Pheasant Tag?
 

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

lol. so are humans, yet here we are.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

You do not have to explain to me what deer or other wildlife need to thrive, I suspect I am more versed in it that you are. In fact the deer use the fields in the picture I posted heavily for shelter, Where did I say that an entire farm was put into the program I spoke about? There is other wildlife that also must be considered besides deer and nowhere did I indicate a monoculture was being made. Actually, you missed the whole point I was trying to make. The point was is in our country forcing farmers to plant or leave fallow a section of land because the government tells them they must would not fly, we have protections from that sort of thing. If the government would tell a farmer he could not farm an area because of for instance endangered species would be harmed the fovernment would have to pay the farmer for his loss because they have for all intent and purpose taken his land. One of the main points of our country tossing out the Brittish was so there would be no government telling people what they could and could not do on their land, and in fact the ownership of land without it being taken by the government on a whim of a King was a key component of our idea of the founders idea of a new country with a government for the people, by the people. Pretty sure I know what liberty and freedom is or is not!

I live in another country, I was born in L.A. Calif. a few miles away from where Patton was born and spent a large portion of my adult life in countries far from home protecting those rights you seem to cherish so much. Go take a dump and release the pressure on your brain, you'll feel better and might not be so darned cranky.

All I was saying was what seems to work here, maybe it is worth a try in other places. Tax schemes (by any name), in my experience, are doomed to failure. They may start out OK but tend to get corrupted over time.

Taking your argument to the extreme, seeing as a farmer owns his farm (or him and the bank do) he could turn it into a toxic waste dump if he wanted to.

The Farmers here are compensated for the fallow land, for the most part. Ownership and land usage agreements goes back thousands of year here, not hundreds.

I tend to try and learn from other peoples mistakes and successes.

Lots of things in Europe go back hundreds of years, not all were good then or now. Not cranky, nor do I have presure anywhere, I just don't like being chastised for saying something I did not say, nor elude to.

Sorry double post, must have had a brain fart.

We heard you the first time and FYI I got a 3 day ban for saying less to a member than what you have now said to him twice! Anyway, I looked at the ballot and I don't see many people voting on the $3 stamp question for MN. I do see that if the numbers were corrected and two of our yeas were changed to nays like we mentioned after finding out the $3 is per bird the count would now be 7 yeas and 8 nays. I think a set higher fee with no tagging and a reporting system is still the best way to go and people would report if the system was simplified.

I'm a passive sort, but I'm only going to take so much. I don't like bigots and bullies much. Him implying I'm anti liberty and against freedom isn't only way off the mark, it is pure hogwash.

The off season ends here the first of May and then there is five months of season for most edible game. Good game management makes for a long hunting season. Like I said, the Germans do some things right and some things wrong, why not benefit from their successes and learn from their failures.

In some places Hog hunting is forbidden in the States. I know the why (in detail) do you? It's simple really, If you shoot the biggest Sow, the sounder may scatter and may not reorganize for days, weeks, months. Game management wants to trap them (as many as possible at one time) so they want the sounder to stay organized and cohesive, so they outlaw hunting them. Our solution is to shoot the mid sized animals, leave the smallest and largest. The German way of hunting Hogs.

*** I have no idea why you brought up hogs on this pheasant thread other than to possibly show the difference in German and US ways and apparently talk down to me! However, to answer your question, yes, I am quite up on hogs and what the various states here are doing. Most want every hog killed because of their destructive ways and diseases they can spread, especially to domestic stock. I would offer that shooting any hog in a group of them smartens them up quickly and turns them nocturnal no matter what one you shoot. That is a big reason several states are now either outlawing hunting them completely so a bunch can be trapped at one time, others only allow shooting them when engaged in another big game hunting activity, and yet others like Texas are doing everything to get rid of them. That includes aerial gunning now in areas where it's safe to do so.

Not my intention to talk down to you. If it seems that way I apologize.

I brought up Hogs to illustrate there may be different ways to solve the same problem.

I've heard the arguments that Hogs aren't naturally nocturnal. But I don't buy it personally. Dark or black isn't a daytime color that you can hide very easily, they see awfully good in the dark to be a daytime animal. And to tell you the truth I've seen very few moving around in daylight. The exception being if they hadn't eaten their fill and were late for getting back to the bedding area. I've walked up on a few who were asleep in the brush during the day. I always wondered about that, thinking maybe they got separated from the group and decided to hide and sleep where they were until it got dark again. Hogs can get in a routine, which is good for the hunter. Who decides the routine is usually the lead Sow, Remove her and hopefully one of her elder daughters will take over, which can be iffy. When they scatter they get unpredictable and if you see any it is in ones or twos. There are few real rules, just tendencies.

Sorry I have a habit of wandering off topic.

Back to Pheasant. I believe predators are a large part of the decline in certain areas. Along with loss of habitat. Around here the farmers do a spring cut of the grass to feed their livestock, especially the Cows. When they mow they destroy a lot of nests.

Predators can decimate a Pheasant population, Pheasant and Ducks almost disappeared here around 15-20 years ago. Part of it was planting Corn for Bio fuel, Corn isn't the best crop for small game forage, but it pretty much made the Hog population explode. And most of the rest of the small game decline was a high point in Predator populations. normal or abnormal I have no idea. The Fox got many of the Pheasants. Weasels and Fox got most of the Ducks. Over a period of years we lowered the predator population, I typically shot 20 plus Foxes a year. Something else I noticed was a spike in the Jay population at just about the same time as the drastic decline in the Pheasant population, Jays are nest robbers. I don't know if it was connected or not, but it seems plausible. Pheasant are rebounding and on the increase, Ducks are still way down in numbers. Jays used to be protected here, they aren't anymore, they have a six month season.

Any Predator that eats mice will clean out a Pheasant nest jiffy quick.

I've raised and released around 350 Pheasants, best estimate is 10% survive the first year (winter). The high mortality rate is mostly due to predators.