really looks at numbers and the year in which perhaps may have not been a good year from population outlook. I can recall in 93 floods all over the state North Central was hit hard( Glen Elder,Cawker City area) were hit hard from the rains and floods at crucial times nesting and chick time, yet came back 4 years later and the birds were back and doing well! The ringneck is the most prelific concuror of any mammal from starting from hundreds of pairs in the 1860's It will take them time to repopulate, but I think some measures need to be taken by the state!

Don't think that bird is a mammal.. Jusat saying..