MN Pheasant Summit?

[Bureaucrat]

I hope for the pheasant folks out there, that they go better than the deer listening sessions.

[muc33]

My mind is now numb. Kyle, you spend a lot of time in defense of something you sell. I can appreciate that. But, what the general thought here is in my opinion, the readers of this forum would like to see the population at worst stay the same, if not grow. I think all here can agree on that. But, speak your mind at the summit, you can attend, there is no invitee list. All I can see here is your defense of why your way is correct and the others aren't. If that is the case, buy some ads, sell your positives, don't just spend time in defense of your way. It is more likely to become a negative for you than a positive. Just my 2 cents.

[CodyDawg]

I posted this in the Outdoor Discussion version of this thread as well, but thought it also belonged here. I added the last paragraph as that is specific to this thread and has been bugging me for awhile.

I will address the Pheasants Forever questions to some degree. Everyone needs a refresher on why PF is such a great organization. The chapter controls the money they raise. Each chapter has a board of directors that decides how to spend that money. The ability to keep and spend that money locally is incredibly powerful. PF also gives quite a bit of latitude on how each chapter spends that money. Each chapter can target youth, habitat, land acquisitions, etc. Some chapters choose to do habitat improvements, some choose youth education, some choose key land acquisitions (there is a vetting process that weeds out the properties that are in the middle of a black desert for instance). Some chapters do a little of each. PF does not sell the land to the DNR, it is donated. PF does not own any land.

Therefore, any criticism of PF with regards to habitat I feel is misplaced. There are soooo many WMAs in most counties that a chapter just cannot stretch its dollars and hours far enough among all the different activities that each chapter is involved in. In addition, these are VOLUNTEERS! Chapter leaders are not paid a dime. If people are complaining about PF not doing enough, then I ask, why aren't you a PF volunteer? You could then steer the chapter resources into improving habitat on WMAs! Or wherever the chapter chooses.

As for my personal opinion, WMAs are certainly not perfect, but they are essential to improving pheasant and other wildlife numbers. I have hunted other states fairly extensively, but I tell you what, I like MN's model better for our particular circumstance. Other states invested in walk in areas. They do not have a WMA network so they are reliant completely on private landowners. Have you seen what is happening in the Dakotas with regards to CRP and wildlife habitat? Have you seen what happened to Iowa with respect to pheasant numbers?

With respect to haying and grazing of WMAs; it is my understanding that they are used as an alternative to burning which we all know has a small window of time and thus many WMAs don't get burned as needed. They will not be hayed and grazed every year (it should only be once every 5-10? years). It is but one tool in the toolbox of the DNR.

The WMAs around me are actually in pretty good shape. The monocultures have been replanted into a better mix of grasses and I know of 2 of them that a local sportsmen's group has been allowed to put foodplots on. So to the complainers out there, why aren't you doing it???

As for LandDr's comment to stop supporting PF. Wow. I am usually pretty gentle on internet forums but that comment really bugs me. In fact, it may very well be the stupidest comment I have seen in a long time on a forum. For a guy who makes money doing this to criticize volunteers is beyond ludicrous. Especially given he obviously doesn't understand how PF works. I have never, ever seen PF say that grasslands only are what is needed. Quite the contrary, all of their Habitat Guides discuss winter cover requirements. Please folks, PF is part of the answer but not the entire answer. This problem is way bigger than 10 guys spending $10 grand a year in a county. These chapters are made up of guys and gals that are your friends and neighbors and they are trying hard to make a difference. They need all the help and support that you can give them. Better yet, join them on the committee and implement YOUR ideas.

[smalliehunter]

That was a well thought out response. Very accurate and good info in that one. Thank you Cody

[strait-meat]

It is great that organizations like DU and PF exists and are mostly stand alone but I have a problem when organizations like these push for raising taxes on everyone by supporting the Legacy Act. It is welfare for the Sportsman/outdoor lover. These organizations are moving more to the left and drinking the environmental kool-aid. It is pretty pathetic.

[CaptainMusky]

Cody great post I also agree that WMA s are an essential piece vs privatized land. This way its guaranteed to be there. There is no saying what is going to happen in 5 or 10 years but one thing is for sure those lands will still have habitat.

Some people take the stance that gubberment shouldn't own land and that is a bad thing blah blah blah, but when a farmer is faced with an expiring crop enrollment with higher grain prices he is going to side with making more money 9 of 10 times. We've already seen that.

Very few farmers are willing to take a loss on something and I can't say I blame them.

The fatal flaw in this whole thing and one thing I think the pheasant summit better focus on, don't make this solely about pheasants. Make this about nutrient run off, clean water, all wildlife including non sporting, etc.

[LandDr]

Cody...sent you a PM

[fishadb]

Weather. This is the reason there aren't many pheasants. Where I live in Western Swift County there has been very little habitat loss, if any. We are actually adding some CRP this spring. The last few years we get a 4 inch rain in June that drowns 90% of the chicks.

[Tom7227]

For those who want some reliable information about the State held lands and explanations of what were problems in the past I suggest you check this out.

http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/nrland.pdf

[CodyDawg]

Great link Tom. This helps to clarify some of the misconceptions out there. One of them that I picked up on is that the DNR cannot manage the MWAs without the money to do so. So to criticize the DNR when it has its hands tied is probably not the most effective way to create change. Rather, criticize (and encourage) your elected officials to provide the DNR the funding they need to get the job done.

[LandDr]

Regarding DNR's pheasant management on WMAs...

- Grazing WMAs down to short grass and then expect hens to make it through the winter? All for the sake of "prairie management". Sorry...pheasants are not a "prairie" species. They do best in diverse cover of woody cover, agriculture (crop, food plots and or feeders) and dense grass cover. Just look at the landscape where pheasants originally came from...it's not a prairie, from what I have read it was more of a woodland, mountainous type of landscape.

- Not planting winter thermal areas? Why not? The excuse that thermal areas are predator traps just doesn't match up against the number of birds lost through tough winters and springs.

- Not installing food sources? Again...why not? Non-migratory species have to eat, especially when the snow gets deep and the temps drop.

The DNR receives money every year...how are they spending what they get? If you like how they are spending it and the results they are getting from what they spend, then give them more I guess. If you are not happy with the results from what they do spend, then I would recommend getting the management plan changed before giving them more money. For example, they received $600,000-$800,000 and used it to graze WMAs...any idea of how many thermal plantings and food sources that would have created on WMAs withing the pheasant range? Any idea how many birds didn't make it through the winter in those WMAs that were grazed to the ground last year with all of the snow and cold temps?

As a tax payer and pheasant hunter, I would like to see pheasants actually being considered in the management plan of WMAs. When you see nothing but grass being planted and when you see WMAs being grazed, that is a "prairie plan"...not a "pheasant plan". You just have to look at Dr. Al Berner, the renowned pheasant biologist and head DNR farmland researcher out of the Medelia, MN DNR office...his research shows over and over the importance of thermal cover, food sources and dense prairie cover...he authored the "Winter Wildlife Habitat". Look it up...where along the way did the DNR forget to follow the research? Dr. Al Berner's research and publication very clearly spell out a recipe for more pheasants in the landscape with designed thermal cover associated with food sources associated with nesting\brooding habitat. The ONLY WMAs that I see designed following the research would be WMAs around the Marshall area. I agree with most of what Dr Al Berner describes except that he promotes a "9 square mile" philosophy where I promote a "Management by Thirds" philosophy...but the concepts and design are very similar. But again, the DNR has for the most part disregarded the research and are in a "prairie restoration" mode. But it just depends on what you want out of your WMAs...do you want thermal cover with food sources associated with prairie or do you want high diversity prairie? And no you can't use or count what the neighbor has on their land across the road...I learned a long time ago that you can't control what the neighbor does and you certainly don't want to risk your pheasant or deer population on what the neighbor does or doesn't do...you build it all within your property and within your control.

Sorry but I'm just not for funding more 100% prairie...I am for funding thermal cover associated with food sources associated with prairie. With that you will see higher carrying capacities and less dramatic drops in resident wildlife species.

[LandDr]

Read this and how much of this research is being followed? This is directly from the DNR research station in Medelia, MN and headed up by Dr. Al Berner...some people call him "Mr. Pheasant".

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/backyard/wildlifehabitat/winterwildlifehabitat.pdf

My "Management by Thirds" concept combines Dr. Al Berner's research, the research documented in "The Ringnecked Pheasant in Iowa" and my own personal experience and research...my percentages of woody cover and food sources are higher than Dr Al Berner's and my percentages are on smaller individual properties versus the "9 square mile" concept that Dr. Al Berner describes.

Follow the plan that research has provided and MN will have a higher and more stable pheasant population within 5 to 10 years...actually with dramatic results within the first year or two as well.

[Bureaucrat]

I read that whole thing. That is a very interesting read. It makes perfect sense. The one gem I took away from it... Nesting cover doesn't mean squat if the hens don't make it to spring.

[PurpleFloyd]

The whole problem is this can never be fixed by the government. Anything that they do eventually either ends or changes to the point that the original intent Ian lost or becomes fiscally unsustainable.

the only viable permanent solution needs to come from the land owners and it has to be worth it for the land owners.