jcrobra

Here in Minnesota the pheasant population is pretty weak due to CRP land going back into production. While brainstorming some ideas on how to get more habitat, we thought of the pheasant tag.

Tags aren’t anything new to sportsmen and women. We have deer tags, turkey tags, bear tags, sturgeon tags, etc. In the south they have alligator tags. One thing all game animals under the tag system have in common - they have flourished.

Purchasing a pheasant tag is key in obtaining solid management data. If we had a tag for every bird we have a better approximation of how many birds are harvested, where, and when. Most importantly, tags would provide a source of funding for public land dedicated to pheasant habitat (not arts, museums, or other urban entertainment).

Pheasant tags would work similar to the bonus deer tag. You need to have at least one on your person while hunting, they have to be purchased 24 hours before you hunt, and you need to register your game. With a tag system you get what you pay for; if you only plan to shoot two birds then you only buy two tags. If you’re an avid hunter you buy more. Those who use more of the resources put more back in. The tag could be as simple as a zip-tie like tag with a number on it that attaches to the pheasant's leg. Putting a barcode on it would allow for the use of a phone app to quickly register your game.

In 2013 there were 62,000 pheasant hunters who harvested and estimated 169,000 roosters. That equates to 2.7 birds per hunter. With numbers like that pheasants are a rare commodity. If we had a tag system that equates to 3 tags per hunter. At a cost of $3 per tag that could generate $507,000 in revenue for pheasant habitat, at an average cost of $9 per hunter. That’s about the cost of breakfast at the diner for one hunting trip.

Hunters who frequent game farms are already accustomed to paying $20 a bird. A $3-$5 tag is a palatable investment into the future of Minnesota pheasant hunting. If you went out and got your limit of birds, is it worth $10? Absolutely. We should not feel compelled to leave the state in order to have great bird hunting. Moving to a tag system would empower Minnesota to invest in quality habitat, provide data that leads to better management, and quite possibly make Minnesota the destination for outstanding pheasant hunting.


What do you guys think? Crazy idea or something you could get behind?

Oldtimr

I would support a much higher price than $3.00. However, that would be up to the respective states

wernerjd

I like the idea. Great thinking outside the box. Now just push up the chain.

JackAttack

some people may get upset at a pheasant tag,but it is for the good of the population.

Nomercy448

You're saying $3 per bird? Nope, I'll pass...

$3 hunt stamp, like a HIP stamp, maybe.

Oldtimr

Well, I should have read the OP better, after reading Nomercy's post refering to a tag for each bird I went back and read the OP. I change my vote to no, in fact absolutly no, it is a horrible idea. Buying a tag for every bird and reporting every bird would be a good way to end pheasant hunting because so few people would buy a pheasant tag it wouldn't be worth while having a management program for them. Now, having to buy a pheasant tag or license or stamp to hunt pheasants is an entirely different situation and I am in favor of my state doing that at a reasonable price. As far as reporting every bird, way over the top. We need a migratory bird stamp to hunt waterfowl under federal law and many states require a stamp as well, while the HIP laws require us to make a report or numbers of birds harvested the previous year when we buy a new federal duck stamp which is reasonable and a far cry from the state requiring a tag for each bird killed and a report on each bird. I appreciate thinking of a different management tool but this one is over kill and proably detrimental as it would chase hunters out of that aspect of the sport. I also suspect, most of those that voted yes on this poll misread it the way I did.

Topgun 3006

I also change my vote to no, as I also thought it was a one time deal and tag was thought of as a stamp. I voted before I read the entire post and then found out it meant for each bird and it had to be tagged like a deer or turkey.

jcrobra

I figured there would be some defectors. Minnesotans tagged 180,000 deer in 2013. In the same year they shot "about" 169,000 pheasants. I don't have a problem with tagging a deer. Putting a zip tie around a pheasant's leg/wing/neck wouldn't be a deal for me. I guess registration would be the part that most people would balk at. And the $3 cost per bird. But hunters don't bat an eye at putting $100 of diesel in their truck, driving to South Dakota, buying a non-resident license, paying for lodging, food, and $4 pigeons to train their dogs with.

Appreciate the feedback guys!

Topgun 3006

I would suggest that rather than a tag per bird that a stamp be purchased to hunt the birds and make that a decent fee if you're talking about raising money for habitat restoration and management. The Dakotas have you buy a license and it's good for a certain number of days that you specify on the license. If you are a serious hunter and want to hunt more than that number of days, you are allowed to buy another license for another period of days you specify. If you 're talking about getting a good feedback on the number of birds killed, you could go to a simple online reporting system very easily. New Mexico requires a hunter to report online when you obtain any license for big game there and if you don't report back you aren't allowed to apply for a license the following year. Does that sound feasible for what you want to achieve in MN?

Nomercy448

I don't have a problem putting a $17.50 tag on a 250lb buck that generates over 100lbs of meat for my table. I don't have a problem reporting my harvest on one buck per year.

I do have a problem with spending $3 to get about a pound of meat off of a pheasant, and with a daily limit of 4 and an 80 day season... I've gone one day out of many years and only gotten one bird. I've bought a license that entitles me to hunt pheasant, and on some seasons, I might bag out 10 days - that's $120 for this hunter, and 40 harvest reports...

I don't care what your deer to pheasant harvest number looked like, or what your birds per hunter ratio might be - you should know enough to understand that a pheasant isn't a whitetail buck, and that hunters of their right mind won't pay $3 per bird for a d@mn pheasant.

I'm all for thinking outside the box to generate conservation fund volume, but this is nothing but pure gouging. Those 62,000 hunters each year put additional mileage on low traffic volume back-roads, which I'm sure accounts for a sizable proportion of the annual total traffic on those roads - would you promote a user tax on road utilization for hunters?

Would you promote a charge for all small game? Pheasants are NOT big game, nor regulated migratory species. Would you support a tagging fee for every squirrel or rabbit hunted? Might as well start calling it the "king's herd" if we all have to tag up on every animal we kill in a year. Resultantly as well, you'd be looking at unlawful hunting, aka "poaching," criminal charges for anyone that didn't pay $3 per animal to go take their son out in the back 40 and shoot rabbits.

All I'm reading on the page is that you're trying to find some way to gouge money out of hunter's paychecks, then justifying it by saying that a non-analogous animal costs X dollars or that the price of gas is too high...