Pitman-Robertson funds are funds delegated to the states from a tax on hunting equipment. These funds are portioned back to the states based on a matrix that considers population, state acreage, license sales and a number of other things. Federal law requires that these funds be spent on wildlife management and those expenditures are audited by the USFWS. On lands that are purchased using PR $, any income is considered "Program Income" and must be offset by the same $ being removed from the state apportionment. The feds have set parameters that control how those funds are spent and every $ is coded within codes that reflect what species or habitat was benefitted by the work or expenditure that was made.
Now consider a stocking program. I do not know how that is perceived in the federal system, so I won't discuss that. However, any pen-reared release system is subject to the same "natural" losses as any other. In almost every research study that has been done the mortality of pen-reared birds is 90-95% in 30-90 days. That being said, it is most efficient to release the birds as close to the hunt as possible. To release the birds very long in advance, the losses are so great that the cost of birds in the bag would exceed the $40 of the stamp. Further, the research done on pen-reared release over the past 100+ years has concluded that there is a very minute chance that released birds survive to add to the following year's production. Too many of the things we "CALL" instinct are actually "LEARNED" from the hen.
You mention crops being harvested on the areas where birds are stocked. I don't know how that is being looked at by the local manager, but food stocks in bird season are far too late to be important for "producing" birds. They may well aid in bird survival or even bird harvest, but by the time those food crops have matured, production has ceased. If you critically evaluate wildlife areas as to their production capability, what is generally missing is nesting and brood-rearing habitat. I work in Kansas and know from experience that plant succession is a bigger problem the further east you are. Plant succession is a function of moisture to a large extent and the greater the growth potential, the harder it is to stay ahead of woody invasion. When we all burned wood, it was easier. When prescribed and wild fires were more frequent, it was easier. When the woody seed stock was less, it was easier. Unfortunately, we are a victim of our predecessors on many of these properties. When they were purchased, many were either bare or fairly naked as plant stock was concerned. Early managers planted them with a mixture of annual, perennial, and woody plantings trying to manage them for a multi-species wildlife mix. Unfortunately, those plantings were successful beyond their originators dreams. The plant communities on many of those areas ( the riparian oriented ones evolved faster and further) has now far exceeded the adaptive niche for upland birds. Unfortunately too, IF ground is cleared of woody cover, it is often put into ag production which again is less "productive" for upland game production if not done properly.
Finally, Pheasants Forever is not in the business of working with put and take release systems. They are charged with managing their money and time to improve the potential of naturally producing "wild" populations. As hunters, you need to educate yourselves as to what pheasants and quail need as habitat to maintain wild populations and focus any work or spending on improving those habitats. The LAST habitat type you should be spending valuable time and money on is food plots! You can't feed them if you haven't first nested, hatched, and brooded them!!! Habitat can be managed forever! Released birds are on the clock from the minute they are put in the crate!
Trust the dog!
Troy Smith
UPH Guru
[/IMG]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks