ODYSSEUS

5 MONTH PHEASANT SEASON- LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL!!!

Recommended Posts

If anyone wonders why small game hunting has gone down the toilet this thread is a great example of it's lack of support and why the decline continues. Back in 1970 there were around 40 million hunting licenses sold in the USA. Today with nearly "100 MILLION" more people in the US population the number of hunting licenses sold has declined and dropped to around 12.6 million. WOW! and if that is not cause for alarm it should be!

As I reflect back on YES "those good old days" it is hard to believe how much hunting opportunity has been lost from then to today and so relatively quick.

I was hunting back in the sixties and small game hunting was the backbone of the sport, seemed like everyone I knew participated in some sort of small game hunting, grownups and youngsters alike. Waterfowl, Squirrels, Grouse, Woodcock, Pheasants, Rabbits, Coon and Fox, seemed like everyone had a hunting dog, the only animal we lacked were Turkeys.

How far it continues to plummet who knows but I can say emphatically I am sure glad to have lived in the times that I did having those varied hunting opportunities with all my many hunting friends and feel sorry for youngsters and older hunters alike that are up and coming missing all that great action and fun.

While there are other contributing factors to be sure the almighty Deer and it's seasons that are "WAY" to long, greed, posted land and just downright selfishness have played major factors not only in the huge decline in small game hunting but sporting license sales in general and that is my opinion.

Al

 

Edited by airedale
  • Thanks 1

Serious Dogs For Serious Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dec makes millions from license sales  they have plenty to release birds on public land . Besides if not that they would waist it on something else anyway .
I dont see that as the same as 
 a place fenced  stocked by  deer  created by guys  like  fSW who spends  all day jacking off deer in a laboratory trying to make the biggest horn possible. 
Think about how crazy that is .
 
 
 

Oh you must mean businessmen. Over 1000 acres of land and 20 under fence bringing in 6 digits a year? DEC has nothing to do with private property. If anything with my feeding program there is not a place on earth better for any bird or animal than on my properties. Private owners will always be better land managers then the DEC will ever be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, G-Man said:

A commercial enterprise is not the same as public entity.. as for wasting $ a commercial enterprise doesn't cost a dime of my license fees. When you think 750 k actually raises 25 or 30k birds because the day old chicks are given away to be raised. The price per bird is 25 bucks.

Raising grouse, woodcock doesnt cost the state a dime. Imo putting that 750 k into improving habitat for them would yield long term results that would also benefit other game animals that again reproduce at no cost to the dec or license buyers..  9 wma a year could have 50 k of improvements done to better habitat. And it would take much less than that for many others a rotational basis of improving habitat at numerous wma would benefit far more than the 23k phesant hunter it does now

I do understand where you are coming  from but it's the ny state government since when do they run things the best way lol  we are lucky they do the   bird thing half way right lol 

 when I go small game hunting one of the things I like is there are many animals open to hunt DEC  dropping  in a few birds on public land is great in my mind and probably gets more guys motivated to get out there then normally that would go out there .

Edited by Storm914
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Four Season Whitetail's said:


Oh you must mean businessmen. Over 1000 acres of land and 20 under fence bringing in 6 digits a year? DEC has nothing to do with private property. If anything with my feeding program there is not a place on earth better for any bird or animal than on my properties. Private owners will always be better land managers then the DEC will ever be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, airedale said:

If anyone wonders why small game hunting has gone down the toilet this thread is a great example of it's lack of support and why the decline continues. Back in 1970 there were around 40 million hunting licenses sold in the USA. Today with nearly "100 MILLION" more people in the US population the number of hunting licenses sold has declined and dropped to around 12.6 million. WOW! and if that is not cause for alarm it should be!

As I reflect back on YES "those good old days" it is hard to believe how much hunting opportunity has been lost from then to today and so relatively quick.

I was hunting back in the sixties and small game hunting was the backbone of the sport, seemed like everyone I knew participated in some sort of small game hunting, grownups and youngsters alike. Waterfowl, Squirrels, Grouse, Woodcock, Pheasants, Rabbits, Coon and Fox, seemed like everyone had a hunting dog, the only animal we lacked were Turkeys.

How far it continues to plummet who knows but I can say emphatically I am sure glad to have lived in the times that I did having those varied hunting opportunities with all my many hunting friends and feel sorry for youngsters and older hunters alike that are up and coming missing all that great action and fun.

While there are other contributing factors to be sure the almighty Deer and it's seasons that are way to long, greed, posted land and just downright selfishness have played major factors not only in the huge decline in small game hunting but sporting license sales in general and that is my opinion.

Al

 

I dont support put and take anything fish or fowl. I see a lot of money spent on something that will never thrive on own.. taking that money and creating better habitat for game will yield more in the long term for all hunters not just those that use put and take.. as I said earlier if they worked habitat stocked it closed it for hunting and when it reached a sustainable level allow it .. the main reason pheasant are not around is lack of habitat.. reforestation has removed their needed grass type cover.. the state even recommended just focusing phesant areas where proper habitat exists. The lake plains along Ontario and Erie. And long island.. I always hear we we should listen to the biologists.. but in this case we dont.. that is the problem , stuck in tradition and not shifting focus or developing what is needed to make a comeback ..


I've hunted almost everyday of my life.. the rest have been wasted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you did not read my earlier post  regarding why wild Turkeys have made a comeback- but Pheasants will not.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ODYSSEUS said:

Clearly you did not read my earlier post  regarding why wild Turkeys have made a comeback- but Pheasants will not.    

They can in certain areas. When I was active the conservation council reviewed a pheasant proposal of the dec which they wanted to close the game farms and buy birds and concentrate on 3 areas of the state  ..the counsel  shot it down for fear we would loose stocking forever if we closed all the game farms.. white was closed though and Reynolds is only.one left.  Again we didnt listen to the biologists. .. we insist on put and take .. that is where I developed my opinion of the pheasant program . Few hunters benefit and zero game benefit from these put and take programs..  habitat development in non pheasant areas (the 3 mentioned in study and proposal) would increase all game as well as the native birds ,like grouse and woodcock.. that is all I would like to see done. I feel if you still need a pheasant experiance travel to an open area or go to a game preserve and pay for them out of your own pocket.. again my opinion.   The only.argument I see is it get kids into hunting but would not having more native game do the same? And it would be a more real life experiences than having to kick a bird so it flys so they can shoot it.. ( that was from my nephews experiance this year in pheasant youth hunt.. ) he no longer wants to do it but wants to try grouse.. he felt awful for the bird they had to kick.. and how hard it was to explain the birds are just raised to be shot aren't wild and most do not know what to do to evade predators or danger..

  • Like 1

I've hunted almost everyday of my life.. the rest have been wasted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dec makes millions from license sales  they have plenty to release birds on public land . Besides if not that they would waist it on something else anyway .
I dont see that as the same as 
 a place fenced  stocked by  deer  created by guys  like  fSW who spends  all day jacking off deer in a laboratory trying to make the biggest horn possible. 
Think about how crazy that is .
 
 
 

That’s the same argument I hear the Libs make about illegal immigrants and single payer healthcare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Woodcock said:

Trout are heavily stocked since streams that are heavily fished or can't support wild populations would otherwise hold few trout.  Trout and pheasant have many similarities in how they are managed for those looking to hunt or fish. Ending pheasant hunting would have consequences just like ending trout stocking would.  My personal preference aside, I understand both support a recreational need.

 

Ending trout stocking could have a surprising effect, namely that the wild population rebounds as they no longer have the competition from the hatchery fish nor the unrelenting pressure from recreational anglers.  

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/DickVincent.htm

In 1974, Montana did something that stunned anglers across the state and the nation: It stopped stocking trout in streams and rivers that supported wild trout populations.

The move initially outraged many anglers, fishing businesses, and even some Montana Fish and Game Department staff. For decades, hatcheries had been credited with producing more and better fishing. Without stocking, many Montanans asked, what would happen to the state’s famous trout waters and the businesses that relied on legions of anglers arriving from across the country each summer?

The answer, now well known, is that trout fishing improved dramatically. Once stocking was discontinued, wild trout numbers doubled, tripled, and more on many rivers.

1 hour ago, G-Man said:

I dont support put and take anything fish or fowl. I see a lot of money spent on something that will never thrive on own.. taking that money and creating better habitat for game will yield more in the long term for all hunters not just those that use put and take.. as I said earlier if they worked habitat stocked it closed it for hunting and when it reached a sustainable level allow it .. the main reason pheasant are not around is lack of habitat.. reforestation has removed their needed grass type cover.. the state even recommended just focusing phesant areas where proper habitat exists. The lake plains along Ontario and Erie. And long island.. I always hear we we should listen to the biologists.. but in this case we dont.. that is the problem , stuck in tradition and not shifting focus or developing what is needed to make a comeback ..

Agree wholeheartedly with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, left field said:

unrelenting pressure from recreational anglers

That is the whole point of stocking!

  • Like 1

Serious Dogs For Serious Work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming in late her, so i apologize beforehand..  

I understand both sides here.. I do, Help those out who want to hunt pheasants any which way possible. Mass produce birds and drop them off.. so NYS can still have a season.. I get it. Not against it at all.. Makes some people happy. 

An old man once told me, in more ways than one that, "a little something is better than a lot of nothing".. take it how you want to.. This is better than nothing at all, yes it sure is. Again im not against the program completely since it makes some people happy...  But the phrase "pay once, cry once" goes a long way for many things in life. Take the money and build up the habitat, "control" the predators, and briefly protect these birds, give them what they need and a fighting's chance to survive. Look everywhere across the land.. Deer hunters have to refrain from shooting a doe in some areas, just to provide for years to come...

The only small game you see anywhere is squirrels!! And i think we all know why. Rabbits, they are thin in many areas, grouse, pheasants, turkey you name it.. there habitat is gone or slowly getting there, and the predator population is not declining by any means... steadily rising if i had a guess..  Bring back their habitat and protect them some until populations are sustained. Reap the rewards... Its called management and thats whats sportsman and women do, or should do.. Providing for our future...

I dont hunt pheasants much anymore since my father and our dog have passed, but make a plan for the "future". There seems to be zero future intentions here, with this program. As mentioned before "money maybe not wasted, but not spent well".. Granted a bird lives through the season and over winter, It will most likely adapt to the wild but the chances seem rare in most places.  Id much rather see pheasant habitat restored, predators controlled more appropriately and bird numbers increase, and you will gladly see me purchase another bird dog and be back in the field! 

Ive hunted them on pheasant farms.. its a riot no doubt, a complete ball! A great place to train new young dogs, bring un experienced hunters, support local biz, etc.. Great time for a great price. 

Id just love to see the habitat improved on these state lands in more ways than one..

My $.02  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:


That’s the same argument I hear the Libs make about illegal immigrants and single payer healthcare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 liberals the ones  with the biggest mouths work in the government they just want more tax to pay for there own pension plans .

Then  you get the sheeple that think there getting something good out of it . 

At least when they   let loose those birds on public land we can see where that money is going all the rest just  disappears . 

You buy a license money disappears at least with the birds you physically can see where some of its going anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Thread is going nowhere. Look-- as Long as Pheasants Roost on the ground - Coyotes will kill them all!  My hard earned cash goes toward my hunting License and I and untold  numbers of others enjoy Pheasant Hunting on Public Land.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to your Montana example..... it's totally irrelevant to the conditions here.  I'm very familiar with that study and you can't even begin to compare the circumstances.  Many and perhaps most streams in certain parts of this region would never sustain adequate populations of wild trout to sustain a fishable population.  Low flows, elevated temperatures, overfishing and poaching are what kill these streams. The Beaverkill River is a good example.  Without stocking, it would have limited numbers of trout and certainly move people elsewhere.  I prefer fishing for wild trout but they do not exist in sufficient numbers in many waters.  This is true of so many rivers and streams throughout this region.  Even the best rivers here sustain themselves on "artificial" reservoir releases and rely on introduced species such as brown trout and rainbow trout.  Stocking trout is a necessity in many lakes, streams and rivers. 

It's so analogous to hunting issues in so many ways.  Too many people for too limited a resource.  Even if you maintained an ideal WMA for pheasant and established a breeding population, the hunting pressure alone would destroy it.  Grouse are difficult to hunt and after the first weekend, it's mostly just serious bird hunters.  Grouse require good to excellent habitat but there's no support for it.  These discussions always make me go back to deer management.  Deer management in much of the state requires changes but the truth is that if it were managed properly, people would not see as many as they want or expect.  There are too many deer and they disrupt our forests and prevent a proper balance.  So I guess my point is that most of these resources are artificial in many ways and we can either accept it or reject it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LET EM GROW said:

Coming in late her, so i apologize beforehand..  

I understand both sides here.. I do, Help those out who want to hunt pheasants any which way possible. Mass produce birds and drop them off.. so NYS can still have a season.. I get it. Not against it at all.. Makes some people happy. 

An old man once told me, in more ways than one that, "a little something is better than a lot of nothing".. take it how you want to.. This is better than nothing at all, yes it sure is. Again im not against the program completely since it makes some people happy...  But the phrase "pay once, cry once" goes a long way for many things in life. Take the money and build up the habitat, "control" the predators, and briefly protect these birds, give them what they need and a fighting's chance to survive. Look everywhere across the land.. Deer hunters have to refrain from shooting a doe in some areas, just to provide for years to come...

The only small game you see anywhere is squirrels!! And i think we all know why. Rabbits, they are thin in many areas, grouse, pheasants, turkey you name it.. there habitat is gone or slowly getting there, and the predator population is not declining by any means... steadily rising if i had a guess..  Bring back their habitat and protect them some until populations are sustained. Reap the rewards... Its called management and thats whats sportsman and women do, or should do.. Providing for our future...

I dont hunt pheasants much anymore since my father and our dog have passed, but make a plan for the "future". There seems to be zero future intentions here, with this program. As mentioned before "money maybe not wasted, but not spent well".. Granted a bird lives through the season and over winter, It will most likely adapt to the wild but the chances seem rare in most places.  Id much rather see pheasant habitat restored, predators controlled more appropriately and bird numbers increase, and you will gladly see me purchase another bird dog and be back in the field! 

Ive hunted them on pheasant farms.. its a riot no doubt, a complete ball! A great place to train new young dogs, bring un experienced hunters, support local biz, etc.. Great time for a great price. 

Id just love to see the habitat improved on these state lands in more ways than one..

My $.02  

Better habitat management is always welcomed but let's face it  its easier for them to just  release birds .

The government around here just does not work that great  .

And they should be able to do both frankly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100 percent with Woodcock. Pheasants would not make a major comeback. Pheasant Hunting in NY is very positive in every way.  Bringing in more Youth to the hunting scene is more important then anything and Pheasant Hunting  will do that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ODYSSEUS said:

I agree 100 percent with Woodcock. Pheasants would not make a major comeback. Pheasant Hunting in NY is very positive in every way.  Bringing in more Youth to the hunting scene is more important then anything and Pheasant Hunting  will do that. 

Would.not more grouse, woodcock  or rabbits or squirrel have same effect?

  • Like 1

I've hunted almost everyday of my life.. the rest have been wasted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, G-Man said:

Would.not more grouse, woodcock  or rabbits or squirrel have same effect?

Apparently not... They're wild and harder to shoot. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

"It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice." - Wease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Woodcock said:

With all due respect to your Montana example..... it's totally irrelevant to the conditions here.  I'm very familiar with that study and you can't even begin to compare the circumstances.  Many and perhaps most streams in certain parts of this region would never sustain adequate populations of wild trout to sustain a fishable population.  Low flows, elevated temperatures, overfishing and poaching are what kill these streams. The Beaverkill River is a good example.  Without stocking, it would have limited numbers of trout and certainly move people elsewhere.  I prefer fishing for wild trout but they do not exist in sufficient numbers in many waters.  This is true of so many rivers and streams throughout this region.  Even the best rivers here sustain themselves on "artificial" reservoir releases and rely on introduced species such as brown trout and rainbow trout.  Stocking trout is a necessity in many lakes, streams and rivers. 

It's so analogous to hunting issues in so many ways.  Too many people for too limited a resource.  Even if you maintained an ideal WMA for pheasant and established a breeding population, the hunting pressure alone would destroy it.  Grouse are difficult to hunt and after the first weekend, it's mostly just serious bird hunters.  Grouse require good to excellent habitat but there's no support for it.  These discussions always make me go back to deer management.  Deer management in much of the state requires changes but the truth is that if it were managed properly, people would not see as many as they want or expect.  There are too many deer and they disrupt our forests and prevent a proper balance.  So I guess my point is that most of these resources are artificial in many ways and we can either accept it or reject it. 

I wasn't using it as an example to follow here but to show that stocking can and does have a negative effect on wild populations. A sustainable wild population should be  the goal of every sportsman.

The streams in this area (Catskills) were home to more than adequate populations of trout for centuries if not millenia. Brook trout, at any rate. Read Ed van Put's book, Trout Fishing in the Catskills, where he recaps stories of sports pulling a thousand hefty trout out of a trib in a weekend. And then when they literally fished the large fish out of the streams, they focussed on pure numbers and everything from three inches up was fair game. Of course, none of those fish were put back. Add together development, the acid factories, severe habitat change, and a thousand-fold increase in angler pressure (Trout Town USA!!!), and I agree that the Beaverkill can't sustain a fishable population of wild trout. But the word "fishable" is the issue here. 

I have no right to fish or hunt, but given the priviIege I don't want to fish for aquarium trout. I want healthy rivers teeming with wild fish and if that means I have refrain from fishing to give those fish a chance, so be it. The Beaverkill can bounce back to support a very healthy population of fish, but no one - town, fly shops, sports, clubs, state - would accept the draconian rules necessary for it to happen.

P.S. I see the youth argument being brought up. While I understand the need for a positive hunting experience, shooting stocked birds is a falsehood and one that creates an expectation that is unsustainable. Put more bluntly, if I had a young man in my charge and it was my responsibility to school him in the ways of the world of women, that is, how to ask a girl out, date, maintain a relationship and a succesful marriage, I wouldn't get him a hooker when he was 15.

 

Edited by left field
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two of my favorites in my flyfishing library are The Beaverkill (Ed Van Put) and Catskill Rivers (Austin Francis).  Both are great reads on the history of these rivers.  The Beaverkill could certainly sustain a fishable population of wild trout if regulated the way you say.  Unfortunately, it would also be a very limited resource and not acceptable to most.  Brook trout will never return to the larger waters in these areas. If it weren't for the introduction of brown trout, we'd essentially have no big water trout fishing.  The rivers in the east, unless they are tailwaters or spring creeks are very limited.  They are totally dependent on steady rainfall throughout the season....not a normal occurrence.  Unlike out West, snowpack plays no role in stream flows in the East.  The carrying capacity of surface water streams is only as good as what survives the summer months.  And unfortunately, many people feel that they need to keep everything they catch then they complain there are no trout.

Edited by Woodcock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, G-Man said:

Would.not more grouse, woodcock  or rabbits or squirrel have same effect?

With the exception of grouse the rest of the animals on that list are abundant. And even then grouse can be found in good numbers in the right areas. 

Woodcock took a hit the spring before last with that late storm we had but they were up so the loss was offset by that. 

I love when people claim small game is all gone, obviously they don’t hunt it or know how despite the claims otherwise. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cabin Fever said:

Apparently not... They're wild and harder to shoot. :rolleyes:

When your friend took you bird hunting, was it on a preserve? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reflection and reading all the replys-- the main reason this Thread continues is the first part of the Title---- 5 Month Pheasant Season. That raised the Hackles on some backs of Rich Deer Hunters. Not all-- but some of them. Why would fourseasonwhitetails even care what happens on Public Lands as far as Pheasant Hunting goes. Yet he has a good 4 replys on this Thread with more to come probably. The guy owns 920 Acres and another 124 Acres.             Go to Storms good Thread-- HOW MANY ACRES DO YOU HUNT IF IT IS PRIVATE LAND?  -- Chit-Chat- Nov,30.           I don't own any Private Land. I don't make much Money either. Plenty of people in my boat with me. The system now in place as far as Pheasant Releases and the money earmarked for that works just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ODYSSEUS said:

After reflection and reading all the replys-- the main reason this Thread continues is the first part of the Title---- 5 Month Pheasant Season. That raised the Hackles on some backs of Rich Deer Hunters. Not all-- but some of them. Why would fourseasonwhitetails even care what happens on Public Lands as far as Pheasant Hunting goes. Yet he has a good 4 replys on this Thread with more to come probably. The guy owns 920 Acres and another 124 Acres.             Go to Storms good Thread-- HOW MANY ACRES DO YOU HUNT IF IT IS PRIVATE LAND?  -- Chit-Chat- Nov,30.           I don't own any Private Land. I don't make much Money either. Plenty of people in my boat with me. The system now in place as far as Pheasant Releases and the money earmarked for that works just fine. 

Who knows some of them could own those private game farms that charge to shoot not just deer but birds . So naturally anything that cuts into there business they dont like . :)  and some could even possibly work for the  government and rather the money be used for a pay  raise or there  pension .  When someone claims to be a hunter and says they dont like a program that helps hunters have a chance to see and get  more game  you have to be suspicious of there motives . 

Edited by Storm914
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.