MN Pheasants down 29%

[BLACKJACK]

The Farm Bill Biologist program is making a huge difference in CRP acres in this state. At a time when crop prices are so high, we retained almost all of our CRP this year and a good chunk of it last year. If that isnt making a difference, I dont know what is.

Cody, its one of those things thats hard to quantify, were farmers influenced by the PF biologist or were there other factors like 'too steep to farm' or 'I like to see wildlife' the determining factors? Plus the regular NRCS technicians that I've dealt with are very knowledgable and conservation minded.

I see in the PF magazine all the people and salaries that are getting paid by PF and I just wonder whether some of that salary money would be better put into habitat. Overall I think that PF does a great job and that it IS important to have a voice in Washington.

[CodyDawg]

Actually they quantify it by comparing enrollment rates between counties with and without FBBs. I cannot remember the exact numbers, but the counties with FBBs have significantly higher re-enrollment rates. the differences they have seen have been pretty impressive. The program is really working and nothing can compare to the number of acres of habitat that can be gained by having a FBB in your county. A good chunk of the funding comes through grant dollars and each local PF chapter has to decide if they want the program in their county and if so, they have to come up with some money as well.

[harvey lee]

Harvey, you are nuts if you dont think PF has made a difference. Absolutely crazy. Just look at the numbers of acres conserved or enhanced in this state and it is staggering. If we didnt have PF, it would be much, much worse than it is now. To say nothing of their accomplishments with the Farm Bill. If not for the efforts of PF, CRP would provide only a fraction of what it is today. I dont know why you want to grind the axe with PF, but either come up with something concrete or let it rest.

The Farm Bill Biologist program is making a huge difference in CRP acres in this state. At a time when crop prices are so high, we retained almost all of our CRP this year and a good chunk of it last year. If that isnt making a difference, I dont know what is.

Well, nuts I maybe, but I know what we had for birds 25 years ago before the Sibley County chapter strated which I was heavily involved in and I know what we have for birds now after 25 years of projects and habitat programs along with winter feeding.

Sibley Country over those 25 years have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars along with help from other wildlife groups in larger projects and I see nothing more, infact less than I did 25 years ago in my home area.

I have many friends who were heavy supporters when the chapter started and after 15 years, they no longer get involved with any part of this chapter including donating funds. I still support the chapter as I feel it is like my baby since I contacted PF 25 years ago to get a chapter started in Sibley County.

Do I feel it has done much good, well, we have no more birds but I guess we could have nothing, very close now though. I would agree we could be even worse off but in fact, Sibley County has not seen any considerable increase in population.

As far as concrete evidence, if we have less birds than 25 years ago after all the work and money has been spent, is that not enough concrete evidence?????

So, since I may be nuts, please advise me how the PF chapter has helped with the bird population PLEASE other than the fact we could have nothing, about what we have now.

[Musky Buck]

I'm with all ya all but I hear Harvey our local chapter bought an 80 not even in pheasant range really, there are 0 pheasants on it but it makes for another 80 of public deer ground and that will be what it's used for from here on out. My dad had great pheasant hunting in the 60's, those same farms hold few if any birds today, those fields are coal black dirt after harvest, not like when they were active dairy farms with lots of waste grains and not sprayed for every weed and rarely plowed up until spring, every 8th cob of corn in a 2 row picker fell to the ground and there was a mix of alfalfa/oats/corn/etc. Sloughs weren't drained nasty wet falls grandpa wasn't doing corn until spring. How's ducks unlimited or Delta waterfowl doing ? Ducks are limited, I spend plenty with pheasants forever but it's a constant battle of having the land to hold em, all I see are irrigation systems and crop farmers heck the fencelines where cattle once were are being ripped out. Where there's a gain in 1 area there's a loss in another.

[harvey lee]

Yes, with some fence lines, more habitat and less drain tile, the birds may have a chance and we would not need PF.

There was a day when you could shoot your birds in no time but with the change in farminmg practices, the birds really do not have much of a chance.

I have always said it would be tough to live in a black desert with no cover in -20 temps and 2ft of snow.

Until the farmimg pratices change, and likely they will not, we will never see anything close to the birds we enjoyed in the 50's and 60's.

With the land values as high as they are, less chance for CRP or any other of these programs as they would cost so much.

There will always be a few areas that have birds but today, those areas are farther apart every year.

I am not trying to rip on any farmers at all but until those pratices change back to the years when birds were in good numbers, we will never see the days of old or anything even close to that even with PF.

[Ryan_V]

I agree with Cody.... the number of hunters has increased greatly in the last 25 years. 25 years ago there were more birds, because there were exponentially less hunters. without PF, I think those of us that love the sport of pheasant hunting might not have been so involved without programs and land supported by PF. are they a cure all? absolutely not, but I think they are instrumental in the sport. Just today I saw on Twitter that they are calling on congress to open public land that is closed due to the shutdown. May or may not happen, but they are a very large well connected organization.

[harvey lee]

I realize there maybe more hunters now than 25 years ago but 25 years ago, we had all kinds of cover and habitat. Today, that is hard to find in every section, many are simply black dirt and that is it.

I have heard stories of the DNR setting up check points in the county years ago and the vechiles were backed up a long ways due to all the hunters.

Simply put, more hunters or not, unless we have more habitat, we will never see the days of old with or without the help of groups like PF. The Farm program's really decide how many birds we have and we are losing that battle.

I still go to the banquets and donate like I have always done but I just do not see much if any increase in the bird population.

[Dave S]

Yes, with some fence lines, more habitat and less drain tile, the birds may have a chance and we would not need PF.

There was a day when you could shoot your birds in no time but with the change in farminmg practices, the birds really do not have much of a chance.

I have always said it would be tough to live in a black desert with no cover in -20 temps and 2ft of snow.

Until the farmimg pratices change, and likely they will not, we will never see anything close to the birds we enjoyed in the 50's and 60's.

With the land values as high as they are, less chance for CRP or any other of these programs as they would cost so much.

There will always be a few areas that have birds but today, those areas are farther apart every year.

I am not trying to rip on any farmers at all but until those pratices change back to the years when birds were in good numbers, we will never see the days of old or anything even close to that even with PF.

+1

Farming practices are more efficient, result in less spillage of grain in the fields as well as more row crops vs. wheat and oats. Couple this with loss of habitat and pheasants will eventually disappear.

[fishadb]

Out here in western Swift county their are no birds, And I can tell you for a fact it is not because of habitat loss, It is from all the rain in June. Everybody always thinks the farmer is the bad guy.

[harvey lee]

I will agree that spring rains can creat an issue with the young chicks. They had heavy spring rains years ago but we still had more birds.

Not trying to put blame on anyone at all. I realize that the farmers have to make a living. Surely not looking to blame anyone, just pointing out what more than likely caused the decline in bird numbers.

With that said, with the farming pratices of yesteryear, we would have more birds due to more fencelines, greater habitat like sloughs and so forth. Today we have next to zero sloughs that we had back in the 50's and 60's where the birds could hide in bad winter storms and still survive or areas with pine trees or wooded acres, we have also lost most of those acres. The years of the soil bank days were maybe the best ever for pheasants simply due to more nesting areas and alot more overall habitat.

That does make a world of difference. With a loss of habitat, along goes the pheasant population as they simply cannot survive in a black desert.

Habitat is the game and without it, less birds, that most all agree on from PF to most other hunting groups or the DNR.

[BLACKJACK]

Farming practices are more efficient, result in less spillage of grain in the fields

You've got that right!!! You would be lucky to find an ice cream bucket of corn in a field after todays combines run thru it!! And thats before they till it up!!! Whats a pheasant supposed to eat??

We could have twice as many pheasants if they'd put a shelterbelt and food plot on every one of the WMA's and WPA's but the powers that be would rather manage for prairie birds and butterflys. Screw the hunters that paid for those lands with their duck stamp dollars.

[BLACKJACK]

the number of hunters has increased greatly in the last 25 years. 25 years ago there were more birds, because there were exponentially less hunters.

You got that wrong. There may be more hunters - which I doubt - but the loss of habitat is whats hurting the pheasants. Plus hunters only shoot hens, if your theory was correct, we'd be seeing flocks of hens.

Pheasants need winter cover, winter food, and summer nesting cover, without one of the components you're not going to see many pheasants.

[LandDr]

Just enrolling programs doesn't fix the problem.

Everyone knows that you get out of it what you put into it. If you use the cheap stuff or cut corners or do it wrong, then it is what it is and what you get out of it.

If I am confusing you, what I mean in regards to habitat is that if it is not designed properly, then there is less benefit or what you get out of it.

The big push by the DNR, USFW, PF, DU, etc., etc., etc. is to have more NESTING COVER. You can read it, you can hear it and you see it happening.

Just as one person commented, and I have stressed as well, the WMAs are being managed for prairie species and prairie diversity. They are not planting more winter woody cover areas. They are not planting more food plots. They are planting HIGH diversity prairies and managing them with cows.

There is a new WMA that I am working on that is currently owned by PF and is slated to be donated to the DNR. I have contacted several DNR folks to try to get some winter woody cover installed along with the prairie planting. As of yet I have received no support in this. Why? All they want to do is plant and manage high diversity prairies.

Sorry...but if you can't get the hen through the winter...all of that high diversity prairie is just there to look at as there are no hens that made it through the winter to utilize it.

A previous person commented that we are not shooting hens. Exactly! I state this in seminars that I give. If we are not shooting hens, then hen populations should be increasing exponentially up to the "carrying capacity of the land". But that is the point...our carrying capacity is so low that we can not get hens through the winter...so they can then utilize the nesting cover.

The people in these offices are just enrolling prairie. If you just want to count "acres", ya they are chalking up some acres. I personally would rather see 100 acres of properly designed habitat rather than 1,000 acres of just prairie. From the top to the bottom, the directive is to sign up acres and sign up prairie. The science and research got lost somewhere along the way as prairie preservationists have taken over.

Don't just blame the farmers when our own public land is not be designed to get more wildlife through the winter. Public land is our land and it is what we are supposed to have control over. But we can't even get them to put in some winter cover.

You need to contact your Sen and Reps as well as DNR and voice your concerns. It is the only way it will change. It takes work and it takes time, I know, but it is the only way to make change. Or vote someone in that will make the change...that works too.

I hear the drum beating...

[jnorm1984]

The only word I can come up with to describe the only PF Biologist I interacted with is irk. He really irked me, and I guess many others, as he was asked not to come to the NRCS office anymore. I know for a fact that he had a negative impact on the amount of acres enrolled in CRP in that county because people did not want to deal with him or be anywhere near him. I am sure most PF biologists help, but this guy certainly did not and turned me off to the entire program.

Creep, I see your from glencoe, and I know and worked with the FBB that your talking about, and he was a difficult to work with for a lot of people for various reasons, and his supervisors were made aware. But you will be happy to know that took a new job and is no longer working in meeker and McLeod counties, the next person coming in will be a better fit. To his credit, he did enroll 1900 acres of permanent RIM in meeker county...the main roll of FBBs is to get people in the door and make them aware of what they qualify for. Working in this field I do see it as a needed position to some capacity wether it's with Pf or as an SWCD employee.

[TylerS]

There's something else you guys should think about: Carrying capacity. It's true that with some marginal cover in various spots, you can produce birds and wildlife. It's also true that you can produce birds and wildlife in a big section of CRP surrounded by nothing but barren farm fields. However, because of seasonal changes and availability of nesting cover, cover from predation, and food, neither option alone is going to produce a ton of pheasants, ducks, deer, meadowlarks, etc. The bets option would be to utilize our public areas to the highest of their abilities, and then implement some form of strip habitat in surrounding fields. Even as much as leaving 10 yards of grass in strips along the edges of farm fields would be sufficient. You'd have a "roost" that the birds could utilize 12 months out of the year, as well as enough "cover highways" for them to travel to and from food sources. Not only that, those strips would provide cover for wildlife, protection from erosion, and help filter farm chemical runoff before it got into the water table.

But when you see farmers spending tens of thousands of dollars to remove miles and miles of tree rows just so they don't have to turn their combine as much (not to mention farming directly up to a road -- who needs shoulders???), I suppose leaving a strip of CRP would be a bit too much to ask.

[CodyDawg]

Well Harvey look at it this way. The pheasants natural defense is really its ability to repopulate. No matter how much or how good of habitat you have, bad weather in MN is going to take its toll. I have 70 acres of the best habitat you will see in MN. The bird numbers are down there too. The key to having good bird numbers is simply habitat. It lets you weather the bad years a little better and allows them to prosper in good years. Agree with that?

I imagine that PF has completed a lot of habitat projects in Sibley county. So if you agree that habitat is key, and that PF has completed habitat projects in your county, then they have without a doubt helped. We will never return to the numbers of the 60s, just like we wont return to 8-track tapes.

You mentioned farm practices and CRP. Guess who is in Washington lobbying congress for wildlife friendly farm programs? Yes, PF.

So when you look at the county scale and say that we have no more birds than we did 25 years ago, thus PF must not have an impact it is truly not an accurate statement. PF does a very good job with the money that it has (highest rating by Charity Navigator), returning about 92% of funds directly to mission related projects. Pretty hard to beat that.

I just find it frustrating that people blame PF for the bird numbers. Without PF, we would all be staring at a virtual black desert with much lower bird numbers than we currently have AND with much less habitat to allow them to repopulate when we get a good weather year. To say nothing about public hunting land access, youth education, etc.

[Da Biggin]

This is an interesting discussion and I don't see how pointing fingers is going to change anything. I've read the discussion comparing the 50's and 60's to now and I say things change with the times. And, if we who love the sport so much want this sport to remain so that we can swap stories with grandchildren and great grandchildren then maybe we need to take something from the 50's and 60's bag of tricks. Instead of pointing fingers and blaming one or another for the problem let's refocus our energy toward finding the solution. In the 50's and 60's people banded together and collectively moved for change. It worked then and can work now! Therefore, band together and make some noise for what you feel is important. Establish a rapport with a local farmer or two and ask the to consider program options or even to just leave some product in the field. Human connections can go a long way. We just are blinded of this fact now in this faced paced, media strained society. There are no shortcuts here and without real interpersonal communication nothing will change (How's that for old school? lol).

This isn't to say that I believe the pheasant population is in direct correlation to anyone thing. Farming practices have drastically affected the populations of the birds but in the same breath the weather is no where as consistent and/or predictable now as it was then either. Who should we blame for that? Al Gore and his global warming? God? We shouldn't waste what time we have left in the sport we all adore bickering about who's at fault. I feel we need to re-purpose our energies into finding a way to conserve and improve what we have. Sure it may not be the hunting it once was but it's still hunting and last I checked we all enjoy the hunt and the game brought home was just the cherry on the top.

[harvey lee]

Well Harvey look at it this way. The pheasants natural defense is really its ability to repopulate. No matter how much or how good of habitat you have, bad weather in MN is going to take its toll. I have 70 acres of the best habitat you will see in MN. The bird numbers are down there too. The key to having good bird numbers is simply habitat. It lets you weather the bad years a little better and allows them to prosper in good years. Agree with that?

I imagine that PF has completed a lot of habitat projects in Sibley county. So if you agree that habitat is key, and that PF has completed habitat projects in your county, then they have without a doubt helped. We will never return to the numbers of the 60s, just like we wont return to 8-track tapes.

You mentioned farm practices and CRP. Guess who is in Washington lobbying congress for wildlife friendly farm programs? Yes, PF.

So when you look at the county scale and say that we have no more birds than we did 25 years ago, thus PF must not have an impact it is truly not an accurate statement. PF does a very good job with the money that it has (highest rating by Charity Navigator), returning about 92% of funds directly to mission related projects. Pretty hard to beat that.

I just find it frustrating that people blame PF for the bird numbers. Without PF, we would all be staring at a virtual black desert with much lower bird numbers than we currently have AND with much less habitat to allow them to repopulate when we get a good weather year. To say nothing about public hunting land access, youth education, etc.

I do not blame PF for any bird numbers, my point is and has been for years that PF has not helped the bird population in Sibley County to the point that we have more birds period. Sure, we have a few and those could be gone without PF but not a huntable number and that is the point I am trying to make to you. How much does one spend per bird to have more???

I have said so many times we need more habitat and it is my past posts or replies. PF cannot do enough habitat projects for the population to come up in the entire county as it would cost so much more than any chapter could raise.

Point is, you can tell me I am nuts and my reply would be' show me the bird's around my area after PF has spent what they have. Forget all the toher baloney, let's see the birds.

At coffee this am, numerous guys asked who was going bird hunting for the opener, 1 guy said he was as he may get lucky and get a bird and it is tradition, all the others said, no birds out there to even bother. That's reality even with PF projects.

You can show me all the percentages on how well they spend thier money but I simply see no more birds after the hundreds of thousands spent.

Simple fact is, if we see a nice increase and a huntable population of birds, then I would say PF is working but I have not seen anything close to that. It gets worse every year in our area.

[critterman]

the 20 inches of wet heavy snow in may didn't help either.

[brittman]

At coffee this am, numerous guys asked who was going bird hunting for the opener, 1 guy said he was as he may get lucky and get a bird and it is tradition, all the others said, no birds out there to even bother. That's reality even with PF projects.

I know those coffee shop guys very well. They are in every small town across America.

Harvey - based on your posts - you seem to have concentrated on deer and mostly deer in the Sandhills. For years you have written about just not going out and hunting pheasants anymore, while those with good dogs and a little prep continue to kill plenty of birds.

You do not need to go back that far to have great success on pheasants I know just a few years ago I was killing 20 - 30 roosters a year in Minnesota (mix of public and private land).

[brittman]

PF appears to have two primary missions.

One is tangible in terms of physical assets the other one is not.

Local PF clubs purchasing land is good to keep local support high and actively engaged. They can see the return for their hard work in a physical sense. But just like ducks unlimited, these acreages are too small to make a measureable difference in the TOTAL fall population.

Weather and grass are the biggest impacts for pheasants.

So the other PF mission is to lobby Congress to protect CRP, CREP and other conservation programs. Problem is grain commodity prices are just too high and big companes like Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, and Deere continue to push for more land farmed because they profit from every acre planted and every grain moved.

PF has one or two guys on a limited budget, while companies such as those noted above have groups of professionals with large entertainment budgets. Who is likely to win?

[brittman]

The addition of DNR land, WPAs and now the Walk-in areas keep the average hunter engaged. Access to the average hunter is the greatest threat to them keeping active in any outdoor sport.

[harvey lee]

Brittman

You are corrct, I have given up on Mn bird hunting. I use to run a very well trained English pointer and we had alot of fun when the numbers were a bit better. I would not mind a season with even 10-15 birds but I do not know if I want to hunt that hard for those numbers.

Whether they are coffee shops or not, these fellows are my friends and all avid hunters. Some still hunt pheasants, just not in Mn.

In our area, my guess is unless you have a smaller pocket of birds, you would have a very hard time shooting 15 birds this year unless you have 3-4 guys and numerous dogs. The farmers will tell one, they are few and far between and they know as well as anyone what the numbers are.

I have 2 good friends that have very good dogs and one said this am, I am not hunting MN. I know others with dogs who hunt outstate who would say the same thing.

So, if your area has birds, good for you but' you have no idea where we are in regards to the birds population with all due respect.

[Ryan_V]

Well Harvey look at it this way. The pheasants natural defense is really its ability to repopulate. No matter how much or how good of habitat you have, bad weather in MN is going to take its toll. I have 70 acres of the best habitat you will see in MN. The bird numbers are down there too. The key to having good bird numbers is simply habitat. It lets you weather the bad years a little better and allows them to prosper in good years. Agree with that?

I imagine that PF has completed a lot of habitat projects in Sibley county. So if you agree that habitat is key, and that PF has completed habitat projects in your county, then they have without a doubt helped. We will never return to the numbers of the 60s, just like we wont return to 8-track tapes.

You mentioned farm practices and CRP. Guess who is in Washington lobbying congress for wildlife friendly farm programs? Yes, PF.

So when you look at the county scale and say that we have no more birds than we did 25 years ago, thus PF must not have an impact it is truly not an accurate statement. PF does a very good job with the money that it has (highest rating by Charity Navigator), returning about 92% of funds directly to mission related projects. Pretty hard to beat that.

I just find it frustrating that people blame PF for the bird numbers. Without PF, we would all be staring at a virtual black desert with much lower bird numbers than we currently have AND with much less habitat to allow them to repopulate when we get a good weather year. To say nothing about public hunting land access, youth education, etc.

very well put sir. see you in the field! maybe afterwards we can go out for coffee!

[harvey lee]

I guess I was wrong, I just got back from a 150 mile drive talking to people like farmers and others who live in the rural areas of Sibley County and 4 people said they saw more than 4 birds this summer on thier farm.

Yes, we are loaded with birds now.

Go get um.