# End of season



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Another pheasant season is coming to a close and I doubt I will get out tomorrow or Sunday with the expected weather. On the whole, grim at best and getting worse. More CRP is gone or going based on the plowing I saw this fall. Just about every cattail slough in ag land was burned. It seemed this year was the year to bulldoze extra shelterbelts as well. From the local cafes and small hotels, business fell off as well and a considerable number of hunters have said they are not coming back. Back to the early 1980's again. I guess hugging a John Deere 9360r in the parking lot is better than a group of hunters and their dogs to North Dakota businesses.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

The pheasants have moved into the thermal cover. Deep creeks with buffalo berries and other thorny shrubs. Hundreds of them. But they are tough to approach. One gets going and they all bust. Hard to get a limit.

We chase them in a desired direction and break them up into smaller bunches or singles. Singles let you get within range. Tomorrow the temp is going down. Something like New Years day. When it gets that cold even the dogs start catching them. On New Years day the dogs caught three. If a domestic dog can do that then I wonder what kind of damage a coyote or hundreds of them can do. I finally got some good persistant coyote hunters out here. It's crazy. About two weeks ago I saw one big one sitting with three smaller ones circling. Tracks everywhere.

So far I got one with mange and another with a back leg shot off. Seems like whenever you're packin a gun you never see them. Whenever I guy doesn't have a gun you see them everywhere.

Thomas, instead of complaining about habitat loss and poor farming practices all the time, do you get out there and do a little predator control?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Main predators for pheasants are fox, raccoon and skunk so I take them out whenever I see them. Coyotes are not the major predator for ground nesting birds like pheasants and waterfowl but I help out the neighbors if they ask. As to deep thermal cover, the winter cover for pheasants in the drift plain of eastern North Dakota where I live are cattail sloughs, shelterbelts and shrubs and there are few, if any, woody draws.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

Trying to help the pheasant population by killing predators is a pretty tall task. Killing a couple dozen coyotes over the winter is akin to taking a bucket of water out of a flooding river. You'd have to trap fox, skunks, *****, yotes really hard to make much of a difference. Bottom line always is, you have the habitat, you'll have birds. In the times to come of little habitat in eastern ND, predator control may do some good since there will only be isolated pockets of birds. Still, it will be a losing battle. You have no grass or sloughs and you can kill all the predators you want there still won't be many pheasants.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

For clarification on some statements about coyotes. Studies on radioed coyotes and fox show a much different pattern of predation. Fox have a range of a couple of square miles and hunt everything within their territory. Coyotes have a territory of about six miles in diameter and it's so large they mostly patrol and prey on species around the perimeter. Some refuges don't allow coyote shooting because ground nesting birds within their territory are much safer than those outside where fox predation is higher. For eight years I nest drug 15 study plots near Kulm, and another 15 on the Lostwood Wildlife Refuge. Nest success in some areas was as low as 4%.

Indsport complains about some ag practices because they are far more responsible than anything else for the pheasant decline, and the deer. The thermal cover is cattails. Valleys make up a very small portion of the thermal cover. Compared to cattails perhaps less than 5%. So much for armchair biologists.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Mr. Sklebar wrote,



> I guess *hugging* a John Deere 9360r in the parking lot is better than a group of hunters and their dogs to North Dakota businesses.


Thomas, you and Plainsman used to work together at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown. (USGS)
Is everyone there a tree*hugger* like you two?

It would seem they have a lot of staff there.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/staff.html


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug I see your hitting below the belt again with the use of names in an effort to cause trouble for people. One low life over on fishingbuddy posted the business of a man's wife in an effort to damage them. I hope everyone can see how uncivilized this type of behavior is. Try to debate on the merits not cause trouble.



> It would seem they have a lot of staff there.


Here is some information for you. I think there are now only four of these research centers for all of the United States. I'm not sure since I have not kept up since I retired seven years ago. At that time the staff included people not just at the Jamestown site, but at the University of Minnesota, a small group in California, a substation on the Mississippi River, etc. For a nation our size the research division is very small. When I was in it numbered in the hundreds for the entire country. 
I noticed your counterpart on fishingbuddy said the only good federal employees was the Natural Resource Conservation Service. I think they are a good bunch of guys too, but it's interesting the only ones you like work for agriculture. The group I worked with works mostly for hunters. It would appear that you have a very narrow goal and it doesn't include hunting, habitat, second amendment, or anything that would relate to most of the people on an outdoor site.

What's your goal shaug? I think indsport's point was habitat. I seen your armchair biology, but it didn't mean anything. Even with 99% of habitat damaged or destroyed your going to find small pockets that you speak of. I hope sportsmen can understand that when they read your unprofessional biological opinion designed to mislead hunters into thinking it's not that bad. That's just a cover story while the destruction continues. Is that the standard operating procedure for the North Dakota Farm Bureau????


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> The group I worked with works mostly for hunters.


Prove it.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/herp ... /index.htm

I love that one.

indsport wrote,



> Main predators for pheasants are fox, raccoon and skunk so I take them out whenever I see them. Coyotes are not the major predator for ground nesting birds like pheasants and waterfowl but I help out the neighbors if they ask.


You guys can't seem to keep your stories or your data straight. So how many biologists does it take to collect some data/dead birds around a coyote den?

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/bird ... acknow.htm

There is a lot of names that we recognize there. Fritzell, Sklebar, Brandt, Hanson, Hegeness of about 213. That is a bunch of dead duck carcass picker-uppers. Now remember, this isn't science. It's data collection. The findings:

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/bird ... plicat.htm



> Among the predators we surveyed that prey on adult ducks, three species of mammals (coyote, red fox, mink), one mammal group (weasels), and four species of birds (northern harrier, Swainson's hawk, red-tailed hawk, great horned owl) were known or thought (weasels) to be common or numerous in one or more study areas (Tables 4 and 5) and thus sufficiently abundant to reduce survival of nesting female ducks. The number common or numerous of these species averaged 3.0 (SD = 1.26) per individual study area and always included the red fox, coyote, or both. Predation on adult ducks was evidenced by partially consumed carcasses found each year in all study areas (A. B. Sargeant and R. J. Greenwood, unpublished data). No data on mortality of ducks were collected in the Central Flyway study areas. Remains of 573 adult ducks were found in the stabilized regulations study areas and remains of 224 adult ducks in the small unit management study areas and adjoining lands. The remains represented an undetermined but probably small portion of the depredated adult ducks. Sargeant et al. (1984) estimated that red foxes took over 800,000 adult ducks, mostly female dabblers, annually from the prairie pothole region during spring and early summer 1969-73. Twenty percent of the dead adult ducks we recovered were from red fox dens (above ground and in den entrances only). Ducks recovered in this manner during a single visit to one den of a red fox family represented on average 4.5% of the ducks taken by the family (Sargeant et al. 1984).
> 
> The abundance of red foxes has a profound effect on the survival of adult ducks in the prairie pothole region and should be monitored. However, other predators, especially coyotes and certain raptors, probably also prey extensively on adult ducks. Of 87 dead adult ducks found in study areas in Alberta, 83% were from study areas (Gayford, Hay Lakes, Holden) that had little to no evidence of minks, red foxes, and weasels; 67% were from one area (Hay Lakes) where *"COYOTES"* and red-tailed hawks were especially numerous.


Call me crazy but I did a little pheasant hunting yesterday. Had the whole place to myself. The pheasants are congragated in deep creeks and buckbrush. Every hot spot I visited had lots of pheasants and more often than not a coyote was slinking out of there at four hundred yards. (had a shotgun) Maybe he was there looking for mice?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug do you realize that those names you listed were techs at the time. Often they were volunteers. Also, it isn't the predation on adults that I was speaking of I was talking about nest success.



> Nest success in some areas was as low as 4%.


When you cut reproductive capability you reduce the overall population. It's just not as evident. That's why indsport commented on the loss of habitat. If every adult lives the population still goes down because there is no nesting habitat.



> Call me crazy but I did a little pheasant hunting yesterday. Had the whole place to myself. The pheasants are congragated in deep creeks and buckbrush. Every hot spot I visited had lots of pheasants and more often than not a coyote was slinking out of there at four hundred yards. (had a shotgun) Maybe he was there looking for mice?


I wouldn't call you crazy, but you give little serious thought. We all know little spots of habitat scattered here and there. We also know that a coyote will take anything he can given the chance. Most predators are opportunistic. Your not getting it. Things are not as simplistic as your limited perception. Wonder a little further than your south 40. Try to understand that in the eastern half of the state thermal cover means cattails. Go back and read indsports first post, and try to understand that the habitat you describe is nearly non existent in indsports neighborhood and nearly all thermal cover is cattails.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

You want me to understand Thomas' first post about farmers needing to raise more cattails????

Can't make any money farming by raising cattails, sorry!!!!!!!!!!

Farming/ranching is a business. You and Thomas worked for the fed/gov your whole lives. Do you know a business has to cash flow? Maybe a farmer could raise more cattails and bring in some non-residents to pay access to roam through them. Nope, you guys on this forum have made it known in the past your disdain for non-residents. Maybe a farmer could charge locals a trespass fee? Nope, that would be commercialization of wildlife. Over the years you guys at the wildlife federation and wildlife society have made a total mess out of any venture that remotely resembled Capitalism. Always attacking. You have no friends now. Imagine that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Nope, you guys on this forum have made it known in the past your disdain for non-residents.


Show me that or everyone will know the truth is not in you.

We know farming is a business Shaug. That doesn't change the fact that cattails are a value to wildlife. I didn't see indsport attack anyone so why are you? What would you expect from someone who values wildlife and habitat? Should indsport get on here and tell us how happy he is that everything is going under the plow?

When I said the people I worked with worked for wildlife you said prove it. I think everyone on here with a little common sense understands that people like NRCS work for agriculture, our Game and Fish we all know work for the hunters and fishermen, and the U S fish and wildlife works for the same. You know it also, but hope others are not smart enough to know that. Why all the dishonesty?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Plains, as you well know, I was born and raised on a farm and know as much as some others do about cash flow, drought, insects, blizzards, disease, and all the other things that go into running a farm which I had to take over from my father when I was 14. As to my employment history, I worked less than half my working life for the feds (even counting my 6 years of military service) but I am sure my detractor here knows all about it. As to cattails, as I posted earlier, in eastern north dakota, they are the winter cover for pheasants (and deer as well). All I was noting is the farmers that burn them every year without any improvement in their cropping the following year (as I well know from my own experience when I farmed). It is sad that some have the mistaken idea that wildlife biologists are tree huggers. By definition, a tree hugger is a preservationist whereas a biologist (including every one I ever worked for) were conservationists, not preservationists but that distinction eludes those with their own agendas and inadequate vocabularies.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> That doesn't change the fact that cattails are a value to wildlife.


Yes they are. I like hunting cattails, but I don't believe I would plant a bunch more. Sometimes they can be loaded with Canada Thistle and the easy answer is to burn the thistle seed.



> I didn't see indsport attack anyone so why are you?


Thomas prints the same embedded message. The sky is falling. Sportsmen need to do something. Why don't we all just drop the pretext and one of you two retired fed/gov guys can post it here what it is that you desire.

H. Thomas wrote,



> All I was noting is the farmers that burn them every year without any improvement in their cropping the following year


You were just noting it. Again and again.........So what are you suggsting? What action do you believe should be taken against these farmers?

H. Thomas wrote,



> It is sad that bad some have the mistaken idea that wildlife biologists are tree huggers.


While I have not had the pleasure of making your acquaintance, I have met several former/currently employed at the NPWRC. What a bunch of Wilma Whiners. They are bad. No mistake.



> inadequate vocabularies


Rather condescending........


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

shaug, as I posted, all we are asking farmers to do is not burn the cattail sloughs every year nothing more, nothing less, no actions (whatever you mean by that), no additional cattail plantings (again your erroneous assumption). Is that simple enough for you? 
Since you supposedly know workers at NPWRC, did you ever ask them if they hunt? Almost everyone I knew there are hunters and all are fishermen. Further, I am trying to explain to you in the simplest terms that your portrayal of federal and state wildlife staff as tree huggers is wrong. There is a difference you clearly do not understand or appreciate between a conservationist and a preservationist (or tree hugger). Did you ever ask folks you work with at any federal agency or your neighbors whether they were members of either a wildlife club or the wildlife society? The answer may surprise you.

Lastly, your posting of the results from that predator paper shows a lack of biological understanding. Predation is not only adults, but chicks and nests themselves. The greatest source of loss is the chicks and nests and if one reads all the papers, one would understand that the greatest source of loss for ground nesting birds is nests and chicks and coyotes account for just a small proportion of that loss while fox, raccoon, and skunks account for the vast majority of losses. I would agree with you if you stated that coyotes can be a problem with deer populations.

Last post on this topic by me.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport,

Let's go back to your original post:



> On the whole, grim at best and getting worse. More CRP is gone or going based on the plowing I saw this fall. Just about every cattail slough in ag land was burned. It seemed this year was the year to bulldoze extra shelterbelts as well.


CRP, cattail sloughs, shelterbelts, it's a theme with you guys. You are not talking about public land here. You are talking about private property. What is it that you fed/gov guys desire?



> From the local cafes and small hotels, business fell off as well and a considerable number of hunters have said they are not coming back.


Back in the peak of CRP around 1988 to 2002, mother nature was kind and the pheasant population responded. Small town Chamber of Commerce's tried to cash in and there is page upon page from this web-forum brow beating guides, small town cafes and non-residents. Now you pretend concern for small town cafes and a considerable number of hunters not willing to come back. There isn't a legislator nor a mother nature that can placate you cry babies.

Someday CRP may come back and with it guides, commercializers, grazers, hay makers, nonresidents and others. And then you guys will be unhappy again. Is it any wonder everyone has left this web-forum?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug if memory serves me indsport has a number of non residents that stay with him and hunt. Also, I have complained about outfitters that lease up land and close it to everyone. If your incapable of hunting and want to by all means hire a guide. As to non residents if you look at posts I have always welcomed them. Perhaps you misinterpret when I have advocated limiting numbers. Years ago there were as many non resident as residents hunting waterfowl. The pressure moved the birds early. You can debate that if you wish, but it's a fact.



> There isn't a legislator nor a mother nature that can placate you cry babies.


So people are cry babies when they bring it to peoples attention that habitat is disappearing? Most hunters would like to know that so they can talk with one another and discuss if there is or is not any solutions. I would think a reasonable man would understand that.

Let me help you with the difference between a conservationist and a preservationist. A preservationist wants to keep everything as is forever. A realist like a conservationist understands that not all things last forever, but they try to make the best use possible of what they have for as long as they can. If people were actually starving because of lack of production a conservationist would plow Yellowstone Park. Kind of a fantasy for some I would bet. Since you don't want to understand that I can only surmise that your the third option which is exploiter. One can exploit the taxpayer, the environment, the land, fellow sportsmen etc. If one is not a preservationist or a conservationist he is an exploiter.

There has always been a number of people on here justifying their exploitation of hunters, the taxpayer, and the land. It's for that reason they have to put biologists in a bad light. Demonize those who work for the sportsmen so they can continue the exploitation unhindered. Ones freedom ends when it takes away freedom or damages the quality of life for another. That's why I oppose some bad ag practices. Practices like the drainage that floods Devils Lake and the taxpayer has to step in because no one else will take responsibility for their actions.

Shaug when you use peoples real names and they have screen names it isn't to be personal it's with the hopes of causing damage. One low life on fishingbuddy actually posted a families business with their personal web site. Kind of a web creep. He calls people cowards for not posting their name, while at the same time not using his. Lets not go there on this site.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> Shaug when you use peoples real names and they have screen names it isn't to be personal it's with the hopes of causing damage. One low life on fishingbuddy actually posted a families business with their personal web site. Kind of a web creep. He calls people cowards for not posting their name, while at the same time not using his. Lets not go there on this site.


If you mean what you say and say what you mean then proudly put your name on it. People who use screen names and then yell from behind the dumpster are cowards. Anyone who has spent some time at the Capitol or in front of the public knows that if you have something to say at a committee hearing, you cannot wear a bag over your head.

Credibility


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your just like that guy on fishingbuddy. He demeans others by calling them cowards, but refuses to ever divulge his name. I think screen names are used for a reason, and people should respect that. There are to many nut jobs out there to use a real name on the internet. I fear that's why people use the real names of others. They want them to have problems. That's poor shaug. Lets all have at least enough respect not to cause problems for others. This isn't something mature men should need argue about.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I'll respond even though it is obvious to other posters here but not shaug.

"CRP, cattail sloughs, shelterbelts, it's a theme with you guys." Yes, of course it is and always will be, it is called wildlife habitat. I said nothing about either private or public land. You made the erroneous assumption I was attacking farmers. As to 1988 to 2002, the winters were milder, but the CRP and nesting cover was the reason for pheasant populations. With CRP gone, it won't matter whether we have mild winters or not.

"Back in the peak of CRP around 1988 to 2002, mother nature was kind and the pheasant population responded. Small town Chamber of Commerce's tried to cash in and there is page upon page from this web-forum brow beating guides, small town cafes and non-residents. Now you pretend concern for small town cafes and a considerable number of hunters not willing to come back. There isn't a legislator nor a mother nature that can placate you cry babies."

Perhaps for others, but your response to me, personally, was completely wrong (again).

Plains is correct, I had any number of family and friends who are non residents who hunted here when the hunting was good and welcomed them as well as other non resident hunters.

I agree the small town chambers cashed in. But if you actually understood any of my posts at the time (which clearly you did not), they all had the same theme, opposition to the commercialization of hunting, not non residents, not private land owners.

In my original post, I was merely noting that the small town chambers and businesses that cashed in are now starting to ask why the hunters are not coming back, it had nothing to do with my "concern". They are asking whether the tradeoff for the new tractors is equal to the loss of revenue from hunters.

Again, you missed the point of my original post completely.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

indsport perhaps we need to let people know that the U S Geological Survey does no management or enforcement. They only look for the answers that other agencies request. They are strictly science. Hard to knock pure science. We all have a life after retirement though.

indsport, I'm not the techie you are and just purchased my first smart phone a month ago. One of the first apps I put on the phone was the English Standard Version of the Bible. It's ironic that right now I am reading about the apostle Paul as he goes from city to city speaking in the synagogues. The Jews didn't want people listening to him so they made all kinds of accusations and false statements about him. It didn't matter if they were true they just wanted to create confusion.

What you have posted is of concern to hunters, bird watchers, biologists, any type of outdoor recreationist. However, there are people who don't want anyone listening to you. I'm always amazed at lessons I learn reading the Bible. One that stands out is that the truth does not unite it divides.

If curiosity gets to anyone just use this site: http://www.biblegateway.com/

type in Paul speaking in the synagogues and you will get over 1000 returns

Topical index results 1073 Results
1.ACCUSATION, FALSE » See SPEAKING, EVIL
2.ACCUSATION, FALSE » INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF » Against Paul (Acts 17:7;21:28;24:5,6,13;25:2,7; Romans 3:8)
3.ACCUSATION, FALSE » INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF » Against Paul and Silas (Acts 16:20,21)


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport wrote,



> In my original post, I was merely noting that the small town chambers and businesses that cashed in are now starting to ask why the hunters are not coming back, it had nothing to do with my "concern". They are asking whether the tradeoff for the new tractors is equal to the loss of revenue from hunters.


Really!!! Small town businesses and their chamber of commerce's are now asking if the trade off for the new tractors is worth wondering where the hunters went? Your story line doesn't jibe Thomas. Right now there is a petition being circulated by your people at the wildlfie society and wildlife federation for 5% of the oil revenue to be diverted away from the general treasury and placed into their coffers for conservation. Your opposition is being led by the NORTH DAKOTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

North Dakotans for Commonsense Conservation is a coalition led by the NORTH DAKOTAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Thomas, the ND Chamber is made up of businesses large and small. They are smart enough to know this isn't really about new tractors verses hunting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I think screen names are used for a reason, and people should respect that.


What I see here is a lack of respect for people, and a lack of respect for this site.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

> I think screen names are used for a reason, and people should respect that.


What's the reason?

I do think it is fun for sportsmen or any other group to have a web-forum where they can rib each other, exchange info ideas etc. However, there is a line in the sand when it comes to a person or group of persons who have an agenda. Sometimes that agenda can be to the detriment of another or not mutually beneficial to the State as a whole.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> > I think screen names are used for a reason, and people should respect that.
> 
> 
> What's the reason?
> ...


You can throw as much sand in the air as you want it still remains that you refuse to respect people. All your verbosity above does not hide that. We address you as shaug. Please give others the same consideration. We are not trying to find out what your wifes business is, who your friends are, who would be ticked in your home town etc. Lets stick to the debate and not look for ways to damage those who you can not defeat by reason.


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

These types of threads remind me of a saying I saw a few years ago: "Arguing with people on the internet is a lot like wrestling a pig; you both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it."


----------

