# Food for thought



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

I have been hunting the same hap land for a long time this year i harvested 6 and lost two,none were this years birds.I see raptors every time I go and some fox and coyote tracks.My dogs find everything there and i have not found a kill on the ground there yet.its not a large area.Everywhere i have hunted in my life has had predators and birds and the only thing that changed was the loss of idle fields and then the birds went away soon after.just a few years ago my friend in goodrich on green road would see pheasants daily then more houses went in over and over the fields turned to lawns,swamp areas are now ponds and the farm next to him put in drain tiles turned swamps into ponds and the land is sterile now.we dont see the teal or the wood ducks that nested there every year also. At times you would see 20 plus birds flying at once.then the numbers dropped.Then two years ago the 80 acre piece on the other side was bought and cleared and turned to ag in the same manner now there is hardly none.There was raptors there all the time.My concept is about habitat,soil conservation.,wildlife conservation through pheasant hunters who honestly get a small return.But wild life gets a big return.My old bosses brother had 40 acres of idle on hunters creek and it was stacked with birds and there were raptors?And for your information the state did have a 8 bird season limit years ago but it was ineffective legislation I was told.Wild birds can repopulate with habitat thats what wildlife does.Habitat is the catalyst.Releasing birds is unproductive hardly any survive and they don't have the skill or knowledge of food sources and cover to survive as wild birds do.The hap i hunt has lots of names on the sign in sheet and is hunted hard but its still producing birds?One day at sundown a group of twenty came from the corn and landed right on top of me and my dogs?At the end of the year in north dakota my friend jim trys to get as many people together as possible and kill every rooster on his farm he claims its less competition for the hens and their survival rate goes up because the roosters fight the hens off of the food sources attacking them.He is almost sixty now and said when he was young they didnt have pheasants but then the crp programs started and the population exploded.This is now the famous regent and mott areas in hettinger county.We asked him about the raptors and golden eagles and ground nesting owls and he said they have always been there and it didnt matter and the population just kept growing.The people there make fun of south dakota because they release birds there and they brag that they have only wild birds.Habitat is the key.I"m trying to to turn the page and envision a new chapter and it seems like some of you guys aren't willing to.The past programs were failures indeed but none involved habitat.pheasats in china lived in non agricultural habitat and now is the most widely spread game bird in the world.Seen them in ireland a lot when i was there.They adapt well and just need habitat.A good plan and program always works.


----------



## FNC (Jun 5, 2007)

For What it's Worth,

I - and many of my pheasant hunting friends - would happily pay an annual Upland Habitat Stamp provided:
* The funds actually went toward establishing and managing the upland habitat,
* The landowners that received funding for said habitat made it accessible for hunting.

Minnesota's local Pheasants Forever organizations do a nice job of teaming up with their DNR and other conservation groups (such as Ducks Unlimited and others) to pool funds and actually purchase land to establish Public Hunting and Wildlife Production Areas - all open to the general public for hunting. Even short of purchasing land, if the habitat were truly managed (ie: brush clearing and prescribed burns, etc.) perhaps Michigan hunting and habitat organizations could look into this approach to "control their own destiny" and not wait for the DNR's next program? I'm always amazed at Michigan's mid- to southern-state land and how woody/brushy the cover is - I suppose its great for deer, turkeys, raccoons, opossums, skunks, etc - but basically useless for upland birds.

Put and take is a joke. I was around during the 70's when that debacle took place in Michigan. There are numerous preserves that do a much better job of this type of hunting and they should benefit from the demand. For wild birds, it's all about habitat.

Good discussion though!

Frank


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

Frank- The SGA's are brushy because it costs incredible amounts of money to cut brush for upland habitat.
Each additional bird probably costs $100.00/yr

The math isn't hard.
X acres redeveloped, Add up the sunk costs, fuel, labor, equip depreciation, seed, etc.
Y broods/ parcel, 50% cock birds,

Net it out per bird shot.

There's a reason a preserve gets more than $10.00/bird, and then salvages out bred out hens for $5.00.

8 tags a season keeps honest people honest. 8 tags forces retirees (with resources to lose) to restrain themselves.
Like in all endeavors, 10% of the fisherman harvest 90% of the fish.

The resource, whatever it has dwindled to, should be spread around so that more people can have a pleasant day on public lands. 

The elimination of the season limit created a free for all to the detriment of the resource.

All the people promoting stocking birds should google search PA's problems, and the threads about it posted on various sportsmen's BBS's.


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

Lamarsh said:


> I surmise it'd be tough to get a pheasant at much less than $10/bird, and that being said, it would make stocking and keeping up a population tough to do for even $30 from each hunter per year.


You do realize that we are talking about state government here? I doubt they can buy a pencil for$10. LOL


----------



## FNC (Jun 5, 2007)

Gamekeeper said:


> Frank- The SGA's are brushy because it costs incredible amounts of money to cut brush for upland habitat.
> Each additional bird probably costs $100.00/yr
> 
> The math isn't hard.
> ...


Gamekeeper - you are correct it is costly to manage the SGA resource. However if we, as upland hunters, want to control our own destiny perhaps it's time to do the math and see what it would really cost. If we want to talk about native upland species and use that as our driver, then let's consider the bobwhite quail - a Michigan native. I can guarantee you that if we improved bobwhite habitat, pheasants would benefit directly from that. The last year I saw various coveys of quail and put a few in the bag was 2003. The next year when the 60-acre hay field was planted in soybeans was the end of bobwhite quail and pheasants in that area - no nesting habitat. Before that I shot alot of roosters out of that field as well. This is in Macomb County no less.

For wild upland bird habitat I still think Minnesota has the right idea with PF, DU, their DNR and other conservation groups teaming up, pooling funds and actually purchasing marginal farm ground and managing the habitat. They must be doing something right as they are on par with states like Iowa and Kansas for annual pheasant harvest.

Just my thoughts.

Frank


----------



## Lamarsh (Aug 19, 2014)

Lucky Dog said:


> You do realize that we are talking about state government here? I doubt they can buy a pencil for$10. LOL


Correct, but we're talking about a hunter financed pheasant hunt, completely pay to play via tag/stamp. Whether that is feasible is still certainly debatable. I'd have to see it to believe it, but I'm just saying I'd be in to try it.


----------



## slammer (Feb 21, 2006)

Beca


Hunters Edge said:


> I highly disagree. Not saying I do not want pheasant populations back to what they were in the 60s, it just is not going to happen. I would rather see the money spent to reestablish sharptail grouse and prairie chickens throughout the state. Not only do we have the habitat needed along with grain fields the USFW recognize these as native game species, unlike pheasants which are non native or introduced. Which would not only help funding, but if indeed the reason for population declines associated, would have to correct it, even if it was found from birds of prey. Or more importantly a treaty we made causing a population explosion of raptors and a winter migration that creates a high density of raptors in Michigan.
> If or another reason would threaten a native species, things will be done to correct it. By correcting this it would not only allow the native species to maintain or continue to populate but also the non native species such as Pheasants.
> Have you ever wondered why the native sharptail grouse and prairie chickens have not had the MDNR support to reestablish and reintroduce these species, they have had about 100 years to do so? Yet they have reeastablished wolves, reintroduced turkeys to name a few.


Because there isn't enough habitat.


----------



## slammer (Feb 21, 2006)

FNC said:


> Gamekeeper - you are correct it is costly to manage the SGA resource. However if we, as upland hunters, want to control our own destiny perhaps it's time to do the math and see what it would really cost. If we want to talk about native upland species and use that as our driver, then let's consider the bobwhite quail - a Michigan native. I can guarantee you that if we improved bobwhite habitat, pheasants would benefit directly from that. The last year I saw various coveys of quail and put a few in the bag was 2003. The next year when the 60-acre hay field was planted in soybeans was the end of bobwhite quail and pheasants in that area - no nesting habitat. Before that I shot alot of roosters out of that field as well. This is in Macomb County no less.
> 
> For wild upland bird habitat I still think Minnesota has the right idea with PF, DU, their DNR and other conservation groups teaming up, pooling funds and actually purchasing marginal farm ground and managing the habitat. They must be doing something right as they are on par with states like Iowa and Kansas for annual pheasant harvest.
> 
> ...


100% agree. People here are too lazy to be honest. It's easier to use the way idea of go to a game farm and hunt quail you can pick up with your hands or pay $20 for a pheasant. We will keep using grouse and woodcock until they are gone and then bitch the state let it happen.
We have way too many hunters in this state and others from out of state, it's only a matter of time before we are like other states and hunting early release birds and paying out of the ass to do it.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

slammer said:


> 100% agree. People here are too lazy to be honest. It's easier to use the way idea of go to a game farm and hunt quail you can pick up with your hands or pay $20 for a pheasant. We will keep using grouse and woodcock until they are gone and then bitch the state let it happen.
> We have way too many hunters in this state and others from out of state, it's only a matter of time before we are like other states and hunting early release birds and paying out of the ass to do it.


We are not even close to other states. For one we have thousands of acres of public land in all zones. We also have many private lands open to public use being inroled in the commercial forest act. For habitat road right aways are not mowed tell after July 15 the to allow additional thousand of acres for nesting. 
I here talk of HAP land we also had many thousands of acres just a few years ago in crp until the bottom fell out.
Add to this private property through out the state putting in habitat in the past and some now doing so.

The issue is not habitat or lack of it but raptors. Has anyone here run into an area that your tripping over woodcock? Does anyone here waterfowl hunt and actually had a day they kept coming in after everyone got their limit? If so you may understand what I have been trying for you to grasp or understand. Migratory birds are exactly that, they migrate thus the reason for the treaty on avian predators / raptures. Some Canadian raptures actually winter here. The real reason have you noticed the nuisance Canadian geese we got going on right now, the same thing is happening in Michigan with raptures in winter. Start counting them on the side of the highway. Also most songbirds are gone by now, what do you think they are living on? When they are thick as their migration similar to when woodcock are underfoot, they still got to eat.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Gamekeeper said:


> I want a balanced ecosystem. One that is self sustaining.
> It's a shame others don't.
> I am not for the slaughter of raptors to indulge a delusional 1940's fantasy.
> 
> ...


Not sure about the 40s but after the treaty in the 70s is when pheasant populations dropped. In the 50s and 60s they were thick as fleas. Did a lightbulb come on? Let's look at it a different way do you see anything coincidental?

1 70s raptors protected with treaty.
2 70s decline of pheasant and quail.
3 DNR started out n take but in the pens prior to being released raptors and predators were put in pens.
4 put n take does not work in bring back pheasant populations.
5 Sischuan pheasant program starts. Again raptors and predators put in flight pens prior to being released.
6 Only difference besides lack of a white ring around neck and slightly smaller in size, is the fact their preferred habitat is in woods or brush (canopy to help them survive avian predation)
7 Sischuan release failure, during winter months and raptures migration or high density, sischuan also out in field getting grain and or grit.

Today you can find pockets of high populations of pheasants in Michigan. Unfortunately as soon as the raptors find and move in on them it is like a feeding frenzy.

Habitat helps but is not the problem or issue. In the City,s Detroit for one you can find pheasants and the habitat is sparse and far from superior. They do not have the high density of raptors. They even had to relocate falcons into the city to help curb pigeon populations. 
That maybe another issue with in the country most songbirds have migrated south. In the city besides pigeons many feed songbirds for viewing, thus giving or leaving their food source from going south.


----------



## FNC (Jun 5, 2007)

Hunters Edge said:


> Not sure about the 40s but after the treaty in the 70s is when pheasant populations dropped. In the 50s and 60s they were thick as fleas. Did a lightbulb come on? Let's look at it a different way do you see anything coincidental?
> 
> 1 70s raptors protected with treaty.
> 2 70s decline of pheasant and quail.
> ...


Hunters Edge,

The big pheasant states (South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota) have: habitat (food, cover, water), pheasants, and raptors (and a host of other ground predators). I think you are assigning too much influence to raptors. I would argue strongly that if any one of the elements of habitat (food, cover, water) are missing, pheasant populations will be negatively affected. On December hunts in South Dakota and Iowa I have personally watched pheasants successfully evade hawks in the numerous tree-lined shelterbelts that dot the country-side. Do raptors occasionally catch an unsuspecting pheasant scratching for feed in the the open - of course. However, being opportunists like most predators, raptors will pursue and consume whatever prey animal is most readily available and requires minimal expenditure of energy to capture. I think the majority of diet of most raptors consists of rodents (mice and rabbits) of which there are alot more of than pheasants.

I still think habitat - especially nesting habitat - is the limiting factor in Michigan.

Frank


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

Habitat is my concern.These other states have raptor's and they migrate so why aren't they in the Midwest instead of here.Second of all they have 2 or 3 eggs in which only one or two may survive as they push the weaker siblings from the nest.mortality rate is 80% or higher for red tails.They have few chicks as the work for a predator to feed them is daunting.game birds nests have high egg counts up to a dozen and have a higher survival rate and they eat insects, plant matter,nuts,Berries and seeds.Nature designed this balance.90% of a red tails diet is rodent's. Predators prefer easy prey and don't risk injury because they need the ability to hunt.Game animals don't have to run down their food.The reason you see red tails along the highway's iis because thats the only habitat around with the grasses to provide habitat for the rodents.I see dozens of mice in a glance at the hap land I hunt and this is why the raptor's are hunting there.The highest mortality rate for game birds is from nest raiders by far.They will kill a dozen pheasants before there hatched.or grouse also.Time to turn the page and write a new chapter.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

FNC said:


> Hunters Edge,
> 
> The big pheasant states (South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota) have: habitat (food, cover, water), pheasants, and raptors (and a host of other ground predators). I think you are assigning too much influence to raptors. I would argue strongly that if any one of the elements of habitat (food, cover, water) are missing, pheasant populations will be negatively affected. On December hunts in South Dakota and Iowa I have personally watched pheasants successfully evade hawks in the numerous tree-lined shelterbelts that dot the country-side. Do raptors occasionally catch an unsuspecting pheasant scratching for feed in the the open - of course. However, being opportunists like most predators, raptors will pursue and consume whatever prey animal is most readily available and requires minimal expenditure of energy to capture. I think the majority of diet of most raptors consists of rodents (mice and rabbits) of which there are alot more of than pheasants.
> 
> ...


They may have shelter belts but far from the trees and tree lined fence rows in Michigan. I also am not an expert on the subject but migratory raptors may have distinct flyways just as waterfowl do.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

birdhntr said:


> Habitat is my concern.These other states have raptor's and they migrate so why aren't they in the Midwest instead of here.Second of all they have 2 or 3 eggs in which only one or two may survive as they push the weaker siblings from the nest.mortality rate is 80% or higher for red tails.They have few chicks as the work for a predator to feed them is daunting.game birds nests have high egg counts up to a dozen and have a higher survival rate and they eat insects, plant matter,nuts,Berries and seeds.Nature designed this balance.90% of a red tails diet is rodent's. Predators prefer easy prey and don't risk injury because they need the ability to hunt.Game animals don't have to run down their food.The reason you see red tails along the highway's iis because thats the only habitat around with the grasses to provide habitat for the rodents.I see dozens of mice in a glance at the hap land I hunt and this is why the raptor's are hunting there.The highest mortality rate for game birds is from nest raiders by far.They will kill a dozen pheasants before there hatched.or grouse also.Time to turn the page and write a new chapter.


They may have shelter belts but a far cry difference of tree lined and trees. Also temperatures and weather patterns in winter may determine their flypaths and/ or wintering yards.

I am not concerned with nesting, spring, summer or early fall, they have plenty of songbirds. I do understand nesting and they are not prone to nest close to other nests in general, thus more nesting is done in Michigan with the abundance of trees. Again nesting no big deal unless they decide to winter here along with migration of Canadian raptors passing through and more importantly wintering here.

Please use logic and reasoning. If their are birds in the city with marginal at best for habitat and no grain fields. Yet no birds in the country. Make no mistake the city has ground predators and predation but little to none avian predation. Not sure if electric lines or the northern raptors coming south staying away from man. 

Also the preserves which was mentioned earlier causes high density of raptors in those areas as well.

Habitat has been tried in Michigan for many years sorry do not buy it. I actually was privileged to see the population sway from pheasants to raptors in an area with great habitat. You do not have to believe me that's OK. Just trying to open your eyes, and use your own reasoning with the knowledge of what has been tried before along with not just our state but the whole northeastern states. No thriving pheasant or quail populations any more. The declining woodcock numbers, may also be attributed to the high number or raptors? 

Just hope you wake up. I do believe habitat is a must but until the real reason we do not have a thriving pheasant population is corrected, we will not have a high pheasant population. It is sad, I wished the youth now and in the future were able to experience pheasant hunting as it was in the 60s without having to go out of state. It truly saddens me to think about it.


----------



## FNC (Jun 5, 2007)

Hunters Edge said:


> They may have shelter belts but a far cry difference of tree lined and trees. Also temperatures and weather patterns in winter may determine their flypaths and/ or wintering yards.
> 
> I am not concerned with nesting, spring, summer or early fall, they have plenty of songbirds. I do understand nesting and they are not prone to nest close to other nests in general, thus more nesting is done in Michigan with the abundance of trees. Again nesting no big deal unless they decide to winter here along with migration of Canadian raptors passing through and more importantly wintering here.
> 
> ...



Hunters Edge,

I think this is a good thread. I don't believe I attacked you in any way in my previous posts, I only shared my personal experiences. Would you like to continue the discussion or just insult me?

Nesting habitat: In Michigan it's fact - the limiting factor to increasing pheasant populations is lack of nesting habitat every spring. Pheasant nesting and brood success in dirt fields void of grass is poor. Pheasants are ground nesters, not sure where your song bird comments are going.

Detroit pheasants: I grew up in Warren in the 60's and 70's - pheasants were everywhere there was a woodlot or open field. Ultimately, just about every square inch of Warren was developed and guess what? With rare exceptions (railorad track rights of way and grassy watershed drainages) there are no more pheasants in Warren. I predict within 10 -20 years Detroit will also have no more pheasants because all of the overgrown vacant lots (pheasant habitat) will have been developed.

Predators: Ground predators (raccoons, skunks, opposum, etc) do far more damage to pheasant nests than hawks.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

FNC said:


> Hunters Edge,
> 
> I think this is a good thread. I don't believe I attacked you in any way in my previous posts, I only shared my personal experiences. Would you like to continue the discussion or just insult me?
> 
> ...


In the spring because of new vegetation growing their is a phenomen not sure what it is called but renders smell almost useless. Natures way to protect the young, but you are correct of nests, or chicks from ground predation.

Unfortunately this is far from what I have been trying to get across. Most likely it is my lack of explaining it or to put it in words to express myself.

Let's see the question is did the egg or the chicken came first? Can be useful in explaining this hopefully.

What you said about habitat vs subdivision development basically is correct. On the other hand the input of ground predators, does not matter if the birds do not make it through the winter.

It is similar to the DNR thinking and spending MILLIONS on the sischuan. Thinking the canopy will offer the protection from avian predators. Unfortunately the sischuan in the winter still needs grit. During the winter the canopy is reduced and a brown blob on white is visible especially from the air. Also like many species looking for the easiest meal, especially grain in the fields to offset the cold or frigid temps.

During the spring notice the migration of songbirds. They will feed many predators including raptors. Have you ever witness songbirds attacking raptors and crows, why do you think that is? They are trying to protect their young or nests, even to the death. Usually they put up enough nuisance to drive them away.

Any way the spring summer and early fall has little compared to winter or early spring before the songbirds arrive.

To think that managing predators through trapping and hunting but to allow raptors not to be managed is the reason we do not have pheasants or high populations through out the state instead of pockets.

Pockets come about of pheasant populations grow. Then when they get high enough to get noticed and start feeding on. Other raptors move in and actually destroy the population in that area. Allowing another area to go unscathed to build up the population in that other area. Note sometimes when they take a high density down it is so low it sometimes does not comeback, most likely from the high ground predators that were using them as a basis of food as well.

Again we have habitat, actually a lot of it. Not saying we can not use more, but unless the raptors are managed, not decimated but managed just like other predators, we and other northeastern states will never have a high pheasant population.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

It is different because we are talking quail. In western states where they had to reastablish quail populations they had used the quail condo. Basically an area that is protecting the quail from avian predators. So why do you think they needed or used it to reastablish quail. Note habitat did not change.


----------



## birdhntr (Jan 25, 2014)

Releasing birds is not effective.Just like all wildlife they learn life skills from being raised in the wild.Sechuans and ringnecked pheasants iin China lived in mountainous regions and forested habitat not fields.No difference. All the habitat i used to hunt is gone !The landscape and use has changed drastically over the years.


----------



## gundogguy (Oct 5, 2008)

" Food for thought" eh, yikes all this thinking is making me hungry!
Easy peasey have half the folks in Michigan (Dems) to relocated to Illinois, they would love it there, it is a socialists dream there and they have damn few pheasants as well, and then Michigan would have the elbow room that would allow pheasants to flourish. Without a drastic reduction in population of man kind in this state Pheasants will never come back


----------



## fordman1 (Dec 12, 2015)

Hunters Edge said:


> In the spring because of new vegetation growing their is a phenomen not sure what it is called but renders smell almost useless. Natures way to protect the young, but you are correct of nests, or chicks from ground predation.
> 
> Unfortunately this is far from what I have been trying to get across. Most likely it is my lack of explaining it or to put it in words to express myself.
> 
> ...


I don't think you know what a lot of habitat is. I have traveled west for many years hunting and they don't even have the habitat they use to and the bird population has suffered for it. 100 acres here and 200 over there don't work all that well. Also the state game areas we have are not all grass like out west, you have lots of old growth forest mixed in which don't provide much. A state game area of say 9,000 acres is usually 40% trees and then at least 25% crops, what is left is field but not always good grass. Add in the way it gets pounded during the season and you cannot expect there to be a good amount of birds to be there. Then the surrounding area is also poor or nothing for them to go to so where do you expect all these birds to live? Way different then the other states you are bringing up and I have been to many of them.


----------

