MN Pheasant Summit?

[Bureaucrat]

Hi all,

This is my first post in the pheasant forum. Curious. What does everyone think will come of the MN Pheasant Summit being planned by the governor? I have a proposal for the work group to consider. Before that, I don't know that there are any easy solutions anymore. I think from here, it's going to be a tug-a-war between stakeholders to get something accomplished, whether it be over money or land. So...

Habitat is an ongoing topic of concern when it comes to pheasant, and funding sources to make it happen. What if the DNR shuffled its balance sheet by shedding some land in northern MN in exchange for land in southern MN?. I am well aware that it won't be an acre for acre trade. But wouldn't an acre of pheasant habitat in farm country be worth far more than an acre of aspen trees up north?

If only part of a funding formula, I think it should be considered.

[creepworm]

I am sure that it will turn out much like the pheasant summits SD has had the past 2 years. There will be a lot of talk, a lot of good discussion, a lot of good ideas discussed, and some very good ideas recommended to the state. Problem will be that the funding will not be there to implement these ideas.

[tybo]

So all of us that primarily hunt grouse and WC should lose land because you don't think they are enough pheasants. No thanks.

[candiru]

They will just turn it into more cow pastures like they are doing with the current WMA's

[Snag]

I like the idea from the Star Tribune article of taking better care of the public land. It said they are doing twice as many prescribed burns and trying to enhance the land we have. I was out in wright county last night driving around and was bummed to see so many houses butted right up,to public land making parts of them unhuntable.

[LandDr]

I have a question...

When a non-profit or DNR buys land and then plants it all to high diversity native prairie...

1. Do you see more pheasants or less pheasants in all that high diversity prairie?

2. Do you see more pheasants or less pheasants making it through the winter in that high diversity prairie?

3. Do you see more pheasants or less pheasants in these WMA and WPA units that are grazed to the ground?

4. Do you see more pheasants or less pheasants in these WMA and WPA units where they cut down all of the trees?

Simple survey.

Land Dr

[candiru]

So all of us that primarily hunt grouse and WC should lose land because you don't think they are enough pheasants. No thanks.

I agree with you. I have hope for the Ruffed Grouse in MN. Pheasants are never going to thrive in the current (and more then likely future) Ag environment of road to road farming of nothing but corn and soybeans. Any WMA's would essentially be nothing more than an isolated oasis in a desert.

[creepworm]

Lander.

I would answer yes to all the above questions, seeing it was most likely cropped prior to being planted to native prairie.

[LandDr]

One more question...sparked by the last post...

5. Are more pheasants raised on private land or public land?

[LandDr]

Creepworm...keep in mind that typically and almost always, the land that is being bought is marginal cropland with a lot of existing cover already...so the remaining cropland is then planted to high diversity prairie.

They are not buying high end ag land...it is too expensive and it is not for sale.

Land Dr

[Surface Tension]

We sort of like our Northern MN Forests.

If I go by all the traffic heading North on I35 for the weekend, I think those people do too.

Value between the two. While someone from farm county might see a forest as wasted space and could be utilized for more urban sprawl and farm land, I might see farm country as a waste land.

My small 3.5 acre lake lot has more diversity, wildlife habitat, and cover then a 1000 acre farm.

If every landowner gave a lick about stewardship of their land the problem would be solved.

Yeah we need food and farmers make a living off their land. Not many farmers are willing to set aside anything for wildlife when its money out of pocket and understand why they don't. Incentives like CRP is sort term fix.

You better fight to keep what we have in farm country now. There are some that want MN to sell off WMAs, WPAs, PF, state, county, and township lands for development and tax income. We need to acquire more not sell it off because once its gone its very hard to get back. That leads back to selling off MN Northern Forests. No but if your from the South I can see how you'd be all for it.

Fix what you got, get farmers to leave a little. 1% of 1000 acres is 10 acres.

I'd be for purchasing that instead of CRP or any other short term deal.

[LandDr]

6. I would assume none of you shoot hens. So why aren't there hens flying all over the place since no one is shooting hens? What is happening to all of the hens?

[401TE]

It's an election year...it's a political move that will result in nothing. That's my prediction.

[Eric Wettschreck]

Fix what you got, get farmers to leave a little. 1% of 1000 acres is 10 acres.

I'd be for purchasing that instead of CRP or any other short term deal.

I'm with ya ST. Problem is, unless the farmer is compensated somehow for that 1% non farmed land he's not going to let it sit. 10 acres out of 1000 might not seem like much but when you do the math at say 160 bushels per acre, selling for $3.00 per bushel, that's 4800 bucks if my Minnesota math serves correctly. Outright pay him 4800 and the possibility exists he may leave it alone.

I live in farm country and no, I don't want yous guys up nort to lose your land in exchange. From what I've seen the past 20 years or so is iffin good pheasant hunting is important to you, you need to get out the checkbook and buy land for yourself and develop accordingly. Ag land prices and rent prices have increased a bunch. The farmer needs to work that land or it's an expense that isn't turning profit.......bad business decision.

[LandDr]

I agree with the election year...but I also predict that nothing would happen even if it wasn't an election year. Keep in mind that I sat on the MN Pheasant Oversight Committee for two terms of which numerous recommendations were made and only one was put into action, and that was to extend the pheasant season to Jan 1. The one recommendation that made the least impact was the one the DNR actually move forward on. Frustrating.

If you want change...then stop going to their events and stop supporting them until you get change. The fact that these non-profits are supporting and\or allowing the DNR and USFW to graze WMA and WPA units is beyond ridiculous. No winter cover development, no food source development and graze it to the ground. And yet you go to their banquets and say you are a member?

I'm sorry to be tough love, but either do something about it or stop complaining about low pheasant, deer and duck numbers. The reality is that it is in YOUR power to make the change. Rally the troops and make it happen. If you are happy with 20-30 birds per 160 acres because it is better than crop land, then be happy with that. If you want 150-200 birds per 160 acres, then make the change.

Make the change!

[Bureaucrat]

All good points. That is the pulse I was looking for. I don't think any tremendously easy solution exists anymore. Any real change in trajectory is going to be at the expense of another stakeholder. I don't know what the answer is, I just wanted to put that out there.

[LandDr]

Why don't farmers sign up for conservation programs?

I work with farmers every day. Number one reason they don't want to sign up for habitat programs is that they don't want to deal with the talk and paperwork at the local office. They would rather farm through it then have to go into that office. Just ask them...they will tell you that the less they have to go into that office the better. There are a few offices that are better than others...but...

I also think it is unfair to blame ag\farmers when public land (your land) is in shambles for carrying capacity. Take care of your own plate before you start commenting on other people's plates. Tough love again.

Farming is a VERY important part of the equation...it is the food source! Without it, your hens don't make it through the winter. Farmers are a very important partner...learn how to work with them and what they need to work with what you want.

Well...I gotta get out in the field. Some things to think about.

[rundrave]

until there are bigger incentives (tax breaks etc) to turn land in to conservation areas we are not going to see much shift to those practices.

If you want to read about some of the discussions that took place at the SD Pheasant Summit you can see them here: http://gfp.sd.gov/pheasantsummit/default.aspx

Here is a list of their recommendations:

1.Facilitate greater collaboration among conservation partners to better utilize available resources for improving habitat management.

2.Establish a long-term, dedicated conservation fund and appropriate $1 million in one-time funds to bolster private fundraising efforts.

3. Develop and implement the South Dakota Conservation Certification program.

4.Create a multi-part “Habitat Pays” education and promotion series for inclusion in a variety of existing publications.

5.Revisit the current practices pertaining to mowing public rights-of-way.

6.Petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency (USDA-RMA) to include all South Dakota counties as eligible for crop insurance coverage on winter wheat.

7.Encourage the South Dakota Office of School and Public Lands to include a land management plan as a condition for securing a lease.

8.Support Congressional efforts to raise the federal Duck Stamp from $15 to $25

[bowhunternw]

Thanks ethanol! I would say that the future of pheasants is very bleak.

[Eric Wettschreck]

Rundrave, I'm a bit surprised your list has nothing to do with predator control. It's kind of a biggie here.

[harvey lee]

Governor Goofy decides to have a pheasant summit, after the election. Guess he would like the pheasant hunters to vote for him.

If he was concerned about the bird population, he would have held his summit a few years back if he believes this will really help, but he brings it up right before an election to make it look like he really is concerned. LOL

Just another game by Goofy to get some votes and after the election, probably nothing herd about this summit.

It takes habitat for higher bird numbers, lower predator populations in other areas and CRP or RIM land increases. Why do we need to hold a summit for figure this out, PF has all the info Goofy needs and has all the time he has been in office.

Until land prices fall, we will see nothing in regards to increased habitat. Takes to much money for a smaller habitat project and as land goes up, projects go down. Then with the lack of habitat, the harsh winters are all the harder on the birds.

Habitat, habitat, habitat and no one can afford to buy it with these prices we see now.

I started a PF chapter in our county 25 years ago and I truly believe in what PF does but without CRP and projects like RIM, PF cannot do it on it's own, money simply does no0t go far enough to make any substantial difference. I still support the chapter but at times, I wonder why.

I do not believe MN will ever see the days of huge bird numbers like we did during the years of the soil bank days.

[rundrave]

Rundrave, I'm a bit surprised your list has nothing to do with predator control. It's kind of a biggie here.

Its not my list , its whats the folks that were part of the summit came up with. But I agree and you bring up a very good point about predators, they are overlooking another aspect to bird reduction by not incorporating this into their agenda to help increase bird numbers.

[harvey lee]

6. I would assume none of you shoot hens. So why aren't there hens flying all over the place since no one is shooting hens? What is happening to all of the hens?

Hard for any wildlife to survive in a black desert. If we go back to the soil bank days, lot's of habitat, fence lines and on and on. Heck, the road ditches are even farmed now, lots of haying in those ditches and that is a lot of habitat loss.

Not sure why the road ditches need to be mowed for hay.

Not picking on anyone but since the question was asked, if we look back at the days or soilbank, lot's of habitat and lot's of birds, record numbers and harvest and since those days are gone and habitat is farless, so goes the bird population. Not a hard question to reply too.

[PurpleFloyd]

There is really no way to fix this without subsidies and I am not a supporter of asking non hunters to chip in just so I can have a better chance at shooting my limit.

The increase in row crop prices due to ethanol and other factors that drove up prices made land much too valuable to the property owners to let it sit idle. That led to people taking out the fence lines, abandoned farm places and tree lines that used to provide habitat for not only pheasants but also deer and other wildlife and now that it is gone it isn't coming back.

I hunted the heck out of my area in the past couple decades and had relatives and other farmers in the area that allowed me to chase the birds around on their property. I certainly don't hold it against them that they decided to take advantage of the opportunity to make their property more conducive to farming even if the hunting suffers. I understand if I want to have exclusive hunting habitat I need to buy the land and manage it the way I want.

I do think though that in the long run the gains that they are making by tiling every low spot and tearing down the wind breaks will harm them in the long run by depleting the water reserves we have and then by taking away the shields that can hold the soil when it is dry and the wind blows. The dust bowl occurred in a similar manner. It sucks but in the end it is what it is.

[Bureaucrat]

One simple yet complex solution would be to campaign for no-till or strip-till among farmers. I used to deer hunt in Jackson county. At that time already, they were farming ditch to ditch. We saw tons of birds when we were deer hunting. I'm talking so many that you quit turning your head.

Minimizing tillage isn't an easy conversation though. It takes an open mind and some adventure on the part of a farmer. It still required some habitat outside the farmed fields, but I was blown away at the numbers.

No-till doesn't work on every soil, but strip till is looking promising to not only help birds, but maintain soil structure, improve water filtration, improve carbon and oxygen, and relieve conventional tillage compaction. With the right machine, you can even cut back your inputs and band your P and K inputs deeper in the soil.

[creepworm]

One simple yet complex solution would be to campaign for no-till or strip-till among farmers. I used to deer hunt in Jackson county. At that time already, they were farming ditch to ditch. We saw tons of birds when we were deer hunting. I'm talking so many that you quit turning your head.

Minimizing tillage isn't an easy conversation though. It takes an open mind and some adventure on the part of a farmer. It still required some habitat outside the farmed fields, but I was blown away at the numbers.

No-till doesn't work on every soil, but strip till is looking promising to not only help birds, but maintain soil structure, improve water filtration, improve carbon and oxygen, and relieve conventional tillage compaction. With the right machine, you can even cut back your inputs and band your P and K inputs deeper in the soil.

I wish everyone in the world would strip-till and use cover crops in the fall. Very easy solutions to environmental problems caused by fertilizers, besides being good for wildlife.

You are right though, it is a hard sell with farmers. I work with farmers daily, it literally is my job. Getting farmers sold on cover crops is difficult, but it can be done. Usually if you can get them to try it on one field, the rest will be done the following year. Getting them to try it on the first field can be like pulling teeth, they don't want to be planting "weeds" out in their fields.

Strip-till is even tougher to sell. There is plenty of interest, but not much implementation because of the cost of equipment. I am trying to get enough growers interested in the area I work so I can talk the co-op into purchasing a strip-till rig and offering it as a custom service. It is a challenge, but I am making headway little by little.

The farmers in the area I work are generally small and very stuck in their ways. They keep doing things the way they are doing them because that is the way they have always done them. In areas with more progressive farmers it may be an easier sell. Strip-till would not work for potato or sugar beet farmers though.

[IceAge@work]

There is really no way to fix this without subsidies and I am not a supporter of asking non hunters to chip in just so I can have a better chance at shooting my limit.

Except that all of us (non-hunters included) would benefit greatly from better bio-diversity, cleaner water, reduced flooding and better soil conservation.

The problem is as hunters we focus too much (and talk too much) about the specific impacts of conservation programs on specific species populations. What we should be preaching is the conservation of a diverse ecosystem that does not flush pollutants, excess water or soil down stream for someone else to deal with. A properly diverse upland/lowland ecosystem that properly filters & controls storm water run-off will benefit all wildlife and all humans. It may not make for soil bank era pheasant populations but it will keep plenty of them around for future generations to come.

I do believe hunters should be financially responsible for our own private land access programs. We need to be willing to pay our own freight when it comes to open fields and walk-in type programs. Non-hunters should not have to foot the bill for us to take advantage of this privilege.

As a society we are too deep into the current system to get out without some form of federal program(s) that will incent and/or penalize landowners to implement better long-term land stewardship. We will have to be prepared to compensate farmers to "do the right thing" and if they choose not to participate then we will need to find some way to hold them financially accountable for the costs they are passing on to others with the current farming practices.

For the record I come from a farming family and am not looking to require something of others that I would not expect my own family to participate in as well.

[Bureaucrat]

A lot of our problems with run off and pollution will eventually work themselves out with market forces, better equipment, and the need to reverse the soil trend on poorly managed ground. Now that crop prices have plummeted in the short run, everybody is going to have to take a second look at how they apply and use nutrients and chemicals. The economics will drag the stubborn forward, or they'll be doomed to go bust.

You can have compaction, erosion, and expensive weed treatments when soybeans are $14 and corn is $6+. When it gets low like it is today, a person really has to take their hat off and scratch their dome to figure out how to prevent those problems to keep the operation in the black.

I agree sportsmen should fund their own programs. I wish everyone else felt that way when it came to other public toys, but such isn't the case.

[IceAge@work]

A lot of our problems with run off and pollution will eventually work themselves out with market forces, better equipment, and the need to reverse the soil trend on poorly managed ground. Now that crop prices have plummeted in the short run, everybody is going to have to take a second look at how they apply and use nutrients and chemicals. The economics will drag the stubborn forward, or they'll be doomed to go bust.

You can have compaction, erosion, and expensive weed treatments when soybeans are $14 and corn is $6+. When it gets low like it is today, a person really has to take their hat off and scratch their dome to figure out how to prevent those problems to keep the operation in the black.

I agree sportsmen should fund their own programs. I wish everyone else felt that way when it came to other public toys, but such isn't the case.

I appreciate your optimism that the problems will work themselves out but in my opinion the Ag economy is anything but a fully functioning market. We have upwards of 50-years of bad history indicating that the Big Ag Lobby and their friends in Congress will find a way to over rev the market yet again and get the majority of individual farmers to go all in on production. Conservation programs (and other forms of subsidy) can be a Band-Aid during the crashes but the boom & bust cycles seem to get shorter and shorter and the strong trend is that every time we come out of one there is less diversity, more impacts and more marginal cropland in long-term production.

[LandDr]

Harvey Lee...these groups need to stop planting grass on everything they buy or come in contact with. Pheasants ARE NOT a by-product of grass...buffalo, prairie chickens, bob-o-links and butterflies thrive with grass.

If you were to develop a thermal cover area (shrub\spruce) in every section along with sufficient food sources, you would probably see our pheasant population double or triple once the cover got mature enough. And the nice thing is that it is the insurance against bad winters.

There is a lot of nesting cover out there...some areas more than others. Could we use more in some areas...yes. But I will use eastern Pope County as an example...there is a lot of nesting cover, large blocks of it, but the pheasant roadside counts are low. With all of that nesting cover (grass), why don't we have pheasants everywhere?

Why? Because pheasants don't survive winters in GRASS. "DEAD HENS DON'T LAY EGGS!"

Strip till, no-till, fall cover crops, etc are all great...but those practices will ONLY help during mild winters. Severe winters and you are right back to ground zero and starting all over again. Combine those practices with "Winter Core Areas" and now you have something. But trying to get farmers to do that on a large scale would take a lot of work and a lot of time...both of which we don't have enough of. It is A LOT easier to start putting better plans together..."good" habitat versus "bad" habitat...so far I see a lot of bad habitat going in. Here we have the opportunity to put "good" habitat in, but instead "bad" habitat goes in. Why does bad habitat go in? Because the groups have "prairie preservation" agendas. If you don't think they do, then just take a look at the public land being grazed, the high diversity prairie mixes being required for programs (these mixes just fall and do not hold up in the fall or winter) and the lack of thermal cover development (heck, they are cutting trees down...even the cedar and other conifers).

Take a real close look at what you are supporting.