# 280000 dollars allocated for 5800 birds. That's 48 dollars a bird!!!



## Possum209 (Aug 5, 2017)

Seems like a lot


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

It is! Especially if you consider buying in bulk or volume.

What is ironic is the cost the state MIDNR funds used to construct the pens in the 70's then dismantle them, and now paying more than you can buy one or two birds yourself from a breeder. The plus side, I believe the state general fund is picking up this bill? Except for MIDNR employees working on this project, that is funded by hunters money's, and the property they are released on were paid by hunters money's. Either way a very expensive lesson seems to be repeated.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

Maybe it includes the money to pay employees who are also involved in the project?


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Here in the segment on MOOD TV they openly said volunteers. Not sure if it was for the first time hunter episode, or the whole process. Looks like more money is spent on everything but birds.

Not sure if I read it or heard it but remember cost was $15 per rooster. To allow not a loss from Michigan gamebird breeders association. So the rest of the money is like water trickle down profits, but not spent on the bird themselves.


----------



## FNC (Jun 5, 2007)

I believe it's 5,800 birds released in 2019 and 5,800 birds released in 2020. So $24 give-or-take...


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

My question is with many preserves available throughout the state, why is tax dollars used. If someone wanted to use pen reared birds they can do it themselves during the season or at a preserve during and out of the states ringneck season. Then again they would have to use their money not the state's?


----------



## Possum209 (Aug 5, 2017)

Hunters Edge said:


> My question is with many preserves available throughout the state, why is tax dollars used. If someone wanted to use pen reared birds they can do it themselves during the season or at a preserve during and out of the states ringneck season. Then again they would have to use their money not the state's?


Them and many other non bird hunters paid their money for the base licence. This is simply for getting the support they need to justify a base licence. IMO


----------



## Possum209 (Aug 5, 2017)

I did some math which I'm not great at but to me if everything was split equally, not adjusting for the couple of put and take areas that aren't getting December releases, there's about sixty some roosters released a week per state game area. The particular one I've been hunting that's about six per field with some being quite large than others. Still not that bad.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Possum209 said:


> Them and many other non bird hunters paid their money for the base licence. This is simply for getting the support they need to justify a base licence. IMO


They do not need support it's a done deal but deer hunters are pissed. Having a pheasant release will not change forcing someone to purchase an item they do not have interest in or plans to use. Especially with HAP supposedly implemented to open private property in SLM and offer hunting opportunities where public property is far less than NLP, then use those funds to lease property in NELP. Than those few public areas in SLP are used for release of pheasants which shrinks the already shortage of available public ground even more so.

I hope it is successful but highly doubt it's success for this was a major issue of stopping put n take. It caused friction between hunters wanting to use the public ground other than hunting pen released pheasants. Remember it's already in areas of high population or what little there is in high demand because of close proximity to high populations.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Possum209 said:


> Them and many other non bird hunters paid their money for the base licence. This is simply for getting the support they need to justify a base licence. IMO


This has nothing to do with the base license. Base license was created because other states created the base license and forced our hand. When the first state did it they had more sold licenses which got them an unfair slice of the pitman robertson fund. Other states had to follow suit to even the playing field and get their share back. 

As far as the pheasant release program ohio, indiana and Pennsylvania all have a program and it is successful there. No reason michigan hunters that want something similar cant have some sort of program here. For those so against it dont participate or start a program you would want. Its that simple.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

DirtySteve said:


> This has nothing to do with the base license. Base license was created because other states created the base license and forced our hand. When the first state did it they had more sold licenses which got them an unfair slice of the pitman robertson fund. Other states had to follow suit to even the playing field and get their share back.
> 
> As far as the pheasant release program ohio, indiana and Pennsylvania all have a program and it is successful there. No reason michigan hunters that want something similar cant have some sort of program here. For those so against it dont participate or start a program you would want. Its that simple.


Not that simple. Seeing it is funded by general fund and deemed by legislature, they could contact their representative and senator, whether for or against.

The base license is a price increase no matter how you try to sway it.

I enjoyed the put n take while it lasted. Several reasons where given for it's departure. The biggest I can see clearly now, is the DNR is not footing the bill, it is funded from general funds.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Hunters Edge said:


> Not that simple. Seeing it is funded by general fund and deemed by legislature, they could contact their representative and senator, whether for or against.
> 
> The base license is a price increase no matter how you try to sway it.
> 
> I enjoyed the put n take while it lasted. Several reasons where given for it's departure. The biggest I can see clearly now, is the DNR is not footing the bill, it is funded from general funds.


The fact that the legislature passed todays pheasant initiative is a positive not a negative. People outside of hunters supporting a hunting initiative is a good thing. The new proposal will make it a hunter funded program.


----------



## Wolverick (Dec 11, 2008)

In a perfect world this would all be handled by the private sector. It is not a perfect world, so my question to those who are opposed to the program is, what else are people going to hunt in the slp? I used to live down there in a time when you could have a good day afield on state land, close to the western suburbs of Detroit. Then the farming practices changed and slowly the birds disappeared. At the same time the migration of people from the city caused the large farms to be broken up and the building in what was rural land began. It`s hard to find private land to hunt, which put even more pressure on the limited state land in zone three.

Without planting birds those area would be devoid of game. I saw places that had good hunting become small game deserts. Proud Lake Recreation Area, areas west of there near Milford and Dansville and Stockbridge all were crawling with people and the game was nowhere to be found.

I would rather see this program provide some opportunity for hunters down there than see those hunters hang up their guns in frustration due to a lack of game. I support it and hope it expands. Maybe to include private lands where people are being paid to open their land to hunting. Maybe even to other species of game.


----------



## Possum209 (Aug 5, 2017)

I took advantage of the program today. Actually put up quite a few birds. Probably ten other guys out in the couple hours it took me to get my limit. I'm not against the program just think it could be a little more efficient. Dog had a blast that's all that really matters to me.


----------



## Mi. Chuck (Jun 12, 2018)

Whether you are pro or con on this "new" program, it was sold on recruit and retain hunters. If that's the case, and you want your new hunters to have a quality hunt at the lowest taxpayer's expense why not make these changes: Have the program run at the shooting farms where they can be sure "new" hunters get a priority and everyone gets a fair chance. They could even issue leg tags so people would have less of a chance abusing the program. The shooting farms should be able reduce costs by not driving several miles to release birds. They may also be able to manage birds so as not to get stuck with costly year end seed eaters. There's probably many other reasons to streamline the program so that it reduces costs while truly recruiting new shooters, and retaining the guys who want to give it another try without dropping some major change. Anyway you analyze it, shooting clubs have always been available this benefits shooters and general fund contributors. Win win deal.


----------



## on a call (Jan 16, 2010)

Can I buy birds and resell ?? 

We used to buy birds for 5.80


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Mi. Chuck said:


> Whether you are pro or con on this "new" program, it was sold on recruit and retain hunters. If that's the case, and you want your new hunters to have a quality hunt at the lowest taxpayer's expense why not make these changes: Have the program run at the shooting farms where they can be sure "new" hunters get a priority and everyone gets a fair chance. They could even issue leg tags so people would have less of a chance abusing the program. The shooting farms should be able reduce costs by not driving several miles to release birds. They may also be able to manage birds so as not to get stuck with costly year end seed eaters. There's probably many other reasons to streamline the program so that it reduces costs while truly recruiting new shooters, and retaining the guys who want to give it another try without dropping some major change. Anyway you analyze it, shooting clubs have always been available this benefits shooters and general fund contributors. Win win deal.


Do you honestly believe it could be somehow cheaper to use a hunt clubs land to host non member general public hunts vs hire them to raise birds and have their help plant birds one day a week for 2-3 hrs? Either way you are you are paying for the birds and time of planting. 

There is no way possible way you can rent land for hundreds of hunters weekly cheaper than paying a couple peoples 20 min travel time once a week. 

The state is paying $15 a bird. The club by me that provides the same birds for the state charges thousands for membership and $25 per bird to hunt on their land. Not to mention bird minums per gun and number of gun minimums. It costs a couple hundred to hunt 4 hrs in their field not counting membership fees.


----------



## Mi. Chuck (Jun 12, 2018)

I 


DirtySteve said:


> Do you honestly believe it could be somehow cheaper to use a hunt clubs land to host non member general public hunts vs hire them to raise birds and have their help plant birds one day a week for 2-3 hrs? Either way you are you are paying for the birds and time of planting.
> 
> There is no way possible way you can rent land for hundreds of hunters weekly cheaper than paying a couple peoples 20 min travel time once a week.
> 
> The state is paying $15 a bird. The club by me that provides the same birds for the state charges thousands for membership and $25 per bird to hunt on their land. Not to mention bird minums per gun and number of gun minimums. It costs a couple hundred to hunt 4 hrs in their field not counting membership fees.


I was thinking more in line of quality and control than cost. I've shot at both the high end membership clubs, and the el cheapo pay as you go and there is a huge difference. Some of the cheaper places may compete in price. I don't know. Lots of factors involved. Thanks.


----------



## DoubleJay (Aug 9, 2009)

Possum209 said:


> I did some math which I'm not great at but to me if everything was split equally, not adjusting for the couple of put and take areas that aren't getting December releases, there's about sixty some roosters released a week per state game area. The particular one I've been hunting that's about six per field with some being quite large than others. Still not that bad.


15 per week at Pointe Mouilee


----------



## Mi. Chuck (Jun 12, 2018)

DoubleJay said:


> 15 per week at Pointe Mouilee


Thx. I have hunted that field years ago and was wondering how many birds were planted. Surprisingly few. It looks like it's been hunted but, have yet to see anyone in the field. Thx.


----------

