Grouse & Woodcock Cooperator

[bearmak]

Report forms for the season are due in by January 5th. How many of you participate? I've been reporting for four or five years now. It helps me keep better records for myself.

[2ESRGR8]

I do not participate in the Michigan co-operators report.

This is probably a good piggy back topic to the PDJ Michigan article thread.
This is just my opinion but I bet more out of staters look at those flush rates and choose a destination county based on that single bit of data over any other piece of info.

[BradU20]

When I was living in Ohio and looking to hunt up here for the first time...that's the first thing I looked at.

[Back woods]

I live up here and it's the first thing I look at.:lol:

[2ESRGR8]

Would it be unethical for me to print out and falsely fill out hundreds of reports and submit them for counties I hunt? :evilsmile

Due by the 5th huh? (insert evil laugh here)

[dogwhistle]

i'm highly skeptical of the accuarcy of those reports. last year they reported cheboygan county as #1 and i cant believe it's higher than the far western up.

if they were done as a scientific survey, just for the use of the DNR and kept in house, i would participate. but i see no reason for attracting hunters to my general area. and that might be the reason for the skewed stats.

mike

[Chris Raymond]

I do not participate in the Michigan co-operators report.

This is probably a good piggy back topic to the PDJ Michigan article thread.
This is just my opinion but I bet more out of staters look at those flush rates and choose a destination county based on that single bit of data over any other piece of info.

Exactly why I do not participate.

[TrophyLine]

Would it be unethical for me to print out and falsely fill out hundreds of reports and submit them for counties I hunt? :evilsmile

Due by the 5th huh? (insert evil laugh here)


I love it :lol:. But the truth is you can use the internet and information here in many, many creative ways! Not that people do that type of thing, but I am just saying . . . well you get the point. I personally love the COOP report as they accurately show very low numbers for the area I spend the most time hunting - and it is right on target.

[Grouseman2]

I keep my own records but won't submit them to the DNR.

To me grouse hunting is like a girlfriend, you only share the details with your closest friends.;)

Mike

[Bear Creek]

To me grouse hunting is like a girlfriend, you only share the details with your closest friends.;)

Mike

Especially if your married!!:yikes::lol:

[Merimac]

I think posts of your good day with your bird dog is equally bad don't you? Showing pictures of birds killed? Look at the ads in Shooting sportsman. Not quite the same but the idea is there.


Maybe instead of a 5 bird bag limit in zone 1+2 lowered to a 3 bird bag limit would deter more folks from out of state. Less incentive to travel. Possession of 6... lowered to your own bag limit per day. People that are local would still do well. I think it would produce more birds for every one in the long term.

Alright I am ready for the beatings.:one_eye:

[milmo1]

Would it be unethical for me to print out and falsely fill out hundreds of reports and submit them for counties I hunt? :evilsmile

Due by the 5th huh? (insert evil laugh here)

My records indicate that the best flush rates occured in the eastern portions of Wayne county. I hear there is good gambling and night life there after the hunt is through. Why not book a trip today?;)

[Grouseman2]

Especially if your married!!:yikes::lol:

Well Rob, either I don't have a girlfriend or you are not a close friend! :lol: ;)My wife is about the only woman in the world that'll put up with me.

Mike

[2ESRGR8]

Maybe instead of a 5 bird bag limit in zone 1+2 lowered to a 3 bird bag limit would deter more folks from out of state. Less incentive to travel. Possession of 6... lowered to your own bag limit per day. People that are local would still do well. I think it would produce more birds for every one in the long term.

Alright I am ready for the beatings.:one_eye:

No.
Hunting has been proven to be compensatory not additive to overall bird populations. You start that line of thinking and the anti's will be your best friend.

[bearmak]

So no one thinks these reports help the DNR?

I always looked at them as a tool for the DNR to improve habitat. Am I too optimistic?

[BradU20]

So no one thinks these reports help the DNR?

I always looked at them as a tool for the DNR to improve habitat. Am I too optimistic?

Help them to do what? In order for it to "help" them do something, you are implying that they are in fact doing something in the first place....

Am I being too pessimistic?

[dogwhistle]

they arent a scientific tool, just a survey. i think the DNR primarily relies on drumming counts to determine grouse populations and singing ground counts for woodcock.

[Bear Creek]

Well Rob, either I don't have a girlfriend or you are not a close friend! :lol: ;)My wife is about the only woman in the world that'll put up with me.

Mike


I can believe that!!

[NEMichsportsman]

So no one thinks these reports help the DNR?

I always looked at them as a tool for the DNR to improve habitat. Am I too optimistic?

In a perfect world perhaps?

IMHO These days of tight budget constraints make hopes for improvements a pretty improbable scenario.

I am not saying that some cutting activity might not improve habitat in a collateral fashion, but I don't believe that the surveys play a meaningful role into some master coordinated plan to improve habitat...

[brdhntr]

So no one thinks these reports help the DNR?

I always looked at them as a tool for the DNR to improve habitat. Am I too optimistic?

You want to do that, spend the time going to Compartment Reviews and supporting Aspen regeneration.

[2ESRGR8]

You want to do that, spend the time going to Compartment Reviews and supporting Aspen regeneration.
I'm onboard with this plan 100%.

[Steelheadfred]

they arent a scientific tool, just a survey. i think the DNR primarily relies on drumming counts to determine grouse populations and singing ground counts for woodcock.

Mike,

They cut that with the budget cuts....

[dogwhistle]

i guess that's true. but this cooperator reports are just voluntary surveys, completely unscientific.

for instance, if hunters with high flush rates tend not to participate, that will skew them. and if hunters with high flush rates tend to hunt in certain areas, that will skew them further. just a couple of examples.

they are kind of interesting to see how "your" area matches up, but personally i dont put much faith in them.

mike

[BradU20]

i guess that's true. but this cooperator reports are just voluntary surveys, completely unscientific.
mike

Not the greatest sampling design, but they probably aren't too far off.

Think about this, you've got guys like Grush (arrogant and too stuck up to participate :evil:) who shoot a decent number of birds. Then there's the guy who maybe only hunts 2 days of the season, says its not worth it to send it in. I'm just guessing, but you probably end up with a pretty middle of the road estimate.

[dogwhistle]

in order to do even a survey, it cant be voluntary. the dnr would need a list of all grouse hunters and then contact a representive sample based on demographics that represented the entire population. young, old, resident, non resident, experienced, unexperienced etc.

any other method, is just for "fun".

look how low the numbers are for the far western UP counties, including Iron. those are traditionally are best producing counties.

[Merimac]

No.
Hunting has been proven to be compensatory not additive to overall bird populations. You start that line of thinking and the anti's will be your best friend.



Thought you were a GBE fan.. I have a chewed up book if you want it.

[Linda G.]

A lot of the points made here are very valid, others, well...

I don't really know why I've done the cooperator thing for as many years as I have, probably 25 or more...probably cause the form shows up every year.

As for folks who believe that the cooperator reports are what determines where out of state hunters go, well...maybe, some. But I'll bet 200 more hunters just look at the upland forum of an outdoor message board than get hold of some report from the DNR. A lot easier just to look here, not to mention that I'll bet there's hundreds of folks who don't even know about the cooperator reports.

As for why there's few reports for the western UP, that's easy. Cause no one's hunting up there, not compared to who's hunting down here.

Compartmental reviews ARE probably a lot more effective, but I'll bet the vast majority of upland wingshooters and your average Joe grouse hunter (once or twice a year guys) have never heard of those, either. And those that yell the loudest get the carrot with these.

I guess I don't think sending the DNR the only real data they've got on the birds is harmful at all...all other research, except banding counts, is gone now.

So, I guess I'll keep sending them in.

[2ESRGR8]

Thought you were a GBE fan.. I have a chewed up book if you want it.
Negative.
Last night I read his contribution to Bare November Days and found myself disagreeing with his conclusions about late season hunting once again.

[dogwhistle]

linda, the report for last year is divided into three categories; greater than 50 hrs, 20-50, and less than 20. all the western Up counties are in the first category as are most in region 2.

the number of cooperaters isnt shown, but it doesnt matter whether it's 1 person hunting a total of 60 hours or 3 people hunt 20 hrs each. the flush rates are per man/hour hunted.

the far western UP is probably not hunted a great deal, but Iron county is a popular place. and at any rate, there is a large amount of cover in that area and that has always been a place with a higher bird populaltion. but the flush rates are much lower than the northern lower which indicates a flaw in the survey.

i cant possibly see how this survey would of any scientific benefit to the DNR. in fact, we have done all kinds of studies and gathered a great deal of information. the problem isnt what to do or where to do it. it's having the wherewhithal to carry it out.

wasnt it Georgia Pacific that moved out? without sawmills to accept the logs, it's pretty difficult to get companies to contract to cut it. there certainly seems to be a market for all kinds of lumber, so i dont know what happened and why. i was in the UP last summer and saw logs being stacked in large quantiity and shipped to mills. but not much south of the bridge.

it's interesting that you are taking the stance you are. i remember a few years ago when you were moderator the AllOutdoors forum that you were quite vehement about large numbers of hunters crowding into covers in the UP, i seem to recall it was Crystal Falls/Iron Co.

[Linda G.]

True, although I haven't been up there in years, it probably hasn't changed.

BUT that's what....a week or 10 days out of the year? Those guys aren't there just to hunt birds, they're there for the woodcock flight. Every single one of them will tell you that. They don't show up till the first of October, they're gone by the 10th. And they're in a relatively small area of the UP, I doubt many leave the south Marquette/north Dickinson/east Iron County corridor.

My objections are about all those guys in what is the best woodcock area of the UP hammering flight birds-not healthy for populations as a whole. I still believe that.

But put those numbers into perspective over the entire season, and there's hardly anyone hunting up there.

Whereas, there's many areas of the NLP that see LOTS of hunters every weekend and more than enough all week long. The Grayling area is like Crystal Falls EVERY weekend.

WHAT other research is the DNR doing? The last research I'm aware of is the woodcock mortality study, and that's been over for two years now. They're not doing a drumming survey, just the banding, and there's some talk of ending that program, although I don't know why, it doesn't cost the DNR anything.

A singing survey is still being done, but that's federal data, just as the woodcock mortality study was primarily a federal project.

Let's put the cooperator report this way--I don't think it hurts anything, and at least the DNR knows they still have some wingshooters out there. Otherwise they have no way of knowing what's going on at all. They're certainly not out there.

[2ESRGR8]

Linda,
Good point about your CF and Grayling analogy.

Do you have a link to the results of that woodcock mortality study? I followed Bruggink for a couple years during the study but haven't heard of any final conclusions being published.

[dogwhistle]

woodcock are "birds".

my point was that the survey is obviously inaccurate. i'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

as far as studies, now or in the future, i dont see what benefit they would bring. every study says the same thing, hunting is not additive to mortality, predators, partiucarly avian ones take their share, habitat is the key. problems are not solved by studies, only defined. it's now past time to implement what has been learned.

however, if there is no convenient and ready market for the timber, creating cover is going to be quite difficult.

[Linda G.]

Officially, on paper, I haven't read more than the preliminary results.

Haven't seen the final...but then, I don't think very many other people have, either.

I don't think they went out of their way to publicize it, because, during the preliminary, there was a number of loud hints that what Dogwhistle just said isn't always true..."that hunting doesn't impact populations."

When you're hunting a declining population as hard as some of those covers up there in the woodcock mortality study area of Michigan (they chose similar very popular areas in Wisconsin and Minnesota) are hunted, I've never needed a study to worry about hunter caused woodcock mortality.

I KNOW it's true in bobwhite quail, although you're never gonna get any of the state game agencies in bobwhite states to admit that...why wouldn't it be true in woodcock.

Hawks and owls were also major mortality factors.

And that, I'd be willing to bet, is what the final result of that study showed. Again, I haven't seen it, but that's what the prelim hinted around at. Since the RGS was a major partner in the study, along with three state game agencies, I don't think that went over very well.

I bet if you get into the USFWS site, and dig, you might find it.

Please remember that Michigan has a bobwhite quail hunt for a population of five very private and very protected birds...so I don't think our DNR, or any other, is EVER gonna say, hey, maybe we're hunting flight birds in that area a little hard...

[Linda G.]

well...I guess it doesn't hurt to show the DNR that some of us are interested in data and research, and that we want to do what we can to help. That's one thing the cooperator project does.

It also shows the DNR where the hardest hunted areas are. It DOES do that. You have to remember they go on averages, just like everything.

[Unregistered4]

Please remember that Michigan has a bobwhite quail hunt for a population of five very private and very protected birds...so I don't think our DNR, or any other, is EVER gonna say, hey, maybe we're hunting flight birds in that area a little hard...

Linda,

Please explain this statement...you're losing me here. Maybe, it's because I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet this morning...but it just doesn't make sense to me. I'll re-read it after a cup and see what happens then...

And, I'll agree. I've always felt that bird hunting (by us humans) is a major factor in bird mortality. Heck, that's what most of us are out there for.

It will be interesting to see how the cycle holds-up/withstands the pressures of these past two seasons. I think a lot of us saw the effects of last years mild winter this year. As there were many more hunters in the woods last year, right up to the end of the season. Whereas this year, we had greater snowfalls and many hunters fell by the wayside. And for what it's worth. I never hunted one day after gun deer season last year and hunted six days this year. In snow up to my...well lets just say it was deep...lol

In my area alone. I'd never seen hunting pressure, like I've seen the past two seasons. Most of my coverts were pounded this past year and last for that matter...and not by me. I know a lot of it comes from the cycle supposedly being up and hunters heading north in groves. But, I can't imagine all of this extra pressure not taking a toll on the grouse numbers for next season. We'll see?

As far as the cooperator report...to unscientific for me. They'd (DNR) have to take the "same guys" and let them hunt each county for two days, and then tally the numbers. And, if they ever do that...then I'd like be part of that study. Of course, I feel the state would have to pay for all of my expenses...what's the chances of that...lol

Brian. (twosetters)

[dogwhistle]

starting about 15 yrs ago and ending 5 yrs later, the DNR did an exhaustive study on the effects of grouse hunting. two areas, the Pigeon River Country and Mio were each divided into two equal parts. hunting was allowed on one part for the 5 yrs and not in the other.

at one time the results were available on the dnr website, if not i'm sure they could be requested from them. the conclusions were that hunting did not contribute to the overall mortality of grouse.

however if you hunt around this state or even mostly the same area, how much habitat has been cut for regeneration in the last 30 yrs? very very little on national forests and not very much on state forests.

gamebirds are a prey species. they raise large numbers of young in the expectation that few will survive. avian and furbearing predators take their toll, hunters take a toll, as does the weather and other factors. only a few survive to reproduce the following year. most birds killed by hunters are birds or the year. but without adequate cover, they cant reproduce in suffecient numbers and the populations fall.

look at pheasants, we once had them in far greater numbers than now and they were hunted heavily year after year with no decrease. but habitat changed through the loss of the soil bank program and changes in farming practices. now pheasant numbers are a fraction of what they were forty years ago even though they are hunted lightly. even if we stopped hunting them altogether, they wouldnt "come back". they are already "back" in the areas that have habitat, which are also the areas they are mostly hunted.
but without the habitat, they are exposed to predators and severe weather, and the cant increase.

habitat; is, has been, and always will be the key to gamebird populations. every scientific study supports that and so does individual observation. places without it, Ohio Indiana for instance dont have much gamebird populations of any kind. places with an abundance, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota have excellent populations of various species.

mike

[Bear Creek]

Dogwhistle,

I would agree with your statement for the most part with one exception. Predators take a major toll on gamebirds both mammals and Hawks. This is especially true of pheasants, we as pheasant hunters take only the males, where as hawks foxes coyotes feral cats etc. will take anything they can catch both hens and roosters. You are right that habitat plays a roll in carrying capacity but in my opinion this state will never again be a major pheasant state due to the fact we have way to many predators and the land use has changed so much that most idle lands have reverted to woods/scrub brush which is not conducive gamebird habitat. If you look at the western states that have large pheasant, quail or prairie bird populations they do have large unbroken grassland covers but more importantly the locals do a much better job of eliminating predators. I know many hunters in the great plains states that will stop a pheasant hunt to track down and kill coyotes, cats coons whatever it is that could be a potential threat to the local gamebird population. We here in this state don't have the same attitude?? Just my two cents.

BC

[Linda G.]

That statement, I often wonder why I write like that. Anyway, that was my way of saying we have a DNR that holds a quail hunt for an almost extinct species on very protected private lands in southern Michigan to appease a handful of wealthy property owners that were putting the squeeze on the guy in charge of birds----hey, Fritz, that was your buddy Al Stewart!!! But you know, I'll bet Al Stewart gets to hunt wild quail every year in Michigan somewhere, on someone's property.

Might as well have given the rest of us a prairie chicken hunt, it would have just about the same effect.

We should NOT have a quail hunt in this state, and should be doing everything we can for quail restoration. We're not doing anything...of all the groups trying hardest for quail...are you ready....DU...with their habitat work on the Grand River.

Dog, that study was conducted in the early 80's...back when there was a LOT more being done for habitat in this state because we were actively cutting MOST of the PR for the elk and that Mio area was being heavily timbered by logging companies.

Contrary to what someone said here, the logging market is only about a third today of what it was then, and it's mostly a hardwoods market for veneer maple and birch for woodworking. No soft pulp (aspen) market hardly at all
anymore. We use less paper every day.

So, when you lose habitat, which we've lost a ton of in the last 15 years, you lose birds.

Which throws the results of that study right out the window, and the DNR would be the first to tell you that. It's too old.

[Linda G.]

Hunting is supposed to only take the "extra" birds from a population. We're not supposed to hold seasons, according to all the late great hunting managers, unless we have extra, and that's to all the remainder of the birds to survive in good shape.

That's what we do with ruffed grouse, I believe. None of us are good enough shots or frequent enough hunters to really do much damage to our very enlightened grouse population.

But that's NOT what we're doing with woodcock and quail in this state.

[dogwhistle]

you can kill coyotes 24/7 and there are just as many coyotes as there were before.
and i havent seen a feral cat in some time. used to see them every mile or so, driving home the 20 miles from working or an evening in the city. and dont see them at home or any tracks in the snow. i'm assuming the coyotes have killed them off.

i have a good friend that lives in South Dakota. he's a falconer- peregrines mostly and one of the best. except for the spring, he hunts year round. he also has a great deal of advanced education and experience with gamebirds, he raises them for a living. and he tells me that predators are quite plentiful out there. if you have any stats of the predator population per acre in south dakota vs michigan, i would be interested.

i'm not sure what area you think has grown up to brush. i live in the center of several farming counties and it's crops from one end to the other.

when pheasant were at the peak here in the 50's and 60's, the soil bank program was in full swing. that is gone. also farming practices have changed considerably, more and more effecient herbicides and pesticides, and most ground gets tilled in the fall.

but if you want to see the big difference, look at the dept of agricultures stats for CRP land by state. i absolutely guarantee that you will see the big pheasant states at the top of the CRP list and michigan way down the list.

Mike Parker, the biologist for Pheasants Forever, told me last fall that wherever PF has been successful in introducing habitat, that the pheasant populations are as good as they were per acre in the 50's. and i'm certain that the predator populations are the same on those areas as they are everywhere is in the state.

mike

[Bear Creek]

you can kill coyotes 24/7 and there are just as many coyotes as there were before.
and i havent seen a feral cat in some time. used to see them every mile or so, driving home the 20 miles from working or an evening in the city. and dont see them at home or any tracks in the snow. i'm assuming the coyotes have killed them off.

i have a good friend that lives in South Dakota. he's a falconer- peregrines mostly and one of the best. except for the spring, he hunts year round. he also has a great deal of advanced education and experience with gamebirds, he raises them for a living. and he tells me that predators are quite plentiful out there. if you have any stats of the predator population per acre in south dakota vs michigan, i would be interested.

i'm not sure what area you think has grown up to brush. i live in the center of several farming counties and it's crops from one end to the other.

when pheasant were at the peak here in the 50's and 60's, the soil bank program was in full swing. that is gone. also farming practices have changed considerably, more and more effecient herbicides and pesticides, and most ground gets tilled in the fall.

but if you want to see the big difference, look at the dept of agricultures stats for CRP land by state. i absolutely guarantee that you will see the big pheasant states at the top of the CRP list and michigan way down the list.

Mike Parker, the biologist for Pheasants Forever, told me last fall that wherever PF has been successful in introducing habitat, that the pheasant populations are as good as they were per acre in the 50's. and i'm certain that the predator populations are the same on those areas as they are everywhere is in the state.

mike

Mike, not sure where you live but if its in the heart of the farm country still then your lucky. You are absolutely right that farming practices have changed but they have changed everywhere. If you look at southern MI say south of 69 so much farm land has been lost to development that there is very little farming left. Every time one of these yuppies builds a house on 10 acres 8 acres generally turns into brush over time as they don't want to maintain the property to keep it open. These types of fragmented land with trees and brush are bad for birds period. Its good for coyotes and coons etc.

You maybe right about coyotes taking out the neighborhood cats if thats true that's actually a good thing!! As for yotes out west vs. MI couldn't say for sure about densities but I will guarantee you that MI has way more skunks, coons, opossums and fox and most likely hawks!!

As for killing predators its more about attitudes then anything else. Out west everyone carries a rifle in the pickup and its your "duty" to take out "Varmints" yotes are shot on sight. Along with fox, coons, armadillo rattlers etc.

Your also right on as a % basis MI is far behind the western states for CRP. Several reason for that in my opinion. First the feds get more bag for the buck out west. Typical CRP payment in MI would run $80-90 per acre. SD its a 1/4 of that per acre. So if you can improve 4 acre out west for the same as 1 acre here which would you do?

Second heavy competition from the farmers that are left in this state for good farmland. If you own several hundred acres and can get $100 per acre paid upfront from a farmer and he does all the work and takes all the risk wouldn't you do that vs. signing a contract for 10 years and planting native grasses that cost $200 per acre to plant plus must be burned or mowed every 4 years over the life of the contract? If your an older retired landowner odds are you take the easy way out. Believe me even with PF offering to do the work to plant it most landowners don't want to mess with the paperwork and the feds!!

Anyway as for Mike Parker...nice guy but he's probably getting his stats from that same pheasant cooperator report that you were bashing for WC!:lol:
But seriously if he's saying that phez. # are as good on managed CRP grounds today as they were in the 50's I got some swamp land in Arizona to sell you!! Have a good one!

Rob

[Steelheadfred]

That statement, I often wonder why I write like that. Anyway, that was my way of saying we have a DNR that holds a quail hunt for an almost extinct species on very protected private lands in southern Michigan to appease a handful of wealthy property owners that were putting the squeeze on the guy in charge of birds----hey, Fritz, that was your buddy Al Stewart!!! But you know, I'll bet Al Stewart gets to hunt wild quail every year in Michigan somewhere, on someone's property.


Linda,

I dont really want to go down this road with you. I dont read this as your mad about shooting quail as much as your mad you dont get to hunt the few wild quail left in MI (pheasants and woodcock also for that matter)....and because Al Stewart may, he is a jerk who has no idea what he is doing, and you should be the DNR's Game Bird specialist. Yep thats how I read the above. I believe with out a shadow of a doubt that if Al felt that hunting was harming our quail population that he would lobby to end the season. You wont be able to change my mind on that one.

Beside what does this topic have to do with this thread....

Here are the only two wild Quail I have ever shot, the rooster is mounted on my wall, I ate the other with great joy. We see quail pretty consistently, there were over 25 birds in that covey, we shot three and have not taken any since. We have maintained a 15 birds per covey limit, if it appears there is more then 15 birds, we might shoot (it has happened once), if less then 12-15 we let them fly. They were shot on a friends farm. That friend is a Paraplegic who lives wellfare check to wellface check. We gained access to his farm because he went to high school with my mom and extended family. My cousin's take him to church every week, and we clean a few birds for him, leave him some up north apples, and take time to talk with him. We are welcome back every year.NOT quite the same situation as hunting King Ranch with the Anheuser-Busch family.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7cf26b3127ccebf07c5506cd800000035100AYtHDZs1buG Ng

[hehibrits]

I hunt and work my dogs on a rather healthy quail population in the thumb area.

[dogwhistle]

bearcreek, i can tell you for a fact, that where i live there is mostly farmland as far as you would care to go in any direction. two of my sons friends each farm several thousand acres in this area. several others have somewhat smaller farms. there are a number of small acerages, but most of them are in crops. most of michigan is farmland from clare county south to the state line.

however if you live in the southeast secton, "south of I69"(it's a north south road for the most part- here you live east or west of it), then it is much more populated and you have an incomplete picture.

there are economic reasons why michigan doesnt have much CRP land. but the fact is that it doesnt and states that do have alot have the highest pheasant populations. not just s dakota, but north dakota, iowa, nebraska and i believe minnesota. if you choose to believe it's because they have fewer predators, there is nothing i can say that will change your mind.

i dont know where Mike Parker got his information, i didnt ask. but he was clearly referring to the areas where PF has produced habitat. and those areas are not dilineated in the DNR pheasant cooperator survey- just counties.

[dogwhistle]

That statement, I often wonder why I write like that. Anyway, that was my way of saying we have a DNR that holds a quail hunt for an almost extinct species on very protected private lands in southern Michigan to appease a handful of wealthy property owners that were putting the squeeze on the guy in charge of birds----hey, Fritz, that was your buddy Al Stewart!!! But you know, I'll bet Al Stewart gets to hunt wild quail every year in Michigan somewhere, on someone's property.

Might as well have given the rest of us a prairie chicken hunt, it would have just about the same effect.

We should NOT have a quail hunt in this state, and should be doing everything we can for quail restoration. We're not doing anything...of all the groups trying hardest for quail...are you ready....DU...with their habitat work on the Grand River.

Dog, that study was conducted in the early 80's...back when there was a LOT more being done for habitat in this state because we were actively cutting MOST of the PR for the elk and that Mio area was being heavily timbered by logging companies.

Contrary to what someone said here, the logging market is only about a third today of what it was then, and it's mostly a hardwoods market for veneer maple and birch for woodworking. No soft pulp (aspen) market hardly at all
anymore. We use less paper every day.

So, when you lose habitat, which we've lost a ton of in the last 15 years, you lose birds.

Which throws the results of that study right out the window, and the DNR would be the first to tell you that. It's too old.


Linda, the grouse study ended the first year that i started hunting a young dog. she was 1 then and is 10 now. so it ended in 1996 and started in 1991. if you think there was more habitat improvement going on then, i would only say that that's a highly subjective and individual opinion.

your last statement is correct, we have lost a lot of habitat through aging. habitat is the key, not hunting, not predators, not global warming.

and i dont know how "wealthy" the landowners are in Region 3. i'm one, i live a comfortable life, but i'm not wealthy. farmers are wealthy in a sense, they have a great deal of money invested in land and equipment. and there isnt a lot of public land in this region, so farmers do control access to their land for all kinds of hunting, be it quail, pheasants, deer, turkeys or rabbitts and squirells. but i understand, that in the areas where those people go to the work and expense providing habitat there are individual but huntable populations of quail, just as there are pheasants.

[Bear Creek]

True enough I69 between Lansing and the state line is mostly North South. I was referring more to I69 that runs from Lansing to Port Huron it runs mostly east west. I am not saying that habitat is not the "key" to more birds in fact I would agree with that, but to say that if all MI did was improve habitat where we could the pheasant population would still never be anywhere near what it was in the 50's or 60's. Too much development to many predators and not enough connected parcels of good cover to make that big an impact. Couple that with the fact its hard to get CRP contracts in MI and you are fighting an uphill battle. PF's a great organization and I have supported it for MANY years but its just never going to be able to make a significant dent here in MI. You can still do things to improve habitat on a localized basis but sadly MI will never be a 1 million bird harvest state for pheasants. You will have to travel west to experience anything like that. Love the discussion though, even if it has nothing to do with WC.

BC

[Linda G.]

There is hunting like that for pheasant in Michigan, all of it enhanced with lots of PF dollars...and it's all on very private land.

Same for quail, guys...and THAT's what I object to...having a quail season for quail on public land as well as private is a joke in this state...an absolute joke. The pheasant season isn't a whole lot better.

Everything around the seasons in the last few years for both pheasant and quail is predicated around populations on PRIVATE land...not around populations on public land, which is where the majority of the hunters are.

That's not right. We should be managing our species to benefit the majority of the sportsmen and women out there, not a handful of rich people.

Fritz, I'm not mad about anything, nor am I mad about shooting or not shooting anything. I just think it's a joke that Al Stewart allows a season for populations of birds that pretty much exist ONLY on private land, while trying to give us all the illusion that we have birds on public land...birds that have been enhanced by conservation group dollars that comes from people like you and me. Hunting the handful of birds with those bag limits and seasons on public land is almost criminal.

A few get to enjoy what all of us are paying for, in other words. And Al Stewart is one of the few. He wields a great deal of power to his advantage, always has. Gets his buddy Mr. Gwizdz in on it, too, with the understanding that Mr. Gwizdz will then write these idealistic articles about that particular type of hunting as if that kind of hunting is available on public land.

Ha. Sort of like watching the outdoor shows on ESPN, isn't it?

Lay off those birds on private land and work on enhancing populations on public land when you're using everyone's dollars, including the state's.

Somebody, PLEASE show me quail on public land in this state that are worth the season and limits we have for them.

[Lucky Dog]

That statement, I often wonder why I write like that. Anyway, that was my way of saying we have a DNR that holds a quail hunt for an almost extinct species on very protected private lands in southern Michigan to appease a handful of wealthy property owners that were putting the squeeze on the guy in charge of birds----hey, Fritz, that was your buddy Al Stewart!!! But you know, I'll bet Al Stewart gets to hunt wild quail every year in Michigan somewhere, on someone's property.



That is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on these forums. Sounds to me like you have some beef with Al Stewart.

[Linda G.]

No, not really, cause there's a lot of people like Al in the DNR. Personally, he's not a bad guy, and he's got some good dogs. We get along just fine.

But he is especially good at sucking up to the money, I've seen it time and time again. So have a lot of people in this state.

Do you know him? How long have you known him?

Do you hunt quail? On public land? Ever seen a covey of more than 10 birds that were wild in this state?

It's sad that we set seasons to appease those who own big pieces of private land who have lots of dollars and are more than willing to let YOU hunt there, but no one else...that's not good wildlife management.

That's a sell-out...and there's a ton of it going on, and some of you seem to think that's ok...well, if you're one of the people benefiting from it, I can see how you feel that way. But we are supposed to manage our wildlife populations for the benefit of the majority of the hunters out there, and we're not doing that with quail or pheasant.

[2ESRGR8]

Linda the quail and/or pheasants cannot read property signs or plat books.
They go there because the private land has the best habitat or only habitat.
I shoot grouse on private land how does that fit your model?

I think we should be managing the species for the benefit of the species, not the rich or the poor hunter.

[Linda G.]

"They go there because the private land has the best habitat or only habitat."


Yup, now that's the ticket, isn't it...where's all that enhancement on public lands...

I have no problem with you hunting grouse on private land, as there are LOTS of grouse on public lands, and they are being managed for the benefit of the majority of the hunters. Which are hunting them on public land.

In fact, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you this, it's fairly rare to find grouse on private lands. In the north, just about all the grouse and woodcock are on public lands, cause that's about the only areas being cut...some CFR is cut, but not a lot. And that's still public for hunters.

[dogwhistle]

all upland gamebirds are the same, they all require habitat of a somewhat specialized type.

i hunted pheasants in the 50's and 60's with my granddad and later in the mid 70's when i returned to michigan. we had tons of predators then, not coyotes of course. but house cats in abundance.

if i were really interested in pheasants i'd go look at some PF projects, this would be an excellent time to do it. and get a subjective idea of the number of birds they are producing. the best way to "know" anything is to see for yourself.

i'm not sure where you live exactly, but i have an idea it's over in the area generally between flint and pontiac? but there is still mostly farmland in gratiot, clinton, eaton, ingham, calhoun, branch, hillsdale counties and others. where i live, all i can see is crops in any direction and i know what lays on further, more crops. but not much habitat in those crops. as i said, herbicides and pesticides are much more effecient now. and it's been a little wet this year, but usually everything is tilled down except winter wheat and alfalfa, neither of which provide much cover.

the soil bank program really did it for mich back when i was young. the crp program just isnt economically attractive to michigan farmers. and realistically, with the boom in corn, i dont see a change to favor pheasants in the future.

but this much i do firmly believe. michigan is very fortunate, we are not like some eastern or southern states. we have vast amounts of land in the public domain and still have huge amounts of farmland(trust me). places without those things have no hope of turning things around. it might take great effort and expense, but we could do it.

mike

[Linda G.]

Rob lives in Calhoun, I think...near Adrian, anyway. Bearcreek Preserve. Lots of guys on here know him and where he hunts when he hunts wild.

[Bear Creek]

Linda,

Your off base on this. I'm sure most people on this site agree that not nearly enough is being done by the DNR to improve pheasant or quail habitat on public lands. PF people will agree with you too. But lets face it pheasants and quail must live near agricultural areas. Pheasants and quail have always been birds hunted on private lands, there have never be large populations of pheasants on state lands anywhere in this state. So to say the DNR shouldn't set seasons for these gamebirds because you can't find them on public lands is crazy. Now you could argue that the DNR should do more to lease private land for public hunting like they do out west but that's a completely different issue.

[Lucky Dog]

No, not really, cause there's a lot of people like Al in the DNR. Personally, he's not a bad guy, and he's got some good dogs. We get along just fine.

But he is especially good at sucking up to the money, I've seen it time and time again. So have a lot of people in this state.

Do you know him? How long have you known him?

Do you hunt quail? On public land? Ever seen a covey of more than 10 birds that were wild in this state?

It's sad that we set seasons to appease those who own big pieces of private land who have lots of dollars and are more than willing to let YOU hunt there, but no one else...that's not good wildlife management.

That's a sell-out...and there's a ton of it going on, and some of you seem to think that's ok...well, if you're one of the people benefiting from it, I can see how you feel that way. But we are supposed to manage our wildlife populations for the benefit of the majority of the hunters out there, and we're not doing that with quail or pheasant.


First of all it was ridiculous because the quail is no where near being an extinct species as you stated. I believe they are the number two hunted game bird next to the dove, so where you come off saying they are near extinct is ridiculous.

No I do not know Al Stewart, but until I see some proof that he is in the pockets of the rich farmers like you say. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and continue to think he is a good biologist and a stand up guy.

I hunt quail. I hunt them in a few out of state locations and I have shot some in Michigan. In fact, most of the quail I have shot in Michigan were either on State owned land or private land open to the public. If memory serves, I have shot one quail on private land, and that was a piece in the thumb two years ago that I knocked on the door of the owner and was granted permission to hunt.

Hmm, wasn't this thread about Grouse and woodcock cooperators?;)

[Bear Creek]

Mike, I agree there is still a fare amount of farmland in MI but its all relative. What we consider alot is peanuts to people who farm out west. Just like you said about CRP the shear volume of CRP out west is also relative to the total number of acres that are farmed in those states.

The other issue with MI farming and you touched on it is the intensity at which its farmed. Not only fence road to fence row but multiple crops grown per season or multiple cuttings per year. There are alot of reasons for this but mostly its land cost and taxes.

If you go to states like SD you ask someone how many acres they farm and they'll give you a number say 3500 acres. Well the truth is they only farm approx. half that in any given year as they let the other half set idle for a year to rejuvenate for a year which makes for great bird cover in the off season. You will never see that in MI mostly because farmers can't afford to leave it sit idle.

[dogwhistle]

this is a bit confusing. there has never been much hunting of pheasants or quail on public land in southern michigan. i suppose some people hunt the leftovers on the trial area in Ionia. the other state game areas that i am familiar with, Barry Co and Flat River are mostly woods.

grouse and woodcock hunting have always been mainly a public land proposition and pheasants and quail a private land proposition. grouse and woodcock habitat is primarily the woodlands and brush in our state forests. pheasants and quail require farmland. i think you will find that true throughout their range in the US.

i know Al Stewart, we belong to the same RGS chapter. i dont know him well. but i dont see the point of using his name as the point of critcizm rather than "the DNR" or such.

your arguements are completely unfocused. on one hand you argue that hunting woodcock is drastically reducing their numbers(contrary to all scientific studies) and on the other that reduction of habitat is the culprit.

and although many of us are critical of the DNR from time to time and thing to thing, you aree the first to single out Al Stewart and quite vehemently. and you seem to be implying that he is getting some time of "kickback" for approving quail season for "wealthy landowners". is that correct, and if so, so you have any hard evidence?

[Linda G.]

"I believe they are the number two hunted game bird next to the dove, so where you come off saying they are near extinct is ridiculous."

You have to be kidding...you must have meant that as a NATIONAL statistic, right? First of all, we don't hunt dove in Michigan, second, when you consider ALL the species of quail and ALL the states they're found in, yes, they could be the second most popular bird species IN THE COUNTRY. But no one's really finding any quail anymore, except on private ranches in Texas. And EVERYONE is releasing pen-raised quail.

Those are the most popular words around these days-"controlled shooting areas"..."preserves"...."put and take"....


Dog, you need to talk to people who were hunting in the 40's, 50's, and 60's...there were tons of quail and pheasants on PUBLIC LAND. The private land only thing for quail and pheasant is a phenomenon that's only occurred in the last 20-30 years.

Dog, I am only "unfocused" because the subject skips back and forth from species to species, as someone else here just mentioned...woodcock are only being hunted too hard, imho, in certain areas. But most woodcock are probably being pressured a bit too hard as most woodcock are now forced to occupy less prime habitat than we had 30-40 years ago.

And yes, quail and pheasant are all about habitat, which we have none of these days on public lands. We used to. Yes, quail and pheasant are all about ag, which we have less of, too, but if you hunt other states there's plenty of pheasant AND quail a LONG way from any ag-they're prairie birds...there used to be lots of ag in Michigan right NEXT to lands open to hunting, if not on it...we used to have ag on public lands, does anyone remember that...and whatever happened to the HAP program, for instance? I used to hunt those lands A LOT, and did well for quail and pheasant on them. There aren't any HAP lands any more.

I've known Al Stewart for 20 years or more, how long have you known him?

You set seasons to benefit the species that will also benefit the MAJORITY of the hunters. If a season is set based on private land populations that will be detrimental to populations on public lands, you CLOSE the public lands to hunting that species, or extremely limit the amount of hunting done on public land for that species. That's how we set our spring turkey seasons, that's how we should set quail seasons. But to allow people to hunt them with such huge bag limits as they currently have, on both public and private, is detrimental to the birds on public lands because we can't protect them on the public lands.

You don't just change the entire season around to make the private land hunters happy without thinking of the effect on the public land birds. Not to mention the fact that you have no real way of managing them on private lands, either. It's up to the landowner to manage them.

And does anyone know the estimated population of quail in this state?? Last I heard, about 5 years ago, it was 5000 birds. Now, can you honestly say we should have an open season of two weeks duration with a bag limit of what, is it still 8 birds a day or something crazy like that, with those kinds of numbers? I'll bet that since that "estimate" was made, there hasn't even been an effort to "estimate" them, they just open the season every year.

[Steelheadfred]

OK Linda,


Dog, you need to talk to people who were hunting in the 40's, 50's, and 60's...there were tons of quail and pheasants on PUBLIC LAND. The private land only thing for quail and pheasant is a phenomenon that's only occurred in the last 20-30 years.

I just looked at my dads county Map and it appears that there is about the same amount of Public Land in southern MI in 1977 (year of the map book) as there is today in 2007. Linda, quit living in the past, live in the now.

Yes there is less HAP land.


I've known Al Stewart for 20 years or more, how long have you known him?

I have known him for 5? What is your point?

But no one's really finding any quail anymore, except on private ranches in Texas. And EVERYONE is releasing pen-raised quail.

I am finding one covey a year in MI, I have a friend that found 7 covey's a day in a Western Pheasant State, all on land open to the public for hunting


And yes, quail and pheasant are all about habitat, which we have none of these days on public lands.

I disagree 100%, our public lands are managed well for Pheasants....there just are not very many pheasants. Drive down to the Game Area north of Lansing on 127, look at the food plots, switch grass, shrub rows. I wish some of the Private Land CRP I hunt had that kind of management.

Quail and Pheasants are a Private land game, always ahve been, always will be. We are very fortunate that the western States have "Leased Private Lands to Hunt" on. Linda instead of complaining about it (it still sounds to me like you are mad you dont have access to hunt them) drum up some contacts, make some phone calls, and try and find access to some private land. You of all the people on this board should have more contacts in our state as a result of your career, that finding the pockets of Pheasants and Quail that exist in sourthern MI should not be too much trouble for you. Or have you burned all your bridges?

[dogwhistle]

my grandfather lived next door on the farm and had a string of setters and was an avid birdhunter. i started tagging along in the 50's and was old enough to hunt in the early 60's. we never hunted public land. ever. and i returned to mi in the mid 70's and hunted pheasants myself. there was some "put and take" on places like the Barry game area. but that's it.

most of the state land in southern michigan is forest, just like "up north" except for a couple field trial areas, there isnt much that resembles pheasant or quail habitat. those are farmland birds and farmland is private land. it's that way in michigan and virtually everywhere.

and, as i've said i hunt with friends every year from other states and know and am acquainted with a lot of non resident hunters. although most of them will take woodcock, their purpose in coming here is grouse. there is no question about that.

"hunters are killing of the woodcock" is a scientifically indefensible statement. particuarly in light of another statement, that habitat hasnt been regenerated in 15(i would say closer to 25) years.

we cant regenerate habitat because we dont have a market for the aspen. if we could solve that problem, do for aspen what biofuels has done for corn, we would go a long way to solving the habitat, and in turn the grouse and woodock populations.

[Bear Creek]

most of the state land in southern michigan is forest, just like "up north" except for a couple field trial areas, there isnt much that resembles pheasant or quail habitat. those are farmland birds and farmland is private land. it's that way in michigan and virtually everywhere.


we cant regenerate habitat because we dont have a market for the aspen. if we could solve that problem, do for aspen what biofuels has done for corn, we would go a long way to solving the habitat, and in turn the grouse and woodock populations.

That's been my point all along. The state lands in southern MI haven't supported pheasants and quail for at least 30 years. And the reason is that the DNR doesn't take the steps needed to manage the lands for these birds. Now yo can argue all you want about funds and funding but the fact remains that there could be a lot more managing of these lands if the DNR made it a priority or partnered with groups like PF to make it happen.

As for the Aspen I hear that there may soon be a home for that in the biofuel world. They are experimenting with wood to create ethanol. Maybe that will be a home for aspen in the future??

One last thing on pheasants on state lands. Even in there hey day back in the 60's 70's pheasants and quail were never that plentiful. They have always been a bird of the farm lands which in this state means private lands.

As for HAP, the reason this program dried up is money. The DNR wasn't willing or able to pay the "going rate" to lease private lands for public hunting. If your a land owner and you can get $5 acre from the DNR and open your lands to everyone or get $10 acre from one individual or small group of hunters which one are you going to take??

The DNR just needs to pay fare market value and they could get some of these lands back in the HAP program.

BC

[midwestfisherman]

Think about this, you've got guys like Grush (arrogant and too stuck up to participate :evil:) who shoot a decent number of birds.

:lol::lol::lol:;)

[2ESRGR8]

:lol::lol::lol:;)
Things to do today:

1) Add Brad and Jim to Ch!t list. Check.

[midwestfisherman]

Things to do today:

1) Add Brad and Jim to Ch!t list. Check.

And don't forget to turn in that survey dammit! We know you have the data! We want to know where you've been hunting! ;)

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b8df23b3127cceb3ee4ded119000000026100QbMW7hu3bsb

[2ESRGR8]

Yes I have the data I ain't sharing it though. :D
Crunching the numbers at years end is fun and gives me goals to work toward the following season.
BTW, I hunted in 8 different counties this year, does that help? :evilsmile

[Steelheadfred]

And don't forget to turn in that survey dammit! We know you have the data! We want to know where you've been hunting! ;)

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b8df23b3127cceb3ee4ded119000000026100QbMW7hu3bsb

I am shocked Bus-Stop Kennels Owner can count, it appears he lost count of the number of setters some time this year, leading me to that conclusion.

:lol:

[everlast1]

Dog is right. Until there is a market for aspen, we will never see grouse and woodcock like we had in the 70's 80's or even 90's. There are more hunters and less habitat. I dont think hunters made a difference in numbers in the past but thats changing.

[dogwhistle]

bearcreek, the state lands i am famililar with in region 3 wouldnt make good pheasant or quail habitat no matter how much they were managed. they are almost all wooded.

if aspen becomes a biofuel that could be a boon to woodcock and grouse and those that hunt them and would probably help the economy in northern mich and the up.

there were probably other reasons why the HAP program failed. demographics mainly. in this state the farming areas are pretty close to major cities. not like south dakota where the farms are huge and they arent any "major" cities. here, if you enrolled you are likely to get a lot of people you dont want.

$10 an acres is $6000 a section. i dont think michigan hunters would support that financially. i heard complaints about raising the license fees a few dollars. however, the idea is a good one and it has worked well other places.

[Linda G.]

HAP failed for a lot of reasons, most of which the DNR couldn't stop because they did not have a lot of support from the Legislature for this program. Raise the price, we'd have kept HAP and a lot of the farmers would have dealt with the issues. They were all pretty much allowed to make their own rules, anyway.

It's all pretty sad. We just stand there and watch what was once two of our finest hunting opportunities go down the drain because "it's all an ag and private land thing"...funny, it isn't in other states.

With people who believe things like that and no support for HAP or public land habitat for public land opportunities of these species, it's no wonder we lose more hunters every year.

And that is what it's all about to me, Fritz. It's not about me, it's about how it affects all of us.

I have had thousands of acres of private land in southern Michigan I could hunt with a phone call for years. But, for the most part, it hasn't been worth the time or effort. If I really want to take several days and hunt quail, I'll find my way to some small pocket of America, like the panhandle of Oklahoma, or parts of Kansas, where the quail hunting is still good, some years great, on public lands.

That should be how everyone here feels, instead of qualifying it as to how it affects YOU. There won't be a YOU in a few years if we don't have a whole lot of US.

And for those of you who honestly believe we never had that much good pheasant and quail hunting, look up the old Conservation Department records of the 50's, which was many years before I was old enough to hunt (didn't hunt till the 70's)...and find out how good it really was ON PUBLIC LANDs as well as private. And just about anyone could hunt private with a knock on a door. It's sure not like that anymore.

I'm not living in the past, I'm living in a very sad present and an even sadder future

We should not be setting a quail season for the few people who are able to hunt them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do not want this country to ever become like Europe...where the "kings" hunt and the rest of us "poach"...and that's exactly what it's becoming.

[dogwhistle]

we did have good pheasant hunting from the 50's and 60's until maybe the mid 70's. quail hunting in michigan has always been rather marginal. they were present but were not sought out like pheasants. at one time, pheasant hunting was second only to firearms deer in popularity and michigan was one of the top pheasants states in the nation- either 3rd or 5th, i believe. but neighboring states; Ohio, Indiana, Illinois also had large populations.

but during that time the Soil Bank program was in effect. it provided huge amounts of habitat. now we have the CRP program, it's a good program but isnt economically attractive to farmers in this part of the midwest. however it still is in states farther west; south dakota, iowa, nebraska etc. and they have good pheasant populations as a result. but influencing those huge agricultural programs is far to large for our DNR or any states DNR.

the same is true for many farming practices. farmers operate on a thin margin and have to be as effecient as possible to turn a profit. the DNR cant influence that.

Quail have all but disappearred throughout a great part of their traditional range- the South. most quail hunting in the south is on plantations where pen raised birds are released. Texas is "the state" for quail hunting today, but it's a long ways away and most of the land is leased for hunting in one form or another.

i dont see an overall improvement in the situation for farmland birds in michigan in the future. it would require a large amount of acerage to be set aside in habitat and i dont see any reason for that to happen.

there is a better chance for the coverbirds, but only if some reason develops for aspen to again be cut on a large scale to regenerate habitat.

mike

[Bear Creek]

bearcreek, the state lands i am famililar with in region 3 wouldnt make good pheasant or quail habitat no matter how much they were managed. they are almost all wooded.

$10 an acres is $6000 a section. i dont think michigan hunters would support that financially. i heard complaints about raising the license fees a few dollars. however, the idea is a good one and it has worked well other places.

That's true but many of those lands were open fields when the state accuired them back in the 60's and 70's. I personally was to young to be hunting at this time but know people who did hunt some of these state lands in the 70's and found pheasants, quail and grouse. But the reason was ideal habitat. Brushy fence rows, corn planted by the DNR left in the fields. New Aspen growth in low areas, all ideal habitat. But nothing has been done to these lands in 40 or 50 years so mother natural takes over and creates different habitat mostly old growth trees that don't make good cover for anything but deer and turkey. Hence the drop in upland bird and the increase in deer and turkey.

As for HAP if the DNR isn't willing to pay fare market value for leasing private lands then you can kiss that program goodbye. Farmers in general I believe are not opposed to hunting but when you have idiots leaving trash on your property and shooting to close to buildings as a landowner if your in the HAP program you can't stop the general public from hunting your lands. So if you have a choice between leasing to the state or lease to a private individual at a higher lease rate which do you think most will choose??

As for the western state programs that's a know brainer as most of these lands are so remote that they don't even have homesteads on them. So if your a farmer that can pickup a few thousand dollars for letting people do something that you allow anyway on your land then why not participate?

BC

[dogwhistle]

possibly you are talking about different "state lands" than me. the ones in my area are near hastings, near belding, and over into clinton county. they've been primarily woods since i can remember and i can remember before the 60's". there was grouse habitat, and still is some, and i havent seen much cutting, but i havent seen much cutting in northern michigan either.

i think there is more to the failure of HAP than not enough money. that is one persons opinion. if you own several thousand acres in South Dakota, far from any large population area, then walkin program seems to be popular. if you own one thousand acres close to lansing, flint, gr or detroit and post hap signs, i think you will soon be overrrun with hunters.

in other words, it's pretty difficult to live in a city and run out and day hunt in south dakota. put it's pretty easy to do that in michigan.

[Bear Creek]

Absolutely right about number of hunters and ease of access, that certainly plays a roll in HAP lands being enrolled in the program. The shear vastness of the western states and lack of local hunting pressure makes the walk in programs work. Most of the pressure on those lands out wests decreases dramatically after the first couple weeks of the season.

The state lands that I'm talking about specifically are east of the areas you are talking about. But if you talk to any DNR biologist he or she will tell you that the landscape in Southern MI has changed drastically in the last 40 years. It has gone from mostly open farmland to mostly woods and brushy cover. Back in the early 70's my grandfather would tell you there was pheasant everywhere but you would be hard pressed to find a deer anywhere in Washtenaw county. Now that area has one of the highest densities of deer anywhere in the state. The reason the changes in habitat??

BC

[dogwhistle]

But if you talk to any DNR biologist he or she will tell you that the landscape in Southern MI has changed drastically in the last 40 years. It has gone from mostly open farmland to mostly woods and brushy cover. Back in the early 70's my grandfather would tell you there was pheasant everywhere but you would be hard pressed to find a deer anywhere in Washtenaw county. Now that area has one of the highest densities of deer anywhere in the state. The reason the changes in habitat??

BC[/quote]
that is your own private notion and could not be more incorrect. go one county south of Washtenaw into Lenawee a Hillsdale county and you will find farmland everywhere you look. we have friends that farm thousands of acres in Lenawee county. or go up into Ingham or Clinton. my property is surrounded by cropland.

i dont think a michigan biologist would be very knowledgeble on the subject. try the michigan dept of agriculture for facts on agriculture in this state and compare acreage under tillage in 2007 to 1957 or 1967.

Michigans southern deer herd has certainly grown in the last 40 yrs. but it has grown everywhere. farmlands are fulll of them. they live a lot in the crops during the summer and we dont see a lot of them until fall. when the corn comes off deer are running everywhere. any night during the summer you can drive down M50 south from m43 towards Charlotte. there are large groups of deer feeding in the fields. deer have adapted extremely well to farmland. it's their ability to adapt to farmland that has allowed them to flourish.

i see far more deer here at home and deer tracks, often in my yard, than i see up in the traditional deer country when i am grouse hunting.

washtenaw, wayne and oakland counties and eastern livingston counties are not representative of the rest of the state.

[Bear Creek]

Your talking about the counties that still have large amounts of farmland. But your last sentence proves my point. Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston and even St. Clair counties have lost thousands of acres of farmland to development. They traditionally had some of the best pheasant numbers in the State back in the hey day. I know your not a pheasant hunter but you should request a copy of the latest pheasant hunter survey from the DNR it has some very interesting data going back over the years about pheasant distribution and numbers by counties. Check it out.

[dogwhistle]

i was a pheasant hunter, starting in the 50's and more or less up into the mid 80's.

i sure never heard of anyone going to wayne county to go pheasant hunting. the Thumb was very popular. my grandad hunted over by Zeeland.

those counties you mention do have a high concentration of people. but they only represent a small part of michigans land area. people here, refer to that whole area as "detroit".

i dont have any reason to believe that the pheasant coopertor report is any more accurate than the grouse or woodcock cooperator report.

if you really want an accurate picture, got the the USDA and get the figures on CRP acerage for various states. compare the states that have a large population with those that do not. it's as simple as that.

[Bear Creek]

May not be accurate in your estimation but it still shows trends. Western Wayne county in the late 60's and early 70's was a popular pheasant hunting spot. In fact my former neighbor told me stories about how he hunted on the exact land where our sub is now!! The counties I mentioned made up a lot of the pheasant habitat that was available in that time frame. Sure the thumb was popular along with other areas in the state. But the fact remains that habitat loss and land use changes in southern MI have changed so dramitically that there will never be pheasants like we had back in the day regardless of how much CRP we have!! :sad:

BC