Editor's note: In 1982, Dennis Anderson, writing for the St. Paul Pioneer Press, produced a series of columns about the plight of Minnesota pheasants. In one, dated March 21, 1982, he founded Pheasants Forever. That column is below. Also available at startribune.com/outdoors is reader reaction to the idea published in the same edition, and a column from June 27, 1982, following up on the naming of a founding board of directors. Both columns appear here and on startribune.com with permission of the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
A lot has happened since I wrote two weeks ago about the need for a Minnesota upland bird restoration program.
First and foremost, I discovered many Minnesotans agree such a program is needed and needed now, before birds, and particularly pheasants, disappear. More than 100 letters (names of writers appear at the bottom of this page) and half that many phone calls were proof of that.
All who wrote or called favor a program to help birds, and the vast majority favor the plan I outlined. Briefly, it calls for a new state upland bird stamp to be required of hunters, the funds from which would be used for the benefit of quail, pheasants, partridge and grouse. Habitat development would be the plan's keystone, but restocking and predator control also would play roles. In those respects, the program would resemble one begun in South Dakota five years ago.
Key points made in the letters I received were:
• Upland birds, particularly pheasants, are declining in number. Further, diminishing habitat is to blame.
• Nearly all agree a pheasant stamp is the way to go, but only if funds are dedicated to the Minnesota DNR for the exclusive benefit of upland birds.
• Nearly all agree farmers must be provided with an incentive to spare or develop sheltered areas. In most instances, this would be in the form of money provided by upland bird stamps. Farmers and other landowners would be paid on a per-acre basis to provide habitat, which could be further developed by the DNR. (Most of this property would be marginal as cropland.)
To be honest, I wasn't sure of the response I'd get to the proposal. I knew many people were concerned about Minnesota's loss of birds and bird habitat, but I wasn't sure how many, if any, were willing to work toward solving the problem.