Would you agree to pay another $25 to hunt pheasants?

[Mkc451]

I haven't hunted Pheasant in a long time - probably early 90's. There were pheasant on my Grandfathers 400 acre farm, but basically it was just to much for 3-4 birds we might put in a day of hunting. The issue here - sure we can fund a program to bring them back, I would love to go back to pheasant hunting but does anyone really believe the majority of the money won't be re-purposed to other projects or to fill budget shortfalls. If we could be sure it would be used to actually bring pheasants back - I would be in favor but I've been lied to way to many times.

[markopolo50]

I have hunted pheasants every year, but on private property that is managed for pheasants. It is in Saginaw county and is a "filter strip" program. I believe it is a federal program that pays farmers to plant grass strips along ditches and streams to prevent sediment to reach Saginaw Bay. Probably all the counties that drain into Saginaw Bay are entitled to this program. I grew up in Saginaw county and my cousin owns the land. We actually hunt without a dog, as his old dog died a few years ago. This year we have shot a few roosters and saw many hens on the 40 acres, of which only 10 acres is in the grass strips. Strips are about 120 feet wide. Deer use the cover too as it is almost head high this year.

If the state could plant and pay the farmers to leave the grass strips, the birds could come back. They need habitat which they don't have with modern farming practices. I am against planting birds, as that doesn't work very well.

[tvhero]

I hunt pheasants on my land. Why would I want to pay an extra $25 for that privilege? They took away the small game hunting on your own farmland without a license when they added the "base license" requirement, there is no way I would be in favor of an extra stamp for pheasants. Sorry if I sound too negative, but to me the base license was a way for the state to raise license fees without apparently raising license fees.

[Jackam]

I hunt pheasants on my land. Why would I want to pay an extra $25 for that privilege?

Tvhero brings up a point that I first thought of when I heard about the possibility of an added stamp and I understand the opposition (and probably agree with it more than I don't for private land hunting.)

Sorry if I sound too negative, but to me the base license was a way for the state to raise license fees without apparently raising license fees.

I see value in every post in this thread so far. There is no such thing as too negative or too positive. We all see things differently and really, there is no wrong or right on this issue because of that difference.

[Jackam]

If the state could plant and pay the farmers to leave the grass strips, the birds could come back. They need habitat which they don't have with modern farming practices.

I believe that the revenue will be used for that, as well as planting birds. Right now, the money (from the general fund) is invested in eleven State Game areas, but I imagine that it will expand (if the stamp is approved) to not only the Hunter Access Program lands but private fields that are suitable. I don't know this, but it just makes sense that if private landowners will be charged to hunt, then money should flow to the private lands for habitat.

I am against planting birds, as that doesn't work very well.

But it does... just not for breeding. The birds planted this year for hunters were roosters only and were meant to be hunted. They are hard fliers and just as challenging as hunting a wild bird (at least the ones that I shot at were.)

What I'm scared of is that the focus will shift to strictly habitat management and reduced rooster planting. I'll have to look at the proposed law to see if it has a sunset or a mandate on how the funds will be spent.

[Shyster]

If the program has a reasonable chance of success I would pay

[nmuskier]

I don't understand paying for Chinese birds. I'd rather see funding for prairie chickens on agricultural land.

[Jackam]

If the program has a reasonable chance of success I would pay

I guess it depends on someone's definition of success.
If the thought is to release breeders, the chance of success is very low.
If the thought is to give lots of hunting opportunities with thousands upon thousands of birds in the fields, then success is obtainable.

[CyborgWarrior]

Sounds like something that could be funded with Pittman Robertson funds.

[Jackam]

Sounds like something that could be funded with Pittman Robertson funds.

PR funds can only be used for projects that benefit mammals and birds. While one could argue that habitat restoration falls into that category, it can also be argued that PR funds are already being used to create and maintain habitat.

As far as buying pheasants.... only the birds could say that funding their release is a benefit to them, and only for the lucky ones.