Michigan-Sportsman.com banner

61 - 80 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Ahhh now I'm a socialist, says the guy who promotes an organization that spends gazillions of taxpayer money to support his "hunt". Enjoy your 25% of the revenue for habitat projects because your cherished PF is going to be in its death throes due to the government not giving them any money.

And calling me a dump n hunt, that's laughable, you guys make the worst assumptions and believe anything PF pours down your throat. The fact of the matter is I stuck with MPHI and the stamp like I did out of spite for PF, I hunt primarily in Montana and have 4 trips this year so far and have one more elk hunt next month. I am telling you this because I have plenty of money and time to hunt wherever I want and I don't need an organization to show or tell me what and where I should hunt.

Now if you want to see conservation, go to Montana. They make your cherished SD look like Michigan in comparison for upland game.

Whether the seed was already here or not its asinine to plant more of it.
Howitzer,

Some thoughts and questions:

1. What, specifically, do you have against PF's focus on habitat in support of WILD bird populations? Everything I've experienced (in Michigan, Iowa, and South Dakota) demonstrates PF is very effective in partnership with landowners and state DNR's in getting not only habitat but the right habitat into the ground. Benefits not only accrue to upland wildlife, but many other game/non-game species and water quality.

2. For hunters like myself that truly enjoy pursuing WILD birds, what other conservation group has done more for pheasants and pheasant hunting than PF? If there is one, please let me know so I can donate to them as well.

3. Finally, I've never experienced upland hunting on Montana. What exactly does Montana do differently than other states that results in better upland hunting? I'll bet your response will revolve around habitat.

Closer to home. I've been very impressed with the work done by MPRI and the management of public lands for pheasant. After overcoming a serious health issue, I've been fortunate enough to get back into this with my dog and my hat's off to the DNR/PF and other local organizations that foster habitat improvement. I've seen birds every single time I've hunted managed public land. Have I bagged birds consistently, of course not - it's wild bird hunting. But we've had alot of contacts that otherwise would not have been possible without the aforementioned habitat work. Is PF perfect? No, but the good they do FAR outweighs the (perceived) bad.

Just my opinion.

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
What does Montana do differently? I am not a biologist but there have been several studies on the ranch where I have been hunting my entire life. The most recent studies show that Sage Grouse do better with cattle than without. I know that if you have cows you have upland, it's really that simple upland birds benefit greatly from cattle and cattle activities.

So yes it does include habitat ut that's obvious, what a lot of people fail to see is there are very few vast grassland projects that cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Also in Montana organizations have proven to be more hurtful to long-term management and ultimately hurt the best stewards of the land which is the ranchers who have been managing the land for the highest and best use for 150 years. Groups like the American Prairie Reserve and RMEF are
hurting most hunters because they are buying high dollar leases forcing hunters to either lease or pay for guided hunts because of the added pressure on public land caused by the defection of hunters from private areas. It's causing more problems than I can list in a day but the added outside money that is from so call well-meaning organizations actually has a negative effect on the wildlife and the people that have owned the land for a century or more.

I have to add that the MPHI project will not only add funds for habitat which are desperately needed because the funding is drying up fast and won't likely return to current levels in our lifetime, the project also takes the pressure off wild populations. What befuddles me is these people are calling MPHI government chicken while they hunt millions of acres of tax-payer procured and managed land is pure duplicity, to say the least.

With all that said habitat money is mostly gone as we know it and we all better embrace any available income streams to manage what we already have or it will be gone in 2030.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
What does Montana do differently? I am not a biologist but there have been several studies on the ranch where I have been hunting my entire life. The most recent studies show that Sage Grouse do better with cattle than without. I know that if you have cows you have upland, it's really that simple upland birds benefit greatly from cattle and cattle activities.

So yes it does include habitat ut that's obvious, what a lot of people fail to see is there are very few vast grassland projects that cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Also in Montana organizations have proven to be more hurtful to long-term management and ultimately hurt the best stewards of the land which is the ranchers who have been managing the land for the highest and best use for 150 years. Groups like the American Prairie Reserve and RMEF are
hurting most hunters because they are buying high dollar leases forcing hunters to either lease or pay for guided hunts because of the added pressure on public land caused by the defection of hunters from private areas. It's causing more problems than I can list in a day but the added outside money that is from so call well-meaning organizations actually has a negative effect on the wildlife and the people that have owned the land for a century or more.

I have to add that the MPHI project will not only add funds for habitat which are desperately needed because the funding is drying up fast and won't likely return to current levels in our lifetime, the project also takes the pressure off wild populations. What befuddles me is these people are calling MPHI government chicken while they hunt millions of acres of tax-payer procured and managed land is pure duplicity, to say the least.

With all that said habitat money is mostly gone as we know it and we all better embrace any available income streams to manage what we already have or it will be gone in 2030.
Except that the MPHI bill as passed by the legislature was amended to have 100% of the stamp go towards supporting the release program. There is no support for habitat or wild birds in Michigan anywhere in that bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
Except that the MPHI bill as passed by the legislature was amended to have 100% of the stamp go towards supporting the release program. There is no support for habitat or wild birds in Michigan anywhere in that bill.
Dang I was unaware of that, I was unaware of that amendment but I still think it's a step in the right direction to get boots on the ground. I bet this is an example of my way or the highway ideology did not pay off because the MPHI committee was entirely supportive of the habitat provision. If I had to take a wild guess someone from PF was creating unneeded problems at the capital as they have all along.

It may be a simple legal problem with budgeting and the money is to be applied in another fashion I will find out for you though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
The update is that the habitat money was dropped due to problems with a certain person that was inflexible with the language so they dropped it completely to get them out of the picture. This is a failure of your PF representative if I were you I would be calling Howard Vincent and voicing your concern because the habitat provision died at the hands of the habitat advocates.

And for the record, I am not happy about the loss of habitat language but it's not the fault of MPHI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
That
The update is that the habitat money was dropped due to problems with a certain person that was inflexible with the language so they dropped it completely to get them out of the picture. This is a failure of your PF representative if I were you I would be calling Howard Vincent and voicing your concern because the habitat provision died at the hands of the habitat advocates.

And for the record, I am not happy about the loss of habitat language but it's not the fault of MPHI.
That is incredible...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
Discussion Starter #67
The update is that the habitat money was dropped due to problems with a certain person that was inflexible with the language so they dropped it completely to get them out of the picture. This is a failure of your PF representative if I were you I would be calling Howard Vincent and voicing your concern because the habitat provision died at the hands of the habitat advocates.

And for the record, I am not happy about the loss of habitat language but it's not the fault of MPHI.
Wow!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts

Agreed, I am taken back from it myself but not surprised. I am with MPHI and we have been fighting PF Michigan since day one and even the PF'ers here will admit PF Michigan did some very underhanded things to MPHI and the DNR and it appears that the roosters have come home to roost..oh the pun.

I am saying PF Michigan because for the most part Howard and Charlie were somewhat helpful in finding language for PF to support the release but those marching orders were not executed by the Michigan PF'ers..I bet there will be some very unpleasant meetings this is the biggest miss I can think of for PF if not a colossal failure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
I really hope hunters and Pheasant Forever supporters do there research on PF and the MPHI. Some people have very biased views and a personal grudge. Don’t take the word of internet voices. There is a lot of false information on this thread. Do the research and make up your own mind.

Lastly Pheasant Forevers motto is the “habitat organization “ It is against our motto
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
I really hope hunters and Pheasant Forever supporters do there research on PF and the MPHI. Some people have very biased views and a personal grudge. Don’t take the word of internet voices. There is a lot of false information on this thread. Do the research and make up your own mind.

Lastly Pheasant Forevers motto is the “habitat organization “ It is against our motto
I agree if people did research it would not have been a total loss for PF. There were more committee hearings than I can count with representatives from all sides and the committee people had ample time to weigh truths and half-truths and rhetoric spread by many, and an overwhelming number choose MPHI. And when your asking questions call national and read the email below, they did not mind the stocking they just wanted more money.



Pheasants Forever is dedicated to the conservation of pheasants, quail and other wildlife through habitat improvements, public awareness, education and land management policies and programs. We support the substitute bill, contingent on the following modifications that would better align the bill with our mission:

  1. 100% of the revenue generated by the proposed Pheasant Stamp should be dedicated, by statute, to an ear-marked sub-fund for pheasant habitat and stocking, for maintaining the future of the pheasant hunting tradition in Michigan.
  2. We are the Habitat Organization and we have partnered in the development and implementation of the Michigan Pheasant Restoration Initiative (MPRI). We request a more equitable distribution of funds with 50% of funds dedicated to stocking efforts and 50% dedicated to pheasant habitat priorities identified in the MPRI.
  3. Costs have long been identified as a barrier to recruiting and retaining hunters. Youth and adult participants of learn-to-hunt events with the primary focus of recruiting, retaining and reactivating hunters should be excluded from the requirement to purchase a pheasant stamp.
  4. A $25.00 stamp fee is high and could negatively impact numbers of current and new pheasant hunters. We suggest a pheasant stamp fee in the $15 range.


Pheasants Forever has nearly 35 years of commitment to wild pheasant restoration in Michigan, and we have been involved in every aspect of the Michigan Pheasant Restoration Initiative for 10 years. A pheasant stamp that is required of all pheasant hunters should support our mission and the established MPRI plan as well as the stocking initiative.



I welcome your thoughts. I’ll keep you informed as this bill progresses.



Bill Vander Zouwen, Michigan Region Rep, Pheasants Forever
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
I agree if people did research it would not have been a total loss for PF. There were more committee hearings than I can count with representatives from all sides and the committee people had ample time to weigh truths and half-truths and rhetoric spread by many, and an overwhelming number choose MPHI. And when your asking questions call national and read the email below, they did not mind the stocking they just wanted more money.



Pheasants Forever is dedicated to the conservation of pheasants, quail and other wildlife through habitat improvements, public awareness, education and land management policies and programs. We support the substitute bill, contingent on the following modifications that would better align the bill with our mission:

  1. 100% of the revenue generated by the proposed Pheasant Stamp should be dedicated, by statute, to an ear-marked sub-fund for pheasant habitat and stocking, for maintaining the future of the pheasant hunting tradition in Michigan.
  2. We are the Habitat Organization and we have partnered in the development and implementation of the Michigan Pheasant Restoration Initiative (MPRI). We request a more equitable distribution of funds with 50% of funds dedicated to stocking efforts and 50% dedicated to pheasant habitat priorities identified in the MPRI.
  3. Costs have long been identified as a barrier to recruiting and retaining hunters. Youth and adult participants of learn-to-hunt events with the primary focus of recruiting, retaining and reactivating hunters should be excluded from the requirement to purchase a pheasant stamp.
  4. A $25.00 stamp fee is high and could negatively impact numbers of current and new pheasant hunters. We suggest a pheasant stamp fee in the $15 range.


Pheasants Forever has nearly 35 years of commitment to wild pheasant restoration in Michigan, and we have been involved in every aspect of the Michigan Pheasant Restoration Initiative for 10 years. A pheasant stamp that is required of all pheasant hunters should support our mission and the established MPRI plan as well as the stocking initiative.



I welcome your thoughts. I’ll keep you informed as this bill progresses.



Bill Vander Zouwen, Michigan Region Rep, Pheasants Forever
Exactly!
Pheasant Forever is dedicated to the habitat to enrich wildlife including pheasants. Not putting birds out to shoot.
Just because what one organization believes in doesn’t go along with the other doesn’t mean you wage war. Agree to disagree. Both organizations in there own way are trying to improve the outdoor experience. I’ve always said I’m not against the MPHI. It’s state land for everyone. I just didn’t want to make everyone pay for birds not everyone is going to use. Pay to play is my stance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
633 Posts
This is the crux of the issue, in this post. Quit planting this garbage weed and dont support an organization that requires it.
You just don’t get it as many times as we say it. Pheasant Forever does NOT require mean seeds. The Ag department does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,303 Posts
This is the crux of the issue, in this post. Quit planting this garbage weed and dont support an organization that requires it.
I guess some folks would rather change the topic and rattle on about releasing pheasants. Sad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
851 Posts
I work in the Ag sector and sit on the NRCS Michigan Technical committee, which is just a group of Ag/natural resource stakeholders who advise NRCS and FSA on Michigan-specific farm Bill stuff. I can tell you that attempts are being made to update these mix requirements, and dropping the mean seeds (specifically Virginia Wild Rye) from the required list is something that we’re pushing for. Unfortunately these changes happen slowly, but the discussion is ongoing. Virginia Wild rye is in there to begin with because it’s a cool season grass that behaves more like our native warm season grasses - thick-stemmed, tall, and clumpy - but grows extensively in the early years of a planting when the warm seasons are still devoting much of their energy to root production. So it does provide good habitat, and quickly. I think the idea that PF should stop offering seed for CRP plantings over this is laughable, but I agree that they could do a better job advertising these mixes as specifically for CRP so folks buying seeds for other types of projects know that they can pick a mix without these species.

I actually bought some seed from PF a few years back for some on-farm testing we were doing, and I called up their seed department and asked for one of their MI CRP mixes without the Wild rye. They happily customized the mix for me.
I spoke with my people and you summed it up, it's not a PF, USDA, DNR thing of intentionally sourcing or planting these seeds it's a complicated seed supply chain that needs to be phased out. I know you know you summed it up I am reinforcing your summation to the group.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
Discussion Starter #79
You just don’t get it as many times as we say it. Pheasant Forever does NOT require mean seeds. The Ag department does.
Then dont plant until this requirement is changed! Seems pretty simple; dont plant seeds that hurt our dogs! You dont get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Some places in Ohio a PF biologist is putting together mixes for CRP contracts. VA Wildrye and / or Canada Wildrye is included in the mixes.
 
61 - 80 of 80 Posts
Top