Printable View
I totally disagree with the lack of habitat theory. The habitat needs to be improved but the areas I hunt are more than suitable. If we had a similliar program as pheasants for ever or quail forever with the co-operation of local farmers it could work. The program needs to be Canadian base not a U.S.A program.
There`s plenty of wild Huns in Manitoba and Sask. They have thrived very well for almost a century. There was a population on the east side of Simcoe , for years. Haven't heard of any for years. My point is, there is wild stock out there. They do like open space though , which could be an issue , in Ontario.
Over the years I have spoken with quite a few farmers to see if they would be willing to let their parts of their farms go back to the "wild " to support wildlife ie. birds , with support from the Gov. if possible .Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
All of them said in pretty well these words " are you nuts " after all the money and time put into drainage of our land to make it more productive, we would certainly not even think about it .
Don't forget, farms around here are mostly 100 to 200 acres they are not the 1000 plus acre farms that are out west which even out there a lot of farmers are not willing to take land out of production.
So we are back to the same thing , no habitat and lots of it , equals no birds.
In Lambton Co.?Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
The fact is that pheasants require substantial areas of open, undisturbed grassland for successful nesting. They cannot use hedgerows, field edges, crop fields, woodlots, or hayfields that get mowed before the chicks are reared, etc. So the habitat that actually exists in southern Ontario is not what pheasants need to survive. This is one important reason that our pheasants disappeared in the first place.
As jaycee points out, most of the land is not only private but is farmland, and the people working it are generally not amenable to taking big chunks of land out of production.
The birds that are doing well on our landscape at present -- wild turkeys -- are those that can use the habitat that we have, i.e. woodlots with mature trees. Grouse, which require young forests, are all but absent from the south west. Likewise most other upland birds. The best hunting we have is for woodcock, and that's at its best when birds from up north are passing through. This part of the country sucks for bird habitat.
I am coming across small pockets of pheasant in the areas i hunt. The main reason is what you have written welsh. A fellow co worker has been doing this gradually on some of his property that i hunt on with promising results. His family owns thousands of acres but his day job is a land use planner. Not all areas in Lambton County is flatter than a pancake some areas have rolling hills with native grassland pockets. Lots of potential and some low key people doing good things.
You are right in the sense that we have lots of spots the look like they should hold birds, but as you say they are pockets. We do not have enough contiguous cover of this type. In the case of pheasants, the best habitat we had to offer was selected for the re-introduction pilot project almost a decade ago in the Aylmer District. A lot was learned from that study, including that a lack of suitable habitat was a major factor in mortality through predation.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
As Welsh has said, our existing landscape and farming practices are well-suited to the needs of wild turkeys and as a result they have thrived without the need for any significant habitat improvement work. But habitat for wild grassland birds like Huns, quail or pheasants goes against the grain of the economics of our current land use practices.
As for government programs, a great model might be the long-standing U.S. Federal CRP program, but I hear that one is facing ever increasing budget troubles. Something similar called ALUS was tried as a pilot in Ontario a few years ago, but I have not heard much of it lately.
Aside from lack of funds in Ontario, successive Provincial governments have created a climate where those who make their living off the land distrust government when it comes to natural habitat. Well-meaning policies that designate things like Provincially Significant Wetlands and Species at Risk have resulted in such habitats being a liability for farmers rather than an asset.
Instead of rewarding farmers in a meaningful way for preserving natural areas for the benefit of the ecosystem and for all of society, the government effectively penalizes farmers through land use restrictions (e.g. a farmer who wants to build a new storage barn in his existing cornfield, but within 30 metres of a Significant Woodlot, is required to first retain a consultant to undertake a 4-season environmental impact study). The last thing a farmer wants to hear these days is somebody from the Province or an organization like Pheasants Forever tell him that part of his farm contains significant tall grass prairie habitat worthy of protecting. Sad but true.
First of all are we talking about huns, pheasants or quail?Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
I agree with YD. I live in Lambton county as well and I know several places where I believe coveys of quail could be established and do well. But it would just be a covey here and a covey there and I do not think we could get a huntable population with the current habitat but there is enough to get some covey's established. I say we couldn't get a huntable population because sooner or later someone is going to come in and shoot the whole covey out and they wouldn't recover. For any of this to work you would have to start with a closed season and then maybe have a 2 or 3 week season in the future. Any upland game we could get established would probably not survive hunting pressure through all Oct, Nov and December due to the limits the current habitat put on the population.
There was an attempt at pheasant reintroduction in Lambton county some years ago and the main reason it didn't succeed wasn't the habitat issue.
I am talking pheasants and quail. Personally I would be happy with pockets of both species in designated areas that I am familiar with that hold small pockets of pheasant. Signage would have to be posted indicating or explaining the project to prevent people from hunting these areas. Even if these small pockets expanded to other areas over time at least its better than what we have now. For me knowing these areas i hunt could eventually hold more birds is a reward in itself even if i never shoot one. I would rather focus on the positive potential than all the negative reasons why it wouldn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
Really depends on the farmers you speak to.Most of my family were farmers and had hog operations and cash crop farming. Because they farmed 150 acres to 300 they would not be interested because of the small scale farming they do. One of my co workers family and extended family owns close to 6,000 acres in Lambton County . Some of the acreage could be used for habitat improvement if they were persuaded and i think it is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
This is another part of the puzzle, one that people really don't want to acknowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla
I have old copies of OOD from the 1980s talking about how elk reintroduction was going. And when did we finally get an elk season? Similarly, turkeys remained closed for years until a population was established. Re-establishing pheasants, huns, and so on would require closing the season on these birds in the areas they were reintroduced. And shooting hens, with pheasants, would have to go.
I don't have the report with me because I'm on the road, but I believe habitat was identified as the major problem. Pockets of habitat leave animals vulnerable, and there is simply not enough contiguous and connected habitat to get the birds established. This is also the problem with grouse down south: there are good woodlots here and there, but they are small and not connected to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakezilla