Pheasant: they will try this again in 2018

[mike rossi]

November 16, 2009

NY Pheasant Stocking

Humane Groups Oppose Proposed 10-Year Extension of Cruel, Wasteful Pheasant Program

The Humane Society of the United States

This week, The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society of New York, New York League of Humane Voters and New York State Humane Association submitted comments to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation opposing the continuation of pheasant stocking. In the wake of Gov. David Paterson's proposal to close the Richard E. Reynolds Game Farm that produces 100,000 pheasants annually, the DEC is proposing a draft plan to extend its wasteful and inhumane pheasant stocking program for the next decade.

The HSUS comments are available here.

In past years, the DEC spent $750,000 annually to release pheasants on public land for shooters. These farm-reared birds have limited survival skills and represent a nonnative species. Studies consistently show that if shooters do not kill the animals immediately, the birds succumb to harsh weather, get eaten by predators or starve.

"These birds are literally sitting ducks for waiting shooters," said The HSUS' New York state director Patrick Kwan. "The DEC should not be in the business of raising animals in incubators to be shot and calling it wildlife management. Traditional hunting demands that animals be given a reasonable chance to escape, not thrown from the back of a truck at an announced time and date."

The draft Ten-Year Management Plan for Ring-Necked Pheasants in New York calls for the annual stocking of 30,000 adults and distribution of 60,000 chicks to clubs in a cooperative rearing program.

One commendable aspect of the proposal calls for the ending of the Young Adult Pheasant Release program. This program included the annual release of 30,000 young birds during the summer. Overwhelmingly, these birds succumbed to predators or the elements and did not even survive to the fall shooting season.

Background:

• Ring-necked pheasants are native to Asia and cannot find the habitat in New York to naturalize and reproduce; consequently, the DEC hand-rears birds for shooters. The farm raising process produces tamer birds unable to survive in the wild.
  
• To make sure that shooters, instead of coyotes, kill the exotic birds, the animals are stocked just prior to and throughout hunting season, creating an unethical hunting situation.
  
• Pheasant stocking panders to a shrinking constituency. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New York small game hunters declined by 36 percent from 1996 to 2006. According to informal DEC surveys, pheasant hunters number less than 50,000. Wildlife watchers, those who enjoy New York's wildlife by hiking or bird watching, numbered more than 3.5 million in 2006 and continue to increase.
  
• After handing out chicks for rearing and release onto public land, the state does not conduct follow-up inspections of facilities to ensure that animals are treated humanely or that environmental conditions do not lead to massive die-offs.
  

[G-Man]

I really don't have a problem with this, perhaps if the money was spent on habitat improvement, and stocking done and season closed to established populations i would feel different. My opinion if you want to hunt pheasant go to a game farm and buy the birds you want to shoot yourself. Thats a lot of money that could hire e-con officers, and fund habitat improvement.

[Rev Ev]

I have to say I agree with G-Man. It seems like a bottomless pit to raise birds that won't repopulate the area. I would much rather favor habtiat improvement and closing the season until they regain stability. I have no problem with shooting birds on preserves, but I don't know if that's the best thing for the DEC to do.

[mike rossi]

I really don't have a problem with this, perhaps if the money was spent on habitat improvement, and stocking done and season closed to established populations i would feel different. My opinion if you want to hunt pheasant go to a game farm and buy the birds you want to shoot yourself. Thats a lot of money that could hire e-con officers, and fund habitat improvement.

I am willing to bet that you have no problem with stocking trout and warm water fish, even though unlike pheasant, both the existing available habitat and the potentially restorable habitat is much greater. End note: The potential for sustainable wild pheasant populations in NY is limitied. The potential for wild-hatched fisheries is much greater, yet fish stocking is not attacked or questioned. This premise is clearly a political agenda from some folks and faulty logic from other folks.

Funding? Did you follow the other post about the budget? The state conservation fund is swollen. The state can apply for federal funds that will match the state's investment three dollars to every state dollar. Yet the state is not taking full advantage of this. The state also has a voluntary habitat stamp from which funds can be drawn to match federal dollars. Pheasant Forever chapters and national headquarters are still an additional source of funds to match federal funds. The Farm Bill has a number of conservation provisions which give landowners financial incentive to restore, improve, maintain, or preserve habitat. Those programs can be taken advatage of by landowners with or without public hunting cooperative leases, as a matter of fact landowners are given additional financial incentive because the hunting can be free or by fee. Fact is there is a lot of programs out there and a lot of money to pay for them. End note: There is ample money and a variety of programs available for habitat.

As far as hiring more gorillas to enforce the law, how is that relevant to pheasant? I suppose you are going to tell me the decline of north american grassland wildlife is due to poaching? It may be partially contributed to non hunters harrassing wildlife in the off season - but that just doesnt give the leos an andreniline rush, so they niether enforce nor educate. End note: Poaching is a miniscule part of the problem. The annual salary of one ECO is around 40,000. That buys or leases a lot of land. $40,000 worth of land will produce a heck of alot more wildlife than a single ECO will save during his/her thirty year career.

The same organization (HSUS) who filed the pheasant program law suit against the dec have also lobbied against every effort to control this continents number one introduced predator - the house cat, as well as against proposed legislation to ban the maintenance of feral cat colonies. They done the same with the second (IMO) most deleterious introduced species, the mute swan. End Note:The HSUS is influencing the policy of conservation and continues to negatively impact conservation funding.

Nowhere in the lawsuit nor in your post do I see any indice of how much pheasant hunting and the related stocking program put into the conservation fund and into general economic activity. End note: The economic position of the lawsuit and your post has not been derived from any sort of objective economic analyis.

Edited February 21, 2013 by mike rossi

[growalot]

Whether I believe in this or not is inconsequential....give HSUS a chance to put there toes in the door...they will have someone behind them kicking their heel to get farther in....This can not be allowed period...That said...sorry we have a lot of pheasant in our area that survive through the year...even if there are a few that could possible breed then that is a good thing

[mike rossi]

Whether I believe in this or not is inconsequential....give HSUS a chance to put there toes in the door...they will have someone behind them kicking their heel to get farther in....This can not be allowed period...That said...sorry we have a lot of pheasant in our area that survive through the year...even if there are a few that could possible breed then that is a good thing

They are well beyond the door, they are already influencing conservation policy in a big way.

[growalot]

Not disagreeing ....just a metaphor

[mike rossi]

Unlike you, a lot of people are not aware, and think they are not completely in the door. Proof positive when hunters say "hush you will give them ideas". However they are not at the edge of the door, they are inside influencing policy. And the more we get distracted with tiddlywinks the more influence they will gain until they almost run it.

[G-Man]

No i do not, care for the fish stocking programs either, i am not a put and take hunter or fisherman. If pheasants forever would work on habitat and then reintroduce birds. Trap n transfer like the nwtf, and fisheries we closed and allowed natural spawning to take place. I wouldn't have a problem spending moneys on those programs. They want a new power project in the lower niagra river, might effect salmon fishing (not native to the lake) go with new power i say. The dec want eradication of wild pigs no question asked, but release pheasant that carry black head disease that kills turkey, trout and salmon stocking that carry whirling and other things.. money should be better spent on enforement and habitat/ native game management. As for letting someone in the door, do it ourselves and shut them up! Non- native is non native weather is be bird/fish/plant/animal policy should be uniform. If we are raising fish to reintroduce them in an acid/pollutant killed river or lake, or reintroduce an native animal to a reclaimed mining area or for native habitat that is different, raising them so that they can be slaughtered by hunter/ fisherman in a put n take is not good management. The hunters fishermen that want non native species should pay out of pocket themselves on a game/fish farm..

[G-Man]

As for economic input in to general fund, yes dollars can be matched, but we have no personal/equipment to carry out project let alone do economic studies, the few thousand 8000 is the closest number i can find die hard pheasant hunters should pay for the pheasant program rather than the general hunting community. Or eliminate it and they can pay for the birds they want at a game farm. Average cost is 25- 28 per bird to raise, we could buy them cheaper from another state (this was even proposed a few years ago) if your buisness is failing do you keep getting loans to keep it afloat? No... especially when the outlook isnt changing. Habitat work may allow pheasants to reproduce naturally here but none is done.... its a poor plan, to keep pumping money into a failing system. Same goes for fish, how many fish have been destroyed to contamination in the hatcherys... waste of money...

[mike rossi]

No i do not, care for the fish stocking programs either, i am not a put and take hunter or fisherman. If pheasants forever would work on habitat and then reintroduce birds. Trap n transfer like the nwtf, and fisheries we closed and allowed natural spawning to take place. I wouldn't have a problem spending moneys on those programs. They want a new power project in the lower niagra river, might effect salmon fishing (not native to the lake) go with new power i say. The dec want eradication of wild pigs no question asked, but release pheasant that carry black head disease that kills turkey, trout and salmon stocking that carry whirling and other things.. money should be better spent on enforement and habitat/ native game management. As for letting someone in the door, do it ourselves and shut them up! Non- native is non native weather is be bird/fish/plant/animal policy should be uniform. If we are raising fish to reintroduce them in an acid/pollutant killed river or lake, or reintroduce an native animal to a reclaimed mining area or for native habitat that is different, raising them so that they can be slaughtered by hunter/ fisherman in a put n take is not good management. The hunters fishermen that want non native species should pay out of pocket themselves on a game/fish farm..

I agree. Except ringnecks are a desirable non native.

Recently South Dakota trapped surplus merriams turkeys for Utah. In the 1980s New Jersey traded wild hatched pheasant for turkeys from Missouri. Currently New Jersey is transfering its own wild hatched pheasant from one part of the state to other parts. There are more examples, this is not unheard of outside of the original introduction of pheasant to the US.

And this would qualify for federal wildlife restoration funds. And the state has matching funds in the conservation fund. So why isnt it being done? Did you read the recently (last year) revised NY state ten year pheasant strategy, I did not, is there plans for trap and transfer of wild hatched birds, probably not.

Why is that? There is not much, but there is some viable pheasant habitat. We just got a year-round coyote season... I could go on and on. Tell everyone about the role of the CFAB, FWMB, and NYSCC, because Im sick of repeating myself. They are suppossed to represent the interests of you and the resources, did you get any say so? Look at the ice cream passed the last couple years, do you like the ice cream? Who provided the recipe for the ice cream?

An ecological approach such as you advocate is better, but its never been driven by the three above mentioned groups because they are not competent and if you mention it on this board for example I bet you will be asked if your an anti hunter. The conservation ethic has not been taught in this state and I dont see any change in sight.

Assume it is correct that released pheasant do not live long enough to transfer disease or infuse bad genetics in the wild population. If we assume that to be true, and I predict it is, there are many benefits to a put and take hunting program. So I am supportive of the pheasant release program.

Some states require hunters who hunt pheasant were they are stocked to buy a pheasant stamp which funds or partially funds the program. I do think this is a good idea, except if you have been following things as of late; the conservation fund is growing there is not a lack of funds. So what did the big three advise the lawmakers - to decrease the cost of hunting licenses. We dont need to reintroduce wild stock, habitat work and other common wildlife management practices. We need a 365 day coyote season and reduced hunting license fees. We also have a voluntary habitat/access stamp , the state dropped its STATE duck stamp. So in light of that, a pheasant stamp doesnt make sense anymore...

You seem to have given this some thought, but may I ask if you raised this with the big three or the DEC itself?

[mike rossi]

As for economic input in to general fund, yes dollars can be matched, but we have no personal/equipment to carry out project let alone do economic studies, the few thousand 8000 is the closest number i can find die hard pheasant hunters should pay for the pheasant program rather than the general hunting community. Or eliminate it and they can pay for the birds they want at a game farm. Average cost is 25- 28 per bird to raise, we could buy them cheaper from another state (this was even proposed a few years ago) if your buisness is failing do you keep getting loans to keep it afloat? No... especially when the outlook isnt changing. Habitat work may allow pheasants to reproduce naturally here but none is done.... its a poor plan, to keep pumping money into a failing system. Same goes for fish, how many fish have been destroyed to contamination in the hatcherys... waste of money...

From the perspective of restoring wild, reproducing populations it is a failed system. From the perspective of recreation it is a sucess. It can also be argued that in pursuit of artificially hatched stock the conservation fund is bolstered to the benefit of wild-hatched game, non game, and endangered species...

[G-Man]

I am A hunter and a conservationist, and have got in many arguments with nyscc council as well, as for the surpluss in conservation fund, licences were raised to create this several years ago. I have argued with people from phesants forever and even participated in a banded bird project (yes some do make it thru for following seasons) i just have a problem , putting more fish in the tank instead for people to catch instead of making the tank bigger so to say. Most field dec personall seem to agree with me, saying the funding isnt there, the way the program is now it is awaste. i have been improving my own habitat and have tried to secure pheasants to release,(to see if they would become self sustaining here.)most people that have birds are like i'll give them to you then we'll go hunt them... NOT what i want to do if i was home i'd try to raise them myself(i know what i can or can't do.. they are a beautiful and tasty bird, not much of a challange to get in my own experiance, they are giant kites.... but the nwtf has done it the right way find suitable habitat and once breeding can support a hunt open season on them. why pheasant forever doesn't push this approach is beyond me. it would be limited to the northern lake ontario plane, and fingerlakes region as most suitable habitat, and i'm sure hunters would travel to hunt birds if thats what they like to hunt.

[erussell]

Why waste money on non native species? Why not spend it on native species like grouse who's numbers seem to be dwindleing and are capable of surviving without help in NY.

[mike rossi]

I am A hunter and a conservationist, and have got in many arguments with nyscc council as well, as for the surpluss in conservation fund, licences were raised to create this several years ago. I have argued with people from phesants forever and even participated in a banded bird project (yes some do make it thru for following seasons) i just have a problem , putting more fish in the tank instead for people to catch instead of making the tank bigger so to say. Most field dec personall seem to agree with me, saying the funding isnt there, the way the program is now it is awaste. i have been improving my own habitat and have tried to secure pheasants to release,(to see if they would become self sustaining here.)most people that have birds are like i'll give them to you then we'll go hunt them... NOT what i want to do if i was home i'd try to raise them myself(i know what i can or can't do.. they are a beautiful and tasty bird, not much of a challange to get in my own experiance, they are giant kites.... but the nwtf has done it the right way find suitable habitat and once breeding can support a hunt open season on them. why pheasant forever doesn't push this approach is beyond me. it would be limited to the northern lake ontario plane, and fingerlakes region as most suitable habitat, and i'm sure hunters would travel to hunt birds if thats what they like to hunt.

Again, I agree that the ecological approach is the way to reestablish reproducing populations of pheasants in the areas you mention and perhaps even on Long Island from what Im told.

Were I disagree is that the lack of funding, the money is there, including, but not limitied to private funds from PF or even Audobon - the NY chapter has 50,000 members. Increasing grassland habitat would help a number of species of concern, one example is Henslows Sparrow, and the NY Aud. Chapter would take interest. Partnerships are not novel in conservation and it is a fine tuned practice that the DEC is well versed in. You indicated the NWTF has found the money and the partners, did you ever question why they move ahead if there is quote no money?

The NYSCC, CFAB, and the FWMB obviously have not been conducive to basic wildlife management and have a reoccurring set of priorities. These boards consist of political appointeess entrusted to advise the DEC and politicians on both the social and biological aspects of conservation policy and use of conservtion funds, they are a dismal failure.

As far as incubator hatched birds surviving, I believe in prime habitat, such as the Ontario Plains, the survival rate is one percent? Like the salary of a conservation officer, the return from habitat investment is much larger. But thats not where Im going here. That is in prime habitat. In poor or fair habitat I wouldnt be surprised if survival is zero, which really isnt much better than one percent anyway, come to think of it...

I also disagree that pheasants, even pheasants hatched by an incubator, are not sporting. Yes, if you are bow hunting deer in a tree stand you can easily draw on a released bird compared to a grouse or turkey. Or if you happen into a flock just out of the box and 2 or 3 guys with benellis can limit out in seconds. Or the guy with no dog can listen for the roosters cackle and stalk up to a bird that has been released long ago, and if he knows the stocking schedule he can do it on a regular basis. Its up to yourself to decide how sporting you will make it. I guess they are not as hard to hit as a canvasback with a tail wind while your knee deep in muck, but more are missed than shot by even top wingshooters...

I hope you continue with your mission. But I think you need to start your own PF Chapter and hire a wildlife biologist with farm bill experience.

[mike rossi]

Why waste money on non native species? Why not spend it on native species like grouse who's numbers seem to be dwindleing and are capable of surviving without help in NY.

E Russel is using the sky is pink tactic here. I just gave you some reasons, did you read them? So you agree with the HSUS that the social component of NY's pheasant program is erroneous and not worthy - because thats pretty much what you are saying....

Anyway It isnt relevant and you are confusing the issue. The issue needs to separated into put and take pheasant hunting and restoring non native, but wild, population of pheasant. And as I said, I have given some supportive arguments in defense of both.

But while you mention it, good question about grouse. Lets see how much thought you actually put into it! What is being done to maintain the young growth forest habitat of grouse? Is there no money for that as well? How many ruffed grouse society chapters exist in NY? Did you bring your concerns about grouse to the DEC, NYSCC, CFAB, FWMB, the NY legislature, or the Ruffed Grouse Society? How do you feel about the just passed license reduction to reduce the conservation fund instead of using it for the exact kinds of grouse projects which federal funds are meant to be leveraged for?

[erussell]

All Im asking is why stock a species that is not native to NY or North America for that matter? NYSDEC has a very stringent no invasive species policy. I dont see why they should stock Pheasant any more than wild pigs or snakehead fish should be stocked. So I guess I just dont get why NYS would bother with spending that much money on a product that has such a short shelf life and only purpouse is for instant gratification of a small portion of NY sportsman.

[mike rossi]

All Im asking is why stock a species that is not native to NY or North America for that matter? NYSDEC has a very stringent no invasive species policy. I dont see why they should stock Pheasant any more than wild pigs or snakehead fish should be stocked. So I guess I just dont get why NYS would bother with spending that much money on a product that has such a short shelf life and only purpouse is for instant gratification of a small portion of NY sportsman.

There is a difference between a desirable introduced species and an an undesirable one. It can be further argued that the recreation derived from pheasant hunting takes pressure off of native species such as snow shoe hare, woodcock and ruffed grouse and while doing so it generates both conservation funds as well as general economic stimulation.

I got a big problem with your statement about gratifying a minority of sportsman. Small game and waterfowl hunting is the lowest on the totem pole period. By comparisism the attention and resources given to special interest deer-related and fishing issues does not bode well for your argument.

I am not skating the part of your argument you reference instant gratification. I appreciate that, but not only is that an exageration - the exact same argument can be made about antler restrictions, rifle hunters participating in archery seasons only because cross bows are allowed, fish stocking, youth seasons, and much more can be attributed to the instant gratification or lazyness mantra. Sometimes that mantra is very credible, for example the use of bait for waterfowl. Unlike you, some hunters take an anything goes attitude; according to their logic, if you dont unite in every and all aspects we will be divided, fall down the slippery slope and suffer incremental losses to hunting opportunities and gun rights.

I am not accusing you, but anytime a sportsman takes a pro conservation stance, I am suspicious it is driven by self interest in discharge of policy or money appropriations. The recent video of the budget hearing demonstrates the tug a war for a pool of money for diverse uses by diverse groups. In other words I am not sure your concern with invasives is genuine or you are just using the common practice of aligning a conservation concern to further your own special interest. Many biologists have criticized the reintroduction of native, wild turkeys through out the US because they outcompete other native species both game and non game species and impact several species of concern (amphibians) which they feed on. So when it comes to turkeys, are you concerned with their direct impact and their funding impact on salamanders, certain song birds, and ruffed grouse? I didnt think so...

Edited February 25, 2013 by mike rossi

[erussell]

I have no special interests, I am an outdorsman. I hunt and fish for anything that moves or swims in season as it moves me. Big antlers or no antlers it all eats the same. I have no ill will toward pheasants or pheasant hunters or small game hunters in general. I cut my hunting teeth on small game and i would bet the majority of hunters in NY have also. I was just curious as to why fight to stock non native species. I guess I get the point, give an inch and they will try to take a mile. Which is not what we want. I concure. I would like to say sportsman in general need to get back to there roots and be more proactive in conservation. There are to few including myself who go out and actively seek ways to improve fields and streams other than there own. I think we give ourselves a bad rap when it comes to this. The antis show us as killers and takers. It would be nice for someone to step up and say yes hunting and fishing is killing but we have done more for the environment than any looney environmental group has ever done and have something to back it up.

Edited February 26, 2013 by erussell

[josephmrtn]

all them PETA and HSUS people need to go get on a rocket and move to mars... and leave us hunters alone... they've been a thorn in our side WAY too long

[mike rossi]

I have no special interests, I am an outdorsman. I hunt and fish for anything that moves or swims in season as it moves me. Big antlers or no antlers it all eats the same. I have no ill will toward pheasants or pheasant hunters or small game hunters in general. I cut my hunting teeth on small game and i would bet the majority of hunters in NY have also. I was just curious as to why fight to stock non native species. I guess I get the point, give an inch and they will try to take a mile. Which is not what we want. I concure. I would like to say sportsman in general need to get back to there roots and be more proactive in conservation. There are to few including myself who go out and actively seek ways to improve fields and streams other than there own. I think we give ourselves a bad rap when it comes to this. The antis show us as killers and takers. It would be nice for someone to step up and say yes hunting and fishing is killing but we have done more for the environment than any looney environmental group has ever done and have something to back it up.

I really feel like I am chasing you, but no that is not my intention, but you are miscategorizing what I said. I did not say that I subscribe to the "give an inch they want a mile" philosophy. I just said that is the way some hunters think, not the way myself thinks. Another line of thinking among us that is common is one which hunters embrace and cling to an idealogy which 1) fits in with their personal hunting agenda 2) is promoted by sporting magazines and/or organizations. Are you arriving at your position because of print or ancedotal info or is this your own critical thinking? Either way, you and I disagree about this issue and I want as much opportunity to express my opinions and influence novice hunters as the magazines and organizations. I think I can state my opinion without diminishing your opinion; and you can do the same.

Regarding the indigenious species issue you raise... Wildlife management has a biological dimension and a human or social dimension. The goal is to balance both dimensions as best possible while understanding a perfect balance is impossible. There are arguably positive social benefits from both wild pheasant populations and liberated pheasant hunting programs. Despite originally being an introduced species, there are also biological benefits from both restoring wild populations and put and take hunting as well. Those biological benefits, as I already stated, are the increase in grassland habitat and conservation funding. Although pheasant are not a native, indigeous species, they share habitat requirements with many native species, including species of concern, one example being henslows sparrow, another being the karner blue butterfly. The promotion of pheasant as a game bird facilitates the conservation of grassland habitat which many native species, including rare species require. Considering grassland habitat is only second to wetland habitat in both productivity and acreage loss, it should be a priority to conserve. The ecological services provided by wetlands and grasslands is several hundred times greater than forested lands. Putting that in dollar terms, the return on one dollar the state puts into conservtion land is five dollars, making it the single best investment it can make.

Likewise there are not any invasive qualities to pheasant. They do not cause problems for people or the ecology. Using conservation funds for both the restoration of wild pheasant and put and take hunting programs does not cost, it actually pays. The HSUS would like to distort that and others who are not aware of the big picture can be easily dupped into percieving the stocking program as a bottom less pit without payback. Furthermore our state conservation fund has been used so lightly that it has been growing, not shrinking. Not using the CF also forfiets millions of dollars of federal matching funds. Partners such as the nature conservancy, audobon, and ducks unlimited have made wise us of those funds. Other partner groups advocate they are either unused or used toward infastructure such as parking and launching. That doesnt bode for sincerity when they turn around and discredit funding the pheasant hatchery and orthodox wildlife management practices...