Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: Pheasants Forever- SCAM or do they help upland hunters?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Central, KS
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Just looked at the leadership of PF -- here's problem # 1001 with them - the Chairman owns a commercial hunting operation in SD - No way in hell a guy running that type of business is going to approach PF with the perspective most of his membership and prospective members will share.

    http://www.southdakota.com/local/316...easant-fields/
    https://www.ammoland.com/2010/07/kes...#axzz66V5GJbxZ

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KsHusker View Post
    (PS -- Also Matto - I dont think ... at least I'm not calling for folks that accept habitat improvements from PF chapters being forced to open up their lands to public hunting - but what my opinion is - is that rather than develop habitat that will likely only be enjoyed by a family or one person or even a hunting business - it makes more sense to throw those resources to developing lands/habitat that will be enjoyed by the masses rather than a select few....I think based on the comments above it would get more buy in -- Or rather than habitat improvements - spend the money on lobbying to expand the CP33 or CRP programs and work with the ag industry to educate them on the advantages of farming for upland birds in mind rather than deer or spraying so many chemicals nary a roundup resistant plant will survive.)
    I think what you've written above about access and habitat projects is pretty safe common ground--if I'm interpreting it correctly. Chapters should prioritize projects on publicly owned lands and WIHA lands before funding projects behind "posted" signs. That seems like a pretty reasonable position. My point is that I think they have more money for habitat projects than they have landowners willing to complete one, but that's just an assumption. That's why they end up funding R3 projects and buying food plot seed. I think they're raising more money than the cooperative landowners want.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    South Central, KS
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matto View Post
    I'm just pointing out that your belief that PF somehow helped or funded habitat work on that particular piece of ground is only an assumption. They sell those signs in the online store. 4-5 years ago I convinced our tenant to let our wheat ground go unsprayed after harvest. He was little reluctant, but he did it. About the first of august he called positively apoplectic about the weeds that grew up. It was chest high with sunflower, kochia, and all the stuff I love to see. He was worried about what the neighbors would think. Worried about kochia and tumbleweeds breaking off and blowing onto the neighboring fields spreading weed seed. Worried about replenishing the seed bank in the soil that he thought was pretty depleted (evidently not). etc. These are all legitimate concerns.

    .......so that his neighbors wouldn't think that he was a lazy or stupid farmer. He actually used those words.

    Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

    I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

    I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KsHusker View Post
    Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

    I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

    I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.
    This is a long way from PF and how they spend their money, but here goes...

    Good friend of mine once said that the easiest things to do were raise someone else's kids and run someone else's business.

    One piece of advice on this subject--stop using the word "fix" or any other language that implies you're right and they're wrong. That's not going to get you anywhere unless/until you've attempted to provide for your family by raising crops.

    I'm not going to try to "fix" our tenant's opinions or mindset. I don't think his mindset is broken. He and I just have different objectives, to some degree. Nor do I have the credibility with him or the knowledge base to believe that I know better than him.

    I'm not sure pheasants can thrive on a landscape dominated by the ag practices necessary for a producer to maximize income. You seem to believe there are alternative ag practices that could break that paradigm. Maybe you're right, but the choices are either to prove it yourself or convince someone to gamble their own livelihood on it. The latter option being what you described as "fixing" a farmer's mindset.

    The best fix is to create markets and structures where hunting for truly wild game birds has meaningful economic value to landowners and producers. IE, where a landowner/producer can monetize practices that favor wild birds.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KsHusker View Post
    Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

    I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

    I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.
    "this collective thread is an Atomic CAN of Worms.... "


    a couple of FACTS to insert, Pheasant Forever is a much newer organization but has affected 158,000 acres of habitat in the US to date. SECONDLY the amount of money that GOES to Mission is 91 % of what is RAISED. That money is used in accordance with Local chapter discretion. For instance in Montana there is over 5000 acres of public hunting purchased by partners including local PF chapters ... , managed by fish and wildlife dept.

    there are other good habitat organizations, but you might check to see what percentage does land in the ground locally?

    Lastly, if we don't support some grass roots organizations, in conjunction with the AG. community, and affect youth, where do our youth of the future learn about wildlife, and public hunting?

    I would support a better idea , what might that look like?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    NW Iowa
    Posts
    17

    Default

    PF I consider to be first, a habitat organization. They give a lot of their time and money to habitat projects. These projects are hopefully creating habitat that will be benefitial to pheasants (and other wildlife) and through these efforts, raise the bird populations....these populations will move and extend beyond the individual projects.

    I don't think their main focus is on trying to create public access to ground. In many areas (Iowa), it is not financially feasible to purchase land for public hunting, but local chapters partner with other PF chapters and organizations to make land purchases happen where and when it is financial feasible, which isn't in my location....and I am fine with this. PF is one of the few organizations that I support. Food plot seed is a great use for funds, these plots provide easy access to food for birds in the winter months. If it weren't for the prviate land owners creating habitat who would be doing it? You should be thankful to private land owner who do this, even if they don't allow hunting or hunters....we want birds and without habitat there won't be many.

    Maybe In Kansas, the land is too expensive or the chapters don't get the financial support needed to be able to make a difference. With the attitude of many here, it doesn't seem that it is likely to change any time soon. If you enjoy pheasant hunting, support an organization that is also helping support this....who will that be???? If you are here and ripping on PF, get out there and try making a difference on your own. Rant over.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Kansas
    Posts
    4,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matto View Post
    I'm just pointing out that your belief that PF somehow helped or funded habitat work on that particular piece of ground is only an assumption.
    The sign said the habitat was provided with the assistance of PF. PF is extensively involved in materially helping landowners develop habitat. Moreover, when I inquired of PF about it, it defended its actions as I pointed out in my post. I made no assumptions.
    Last edited by BritChaser; 11-27-2019 at 04:43 PM.
    - From the office of Colt, Stoeger, Browning & Savage
    - Kansas: Big Cock Country

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    summit county colorado
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KsHusker View Post
    Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

    I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

    I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.
    Farmers have hated weeds well before the current technologies were invented. When farmers found there were ways to do it easier and faster you couldn't stop them from adopting it. What you fail to consider is that farmers can cover a lot more acres that way. I know of a number of guys that obtain high yields and good profits while covering around 2000 acres with just a little part time help. That allows them a good income while the dude with a half section and "the old ways" can qualify for food stamps.

    If your not happy with what your QF chapter is doing, get off your butt and work with them to make some of the things you think are valuable happen. That will make a lot more happen than bitching on the internet.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Ultimately if habitat is being created it is a good thing regardless of whether or not it is accessible by all. These groups provide more then just habitat work, they lobby for better farm Bill's, anti hunting etc. Being in the natural resources profession I can see both sides of this arguement and understand the concerns "scamming" members. Is "scamming" to strong of a word, I think it depends on the organization. When more dollars are being spent on overhead then work on the ground, then it does become a problem.
    River - 3 yr old English Setter
    http://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigr...&generations=5
    Bella - 5 yr old Brittany
    http://gundogcentral.com/view_pedigr...&generations=5
    Ellie - 6 yr old Yellow Lab
    Jazi - 12/30/2005 -- 10/13/2017
    Kaci - 3/23/01 - -10/8/15

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    NW Iowa
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KsHusker View Post
    Just looked at the leadership of PF -- here's problem # 1001 with them - the Chairman owns a commercial hunting operation in SD - No way in hell a guy running that type of business is going to approach PF with the perspective most of his membership and prospective members will share.

    http://www.southdakota.com/local/316...easant-fields/
    https://www.ammoland.com/2010/07/kes...#axzz66V5GJbxZ
    Yah, I just read the short article about him in the link. What in the heck could a guy like that offer PF???? So you have a problem with a guy with a great business ownership back ground and worked the SD Parks Dept for almost 2 decades? Just because he has a side business hosting guests to hunt pheasants in SD? So he's retired and enjoying sharing and spending time (and heaven forbid, maybe make a little profit) with like minded hunters.

    I am VERY new here and this thread and the negativity to PF from supposed pheasanting enthusiasts is embarrassing.

    Go to a banquest, meet the local directors of your chapter and see what they do locally. These guys get the youth involved with hunter saftey and actual pheasant hunts in the chapter I attend, that must be a bad thing too? They contriubute money to lobby for more CRP acres, give money on top of the governemnt payments as an exra incentive for farmers to add filter strips to waterways....fricking scammers. These guys are a lot of the reason you see farmers put in food plots, leave a corner unfarner or add windbreaks. If your chapter isn't doing similar things, get off your cans and get involved and get things working to improve habitat. If you don't have a local chapter or haven't been to a meeting lately, stop bitchin cause you have no clue about it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •