Good ole days of Wa. pheasant hunting

[MtnMuley]

I believe the removal of several fence lines where I used to hunt pheasants, led to the downfall of the population in that area.  Took away a lot of their cover.

[Wacenturion]

Honestly if you have to talk predators as it relates to pheasants then you're already in trouble. If you look at the pheasant strongholds in this country they are crawling with predators and yet the birds still thrive.

The difference is habitat. It is the beginning, middle, and end as far as pheasants go.

That's not to say predator management doesn't help, but that alone isn't going to save the birds or bring them back to where they were.

I hunted South Dakota a few years back, and well, it was ridiculous how many birds there were in the fields we hunted.  So many in fact, that it really wasn't all that fun (if you can believe that).  But these properties were managed for birds and birds only, with permanent cover, water and food, primarily milo.  Plenty of coyotes running around too.  There are places in WA that still have that kind of cover for one reason or another, and lo and behold, there are a lots of birds there too.  Unfortunately they are just few and far between nowadays.

Your last statement rings so true.  I'll be perfectly honest with you.  My conclusions about pheasants and what is needed to manage them didn't come from my wildlife and fisheries education.  It came primarily first from my hours behind a good setter many years ago.  Couple that with being a young field biologist in Grant County back in the early 70's and it was quite apparent cover was coming out all over the place. 

What really hit home and cemented my suspicions was when I ran my pheasant crowing routes in the spring, whenever I recorded good numbers of crowing roosters in a two minute stop, I also noticed a fair amount of permanent cover in proximity...i.e cattails, willows, rose, etc.

When I heard only a few or none, that same cover was absent.  Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out when one understands annual range specific to pheasants.

We were able in the 90's to purchase small acreages in the basin and plant habitat.  We also restored habitat on private land under agreement throughout eastern Washington.  Guess what...in a relatively short period, we saw responses with increases not only in pheasants, but a myriad of wildlife in all the sites I just mentioned.  That's what wildlife management is all about.....but as I said, it requires work, not continual thought process and excuses.  We made a good attempt, but powers to be stopped the process.  It a shame as we would all be reaping the rewards now 20 years later.  More so the process would have been ongoing to ensure we maintained and enhanced populations even more.

The program itself was almost magical.  No other state has or has had such a program.  It's too bad we ended up with a pinhead director who let reorganization and those who wanted control it, take it over.  Although I had my time in and I thoroughly enjoyed my career and working for the public, it was the main reason I retired in disgust.

[Wacenturion]

If anybody could solve this, Wacenturion could.
Back when I was a kid, the Basin was famous across the country for its pheasant hunting. It rivaled the Dakotas, and that's no easy feat. 

Clean farming, check.
Pesticides, check.
Predators, check.

Management?   

We were fortunate Dave to actually live it.  There were so many birds in some areas you literally had to slow down on roads for risk of smacking birds.  I miss those days checking bird hunters in the basin back then.  Was nothing but cars, hunters and bird dogs as far as one could see.

Better yet was spending time behind my Red Setter "Tack" with my little Remington 11-48 bored skeet in 28 gauge.  A box of shells usually equated to at least 23 birds.  He also saw me through college hunting the Palouse.  I almost felt sorry for pheasants, quail, huns and chukars as he had an absolutely choke bore nose to go with his 12 o'clock tail.  Probably the best dog I ever owned, not just from the hunting aspect, but as a companion.  Special.

The local grange pancake breakfast were also fun the morning of the opener.  Lots of excited folks eager to make memories.  What a shame those opportunities went by the wayside.

[Bofire]

  :)You had time for breakfast because season did not open until noon on opening day. ususlly a Sunday.
Carl

[singleshot12]

Look at the cover in the pictures. There's more there within eyeshot than in a whole county these days.

Cover,less predators,less pesticides and cleaner water, all major elements to have prolific wild birds. I'm not a member of PF (Pheasants Forever) but aren't they suppose to be working hard on better habitat management over there?

I look at those pictures which wasn't THAT long ago and think Damn! why can't we have hunting like that again

Volunteer groups like Pheasants Forever do raise money, however to really impact habitat, it takes equipment and manpower, which is only part of the equation.  Volunteers not only are not equipped, but they don't have the time as well.

I would also think farming practices would have to change drastically before anything positive could happen. Followed by proper predator control.

No not really, but that would obviously help.  If one understands the basic requirements for pheasants it's not difficult too come to a solution.  Pheasants spend their entire lifetime essentially living within a 1-1/2 mile circle.  That's their annual range.  That's the basic foundation of understanding wildlife needs, irregardless of species.  You just need permanent cover spread throughout the farmland in close proximity to each other so that individual annual ranges overlap.  Without permanent cover...cattails, willows, basically unfarmed cover and left in a natural state, you won't have pheasant's, or much else for that matter.

Just a small percentage of permanent habitat within the annual range circle so to speak, will basically allow a percentage of the population to exist within that small range where it does not now.  Spread out small parcels of permanent cover adjacent to others (in the adjacent annual range circle), and you create adjoining populations.   That's essentially what you had in the good old days....lots of individual populations overlapping each other throughout the Basin.

Don't ask me how I know..............I developed and ran a statewide habitat restoration program for WDFW that did great things during the 90's, until reorganization put the program under Wildlife Management where it died.  You see they think you can solve problems by continually going to meetings, planning, and making excuses for not getting their hands dirty...like in actual field work.

It just takes time and effort to reverse a trend.  It's amazing how quickly 10 years flys by when you're trying to put habitat back.  It also takes time to grow it to where it's meaningful, especially in low precipitation ranges in eastern Washington.  If it took 30 years to see it disappear, it takes time to put it back.  However it's doable.   Morons at WDFW didn't see the need.  It's easier to pretend being a biologist for an entire career.  Don't get me started on upland birds............

You all ready have but well stated I hear you, you make some good points. It's not an easy fix by any means when you look at the big picture. Seems easy on the outside to fix but....

I know enough about a wild born upland bird(grouse pheasant etc. to know in the first 2 weeks of life bugs and insects are crucial to their survival. IMO insecticides and or pesticides have wreaked havoc on the food chain for much wildlife,from the embryo to the hatched.

It's pretty evident if you think about it that if you have good permanent cover here and there, you also have the following......

protection from predators, both avian and ground

Shelter from the elements.  Chicks still may get wet, but not nearly as much with dense woody cover...i.e. wood rose, multiflora rose etc.

Last but not least.....with permanent cover you generally have undisturbed insect life....food source for those young chick as well as adults.

As I said above, it all begins with permanent cover.  Everything else falls in place.

Seems then it would be cheaper for the game dept. to compensate landowners to leave or create adequate permanent cover then. In the long run or long term it would be much cheaper and make a helluva lot more sense than the cost of release site birds. Atleast you'd think so

[singleshot12]

If anybody could solve this, Wacenturion could.
Back when I was a kid, the Basin was famous across the country for its pheasant hunting. It rivaled the Dakotas, and that's no easy feat. 

Clean farming, check.
Pesticides, check.
Predators, check.

Management?   

Agree Good Habitat is the first and formost ingredient for wild pheasants. Followed by ~ Prime Habitat which also means clean or pesticide free habitat where predators are not out of control.

Simple right? maybe not in this day and age.. even the Dakota's numbers are on the fall now

[Wacenturion]

Singleshot12.........cheaper in the long run to own small isolated parcels that you control stategiccally placed to take advantage of overlapping annual range circles.  Add habitat retention or developement on adjacent private grounds to supplement.  Ownerships change, prices of crops change, etc.  You maintain control by owning small amounts that basically allow populations to exist and utilize crops etc on adjacent lands.

[bobcat]

I really wish they would just do away with all pheasant release sites, even in western Washington. If people want to shoot planted birds, let them buy their own. If there were no pheasants to hunt, habitat would be much higher on the priority list, and maybe eventually we'd have wild birds to hunt again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AspenBud]

I really wish they would just do away with all pheasant release sites, even in western Washington. If people want to shoot planted birds, let them buy their own. If there were no pheasants to hunt, habitat would be much higher on the priority list, and maybe eventually we'd have wild birds to hunt again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Michigan did that. Now they have almost no pheasant to hunt and the private game preserves make a killing. Instead of almost $100.00 to hunt all season on release sites you pay $100.00 to hunt one half day for maybe five birds.

[REHJWA]

I really wish they would just do away with all pheasant release sites, even in western Washington. If people want to shoot planted birds, let them buy their own. If there were no pheasants to hunt, habitat would be much higher on the priority list, and maybe eventually we'd have wild birds to hunt again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then they would not have an excuse to charge 84.50 for a western pheasant permit.
Besides with the way the grouse and other small game have gone I am not sure what we are getting for the $40.50 small game license.

[bobcat]

Well, they're certainly not making any money on that $84.50 pheasant license.

I've hunted planted birds and wild birds. There's no comparison. I started out at the release sites, to get my dog started, but after going east and hunting the wild birds I just can't get interested in the release sites anymore.

[REHJWA]

Dad use to take us over to the east side for pheasants but I haven't been over to the east side for pheasants since the kids started school and all the sports they've gotten into. Dad's in his 80's and a couple of hours on a release site is about good for him.
I agree habitat improvement and access should be the top priority but again, if it were not for the release sites I would not have had the chance to share hunting time with my kids like my dad did with me.

[singleshot12]

Singleshot12.........cheaper in the long run to own small isolated parcels that you control stategiccally placed to take advantage of overlapping annual range circles.  Add habitat retention or developement on adjacent private grounds to supplement.  Ownerships change, prices of crops change, etc.  You maintain control by owning small amounts that basically allow populations to exist and utilize crops etc on adjacent lands.

That sounds about right and makes sense

[singleshot12]

Dad use to take us over to the east side for pheasants but I haven't been over to the east side for pheasants since the kids started school and all the sports they've gotten into. Dad's in his 80's and a couple of hours on a release site is about good for him.
I agree habitat improvement and access should be the top priority but again, if it were not for the release sites I would not have had the chance to share hunting time with my kids like my dad did with me.

  And don't forget about the dogs

[Wacenturion]

I really wish they would just do away with all pheasant release sites, even in western Washington. If people want to shoot planted birds, let them buy their own. If there were no pheasants to hunt, habitat would be much higher on the priority list, and maybe eventually we'd have wild birds to hunt again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would not change the mindset at WDFW about addressing eastern Washington habitat issues one bit.  It's too much work.  Meetings and continual planning to avoid work is easier.  The money not spent on released birds would go to hire more snail biologists.

Western Washington pheasant release was and always has been about opportunity.  Nothing wrong with that if you recognize it's benefits.  It's a bigger picture that is about whatever expenditures like gasoline, food for the kids, any revenue associated with participating in pursuing pheasants on release sites.  Businesses and everyone benefits.

A lot of folks can not afford to go east.  Many kids get an opportunity to hunt and perhaps carry on the tradition.  Lots of positives in the broader sense.