MN Pheasant Summit?

[brittman]

Only mallards have a lower limit on hens than the total limit for that species. No other duck species has a protective limit on the hen.

[LandDr]

I think that is mainly due to the difficulty of identification between the male and female in flight and since they often fly in tight groups.

I was at a meeting last year were there was discussion of not allowing any hen mallards to be harvested, but the discussion quickly went to needing one or two for the mistake of shooting one or two. If possible, they would rather that no hen mallards be shot.

[LandDr]

Creepworm...are you going to provide me with your name so I can look up your file to review what programs you are saying are not eligible?

What is VERY important for everyone to understand and appreciate is that there are a lot of "no you can't do this" and "no you can't do that" out there...lip service. Fact is that you can. Just because someone verbally says you can't doesn't mean that you can't. There are a lot of opinions and personal bias depending on where you go to search out options and opportunities. I would encourage everyone to get additional reviews, opinions and recommendations to help you make the best decisions. I have been told numerous times "no you can't do that" and "we don't have that program here" and "that doesn't qualify"...but I work through the practice standards, job sheets and program eligibilities and almost always end up getting it enrolled. Make sure you review your options...especially when some of these programs are for 10 or 15 years or more...it is best to get it right the first time because it is a LONG wait to get it right the next time.

[brittman]

I think that is mainly due to the difficulty of identification between the male and female in flight and since they often fly in tight groups.

I was at a meeting last year were there was discussion of not allowing any hen mallards to be harvested, but the discussion quickly went to needing one or two for the mistake of shooting one or two. If possible, they would rather that no hen mallards be shot.

Have to call no-truth on that comment. There has been a one or two hen limit on Mallards for a long time. The population is high and we are in the midst of a long running series of USF&WS "liberal" seasons. Losing those hens to hunters will make no difference in the next fall flight. Any biologist that wants to argue otherwise needs to go back to school.

[brittman]

LandDr:

You seem to missing the whole point on the hen argument. While I do not advocate shooting hen pheasants ... protecting them does not ensure that next fall's bird population will be any bigger. If protecting hens or limited harvest of hens worked then we should be overrun with mallards, pheasants and turkeys. There is so much more to it.

Specie after specie have equal hunter harvest on the hen (female) of the species, yet they do just fine. Geese, grouse, ducks (except mallards).

Most species disperse after winter and before/during nesting season. Those birds that disperse to poor habitat usually die (vehicle, predator, exposure). Those birds that move into decent habitat will successfully raise their young and the population will increase and expand.

On the flip side - people should appreciate your habitat areas because they are the source of "restocked" pheasants for the township (maybe beyond) after a couple of bad winters knocks back those birds attempting to live in marginal areas die off.

[LandDr]

Well I guess you needed to be at the meeting of which DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr , Bud Grant, Dennis Anderson, DNR biologists, etc were present and making the comments.

Why do so many groups advocate not shooting hen mallards. They don't know what they are talking about?

Why do so many hunt clubs or groups have "hen jars" where the shooter has to put $5 in it or whatever amount if they shoot a hen.

Why do they say if you shoot a hen, you have eliminated something like 6 generations of duck reproduction from that hen?

Yes...there is so much more too it. I have never said, get the hen through the winter and that is all that needs to be done. Pretty sure I included the nesting\brooding component as well.

But fact still remains...if you can't get the hen through the winter, then the rest of the program is done...won't happen..."dead hens don't lay eggs".

PLM Management by Thirds works, it has been tested, it can be demonstrated, it is feasible, it is sellable, there is funding for it, it can be done on a large scale, etc. If you can sign up 40ac in CRP grass, you can certainly sign up 40ac in PLM Management by Thirds.

Loran Kardahl, Redwood MN, once told me, just ask the landowner how many many pheasants they want...if they want 20 or 30, then do the same old same old, if you want a lot more, then do PLM's Management by Thirds.

It has been several years now that I designed Loran's property, but the spring of the first year he got a call from the DNR asking if he had released a bunch of pheasants. He said no, why? The DNR recorded a 410% increase in crow counts along his road and wondered why. 410% increase!!

Now, that is not all from reproduction of course. Pheasants were also attracted due to the better cover design. But...the better cover design also contributed to more hens making it through the winter to disperse through the countryside and produce on average 4 birds to the hunting season of which on average 50% are roosters. Results speak for themselves.

Do what you want. I am just happy I got you thinking about it more. FYI...just got the contracts signed today on that Plankinton, SD project. It is going to be a half section of AMAZING design. This could be done with EVERY grass program enrollment...just take a little more time to design it right and a little more time to design it. That is hardly anything when you consider it will be enrolled for 15+ years. Do it right the first time...because the next opportunity is a long time away.

[IceAge@work]

PLM Management by Thirds works' date=' it has been tested, it can be demonstrated, it is feasible, it is sellable, there is funding for it, it can be done on a large scale, etc. If you can sign up 40ac in CRP grass, you can certainly sign up 40ac in PLM Management by Thirds.

/quote']

LandDr

Truly curious here as I have not kept up with the Farm Bill since the last two year debacle surrounding it's reauthorization.

What programs are currently active in MN and how many acres are remaining that could be enrolled? What is the typical $$ per acre being offered with each program?

If fully enrolled will the current available acres be able to keep up with the expirations happening over the next 3-4 years?

[brittman]

Well I guess you needed to be at the meeting of which DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr , Bud Grant, Dennis Anderson, DNR biologists, etc were present and making the comments.

Why do so many groups advocate not shooting hen mallards. They don't know what they are talking about?

Why do so many hunt clubs or groups have "hen jars" where the shooter has to put $5 in it or whatever amount if they shoot a hen.

While I do not shoot hens there is little biological evidence that shooting hens makes any difference as long as the impact on the population is compensatory.

Canada has no hen mallard protection. You can shoot eight hen mallards in one day. Albeit, the pressure is lower than MN and other MS flyway states.

Mallards are the most highly pressured duck and their population dynamics are weighted heavily in determining USF&WS fall hunting regulations. Protecting hen mallards seems like the right thing to do, but not sure data supports it when the population is high.

Mallard hens do return to where they were born so in Minnesota where they are trying to keep the breeding population stable - they try to protect the resident ducks.

Interestingly many other duck species do NOT have that homing instinct (ie teal).

But in the end, MN breeding pairs is not governed by restricted hunting regulations in Minnesota the fall before ... but habitat conditions that meet the returning ducks that spring.

If the habitat conditions are not right, even homing hen suzy will not stick around and attempt to nest and raise her brood.

[brittman]

ON MN WMAs - it would be great to see management by thirds.

The DNR rarely manages their land well (I get it - budgets), but seeing grassland with individual cedar trees moving in via succession is troublesome.

CRP - moving crops into grass. You are not going to have most landonwers wanting to plant trees there. The vast majority of land is still owned by farmers and not sportsman.

[creepworm]

CRP - moving crops into grass. You are not going to have most landonwers wanting to plant trees there. The vast majority of land is still owned by farmers and not sportsman.

You obviously have not been reading what Landdr has been typing. Everyone wants to plant trees and shrubs, and everyone cares that the pheasant population is the highest it can possibly be.

[LandDr]

Ice Age...there are many program options available. I usually use between 5 to 10 when putting a plan together but it is dependent on the property and the landowner's objectives.

Cworm...I'm still waiting for a PM for your name so I can look up the plan you said I put together and none of the programs qualified.

[creepworm]

Landdr,

I could give you my name, but you will find nothing in your records under my name, seeing I was 17 at the time. Also, there is no plan period for the land we were thinking of creating wildlife habitat on. We met with you at a sportsman show and after explaining what we were looking to do you starting naming off programs that "everyone" that you work with qualifies for. (very similar to what you are doing on here) After talking to the people that count (USDA,FSA) we found out very few people qualify for these programs and we were not part of the very few.

I don't know if you are familiar with a herbicide called Spike 20P but it kills shrubs and trees. You apply it on the ground near trees and shrubs at 5 lbs per acre and it gets rained into the soil and eventually kills the trees and shrubs. It is not easy to get, is very expensive, and requires an applicators license in order to apply it. In other words it is a pain. So far this fall, I have ordered 150 lbs of it for farmers, and a vast majority of that is being spread on CRP ground. Generally the trees that they are trying to kill in this region of SD is cedar trees. When I mention cedars make great pheasant habitat they reply by saying "may be great for pheasants, but they will not be so great if I take that piece out of CRP". See what I am saying here? Management by thirds is awesome, but a majority of the landowners want nothing to do with it. That majority is the ones we will need if we are to substantially increase pheasant numbers.

Continue on with the sales pitch.

[LandDr]

Cworm...so you are declaring that none of the programs I planned for your property qualify even though I actually did not put a plan together for your property? That isn't really fair to declare that my recommendations don't work when I actually didn't make any recommendations for your specific farm (in regards to an actual plan) now is it?

When I talk to people at sport shows or anywhere else, and I don't have their aerial photos, soils overlays, etc, then I have to "generalize" about program options. There is NOW WAY I could provide you with actual program options for your property at a sport show.

To take the high road with you, I will offer you a review of your property and provide a map with options for you to consider. Just provide me with your Township, Range and Section.

To everyone that is reading this...don't think for a second that what the govt and non-profits tell you is fact. If I map out options for you and then they tell you nothing qualifies...that is almost always not true. For example, and not my project, a landowner in Douglas Co SD applied for a program options. County said "no, those don't qualify". He contacted me to see what I thought and I definitely thought they qualified. To prove the point and to set a precedent, he appealed and took them to court. He won and everything did qualify. This is just one of many many many examples.

Cworm...I never said EVERYONE is going to do PLM Management by Thirds and I never said everyone is even going to look at habitat options. The farmers you describe will not sign up for CRP any more than they will sign up for PLM's plan...so please compare apples to apples. What I am saying is to offer the design options to people that come in to look at habitat options. That is not being done...they are just pushing grass. Those people that are looking at habitat options should be offered all of the options and given the pros\cons so they can make decisions. That is not happening. "The majority of the landowners" that you are referring to probably don't want any habitat program. But the ones that do should be offered all of the options.

[BLACKJACK]

To me the big key here is that it needs to be designed as a multi-purpose conservation plan that benefits all wildlife and all conservation needs (clean water, soil conservation etc.) and then sold to the general public as a benefit to all stakeholders. Making an effort like this solely about pheasants, ducks, hunting etc. will just alienate people who don't share those interests but whose tax dollars will be needed to fund the programs.

Thats exactly the point, restoring PRAIRIE for pollinators and prairie birds like meadowlarks is all the controlling agencies think about anymore!!! If they have a 400 acre parcel, taking out 20 acres for a shelterbelt and foodplots would allow plenty of acres for the prairie species AND would allow other species like pheasants and deer to survive.

Someone in an earlier post mentioned that 10% of the landscape needs to be in grass. On a big scale, thats not going to happen, if there is more money in corn and soybeans, thats what you and I and most farmers are going to do. On a smaller scale, we do have areas where 10% of the land is in grass, mainly public hunting lands, but they still don't have half the pheasant they could have because there isn't any winter cover or food.

[brittman]

With the harvest now if full push and such a dry fall, there will little residual food around many WMAs and WPAs - just black dirt.

[creepworm]

The farmers you describe will not sign up for CRP any more than they will sign up for PLM's plan...so please compare apples to apples.

Feel free to reread my post. Especially the part where I said a majority of the Spike I am selling is being spread on CRP. So, evidently they will sign up for CRP, but do not want trees or shrubs to grow in their CRP.

The majority of the landowners in MN's pheasant range will happily sign up some of their lesser ground into CRP. Funding availability and ridiculous crop prices have kept that from happening. Now that crop prices are lower than break evens for many farmers, it would be the time to put in a good amount of CRP, but the funding is not there.

These same landowners generally do not care about pheasant or deer populations. They like to see pheasants and deer, but not enough to put work or financial backing into raising their populations. They also do not want to have a lot of work if in 10 years they can not get their re-enrolled in these programs. So, if we want to raise the pheasant population it looks like it will be because of grass.

[creepworm]

"The majority of the landowners" that you are referring to probably don't want any habitat program.

So then you agree with me?

[BLACKJACK]

With the harvest now if full push and such a dry fall, there will little residual food around many WMAs and WPAs - just black dirt.

The combines are so much more efficient nowadays that when they're done you'd have a hard time finding a five gallon buck of corn off a picked 80 acre corn field. Then after it gets tilled up, I'll be you couldn't fill an ice cream bucket. What are the pheasants supposed to eat?

[LandDr]

"it would be the time to put in a good amount of CRP, but the funding is not there."

Wrong...it is there. If the funding isn't there, how did I just get done signing up all the options for the land in SD? How? Because the funding IS there.

You profess to know my business and everything I can or can't do...yet you have not worn my hat or walked a day in my shoes nor have given me your contact information to review your property and present you with options. So...until you care to step up to the plate, please do not tell me or anyone else what we can or can't do. And please stop grinding your ax!

In the meantime, I have several other properties to get plans together for to take advantage of all the funding and opportunities that is available.

Land Dr

[creepworm]

Wrong...it is there. If the funding isn't there, how did I just get done signing up all the options for the land in SD? How? Because the funding IS there.

http://gfp.sd.gov/pheasantsummit/docs/2014%20Farm%20Bill%20CRP%20Changes.pdf

Just looking at the table at the top of this link you will see that we will not even be able to keep what we have, much less gain any ground with these conservation programs. Every time you sign someone up for CRP and get cost sharing for them to maximize carrying capacity that is awesome. I am happy you do it. However, it is only a minor win because those acres you are creating a plan for are simply being taken away from somewhere else.

With the reduction in acres that can be enrolled in CRP it means they are more selective in the acres they enroll. Seeing this thread is about MN, that is terrible news. Across most of the pheasant range in MN the land is not considered highly erodible, therefore those CRP acres will most likely end up going elsewhere, such as the Dakotas.

No matter how you look at it, habitat acreage will shrink do to decreased funding.

The funding IS there?

Not in my eyes.

[creepworm]

You profess to know my business and everything I can or can't do...yet you have not worn my hat or walked a day in my shoes nor have given me your contact information to review your property and present you with options. So...until you care to step up to the plate, please do not tell me or anyone else what we can or can't do. And please stop grinding your ax!

First of all, the land is not mine. Second of all, the land is leased to a farmer for the next five years at a price that is bordering on absurd. Third, I live 5 hours away, if the land was mine it would be farmed, because I have no use for hunting land that far away when I am surrounded by great hunting land that is much closer.

Therefore, I see no reason to give you my contact information or have you make a plan for this land, seeing it would be a waste of my time and yours.

[carpshooterdeluxe]

All this arguing over a non native species.

[LandDr]

Creep...then it is also a waste of time and inappropriate to make comments such as you do about my services or what I can or can't do. I also find it hypocritical that you comment about others and profess yourself but you have the position of not doing anything for one reason or another. "I live 5 hours away, if the land was mine it would be farmed, because I have no use for hunting land that far away when I am surrounded by great hunting land that is much closer." LOL...don't do anything if it was yours but cut down everyone else down for what they are doing? Sorry...I've heard enough.

I need to get to work...another property to design. Have a great day!

[CaptainMusky]

The pheasant summit looks to be open to all. Check out the MN DNR webpage and register. I encourage all who can attend to do so.

Also, if you are not able to attend, there will be a survey and there is an opportunity to send Dayton, comments or questions.

Lots of opportunity to get your voice, comments, questions out there.

[CaptainMusky]

All this arguing over a non native species.

We're a non-native species as well, so what's your point???