# Pheasant stamp?



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes I know I've brought this topic up many times. I love ring necks though and just don't like Utahs pheasant situation. So here's my thoughts. With Utah running it's upland and waterfowl slams along with the continued release of birds throughout Utah they know pheasants are still a part of every Utah upland hunters list. There at the top of mine and they're dwindling big time this fall it seems. Being the most popular game bird in the US, and still probably the most popular game bird among hunters in Utah, why wouldn't a pheasant stamp specifically designed for the purchase and enhancement of pheasant habitat areas throughout the state be a good thing ? Even if a decade from now there are even fewer ring necks in the state, a stamp designed to purchase and protect habitat throughout the state would not only benefit pheasants but all wildlife. Habitat a pheasant does good in would likely benefit many other game and non game species. 

I wouldn't expect a big price on the stamp maybe $5-$7, and require it in order to hunt pheasants in the state for those 17-64. Other states such as Minnesota have a pheasant stamp, I think it would be a good thing in Utah and couldn't be a bad thing for sure. Last year with all the released birds or seemed to create excitement again and there were many more hunters afield knowing there were birds to be found.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

The biggest problem the pheasants face is always going to be preditors. Let face it utah has plenty of great habitat but until the preditor population is controlled they don't stand a chance. Now here's an idea. I would support a stamp for pheasants that went into a fund to pay a reward on all preditors. Not just coyote but fox, raccoon, skunk, feral cats, etc


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Hoopermat said:


> The biggest problem the pheasants face is always going to be preditors. Let face it utah has plenty of great habitat but until the preditor population is controlled they don't stand a chance. Now here's an idea. I would support a stamp for pheasants that went into a fund to pay a reward on all preditors. Not just coyote but fox, raccoon, skunk, feral cats, etc


Utahs largest pheasant problem is not predators, it's habitat. Habitat meaning decent winter cover, knee high grasses for nesting, areas where the only cover isn't just a few fence line strips. If you have an entire field that has good habitat rather than one measly strip the predator will be much less effecient in finding a pheasant or their nests. Just because a field has grass in it, doesn't mean it's useful when it's fed off to nearly bare ground at the end of the grazing season heading into winter. Predator control is a temporary non-lasting endevour, habitat acquisitions and improvement are looking towards the future and are sustainable.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

habitat is the problem. South Dakota has more skunks, foxes, racoons and feral cats than you can shake a stick at and they still have plenty of birds.

Many of the public places that held birds have been developed or overgrazed to the point that they don't hold many any more. The predators (birds of prey included) then concentrate in the same small areas that birds are at. On top of that what pheasant hunters there are concentrate to these same areas. If you have large areas with excellent cover it gives the birds ample places to hide from predators and hunters alike and increases the chances of survival dramatically.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

want better habitat? better do a long rain dance in this state and shut down grazing or reduce it drastically


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Absolutely not! Until they decide to control the predators (***** and skunks mainly)in a major way you are fighting a loosing battle. Not to mention the private land issue. There are not but a couple dozen roosters on any given WMA. Pheasant hunting is a thing of the distant past unless you have the $15/bird to spend on a farm. Hunt something that isn't a myth like ducks.;-)


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> Absolutely not! Until they decide to control the predators (***** and skunks mainly)in a major way you are fighting a loosing battle. Not to mention the private land issue. There are not but a couple dozen roosters on any given WMA. Pheasant hunting is a thing of the distant past unless you have the $15/bird to spend on a farm. Hunt something that isn't a myth like ducks.;-)


I hunt every upland game and waterfowl, big game all I can, but pheasants there is just a different excitement. As for predators, predators can't be effective if they have a whole field to sift through and you'll loose far less birds. If throughout the state property could be purchased to give birds more winter and nesting cover, private lands still give good use to spread birds out throughout the rest of the year . Lack of nesting and winter cover to me are the biggest issues. As for rain there are many dryland grasses and shrubs that would be beneficial to pheasants if the property to manage for it was there.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Have you ever hunted outside of the slc valley? The habitat that I have hunted in utah is exactly as you dicribe. Have you been to Howell valley or rich and cache valleys or even west haven west warren or anyware north or west of ogden. I hunt pheasants everyday of the season and we do pretty well. I also hunt those private clubs and the ones I have hunted also do a ton of preditor control. And we have seen for a fact the upland game thrive in these areas.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

It ain't predators. It ain't habitat. It's WATER. Pheasants have a nickname. They're called puddle ducks. There used to be water in canals and ditches. There aren't any ditches or canals with water anymore. Every field is now using an overhead sprinkling system. Pheasants need ditch banks and water. They can survive a whole bunch of predators if they have the other stuff.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

yep places that have ample water and ample fields hold ample birds


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Hoopermat said:


> Have you ever hunted outside of the slc valley? The habitat that I have hunted in utah is exactly as you dicribe. Have you been to Howell valley or rich and cache valleys or even west haven west warren or anyware north or west of ogden. I hunt pheasants everyday of the season and we do pretty well. I also hunt those private clubs and the ones I have hunted also do a ton of preditor control. And we have seen for a fact the upland game thrive in these areas.


I live in a place I could see a rooster every time I went out until about 5 years ago. Now it's here and there. It's not because habitat has been greatly destroyed it is that it is fed off to nothing. Or it is cut, fed off, then burned. It's the fact pheasants have very little nesting and winter cover why they do not do well and as Muleskinner said how predators concentrate to where the birds have to concentrate during those times. There needs to be more of those two things before you'll see improvement. Controlling predators is important but it's not the main reason. Go kill all the skunks and *****, we don't need a stamp for that just a bullet and people willing to do it.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

I can take you to places that are miles across with PRIME pheasant habitat both summer and winter and you won't find but a couple birds on it if your lucky. You look in the mud anywhere on these large tracts and all you will see are predator tracks. I watched pheasants live perfectly normal and long lives where they put in houses by the hundreds. The very few fields that remained had birds a plenty for a long time until they were just pushed completely out. I have found entire nests on several of the wma's from pheasants that were destroyed by predators. A hatched out nest looks way different than a destroyed one.
Get rid of the predators and regardless of the habitat you will see improvement. Go to any pheasant farm and ask them what their main concern is or any private club or property that holds birds andbi bet they tell you ***** and skunks. Some might even argue hawks are a huge factor but I dont see enough predation on pheasants to have an opinion on them. I think the last time I killed a rooster was 2009. I am fairly certain unless I pay for one or go to Idaho it was my last.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I live in a place I could see a rooster every time I went out until about 5 years ago. Now it's here and there. It's not because habitat has been greatly destroyed it is that it is fed off to nothing. Or it is cut, fed off, then burned. It's the fact pheasants have very little nesting and winter cover why they do not do well and as Muleskinner said how predators concentrate to where the birds have to concentrate during those times. There needs to be more of those two things before you'll see improvement. Controlling predators is important but it's not the main reason. Go kill all the skunks and *****, we don't need a stamp for that just a bullet and people willing to do it.


The willing to do it is what I'm talking about. A few years ago the coyote bounty went up. And the amount of coyote kill went up. If we could do the same reward for other preditors maybe it would spark some interest in killing them. The clubs that I hunt have at least one group a week on the that are going after the preditors. And the pheasants are doing very well there. Also in the Howell valley the preditors are hunted a ton as a result we have seen a giant increase for chuckers that have escaped from the clubs and have thrived. I am not disagreeing with you but I think a increase in preditor control would be our best bang for the buck. Once that is doing better then you could go after habitat.

Also I don't hunt public areas very often but I am not afraid to knock on doors and ask for permission. I have always found nice people to let me hunt their lands. A ring neck dinner has help me secure hunting areas for a long time


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Hoopermat said:


> The willing to do it is what I'm talking about. A few years ago the coyote bounty went up. And the amount of coyote kill went up. If we could do the same reward for other preditors maybe it would spark some interest in killing them. The clubs that I hunt have at least one group a week on the that are going after the preditors. And the pheasants are doing very well there. Also in the Howell valley the preditors are hunted a ton as a result we have seen a giant increase for chuckers that have escaped from the clubs and have thrived. I am not disagreeing with you but I think a increase in preditor control would be our best bang for the buck. Once that is doing better then you could go after habitat.
> 
> Also I don't hunt public areas very often but I am not afraid to knock on doors and ask for permission. I have always found nice people to let me hunt their lands. A ring neck dinner has help me secure hunting areas for a long time


You can always do something about predators, you can't do anything about habitat once it is lost, you don't put predators first.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

This article is about Iowa but it is spot on to what I have felt with pheasants over the last decade. http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...lent-fields-where-have-all-the-pheasants-gone

Here's a quote from it "The best way to kill pheasants? Combine brutal ag practices and policy with a few harsh winters, and you'll never need a shotgun or bird dog again"


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> You can always do something about predators, you can't do anything about habitat once it is lost, you don't put predators first.


From what I have seen it's the other way around.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Hoopermat said:


> From what I have seen it's the other way around.


Your perceptions coming from land that is managed for pheasants, this is not the case across the board. Graze all tag grass to less than an inch and see if the pheasants survive even without a predator.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Your perceptions coming from land that is managed for pheasants, this is not the case across the board. Graze all tag grass to less than an inch and see if the pheasants survive even without a predator.


Exactly from a place that is managed for pheasants. Predator control on CRP seems to be working


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

One problem is this........if a stamp were required, about the only place the money could go and have a chance of any benefit would be towards predator control, not that I agree it would ever work by itself. Most of the huntable lands are either private or federal controlled and by and large it is federal (which I am in favor of by the way). People that are against predator control don't often realize that the hands of the DWR are tied to a great degree. They can get the money from stamps but they do not control the land that the animals utilize. They do not control grazing rights and are not in the business of land management.

The same arguments happen with deer. Some blame the biologist for a lack of science but the entity that the biologist work for are in the same boat.

The biggest problem is that if the land and the stamp money ever did end up in the hands of the same people that that controls the wildlife (The State if Utah) it would not take long before the land was sold off to the highest bidder to turn a profit and developed or industrialized.

The best route is probably to just enjoy when you do have the chance to get a pheasant. Go to the places that have the birds and hunt them. Otherwise enjoy the chuckars, grouse, waterfowl, big game, small game and fishing. If you really want to go hunt a healthy, sustainable population of pheasant...........go east.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

A lot of people look down on clubs but here is how I see it. For the cost of myself and my two kids to go on one trip to SD and hunt pheasants I can Hunt a club all year. The last three day trip to SD cost me around $2500 at let say $18 bird that's 138 roosters I can hunt all year on. When was the last time you bagged 138 roosters in a year
And the areas around the clubs the birds have thrived because of the efforts of the clubs and their members. Look at Howell valley,Corrine and northern cache valley the bird numbers in those are are good partly becuse of those private clubs.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Hoopermat said:


> A lot of people look down on clubs but here is how I see it. For the cost of myself and my two kids to go on one trip to SD and hunt pheasants I can Hunt a club all year. The last three day trip to SD cost me around $2500 at let say $18 bird that's 138 roosters I can hunt all year on. When was the last time you bagged 138 roosters in a year


there are far worse ways for a guy to spend his money. I never thought I would like playing golf at a country club until I did it. Never thought I would enjoy a guided hunting or fishing trip. Liked them as well. Going on a cruise? Liked it.

Went to bird ranch before too. Yep. Liked it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Same as deer. Every pheasant killed and eaten by a predator is one that a hunter doesn't get and one that doesn't live to reproduce. No matter how good or bad the habitat or weather. 

So you want to mitigate or make predators less effective by giving pheasants better places to hide. 

Isn't that like curing an overspending issue by trying to find more money. When the real issue is OVERSPENDING. So why not cut spending.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> Same as deer. Every pheasant killed and eaten by a predator is one that a hunter doesn't get and one that doesn't live to reproduce. No matter how good or bad the habitat or weather.
> 
> So you want to mitigate or make predators less effective by giving pheasants better places to hide.
> 
> Isn't that like curing an overspending issue by trying to find more money. When the real issue is OVERSPENDING. So why not cut spending.


No.......it's not. Have you been back east? There are oodles of skunks, *****, birds of prey, foxes, etc.........guess what? there is lots of pheasant as well. Sustained habitat is the reason. They don't lack for predators in fact they have far more pheasant predators that we do. NOT EVEN CLOSE.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> One problem is this........if a stamp were required, about the only place the money could go and have a chance of any benefit would be towards predator control, not that I agree it would ever work by itself. Most of the huntable lands are either private or federal controlled and by and large it is federal (which I am in favor of by the way). People that are against predator control don't often realize that the hands of the DWR are tied to a great degree. They can get the money from stamps but they do not control the land that the animals utilize. They do not control grazing rights and are not in the business of land management.
> 
> The same arguments happen with deer. Some blame the biologist for a lack of science but the entity that the biologist work for are in the same boat.
> 
> ...


There wouldn't be a way that property purchased would be a WMA and be managed and protected for wildlife?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

sure there would be a way but doubtful. Lumber, oil, minerals, gas, metals are worth more than wildlife and fresh air to most. If the state gets our public land the only thing that will be public anymore is the money going into the roads that run through it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> sure there would be a way but doubtful. Lumber, oil, minerals, gas, metals are worth more than wildlife and fresh air to most. If the state gets our public land the only thing that will be public anymore is the money going into the roads that run through it.


I am in no way saying I want the state to get a hold of federal land, I don't want them getting any of that. Federal land can be improved for birds by the state DWR working with the BLM and such, or groups like pheasants forever improving federal land for pheasants. I am more meaning the purchase of private lands throughout the state to improve nesting and winter areas which is what we are mostly missing. SFW has spent over $180,000 releasing 36,000 pheasants the last few years, I think they and possibly PF would be willing to work with local chapters and the UDWR to help things in our state then the state would less likely be able to ruin the land if it wasn't only the state with it's hands involved.

It is to bad that Utah has become such a destroy everything for greed state because it really is a beautiful place that has so many different aspects along with very valuable wild places and wildlife. I would like to see a stamp for pheasants in our state to try and create more habitat. There is still a deep love for the bird here in Utah, but how do you keep loving something that's fading away with nothing being done. The last couple years with the releases I saw tons of people hunting that rarely ever hunt, but there's just something about a big rooster that gets a lot of people going if the opportunity is there. I would only support the stamp though if the money was specifically spent on habitat acquisitions and improvements that would be saved for wildlife in our state forever and not be sold, developed , or used in a way that would harm the land or wildlife on it.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

While I fully appreciate the sentiment 1-I there is only so much money to go around. Even if we had 1,000,000 pheasant hunters willing to pay $5 a piece. $5,000,000 doesn't go very far in sustaining enough land to make a real difference. I don't know if there is a good answer out there or the answer that you are wanting to hear.

I would think that eliminating grazing rights would be the quickest answer to helping the situation but I don't think anybody thinks that will happen any time soon.

Maybe somebody can learn a cheap way to pen raise a wild bird that attacks cattle and sheep.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> While I fully appreciate the sentiment 1-I there is only so much money to go around. Even if we had 1,000,000 pheasant hunters willing to pay $5 a piece. $5,000,000 doesn't go very far in sustaining enough land to make a real difference. I don't know if there is a good answer out there or the answer that you are wanting to hear.
> 
> I would think that eliminating grazing rights would be the quickest answer to helping the situation but I don't think anybody thinks that will happen any time soon.
> 
> Maybe somebody can learn a cheap way to pen raise a wild bird that attacks cattle and sheep.


And I understand where you're coming from, but look at a group like pheasants forever or all the other organizations. They conserve millions of acres across the country but in reality it's very little in the end. No we can't purchase all the land but if you don't try to put some effort towards things you're getting no where. If you had a couple some habitat throughout the state that was purchased for conservation and turned into pheasant winter and nesting habitat, there's plenty of other useful land around for pheasants to spread out on but the habitat they need the most is missing. I'm reaching for sure, I would buy 50 stamps a year if they came out with it in hoping for the return of the ring-neck in our state, some of my fondest hunting memories are from pheasant hunting and the birds we used to see here. In total your looking at about 15,000 pheasant hunters per year, at $5 you'd get $75,000 worth of workable habitat money a year specifically for pheasants, if you could create interest you'd probably end up with more pheasant hunters again.

No it isn't a huge amount of money but over 5-10 years it might could make a difference, and if not for pheasants it would help quail and turkeys as well as other wildlife. It seems the state is finally taking an interest back in pheasants, but you need something to boost the buck to help out . It's hard to give up on such a fun game bird in my backyard, the pheasants just something I hold near and dear I guess.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> No.......it's not. Have you been back east? There are oodles of skunks, *****, birds of prey, foxes, etc.........guess what? there is lots of pheasant as well. Sustained habitat is the reason. They don't lack for predators in fact they have far more pheasant predators that we do. NOT EVEN CLOSE.


 No arguing one way or the other- but when you say EAST- what section of the country are you really talking about ?


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So are you saying that predation on pheasant is compensatory? Meaning pheasant are already at capacity and if a pheasant in that field does not get killed by a fox it would have just starved or froze to death because if lack of habitat. 

I don't argue that improved habitat is an absolute benefit in all species. I will argue till I'm blue in the face (and I do) habitat may be the reason Utah doesn't have pheasant like Iowa. But it's not the reason why you can walk 5 miles and not see a bird. Same with deer habitat may be the reason we don't have one million deer but it's not to blame for only having 300,000. 

As many pheasant as they have back east. They would have way more without so much predation. 

I agree it's possible to have quality hunting and unfettered natural predation. But usually that only allows for a minimal amount of hunter opportunity.

So those who are all about a "natural balance" where does the Chinese ring necked pheasant fit into the "natural" wildlife tapestry? It's all tied together. A pheasant eaten by a natural predator serves as supplement between prey it would have been feeding I naturally.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Packfish said:


> No arguing one way or the other- but when you say EAST- what section of the country are you really talking about ?


Midwest farm country starting at about Kimball Nebraska


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> So are you saying that predation on pheasant is compensatory? Meaning pheasant are already at capacity and if a pheasant in that field does not get killed by a fox it would have just starved or froze to death because if lack of habitat.
> 
> I don't argue that improved habitat is an absolute benefit in all species. I will argue till I'm blue in the face (and I do) habitat may be the reason Utah doesn't have pheasant like Iowa. But it's not the reason why you can walk 5 miles and not see a bird. Same with deer habitat may be the reason we don't have one million deer but it's not to blame for only having 300,000.
> 
> ...


Nope. I didn't say that. I am one of the guys that believe that there are areas that predation is compensatory and there are areas that predation is additive. I believe that predation on pheasant in Utah is mostly additive but I also don't think that predation is primary problem. I am not on either side and I have decided that I don't have to be with complex matters. I don't think there is a side.

Is there a big healthy population of pheasant in the midwest? Yes.

Is there a crap load of predators? Yes

Is there a difference between Utah and South Dakota? The birds seem to think so........as did the Bison.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I agree with what you say muleskinner, but driving around Utah you must agree, while we may never be anything like South Dakota, there is enough areas that could be classified as pheasant habitat in Utah to have more birds. Do you agree good nesting and winter cover is what were missing? And that there is enough habitat in the summer and fall but once winter comes and everything is fed off and burned the winter and spring months do not supply enough decent habitat? I also think many farmers don't realize what they are doing or why pheasant populations have went bust, because nearly every land owner/land manager I know enjoys hunting pheasants. People who I know hunt nothing else were up the first morning of the hunt. I tthink they need to be better educated on what is bad and good for pheasants. Would you support the stamp if it wasn't mandated, and was a choice to purchase ? But then you wouldn't raise the money you could.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

yes. I agree with that. Farming and grazing practices are the key to getting more birds. Predators are also key but the habitat problems would have to change. Back in the day I thought grazing rights had there place. I think times have changed though. They could do away with all grazing rights and I would throw a party. I would then get involved in helping remove predators in a big way to at least establish a decent foundation of wild pheasant.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> yes. I agree with that. Farming and grazing practices are the key to getting more birds. Predators are also key but the habitat problems would have to change. Back in the day I thought grazing rights had there place. I think times have changed though. They could do away with all grazing rights and I would throw a party. I would then get involved in helping remove predators in a big way to at least establish a decent foundation of wild pheasant.


Farming and grazing practices have definitely changed, and this is the main reason for the decline, but it is also the main reason there is very little nesting and winter cover. It is also the reason predators are more successful in taking pheasants. If you had a few areas owned and managed as a WMA, or blm land without grazing for pheasants throughout the areas where there is habitat available in the state I believe we could boost numbers pretty significantly from what they are now. What's missing is the funding, and a pheasant stamp is the only way I see getting that funding or changing anything throughout the state.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> yes. I agree with that. Farming and grazing practices are the key to getting more birds. Predators are also key but the habitat problems would have to change. Back in the day I thought grazing rights had there place. I think times have changed though. They could do away with all grazing rights and I would throw a party. I would then get involved in helping remove predators in a big way to at least establish a decent foundation of wild pheasant.


As for grazing, I'm also tired of cattlemen who believe everything must be fed to bare ground in our state before being satisfied, then they whine when the elk spend a few months on there hay fields after they fed off the entire mountain to nothing. Grazing still has its place but not to the extent it is allowed to go now. Many farmers over utilize their grazing permits and even there own pastures. Feeding down level with the dirt is not a good farming practice anyway, and in the end they are stunting there growth and ruining there own fields subtracting from there own productivity.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

One eye lives in a place that used to be AMAZING for pheasants and still have decent habitat but bird numbers have declined steadily over the years for various reasons. I can see why he brings this topic up every year. He has seen the changes and wants his birds back. 

If I were to propose changes, it would be to work closer with farmers and ask to keep more wild growth along ditch banks and fence lines, control feral cats, and use surrogaters to raise birds. Farm raised birds are fun to shoot but we all know most won't survive.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Bax* said:


> One eye lives in a place that used to be AMAZING for pheasants and still have decent habitat but bird numbers have declined steadily over the years for various reasons. I can see why he brings this topic up every year. He has seen the changes and wants his birds back.
> 
> If I were to propose changes, it would be to work closer with farmers and ask to keep more wild growth along ditch banks and fence lines, control feral cats, and use surrogaters to raise birds. Farm raised birds are fun to shoot but we all know most won't survive.


It is true, I just believe funds must be generated in some way to help pheasants throughout the state. The area I live could still have decent numbers, but so could other areas of the state. It's a money thing and there's simply not enough to do much for pheasants right now. With a pheasant stamp , SFW, and PF a difference could be made.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Every other stamp and fee increase has resulted in more game.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

The duck stamp is a prime example of helping wildlife through a conservation stamp, why wouldn't it help pheasants or upland to have a stamp?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I'm kind of sitting on the fence here. I remember being able to road hunt pheasants in the 60's-early 80's but the same places there are no more birds and the habitat really hasn't changed that much to the worse for birds. But then again I remember when you never did see a raccoon in the state and all the other predators were shot on sight, that is if you saw any. 

As for the stamp idea, how much money do you actually think that it would put into getting pheasants back? Even if it was $1,000,000 dollars it wouldn't go very far in todays world. Then you would have the problem of finding areas that were suitable for the birds where a person could hunt them and not have to pay a trespass fee to get onto someones acres.

I actually think that the money would be better suited to go towards a bird that once established could sustain itself instead of needing to have supplemental birds placed on the land every year.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> I'm kind of sitting on the fence here. I remember being able to road hunt pheasants in the 60's-early 80's but the same places there are no more birds and the habitat really hasn't changed that much to the worse for birds. But then again I remember when you never did see a raccoon in the state and all the other predators were shot on sight, that is if you saw any.
> 
> As for the stamp idea, how much money do you actually think that it would put into getting pheasants back? Even if it was $1,000,000 dollars it wouldn't go very far in todays world. Then you would have the problem of finding areas that were suitable for the birds where a person could hunt them and not have to pay a trespass fee to get onto someones acres.
> 
> I actually think that the money would be better suited to go towards a bird that once established could sustain itself instead of needing to have supplemental birds placed on the land every year.


I understand what you're saying but I am saying only require the stamp in order to hunt pheasants, so then the money would be raised by those who want to see pheasants benefit. Pheasants could be somewhat more self sustaining if they are given a hand on habitat and predator control but the funds have to come from somewhere. This comes back to the second point that improving areas for pheasants would help other wildlife as well so don't look at it as a waste. I also recall pheasants all over the last two years have been terrible and it's time to try something instead of nothing. Hey a $15 duck stamp trying to conserve the amount of land it has across the entire nation is just as big of feet as a pheasant stamp doing work in Utah and the duck stamp has worked.


----------



## PDog29 (Oct 4, 2014)

Perhaps I'm setting myself up as a target on this forum, but I wanted to add my two cents as a predator biologist ;-).

First, I want to highlight that predator management is often not as simple as conveyed to or by the public. For example, our coyote bounty is likely leading to the 'release' (increased abundance) of smaller predators such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes (a concept called mesopredator release), all of which are more significant predators of ground nesting birds than coyotes. Further, the bounty was established in an effort benefit mule deer recruitment (fawn survival) at higher elevations, at a cost of over $500K a year. Regrettably, where are 80% of the coyotes being killed? In the west desert and on our valley floors (this is fact), the latter of which where our pheasant reside. Suffice it to say that these predator 'issues' are not so simple and easy to resolve through management...and we should be more cautious about how we manage predators. Don't get me wrong, there is certainly a place and time for predator control, but the coyote bounty as an example, is a waste of money on almost all levels and could actually be harming our upland bird populations.

As has been discussed by previous posters, predation can either be additive or compensatory. Which one a given population of pheasant experiences is likely highly variable across the state and is heavily dependent upon climatic and habitat conditions. Since we can't control climate, the key is solid habitat. These birds have evolved in the presence of significant mammalian predators and have devised behavioral strategies and landscape use to avoid predation, but these landscape features need to be available to avoid predation. Good winter and summer habitat equate to improved survival and reproduction and significantly reduced predation, regardless of predator densities (within reason of course). As an example, read the scientific literature on sage grouse (because of its conservation status, there just happens to be more research on the species). Although the requirements are different, the data indicate human land use practices, particularly the timing and intensity of livestock grazing, can have HUGE impacts on the risk of predation in broods and perhaps more significantly, in hens.

As has been pointed out already, other states have successfully established pheasant populations in the presence of substantially higher mesopredator densities than what we have here in Utah. My point being, predation may be a significant problem in some areas of Utah, but the solution will not be found in predator control, rather in the control of predation risk through habitat improvements. 

Oh, and to answer the poster's original question , I would support a stamp for upland birds if this translated to increased land acquisitions (or conservation easements) that would favor improved habitat for upland game species!


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Interesting Pdog,welcome to the forum.


----------



## PDog29 (Oct 4, 2014)

Thanks Dunkem! Long time forum follower, first time poster...


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

I would happily pay a pheasant stamp if it went to land acquisition for pheasant habitat. Even if its only allowing purchases of small parcels every year, it would still result in more parcels each year, as such in a decade or so, there would be a good amount of habitat that is left alone and creating wild bird areas.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

PDog29 said:


> Perhaps I'm setting myself up as a target on this forum, but I wanted to add my two cents as a predator biologist ;-).
> 
> First, I want to highlight that predator management is often not as simple as conveyed to or by the public. For example, our coyote bounty is likely leading to the 'release' (increased abundance) of smaller predators such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes (a concept called mesopredator release), all of which are more significant predators of ground nesting birds than coyotes. Further, the bounty was established in an effort benefit mule deer recruitment (fawn survival) at higher elevations, at a cost of over $500K a year. Regrettably, where are 80% of the coyotes being killed? In the west desert and on our valley floors (this is fact), the latter of which where our pheasant reside. Suffice it to say that these predator 'issues' are not so simple and easy to resolve through management...and we should be more cautious about how we manage predators. Don't get me wrong, there is certainly a place and time for predator control, but the coyote bounty as an example, is a waste of money on almost all levels and could actually be harming our upland bird populations.
> 
> ...


as far as post go that is pretty much spot on IMO. As far as first post go that is the best I have seen since I have been on here. Welcome.


----------



## riptheirlips (Jun 30, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> habitat is the problem. South Dakota has more skunks, foxes, racoons and feral cats than you can shake a stick at and they still have plenty of birds.
> 
> Many of the public places that held birds have been developed or overgrazed to the point that they don't hold many any more. The predators (birds of prey included) then concentrate in the same small areas that birds are at. On top of that what pheasant hunters there are concentrate to these same areas. If you have large areas with excellent cover it gives the birds ample places to hide from predators and hunters alike and increases the chances of survival dramatically.


I have hunted SD for the past 15 plus years and I do not see many predators, biggest predator I think is the coyote. I have only seen one skunk the whole time I been hunting there and he was relocated, seen more rattle snakes than anything. SD has several things that help their population. Opening weekend no hunting till I believe it is 10am. Road hunters don't have a chance by doing this. No hunting till dark hunting stops early as well, this is all to protect the birds when they come out to eat morning and evenings. I don't go opening weekend so not sure on the starting time opening weekend, rest of the hunt you can't hunt till 9am I believe it is. 
Farmers may have 5,000 acres of corn/wheat/milo/sunflowers whatever but they will leave 10-20 ft swaths every so often that they don't harvest, my understanding is the state pays them for leaving pheasant habitat. They had a drought last year and pheasant hunting was still go. Utah could possibly look at some of the things SD, Nebraska do for pheasant habitat.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

what's a pheasant?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

go out in those fields at night with flashlight in good pheasant habitat and you will see more predators than you have shells. That has always been our experience.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I do believe there's plenty of predators, but if a stamp ever did come about I would want the money spent on obtaining new habitat and improving it. Given good habitat predators are much less effective, habitat is the lacking part. It's great to see all the work being done for chukars in the state with guzzlers and it would be cool to see some improvements for them as well, but I would like to see a specific pheasant stamp used only for pheasant improvements in the state and then leave other upland improvements up to something like the upland slam program.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Instead of a stamp why not just raise funds through license fees? If it took an increase in license fee then so be it.

Generally speaking, I don't like to see a lot of special purpose fees targeted to small segments of population. Admittedly, a stamp might target pheasant hunters to improve pheasant hunting, but I still prefer a more broad based revenue model rather than a bunch of smaller but tightly focused efforts.

It's a matter of philosophical approach, and obviously not everyone agrees with me.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

massmanute said:


> Instead of a stamp why not just raise funds through license fees? If it took an increase in license fee then so be it.
> 
> Generally speaking, I don't like to see a lot of special purpose fees targeted to small segments of population. Admittedly, a stamp might target pheasant hunters to improve pheasant hunting, but I still prefer a more broad based revenue model rather than a bunch of smaller but tightly focused efforts.
> 
> It's a matter of philosophical approach, and obviously not everyone agrees with me.


I do. There is not person here that would benefit to some extent with some habitat improvement.

I don't mind the tightly focused efforts so much but I really can't stand needing a bunch of different licenses, permits, slips, stamps, permissions, letters, registrations, qualifications and requests.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

How about a collective of land owners charging trespass fees for pheasant hunting. Create good habitat manage predators plant birds and let hunters enjoy for a fee. Crazy concept I know in Utah but the model has been successfully repeated time and time again.

Don't care for the socialistic practice of taking from all pheasant hunters to improve the hunting for those who don't have it. I believe the market is already being satisfied. Meaning you can already go out and pay for exceptional pheasant hunting in Utah today. And there is no waiting list to get into those places. 

Can you still buy a West Warren trespass permit? 

In all honesty I have absolutely zero confidence that even with 100s of millions of dollars the DWR is capable or willing to improve our pheasant hunting though habitat work. I believe private land owners can do this but I won't "tax" the hunter so government will pay private landowners to improve habitat for hunters or allow access.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Iron Bear said:


> How about a collective of land owners charging trespass fees for pheasant hunting. Create good habitat manage predators plant birds and let hunters enjoy for a fee. Crazy concept I know in Utah but the model has been successfully repeated time and time again.
> 
> Don't care for the socialistic practice of taking from all pheasant hunters to improve the hunting for those who don't have it. I believe the market is already being satisfied. Meaning you can already go out and pay for exceptional pheasant hunting in Utah today. And there is no waiting list to get into those places.
> 
> ...


I agree with it other than another slap in the face to the DWR. Listening to it gets old.

I have pulled miles of barbed wire fence with those guys in the field before and have joined in on numerous plantings. I know how hard they work on habitat improvement and how vested many of them are. They **** sure don't do it for the money. Nobody will believe it until they get off their own ass and go give them a hand.

I dare ya.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Midwest farm country starting at about Kimball Nebraska


I was thinking you really talking mid west


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Packfish said:


> I was thinking you really talking mid west


Yep east was indicating direction not location..


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> How about a collective of land owners charging trespass fees for pheasant hunting. Create good habitat manage predators plant birds and let hunters enjoy for a fee. Crazy concept I know in Utah but the model has been successfully repeated time and time again.
> 
> Don't care for the socialistic practice of taking from all pheasant hunters to improve the hunting for those who don't have it. I believe the market is already being satisfied. Meaning you can already go out and pay for exceptional pheasant hunting in Utah today. And there is no waiting list to get into those places.
> 
> ...


Which is why a stamp program works better than just raising license fees. Private land owners are going to do what makes the most economical sense. Creating habitat for some trespass fees isn't going to make them the same amount that farming, ranching, oil, or development will. Nor will it keep land in a public trust ensuring that development, ranching, farming, or oil doesn't wipe out the habitat.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

goonsquad said:


> Which is why a stamp program works better than just raising license fees. Private land owners are going to do what makes the most economical sense. Creating habitat for some trespass fees isn't going to make them the same amount that farming, ranching, oil, or development will. Nor will it keep land in a public trust ensuring that development, ranching, farming, or oil doesn't wipe out the habitat.


Stamp programs would go directly to wildlife, not distributed and filtered down to small portions. I hope it can happen soon .


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Habitat, farming practices, drought, over grazing, predators, and Utards. These are all the things pheasants face in this state. Your heart is good One eye, but I'm afraid its all for not. If the stamp went strictly to raising birds and releasing them on state land for everyone to enjoy that would be the only way I would support it. Just like fishing at Mirror Lake, Put-and-take pheasant hunting is what we're down to in this state. It works.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The other thing is the multiplier effect, even at $10/stamp, just wouldn't raise that much money. You'd be extremely lucky to sell even 10,000 pheasant stamps, and $100,000 just isn't going to go very far in the habitat battle. Tex and I have been known to disagree on a thing or three in the past. But on this, I am 100% in absolute agreement with what he says. 

With the put and take thing, I'll take a chapter out of Pro's handbook and apply it to pheasants in Utah. The private market is supplying what people are willing to pay for. And for what we've got in Utah, it works.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The other thing is the multiplier effect, even at $10/stamp, just wouldn't raise that much money. You'd be extremely lucky to sell even 10,000 pheasant stamps, and $100,000 just isn't going to go very far in the habitat battle. Tex and I have been known to disagree on a thing or three in the past. But on this, I am 100% in absolute agreement with what he says.
> 
> With the put and take thing, I'll take a chapter out of Pro's handbook and apply it to pheasants in Utah. The private market is supplying what people are willing to pay for. And for what we've got in Utah, it works.


$0 is going no where, $100,000 designated to pheasants along with what's already being done would at least have some effect not 0 effect. Every little bit towards conservation in this state will help not only pheasants but other wildlife before we loose it all to the real estate market Utah is becoming. If nothing changes there will be no different results , and I'm tired of the twiddling thumbs that's been done the last couple decades.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

What fool would buy a pheasant stamp when there are no pheasants left in Utah?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

redleg said:


> What fool would buy a pheasant stamp when there are no pheasants left in Utah?


A fool who knows your wrong.


----------



## lunkerhunter2 (Nov 3, 2007)

It is a loosing battle one eye! Give up the ghost already they ain't never coming back! It is getting tough to even afford to drive 10 minutes to the wma's to try and find one of those mythical birds. I can tell you people would MUCH rather spend money on something there are a lot of like ducks they can ahoot a whole bunch of and that will be around for a lot longer than the few pheasants there are. You have to think like the masses not a single person who thinks he can change the world on an internet forum. There are 10,000 people that want more ducks to the 1 person that wants pheasants. Who is going to win this battle? Sure more roosters would be awesome but its not going to happen. The times have changed and we have lost that bird for the most part unless you are made of money and like shooting roosters that got fed by a person 2 hours earlier in their safe and cozy pen. Go buy another dozen waterfowl stamps. That will do more for pheasants than $10,000 would do going to pheasant stamps.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

lunkerhunter2 said:


> It is a loosing battle one eye! Give up the ghost already they ain't never coming back! It is getting tough to even afford to drive 10 minutes to the wma's to try and find one of those mythical birds. I can tell you people would MUCH rather spend money on something there are a lot of like ducks they can ahoot a whole bunch of and that will be around for a lot longer than the few pheasants there are. You have to think like the masses not a single person who thinks he can change the world on an internet forum. There are 10,000 people that want more ducks to the 1 person that wants pheasants. Who is going to win this battle? Sure more roosters would be awesome but its not going to happen. The times have changed and we have lost that bird for the most part unless you are made of money and like shooting roosters that got fed by a person 2 hours earlier in their safe and cozy pen. Go buy another dozen waterfowl stamps. That will do more for pheasants than $10,000 would do going to pheasant stamps.


All I'll say is your wrong about some things. What happens when duck numbers struggle, we give up? And you don't think better pheasant habitat would help ducks and geese? Helping pheasants will help other wildlife , don't act like it's wasted money. The days are gone because people give up not because it's simply over. Mule deer herds continue to decline, does that mean we give up because our dollars aren't fixing it? No we look to the future and do what we can better not give up. Just 10 years ago there were hun table numbers, nothing substantial has changed since then that can't be fixed now.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Ducks are not a good comparison. Most folks don't farm the marshes, lakes, or ponds. If we didn't have an inland sea in Utah, we'd not be in the duck business to the extent we are. It's that simple. 

Pheasants grow best in row crop, fringe farm country. If you think we have that anywhere in Utah, then you've never been out of Utah to see what it REALLY looks like. And as limited as our farm land in Utah really is, it makes it that much more valuable to the farmers. After you've been to a state where farms and ranches are described by how many sections they are, vs. how many acres, then you'll get what I mean. I totally agree that improved pheasant habitat also improves habitat for other things. But you also need to understand that pheasants are only about 1/4 step up from being agricultural crops themselves. They really aren't much more than pretty chickens that can fly. One could argue pretty strongly, that they aren't even wildlife, since they are an introduced exotic.

Hunter demand in Utah is met one of two ways: pay to play, or drive to Kansas, Nebraska, or the Dakotas, where there are large scale habitats. 

I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE to be able to hunt alligators in Utah, but we don't have the habitats. I'd love to hunt caribou too. We don't have the habitat. Musk-ox are my list, but we don't have the habitat. I'd love to shoot a wildebeest in Utah. Just not going to happen. What about catching a blue marlin? That would be cool as well. Each one of these critters are just as native to Utah as the pheasant. 

It isn't about giving up. It is knowing the cards you are dealt. Sure, there is some nice enough farm lands in the Sanpete, some over in the basin, along the Bear River up north and a few others that can hold a few birds. And most are maxed out with what they can support. But those willing to spend money on pheasants, and I'm talking about actual money, not $10 on a stamp, but guys that ARE dropping several thousand dollars a year on pheasants, use the money to drive to the Dakotas, because that is the most bang for the buck. It really is.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Ducks are not a good comparison. Most folks don't farm the marshes, lakes, or ponds. If we didn't have an inland sea in Utah, we'd not be in the duck business to the extent we are. It's that simple.
> 
> Pheasants grow best in row crop, fringe farm country. If you think we have that anywhere in Utah, then you've never been out of Utah to see what it REALLY looks like. And as limited as our farm land in Utah really is, it makes it that much more valuable to the farmers. After you've been to a state where farms and ranches are described by how many sections they are, vs. how many acres, then you'll get what I mean. I totally agree that improved pheasant habitat also improves habitat for other things. But you also need to understand that pheasants are only about 1/4 step up from being agricultural crops themselves. They really aren't much more than pretty chickens that can fly. One could argue pretty strongly, that they aren't even wildlife, since they are an introduced exotic.
> 
> ...


Does that mean you can consider chukars not wildlife because they are introduced? I've never argued you'll have the numbers of pheasants that you do in the plain states or that the hunting experience will in any way compare. I am saying that less than a decade ago I still was seeing hens with chicks in the spring and getting 3-4 roosters a few miles from home. Lim not expecting 20 birds a day, but ever since these "hunt " releases have been occurring or the hope by SFW that pen raised birds will survive , along with tripling hunters the last couple years, I have yet to see a wild pheasant this fall as the fields are being cut. I feel this release of pen raised birds has wiped out the last few wild birds remaining. I personally wish it would stop and be focused to habitat. I would rather kill 2-3 roosters a year in Utah and pay $10 then kill $1,000+ to go so far and kill 10 over a weekend. The problem is habitat, at one point there were birds in Utah , there can still be some.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Farm birds don't kill wild birds. Pen raised birds are like pen raised fish - not smart. Pen raised releases will have no negative impact on wild bird populations. Pen raised birds are just plain stupid though. 1 in about 10 that are released will survive past a week if they dodge the shotguns. They'll die of starvation or thirst because they are too stupid to eat or drink anything not in a trough. That is why DWR doesn't care about people releasing their farm birds and any intermixing. They all end up dead anyway. 

Biggest limiting deal with pheasant survival is moisture in the spring when they are hatching out. Of the last 10 years you talk about, 8 of those have been drought years in Utah, meaning well below annual precip. And by that, I mean well below spring precipitation. Even in the best of conditions, a hen will drop 20 eggs, and half of those will survive a week past hatching. And you are in drought, then 1/4 of those will survive another six weeks. And if you're lucky, 1-2 in the original 20 will make it the six months to fall. In good, normal, wet springs in the same habitat, and wet without any hard frosts after early to mid April, half of the 20 can survive to fall. And in a really good banner year, a hen will drop two clutches of 20 each. 

That is what makes the midwest so much better - more consistent weather patterns generally speaking, more habitat, and once it quits freezing at night, it quits for the season. And that is an elevation issue. Areas in Utah with half decent habitats are mostly over 4,000 ft, and can have frosts into May - when the pheasants have just hatched. Compare that to the pheasant states, where elevations are mostly below 1,500 - 2,000, and your last frost will come in mid-April - huge difference. 

Chukars - certainly higher up the wildlife food chain than pheasants. Chukars THRIVE in Utah's wildlands, and don't need to be tucked into a tidy fenceline at night to be kept comfy cozy like pheasants do. 

And really, down in Sanpete land, if you want to find out what happened to the pheasant habitat, see how many pivots you see in farm fields. See how many fences have been taken out. See how many homes you see built in places that used to be farm fields. And you'll begin to see another killer reason the birds are declining. 

I love pheasant hunting. I really do. It is my favorite kind of hunting I've ever done. But the reality in mee see just how much the cards are stacked against them in Utah.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Farm birds don't kill wild birds. Pen raised birds are like pen raised fish - not smart. Pen raised releases will have no negative impact on wild bird populations. Pen raised birds are just plain stupid though. 1 in about 10 that are released will survive past a week if they dodge the shotguns. They'll die of starvation or thirst because they are too stupid to eat or drink anything not in a trough. That is why DWR doesn't care about people releasing their farm birds and any intermixing. They all end up dead anyway.
> 
> Biggest limiting deal with pheasant survival is moisture in the spring when they are hatching out. Of the last 10 years you talk about, 8 of those have been drought years in Utah, meaning well below annual precip. And by that, I mean well below spring precipitation. Even in the best of conditions, a hen will drop 20 eggs, and half of those will survive a week past hatching. And you are in drought, then 1/4 of those will survive another six weeks. And if you're lucky, 1-2 in the original 20 will make it the six months to fall. In good, normal, wet springs in the same habitat, and wet without any hard frosts after early to mid April, half of the 20 can survive to fall. And in a really good banner year, a hen will drop two clutches of 20 each.
> 
> ...


From pheasants forever I have read pen released birds can cause predators to key in on pheasants as easy targets and see them as an easy meal further putting pressure on wild populations, I have began to see no hens with chicks in the spring and very few roosters in areas that 5 years ago I could walk and kick. 2-3 birds up every time I tried. I would still support such a stamp, even if in the future pheasants are a all but gone here such a stamp would for sure help turkeys, quail, and other wildlife.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Wild or released pheasants unnaturally sustain natural predators. Screwing up the whole ecosystem.


----------

