Post by: Hilltop123 on May 05, 2014, 06:57:21 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 05, 2014, 07:19:25 PM
Post by: buckfvr on May 05, 2014, 07:35:30 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 05, 2014, 07:37:25 PM
Post by: Bofire on May 05, 2014, 07:40:13 PM
There were lots of birds, killed a limit before geting on the schoolbus many times. When I was 12 "guided" hunters from the coast. We had Weimeriener(spelling) that was killer. I REALLY miss those days.
Carl
Post by: Ironhead on May 05, 2014, 07:41:50 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 05, 2014, 08:14:52 PM
Brings back memories of the Yak Res in the 70s when I started. Thanks for sharing.
Post by: Curly on May 05, 2014, 08:19:56 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on May 05, 2014, 08:37:13 PM
looks like to me that's why there isn't any now ... :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :tup::yeah:
Good old days alright.. something is wrong with release sites over there now :rolleyes:
Post by: Bullkllr on May 05, 2014, 08:44:04 PM
Post by: Birdguy on May 05, 2014, 09:10:27 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 05, 2014, 09:19:09 PM
Post by: T-Bone on May 06, 2014, 06:59:02 AM
Post by: rtspring on May 06, 2014, 07:14:32 AM
Rtspring
Post by: AspenBud on May 06, 2014, 10:12:14 AM
Look at the cover in the pictures. There's more there within eyeshot than in a whole county these days.
:yeah:
Post by: REHJWA on May 06, 2014, 10:25:11 AM
Every grouse spot I hunted in high school is a housing development. :bash: :bash:
It is harder today but we have to do our best to make some memories for the next generation.
Even if it is release site birds. :dunno:
Thanks for sharing the pictures.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 06, 2014, 10:27:10 AM
Sandwiched in that time frame (71-73) I also went to the University of Idaho for a few years. The Palouse, although fairly clean was still great bird hunting.
Circle irrigation was a big part of the demise of pheasants in the Columbia Basin..
Post by: singleshot12 on May 06, 2014, 10:27:56 AM
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 :dunno:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 06, 2014, 10:31:35 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on May 06, 2014, 10:31:51 AM
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 :dunno:
Volunteer groups like Pheasants Forever do raise money, however to really impact habitat, it takes equipement and manpower, which is only part of the equation. Volunteers not only are not equipped, but they don't have the time as well.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 06, 2014, 10:37:11 AM
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 :dunno:
Volunteer groups like Pheasants Forever do raise money, however to really impact habitat, it takes equipement 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.
Post by: Curly on May 06, 2014, 10:48:04 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on May 06, 2014, 11:14:12 AM
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 :dunno:
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, especaially in low precipatation 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............ :bash:
Post by: singleshot12 on May 06, 2014, 11:34:45 AM
You all ready have :chuckle: 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.... :rolleyes: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 :dunno:
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, especaially in low precipatation 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............ :bash:
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.
Post by: James on May 06, 2014, 12:08:37 PM
I used to be able to go to my spots outside of ephrata, hunt hard and if not limit, be dang close. I still hunt those areas for dove every year and it's been at least 5 years since I saw a single pheasant. :yike:
I really miss good pheasant hunting :'(
Post by: Wacenturion on May 06, 2014, 12:15:30 PM
You all ready have :chuckle: 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.... :rolleyes: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 :dunno:
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............ :bash:
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.
Post by: Dave Workman on May 06, 2014, 12:57:53 PM
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? :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on May 06, 2014, 01:24:12 PM
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.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on May 06, 2014, 02:29:58 PM
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.
Post by: Dave Workman on May 06, 2014, 02:58:17 PM
:dunno:
Not all predators are coyotes, y'know.
:chuckle:
Post by: MtnMuley on May 06, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on May 06, 2014, 03:30:53 PM
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.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 06, 2014, 03:41:35 PM
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? :dunno:
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.
Post by: Bofire on May 06, 2014, 04:00:38 PM
Carl
Post by: singleshot12 on May 07, 2014, 12:02:40 PM
You all ready have :chuckle: 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.... :rolleyes: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 :dunno:
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............ :bash:
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 :dunno:
Post by: singleshot12 on May 07, 2014, 12:37:05 PM
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? :dunno:
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
Post by: Wacenturion on May 07, 2014, 02:04:48 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 07, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: AspenBud on May 07, 2014, 02:21:52 PM
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.
Post by: REHJWA on May 07, 2014, 06:44:45 PM
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.Then they would not have an excuse to charge 84.50 for a western pheasant permit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
Post by: bobcat on May 07, 2014, 06:50:01 PM
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.
Post by: REHJWA on May 07, 2014, 07:08:21 PM
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.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 07, 2014, 07:11:32 PM
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
Post by: singleshot12 on May 07, 2014, 07:19:25 PM
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.:yeah: And don't forget about the dogs
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.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 07, 2014, 07:53:07 PM
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.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 07, 2014, 07:55:49 PM
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.
But you did get you dog started.....see......you benefited even if just a little. :tup:
Post by: Dave Workman on May 16, 2014, 12:17:23 PM
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.
Well, whooptie doo. Just because YOU "just can't get interested in the release sites anymore" is no reason not to have them.
Quote
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.
So what?
I recall your posts way last year about the Colorado boycott and how you thought it would be a crackerjack idea to apply for a non-res deer permit because the competition would be down.
There's a word for this, and for your pheasant hunting preferences. That word is "elitist."
Wacenturion's little finger knows more about the history of this scenario that most folks have in all of their gray matter. He was recognized for his work by the old Fishing & Hunting News one year. I know, because I was the guy who wrote the editorial.
Unless you lived it, you have no idea what it was like...and WHAT IT COULD BE AGAIN with a change of management philosophy. For a lot of people, the release sites are all they have, and they're paying dearly for the opportunity to hunt those places.
You want wild birds to hunt?
1) Kill every coyote you see.
2) Forget everything you think about WDFW and pay attention to Wacenturion's remark: "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."
:yeah:
I'm delighted you have a good dog and can head over to the basin. Good for you. But don't try to argue that your standard should be everybody's standard. Pretty soon, I'm liable to get the impression you're going to be the NEXT socialist candidate for the Seattle City Council ;)
Post by: singleshot12 on May 16, 2014, 02:34:21 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 16, 2014, 03:17:15 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bluemoon on May 16, 2014, 03:59:37 PM
Fast forward to the mid 90's when U & I sugar stated they were going to reopen their plant in Moses Lake, The State was all over announcing how they were going to create pheasant hunting opportunities via habitat and new management programs. When all they were actually doing was going to ride the shirttails of the farmers once again after 240 thousand acres of sugar beets were planted. Well 25 million dollars later with 10 million of that coming from the USDA (our taxes) the plant never reopened the farmers that went back over to the beets harvested their crops only to watch them rot in huge piles for there was no place to take them to market. Since that time the state has done nothing or said nothing about wild pheasant management on the east side. All they did was come up with a East Side Enhancement Stamp thanks to the late Senator Bob Oaks who stated people pay it on the West side why not the East!! More money taken away from hunters with less opportunity for pheasant hunting.
For those that hunted the Yakima area remember that there was also a beet plant in Toppenish and that there were beet crops all over the lower valley as well.
That is my :twocents:
Post by: metlhead on May 16, 2014, 05:15:37 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on June 20, 2014, 05:43:32 PM
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, especaially in low precipatation 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............ :bash:
Once again amigo, you knock it out of the park.
I keep telling some of these know-it-alls who think less is the new more that we CAN turn things around. You will recall I was around back in the early 90s when you were doing all of that good work. And I remember how it seemed simply anal to take success and turn it into something less.
As for hatchery birds...if it was done right (and I know just the hombre who could explain how :chuckle:) by putting hens on healthy feed mash for a couple of weeks before turning them loose in time to bring off a good clutch or two, and doing whatever it took to provide those patches of cover, we'd be back in the late 60s and early 70s again in the Basin in 3-5 years.
It also takes heavy emphasis on predator control out there. No license requirements for shooting coyotes would be a grand start.
About the only reason I get a small game license in the spring is to have the opportunity to blow away every coyote I see. I figure one less coyote, maybe 50 more rabbits, 50 more grouse chicks, maybe save a few pheasants... But of course, I'm one of those old neanderthals who doesn't understand — what do they call it? — modern science-based wildlife management.
Post by: huntingfool7 on June 28, 2014, 07:09:09 AM
The Good ole days are right now :twocents: appreciate what you got now whether it be a release site roosters or a wild(which are most likely holdover birds anyways.) Canned hunting or not it could be gone tomorrow and then what are you and your dogs going to do? win the lottery and hunt Dakota every year?You don't have to win the lottery to hunt in the Dakotas. A couple guys splitting expenses could easily spend 7-10 days for $600/each. Land access is really good in North Dakota, the birds are there, the locals are friendly and they appreciate hunters.
Fish & Wildlife in North Dakota is ran by people who-
1) appreciate hunting and hunters.
2) willing and able to do something about habitat.
3) don't pretend that predator control has zero effect on wildlife numbers.
I have no issue with spending money in a state like that.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 28, 2014, 01:51:13 PM
The Good ole days are right now :twocents: appreciate what you got now whether it be a release site roosters or a wild(which are most likely holdover birds anyways.) Canned hunting or not it could be gone tomorrow and then what are you and your dogs going to do? win the lottery and hunt Dakota every year?You don't have to win the lottery to hunt in the Dakotas. A couple guys splitting expenses could easily spend 7-10 days for $600/each. Land access is really good in North Dakota, the birds are there, the locals are friendly and they appreciate hunters.
Fish & Wildlife in North Dakota is ran by people who-
1) appreciate hunting and hunters.
2) willing and able to do something about habitat.
3) don't pretend that predator control has zero effect on wildlife numbers.
I have no issue with spending money in a state like that.
600 bucks really doesn't sound that bad for a week or so of rooster heaven. That cost would many cover fuel and lodging I would imagine? Shoot I may give up all hope in this state and start hunting N. Dakota. When do you want to go? :)
Post by: fethrduster on July 04, 2014, 08:47:16 PM
Post by: Sandberm on July 29, 2014, 08:18:40 PM
Aspargrass. Used to be lots of it in the basin then the amount of acres dwindled to near nothing. Great cover for pheasants from July through Feb.. Now, acres are begining to increase and I think we will see an increase in birds as a result.
We're too clean. Farms in an effort to be more efficient and control weed problems are much cleaner then in years past. No weedy corners or fencelines, no cover.
Hay farming. When I was a kid we would cut the 1st cutting of hay in late may. A lot of the nesting was already done to the point you could slow the swather down to let the little guys run out of the way. Now? We cut earlier to get better quality and the swathers go much faster. Theres no time to see movement in the hay in front of the swather to slow down. Mow em up, if there are any to mow up.
Though i havent looked into it I know there is money that land owners used to be able to get to plant habitat friendly areas. Shrubs, trees etc. Maybe the money dried up for this, I dont know. As a land owner you have to have a special place in your heart to set aside a corner of a field and go through the work to not only plant the wildlife friendly plants but take care of them forever.
Just the opinion of a guy who was born and raised on a farm and has seen the decline over the years of pheasants.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 29, 2014, 08:28:44 PM
Post by: JODakota on July 29, 2014, 09:01:30 PM
The Good ole days are right now :twocents: appreciate what you got now whether it be a release site roosters or a wild(which are most likely holdover birds anyways.) Canned hunting or not it could be gone tomorrow and then what are you and your dogs going to do? win the lottery and hunt Dakota every year?You don't have to win the lottery to hunt in the Dakotas. A couple guys splitting expenses could easily spend 7-10 days for $600/each. Land access is really good in North Dakota, the birds are there, the locals are friendly and they appreciate hunters.
Fish & Wildlife in North Dakota is ran by people who-
1) appreciate hunting and hunters.
2) willing and able to do something about habitat.
3) don't pretend that predator control has zero effect on wildlife numbers.
I have no issue with spending money in a state like that.
600 bucks really doesn't sound that bad for a week or so of rooster heaven. That cost would many cover fuel and lodging I would imagine? Shoot I may give up all hope in this state and start hunting N. Dakota. When do you want to go? :)
If you guys head over this way, shoot me a pm and I'll put you in the right direction.
Post by: huntingaddiction on July 29, 2014, 09:21:27 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on July 30, 2014, 09:03:45 AM
I also was fortunate to grow up in Moses Lake in the 60's and 70's when pheasant hunting there was the good old days. IMO the decline of pheasants was tied directly to the loss of Sugar Beets after U&I sugar pulled out. The pheasants nested in the beet fields which were not harvested until mid October and they would raise two to three broods a year undisturbed. When the beet fields left most of the farming went to Alfalfa which was cut up to four times a season where the nests and the chicks were literally getting chopped up and destroyed.
Fast forward to the mid 90's when U & I sugar stated they were going to reopen their plant in Moses Lake, The State was all over announcing how they were going to create pheasant hunting opportunities via habitat and new management programs. When all they were actually doing was going to ride the shirttails of the farmers once again after 240 thousand acres of sugar beets were planted. Well 25 million dollars later with 10 million of that coming from the USDA (our taxes) the plant never reopened the farmers that went back over to the beets harvested their crops only to watch them rot in huge piles for there was no place to take them to market. Since that time the state has done nothing or said nothing about wild pheasant management on the east side. All they did was come up with a East Side Enhancement Stamp thanks to the late Senator Bob Oaks who stated people pay it on the West side why not the East!! More money taken away from hunters with less opportunity for pheasant hunting.
For those that hunted the Yakima area remember that there was also a beet plant in Toppenish and that there were beet crops all over the lower valley as well.
That is my :twocents:
Beets were an important cover back in the days, but not, I repeat, not the straw that broke the camel's back. Birds nest in available cover based on what is available within their annual range, which as I mentioned is 1-1.5 miles within a circle radiating out from good permanent retention cover.
There were lots of areas in the Basin back then that didn't have sugar beets. Birds nested elsewhere. Yes they got whacked by swathers in alfalfa fields. Believe me I know as I did lots of walk behind surveys in my days watching the results. What was worse was the onslaught of seagulls who swooped down on chicks exposed and literally in one gulp swallowed them. Even with that carnage, the were numbers high enough to absorb the losses. Nature's way when you have good habitat.
Common sense tells one that if you have nothing but sugar beets as cover, then once they are harvested there is nothing but bare dirt. So what does a pheasant do the rest of the year including winter? Again it all comes down to strategically placed permanent retention cover. It retains birds, it allows then to exist within their annual range and utilize other components that exist there...i.e. water, crops, bugs, etc.
The program I mentioned was not riding the sugar beet thing in the 90's. We were physically creating habitat or improving existing areas in need everywhere in the state. Just because reorganization essentially ended the program in 99', the lack of effort doesn't have one thing to do with sugar beets rotting in the fields as you mentioned. It is directly the result of business as usual at WDFW.
Post by: deereman on August 03, 2014, 06:36:32 PM
I volunteered many days with our FFA to put in habitat and parking lots for hunters. We also sold the WSDFW a farm unit that was awful to farm. Today it is awesome habitat.
Post by: Wacenturion on August 03, 2014, 07:50:32 PM
Wacenturion, is this your program from the 90's?
I volunteered many days with our FFA to put in habitat and parking lots for hunters. We also sold the WSDFW a farm unit that was awful to farm. Today it is awesome habitat.
That's the program I speak of. That's one of two signs I designed. That one went on Habitat Development areas, as in the properties we specially purchased for pheasants and the other which has Cooperating Landowner across the bottom which was displayed in the landowners driveway. Interesting fact is we had several landowners sign up just to get that sign.
Thanks for all your help while you participated with your FFA group. Fun times and we got so much done in a week that it was incredible. Some of my fondest memories about that program. Glad you could actually see the change you mention. Not rocket science....just hard work with great people. :tup:
Post by: Wacenturion on August 03, 2014, 07:54:56 PM
"We also sold the WSDFW a farm unit that was awful to farm. Today it is awesome habitat."
Forgot to ask......what county?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 03, 2014, 08:06:52 PM
There are still a few places that have wild birds by the thousands! Just gotta know where to go!hey ..I will take your offer to show me :dunno: :chuckle: We have the potential for some fine bird hunting all around ..just like elk and deer but we will never have the proper knowledge to manage it ..not picking on the dept . I am picking on the idiots who make the decisions for them .. :dunno: :twocents:
Post by: deereman on August 03, 2014, 10:54:06 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on August 03, 2014, 11:48:02 PM
My dad sold our farm unit in Adams county by the Hutterite colony. A lot of that land is salty because of sub moisture from the main canal that leaks. Part of the unit is still farmed. I custom harvested the corn on that unit the last two years and both years we buried the combine in the wetland. We always left about 20% of the crop for winter feed for the birds. I currently farm next to a couple different habitat restoration projects that were done at the same time. I also have participated in the EQUIP program and have been planting circle corners to permanent habitat.
Thanks....I know exactly the unit you're referring to. Spent more than a few hours working on it myself years ago.
Post by: Dave Workman on August 04, 2014, 04:36:11 AM
There are still a few places that have wild birds by the thousands! Just gotta know where to go!hey ..I will take your offer to show me :dunno: :chuckle: We have the potential for some fine bird hunting all around ..just like elk and deer but we will never have the proper knowledge to manage it ..not picking on the dept . I am picking on the idiots who make the decisions for them .. :dunno: :twocents:
When you criticize the idiots making decisions, you criticize the department. Decision makers ARE the department...any department.
Post by: HunterStrait on August 12, 2014, 09:39:45 AM
As for hatchery birds...if it was done right (and I know just the hombre who could explain how :chuckle:) by putting hens on healthy feed mash for a couple of weeks before turning them loose in time to bring off a good clutch or two, and doing whatever it took to provide those patches of cover, we'd be back in the late 60s and early 70s again in the Basin in 3-5 years.
Sadly i don't think they release hens. :dunno:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 13, 2014, 09:24:43 AM
As for hatchery birds...if it was done right (and I know just the hombre who could explain how :chuckle:) by putting hens on healthy feed mash for a couple of weeks before turning them loose in time to bring off a good clutch or two, and doing whatever it took to provide those patches of cover, we'd be back in the late 60s and early 70s again in the Basin in 3-5 years.
Sadly i don't think they release hens. :dunno:
Are you sure? They do on the west side.
Post by: Special T on August 13, 2014, 10:11:52 AM
My dad sold our farm unit in Adams county by the Hutterite colony. A lot of that land is salty because of sub moisture from the main canal that leaks. Part of the unit is still farmed. I custom harvested the corn on that unit the last two years and both years we buried the combine in the wetland. We always left about 20% of the crop for winter feed for the birds. I currently farm next to a couple different habitat restoration projects that were done at the same time. I also have participated in the EQUIP program and have been planting circle corners to permanent habitat.
Thanks....I know exactly the unit you're referring to. Spent more than a few hours working on it myself years ago.
I see LOTS of magpies in these small lots. I blaze every coyote i can. IMO more needs to be done to limit the other predators that prey on eggs and chicks. Why are there not more opportunites to thinn predators like seagulls and Magpies. I know you can shoot magpies in the act of depredation (near or adjacent to farm feild with cutter bee boxes)
Were magpies as prolific back in the day as they seem to be now?
Post by: HunterStrait on August 13, 2014, 09:03:19 PM
Are you sure? They do on the west side.
As for hatchery birds...if it was done right (and I know just the hombre who could explain how :chuckle:) by putting hens on healthy feed mash for a couple of weeks before turning them loose in time to bring off a good clutch or two, and doing whatever it took to provide those patches of cover, we'd be back in the late 60s and early 70s again in the Basin in 3-5 years.
Sadly i don't think they release hens. :dunno:
I'm pretty sure, they don't on the southeastern side.
not once have i ran into a released pen hen.
Post by: tomq04 on September 19, 2014, 02:16:45 PM
The current program with the reservation system is making friends with more farmers, and apparently the folks using it have been very respectful of the private property they are allowed to hunt and Fish and Wildlife is spending resources on helping establish permanent cover on some of the available properties around St John. As best as I can tell IT ISN'T ALL BAD!, but based on the time we lost in the last 20 years, it could have been so much better.
Post by: 10Key on September 19, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
This is a bit late in the conversation, but my co-workers husband just recently retired from the Fish and Wildlife dept in Spokane county, he was the "grouse" guy (just retired this year), but helped with those projects you mentioned back in the 90's. He put me in contact with the "pheasant" guy based out of St John, and I must say I've been pretty impressed with the Revere property, they haven't had to plant in several years, and there were tons of birds for opening last year and this year is looking even better.
The current program with the reservation system is making friends with more farmers, and apparently the folks using it have been very respectful of the private property they are allowed to hunt and Fish and Wildlife is spending resources on helping establish permanent cover on some of the available properties around St John. As best as I can tell IT ISN'T ALL BAD!, but based on the time we lost in the last 20 years, it could have been so much better.
I know exactly where you are talking about, was headed to hunt the creek for quail one year before the pheasant opener. Drove by and there were roosters everywhere, literally, everywhere. Good info, wish the effort was there still in other areas
Post by: timberfaller on September 20, 2014, 11:23:11 PM
All my favorite hunting spots for birds have one big problem, Raptors!! aka Hawks!
Last time I was up on the Narvare Cooley ridge(sp) North shore Lake Chelan, The USFS had the ridge covered with "Raptor" sight seer's :bash:
Had a camp set up for them and porta potties to boot! :bash:
Almost had a head-on with a USFS pickup driving to fast for road conditions, narrow with few places to let one another by!!! :dunno: missing out on the doughnut table I guess :dunno:
Post by: rasbo on September 21, 2014, 03:54:26 AM
Post by: tomq04 on September 22, 2014, 02:57:05 PM
The current program with the reservation system is making friends with more farmers, and apparently the folks using it have been very respectful of the private property they are allowed to hunt and Fish and Wildlife is spending resources on helping establish permanent cover on some of the available properties around St John. As best as I can tell IT ISN'T ALL BAD!, but based on the time we lost in the last 20 years, it could have been so much better.
Following up, the reservation system and several of the lands available for reservation around St John are great pieces of property, fish and wildlife are working with the farmers to establish habitat and even plant summer birds to help supplement population, there are great things happening around St John... figuring out the worth while properties is the hard part.
Post by: tumalo on September 28, 2014, 08:05:02 PM