Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Brad Eden

      TO THOSE REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UJ   01/06/2018

      To the Guests who have decided to register for Membership. PLEASE read Terms of Service, not just checking it off. This is covered there: Add more info than just "hunting" or "Upland hunting" or "birds" or "outdoors" or similar nebulous terms in the required INTERESTS field. Despite this Boards strong spam filtering function, some Spam registrations do sneak through. I need an inkling that you are a human being not a Spam Bot tagging onto key words. Also please do not use a business name as your User Name. Thank you.
LabHunter

Quail Forever Effectiveness?

Recommended Posts

Kansas Bound

KBD I think your expectations of what a $35 membership can accomplish is extremely high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Big Dog
7 hours ago, Kansas Bound said:

KBD I think your expectations of what a $35 membership can accomplish is extremely high.

Well, instead of paying for 2 wildlife biologists that have really had little effect on the bird numbers, maybe we should have added a little bit to the CRP payment to the landowners to keep the ground in grass. I expect something I can not see that they are not effective at all. 

 

This is what I base my opinion on:

 

QUAIL Unlimited member and local board member Pettis County, MO mid 1980's.

 

PF  and QF member Brown , Jackson and Nemaha Counties 2013-2015.

 

Have attended PF and QF banquets in 4 counties in KS.

 

Worked directly with a PF biologist while working for the KDWPT. 

 

I have attended banquets in 5 different counties in KS and they are basically a big social event put on for the farmers. Most people come for the open bar. At most banquets, I would guess less than 5 percent of the attendees are hunters. When you tell them you are, they wonder why when there are so few birds compared to years ago.

 

They are not effective at all in increasing bird numbers. PF and QF are a top heavy organization that only exists to feed itself.

 

Look at how many acres they do habitat work on, very little.

 

I agree with Chukarman, the money would be better spent going directly to the Farmers to pay them to leave areas of good habitat like CRP and edge areas for quail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAMMER DOG
On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 12:26 PM, NECarson said:

You may not see it. But it has been done. 

 

That's a fact, it's not up for debate, or a matter of opinion. 

I'm curious about this comment toward @Scar post. I get the impression he lives in Beaver or at least Beaver county, I know my kin live there and I have hunted it since before the WMA existed and pretty well know the WMA blindfolded. Now neither of us say we have seen anything new they have done yet you claim it has been done on the WMA grounds, so what specifically are you talking about? I would really like to know so that when I make my way back up there for Turkey season I can lay my eyes on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NECarson
45 minutes ago, HAMMER DOG said:

I'm curious about this comment toward @Scar post. I get the impression he lives in Beaver or at least Beaver county, I know my kin live there and I have hunted it since before the WMA existed and pretty well know the WMA blindfolded. Now neither of us say we have seen anything new they have done yet you claim it has been done on the WMA grounds, so what specifically are you talking about? I would really like to know so that when I make my way back up there for Turkey season I can lay my eyes on it.

Surveys, counts, cleanup days, and more stuff I wasn't invited to. 

 

Either y'all haven't seen them there working, or my friends have staged all the pictures. Which seems more likely? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NECarson
On 2/11/2018 at 5:41 AM, Kansas Big Dog said:

Well, instead of paying for 2 wildlife biologists that have really had little effect on the bird numbers, maybe we should have added a little bit to the CRP payment to the landowners to keep the ground in grass. I expect something I can not see that they are not effective at all. 

 

This is what I base my opinion on:

 

QUAIL Unlimited member and local board member Pettis County, MO mid 1980's.

 

PF  and QF member Brown , Jackson and Nemaha Counties 2013-2015.

 

Have attended PF and QF banquets in 4 counties in KS.

 

Worked directly with a PF biologist while working for the KDWPT. 

 

I have attended banquets in 5 different counties in KS and they are basically a big social event put on for the farmers. Most people come for the open bar. At most banquets, I would guess less than 5 percent of the attendees are hunters. When you tell them you are, they wonder why when there are so few birds compared to years ago.

 

They are not effective at all in increasing bird numbers. PF and QF are a top heavy organization that only exists to feed itself.

 

Look at how many acres they do habitat work on, very little.

 

I agree with Chukarman, the money would be better spent going directly to the Farmers to pay them to leave areas of good habitat like CRP and edge areas for quail. 

Like the organizations or not, calling them top heavy is flat out incorrect. 

 

Those numbers are readily available. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IsThisHeaven?

You can't please everyone. Like PF/QF or not, that's your business. I hunt all public land in Iowa. As Randy said, I rarely hunt a property that hasn't been impacted by PF. I recognize that my limited anecdotal evidence is not sufficient enough to draw conclusions on the entire organization. I contribute to the organization and will continue to do so. I am sure not all chapters or regions are created equal and some are better than others. If you choose to not to support them or have had bad experiences with them that is unfortunate. My only hope is that you are doing something and not just complaining on the internet. Pheasants and BW Quail are mostly private land birds. I am sure there are PF/QF Chapters that could do more or are mostly ineffective. The decline in bird numbers, or at least the vast fluctuation year to year, is dependent mostly on private land habitat. To ignore the role private landowners/ag have played in the decline is ignoring a significant part of the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAMMER DOG
2 hours ago, NECarson said:

Surveys, counts, cleanup days, and more stuff I wasn't invited to. 

 

Either y'all haven't seen them there working, or my friends have staged all the pictures. Which seems more likely? 

Hey all I'm asking for is a where and what, since you seem to know more than we do. I have seen work done, but none of it is anything that the ODWC, OSU extension and others have not been doing for 30+ years. How about instead of coming back on my question with a snarky response just answer the simple question with a simple response because I would genuinely like to see these projects during Turkey season, since I obviously have missed them during all the Quail, Deer and Turkey seasons I have hunted the WMA since QFs inception.

 

   Surveys, counts and clean ups do not count, those are annually done by volunteers, cost nothing and I myself have participated more than once. a friend who works for the Ok Zoological society does counts yearly in numerous locations funded by the Friends of the Zoo group for his travel and lodging, and the ODWC does as well, not to mention Boy Scouts troops have done numerous cleanups over the years. I am looking for things like Red Cedar and or Tamarisk removal, both invasive and both massive consumers of water resources(the single most important issue IME), repairs to windmills or other new and useful projects for actual population sustainment and growth. Things that require the funds provided to QF that the ODWC cannot provide. The one thing provided I know of for sure was prescribed burn equipment and that was 6 years ago and as anyone who's hunted there knows they have been doing burns well prior to 2012 in a cooperative effort with OSU and the forestry service, they have used it as a training area for OSU students for many, many years.

 

  What are the projects they have done specifically on the WMA, or even adjoined private lands since I have access to several of those, and where are they at. Simple question that should only require a simple answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy S

Paying private landowners for annual manipulation of their land is extremely short sighted. Yeah, it does something for today's sportsmen but nothing for tomorrows. Anyone who doubts that can look at the lost CRP acres across the mid-west. (Granted wildlife habitat was not the impetus of the CRP program, but it's scope and benefit were immense.) And as some have noted, once the payments stop much of that land is converted to being even less beneficial for wildlife than it was before it was entered into a payment program.

 

There's only one long term answer and that's for organizations to purchase every single acre they can. I've read/watched several accounts from PF biologists claiming it was extremely difficult for them to convince landowners to participate in any of their programs. That admission in itself tells me the cost of supporting a biologist would be better directed towards land purchases. I would give $1,000 towards land purchase before $10 for annual access. I'm much more concerned with where I'll be hunting 10 years from now than where next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

They don’t really look that Top Heavy to me. 

127CA206-71BA-46FF-BAA0-AC257A51FABA.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LabHunter
7 hours ago, Randy S said:

Paying private landowners for annual manipulation of their land is extremely short sighted. Yeah, it does something for today's sportsmen but nothing for tomorrows. Anyone who doubts that can look at the lost CRP acres across the mid-west. (Granted wildlife habitat was not the impetus of the CRP program, but it's scope and benefit were immense.) And as some have noted, once the payments stop much of that land is converted to being even less beneficial for wildlife than it was before it was entered into a payment program.

 

There's only one long term answer and that's for organizations to purchase every single acre they can. I've read/watched several accounts from PF biologists claiming it was extremely difficult for them to convince landowners to participate in any of their programs. That admission in itself tells me the cost of supporting a biologist would be better directed towards land purchases. I would give $1,000 towards land purchase before $10 for annual access. I'm much more concerned with where I'll be hunting 10 years from now than where next year. 

 

I think land out here is too expensive to make that viable for us, unless we were able to get matching funds from other organizations.  You can drop $500k for 100 acres...and that's really not that much land if you have a bunch of guys involved.  How many years of banquets would it take to raise that kind of dough?  You can get cheaper land, but it might be submerged part of the year (Rosie did flush a sika deer this year...hmm).  Better to start a club and manage some leased property..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

Plenty of stuff in the Farm Bill way more than most people realize and Conservation is a small piece of the pie. If you don’t head to DC to lobby for for your slice then someone else takes it.    PF and a few other Conservation groups try and get us our slice. If they didn’t it would be far worse for us bird hunters and others. 

54E321AB-4CE8-4302-ADB3-96163F4C30E4.jpeg

69218C3E-2633-4570-8B87-3106B1E12462.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

6DCD0329-39FC-4BC2-B2D3-AB77AA416929.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack L

For PF the most effective thing they can do to influence birds numbers is successful lobbying for conservation practices in the farm bill.

 

Farm bureau and the lobbyists for the big ag chemical companies are always pushing for more and more production.  Whether corn/soy bean prices are low or high their answer for everything is plant more.  When the big numbers for CRP were going away PF figured out they needed to have a professional lobbyist to fight this battle in DC.  The more PF members there are the more effective PF lobbying can be because members equal votes and DC listens to that.

 

The second biggest thing they can do, at least here in Iowa, with other groups/agencies joining in, is to buy land when available to put it in the public hands.  

 

I agree a lot of the people at  banquets, if not most, aren't hunters. It's true are our local banquet.That's okay we'll take their money.  

 

If PF/QF isn't  lobbying for birds and habitat who will?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

766AA5A7-A62D-4DFE-8D5C-A0D148EEE859.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NECarson

First people ask what projects they have worked on. 

 

That's not good enough, what have they bought. A couple of tractors and attachments. 

 

Let me guess, that's not good enough either? 

 

I don't care if you like the organization or not. Spreading lies is a bunch of crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×