kidoggy

in idaho we have wildlife management tags, which cost $25 for 6 birds. they are nothing but farm raised chickens. we have very few wild birds left because fish and game is totally inept at managing game

Topgun 3006

Wyoming does the same thing and I can't remember what they want for a stamp to hunt the special areas where they release those game farm birds. I do know that it costs a fortune fro the state to raise a bird and it's a lot more than your $25 for 6 birds. They are way in the hole with that program and it may get cut in the next year or 3 if their G&F budget doesn't get a shot in the arm. It was very close to the chopping block in their last budget. MI was also doing it years ago and was releasing Sichuans that have no white ring around their neck because they were supposed to be hardier than the ringneck and would breed and survive better in MI. That was a big flop and the state quit doing any "put and take" a long time ago.

Oldtimr

Sichuans were a big flop in PA as well. It takes habitat and wild birds to sustain a wild population of pheasants. If you have not lived through the hayday of wild pheasant hunting, you would not believe what we had before the crash in populations of wild birds.

kidoggy

45 years ago we had lots of wild pheasants here but now suddenly the environment is to harsh for them to survive.

Oldtimr

Has nothing to do with the enviornment. The habitat is no where near the same as it was 45 years ago, anywhere in the US. Farming practices changes and so did the habitat, and not for the best. That is why CREP is important to sustaining wild pheasants, unfortunately, the eastern states that had fantastic pheasant populations will never have enough CREP land to do the job.

Topgun 3006

You hit the nail on the head oldtimr! I can't believe the way the newer farmers are taking out all the tree rows that provided cover and eliminated erosion, as well as farming every last piece of property right to the road edge. The equipment harvests the crops much better and leaves very little for wildlife compared to the old days. Also blamed by some are the various pesticides and herbicides that have been used in my lifetime and I think all of those things together pretty well put the kabosh to the birds in many states. Even Iowa where I used to hunt and had a ton of birds is nothing like the past, but Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas seem to be still doing well with the vast amount of crops and CRP that the birds can use for nesting and getting out of bad weather.

kidoggy

everyone says that and I have no doubt in some instances it is true but I see very little difference around here compared to 40 years ago. there are not more farms. they plow there fields the same and grow pretty much same crops as they did when I was a boy moving pipe.most of the land I USED TO HUNT is now private with no hunting access which I would think would help rather then hinder populations. there may be more hunters although they are once more declining. the terrain around the farms ,BLM land is virtually unchanged, the winters seem to be a bit warmer then when I was a boy but precipitation is more or less same except we seem to get more in form of rain instead of snow, which I would also think would help survival rates in winter.

I understand there is no easy answer. only reason I question is to try and figure , solution

Oldtimr

Most farms now use no till planting and no till is the bane of wildlife habitat, The use of herbicided in no till farming doesn't allow weeds to gro between the corn rows or in soybean fields and those weeds are food for wildlife. In addition, combining corn and then mowing and baling the stubble for bedding is another death knell to wildlife habitat and food, especially pheasants and rabbits here in the east. When I first started hunting aT 12 YO the weeds between the corn rows were as high as I was because cultivating between the rows when the corn was small did not do a good job of keeping weeds down. I used to have to remove my shirt and undershirt at lunch time to get all the seeds out that went down my shirt front. Then, with the corn picker, the stalks were stripped of ears and bent to the ground leaving exceptional cover and lots of food because pickers missed a lot. Now after the combine goes through a corn field and the stubble is cut and baled the field is a biological desert, then of course there is the manure slurry that is spread on the fields immediately after. Then as TG stated, fence rows and treelines between fields and old orchards were all torn out to get a few more feet to plant corn or soy beans. I suspect if you really pay attention, you will see that the farming practices in your area have changed substantially. To have a good populatrion of pheasants you need contiguious cover along with good edge cover and food to hold them through the winter.

flags

Nope. I can get all the wild birds I want to shoot in CO, KS, NE and SD. I'm not about to pony up an additional $3 per bird. Why should states with good wild populations have to subsidize those that don't? Or are we only talking about certain states? Since the OP doesn't say, I have to assume he is asking about a nationwide fee and I don't want the Feds involved in my upland gamebird hunting. Bad enough they are involved in my waterfowl.

kidoggy

that all makes perfect sense and I have no doubt it is true ,at least to some extent. but farmers here still have set aside programs where the gov pays them not to farm ,sometimes for a couple years at a time, and just let weeds grow .is this not cover and feed? there are plots set aside, that were not 40 years ago, where wheat is planted yet nothing is harvested just left to grow wild for wildlife .cornfields that sit through winter before being cut. there are wetlands, yet wild pheasants are virtually non -existent. surely all these things should produce some birds.yet it is not uncommon for a year or more to go by without sighting a wild pheasant.