Oldtimr

One thing you are missing, during the height is the pheasant population, prior to changing farmong practices and the emphasis on corn and beans, almost all farms had fallow land, that is how they rested it between crops, planted something that would put nitrogen back into the soil and leave it alone or they just didn't need to spend the money on seed and fuel and fertilizer because the price of grain wasn't worth it. Contiguious habitat, food cover and winter shelter, not a patchwork of habitat. That is the key. Some biologists believe that the population of pheasant nation wide were plunging because of loss of habitat and more intensive notill farming when the avian flue came along and really put a hurt on them. With low numbers and loss of habitat, they have not bounced back except in a few areas and if we ever lose the CREP program, they will be doomed as well. One thing we haven't thrown into the mix yet is the loss of habit because of intensive developement. Almost all the places I hunted pheasants at their height that were perfect habitat, mixtures of corn, fallow fields woodlots fencerows tree lines, all gone to homes. That is also part of the mix. If we can ever develope a pheasant that can thrive on bare ground and macadam and doesn't have to eat all winter, we may have a chance. I cut my teeth on pheasants, I love it more than any other wing shooting I applaud those fighting the tide to try to bring back a huntable population of wild birds sush as PF, however were I a betting man, I would bet aganst it. We have goner to far down the mountain to get back to the top. If there was one reason for the pheasant problem, we could probably solve it, however, there is not one reason, there are several things working together that brought them down, just like it was several circumstances working together just right that gave us the embassasment of birds we used to have.

kidoggy

yes ,can't argue that development is an issue.


and you may be right on it being a lost cause, for all reasons given. but it is to soon for me to accept that.

Bbj270

Pheasants are not native to north America. So nature is finding away to get ride of none native species. Have you ever thought that they can't evolve with the changing habitat is because it's mother's nature's way of getting ride of and none native species.

kidoggy

lol. so are humans, yet here we are.

Oldtimr

BJ, we have had pheasants in the US since the 1800s when they were brought here by wealthy sportsmen who hunted them in England. They thrived in certain parts of the US. Why? Because there was great habitat the kind pheasants needed to thrive. The loss of pheasants has nothing to do with mother nature, but it has everything to do with the activity of human beings. If wildlife has what it neede to thrive and reproduce, if not, they go the way of the Dodo. You do know that Chukar partridge are not native, but in certain areas of the US, where they have what they need, that is close to the habit in the countries they came from, they are alive and well. The upside for them is , where they live in the US is not conducive to devlopment and if you are not in excellant physical condition you will not succeed at hunting them. The Hungarian partridge is another introduced species that was introduced and is thriving in some areas of the country. Introduced species have been in the US for a long time, so long that a lot of hunters do not know they were introduced.

Bbj270

Yes I know if they have what they need they will reproduce. But if they can't adapt to what is thrown at them they will not so that is mother nature way of weeding out. Be it nature or mankind. Hopefully they will come back. Also I know the Chukar is not native.

Oldtimr

If they can't adapt to a natrual situation and die out, that is natrual selection for example the dinsaurs dying out during the ice age. However, that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the destruction of habitat, all aspects of it because of the actions of human beings and that is not natural selection in the slightest degree. And, it doesn't matter if the wildlife is native or introduced it is all the same. We used to have passenger pigeons, millions and millions, so many that when the flocks flew it took hours from the begining flight to the end to pass. They were slaughtered, hunted at night in torch light, the roosts were set on fire at night killing them so the farmers could feed them to pigs, they were shot on the roost and all manner of vile human behavior, however, what finally ended the passenger pigeons was unregulated logging. Passenger pigeons had to be in huge flocks to survive, when the forests were decimated they had no plase to nest or roost so the logging coupled with the abominations that were carried out on them, they died out. That my friend was not natural selection, it was human stupidity
and natural selection had nothing to do with it.

MudderChuck

On the face your plan seems logical and proactive. The reality is most everything involving money is corrupt. How many of your gasoline tax dollars actually goes into infrastructure, probably pennies on the dollar if anything. Any funds generated will, in all likelihood, end up in some sort of general fund. And be siphoned off to some politicians or some bureaucrats cronies or pet projects (new air conditioning for the office).

We started a project here that required farmers to leave what we call wild islands in there fields. The landscape is checker boarded with these wild islands about a quarter of a mile apart, most are about the size if a football field. Basically weed fields, brush and some trees.

It worked wonders on the Deer population (we have a nine month season on Roe Deer, no kidding) and stabilized the game bird population (except Ducks) and other small game populations.

The unintended consequence of the wild island initiative (around twenty years old now) was the predator population spiked and other previously non threaten species suffered. Deer and most small game benefited overall, Ducks became a threatened species. The only Duck not on the endangered list now is the Mallard and even they have a shortened season. My point is, nobody can predict the long term outcome of any sort of intervention project.

Predator prey cycles are a series of spikes and valleys, there is no magic balance. The cycles are multi year cycles, sometimes decades long.

One of the most dramatic examples I've seen was at the old Iron Curtain. There was a three mile wide limited access area near the old border in Germany. And the last quarter of a mile pretty much a no mans land. The wildlife thrived there, little or no intervention or hunting. After around twenty years the forest started to die along the Old Iron curtain, you could see it from the air, a yellow brown stripe from horizon to horizon. The Deer population had exploded to the point they were starving, eating the bark off of old timber and any bush they could find. I was part of a project to thin out the Deer herds, both Roe Deer and Red Deer. We found bone piles, rotting carcasses and hair piles, maybe ten to the acre. Pretty much an ecological disaster. The Deer we did shoot were pretty much useless, diseased, emaciated and stunted.

The Greenies who think that if nature is left alone it will find some sort of magic balance are living in fantasy land. Any intervention or management scheme is going to take years or decades, the outcome is likely to have unintended consequences and an outcome not anticipated IMO.

The only viable management scheme I can think off is vigorous game counts and yearly quotas. Even then the outcome is iffy.

Personally, I think spring mowing by farmers is one of the larger detriments to wildlife I can think of. Just about the time the Pheasants lay, there habitat goes through a meat grinder. New born or very young fawns don't flee, they hunker down, hide and die.

Oldtimr

You would never, ever get away with mandating that farmers do not farm areas of their property in America, nor would I ever want to see that. It is called Liberty and freedom. However we do have fereral programs that pay farmers to not farm some of their ground and plant it in native grasses for food and cover for wildlife and erosion control. This kind of grasses:

MudderChuck

Flat as a table top mono culture isn't called liberty and freedom IMO. It is more like a blight and ecologic Desert for most wildlife. Besides most of the wild islands are marginal farming areas anyway, side slopes, low soggy spots, stony hills, very poor soil etc. It may be an inconvenience at harvest time, but seems like an acceptable compromise.

The Germans don't have all the answers, but they have been at the problem a whole lot longer than the U.S. has. Many of the policies are holdovers from around 600 A.D.

I've seen the Germans seriously screw it up on numerous occasions. Like building an interstate right through, a many thousand year old, migration route to a mineral rich sump. Trace minerals the Deer need to survive. And then they freaked out and had most of the Deer killed off after a couple of dozen people died on the new stretch of interstate in a period of months after hitting Deer with their cars.

The wild island project seems to be working out, mostly, but the long term ramifications may not yet be apparent.