March 21, 1982: What readers think about Pheasants Forever

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. The letters below, published in the same edition, came from reader reaction to the idea.
I am very much interested in a proposal to restore upland bird populations in Minnesota. I support the idea.

Something has to be done if we want to preserve our pheasant population. I can remember not too many years ago when our pheasant hunting compared with South Dakota. The opening of the season was the biggest day of the year.

South Dakota's pheasant project was a very worthy cause, and I supported it. I am sure every hunter in Minnesota would be happy to back a similar program in our state. I haven't hunted pheasants in Minnesota for many years, but would be glad to become affiliated with anything that would help preserve this fine game bird.

JIMMY ROBINSON, Sun City, Ariz.

• • •

As president of the Minnesota Brittany Club, I bump into lots of dog people who in most cases are also avid hunters. Their complaints are common and well documented. Plain and simple poor cover and few birds.

As we all know, hunters aren't the only people who enjoy good bird populations. Many facets of the state's economy would benefit if we had decent bird populations. Money would stay in Minnesota and perhaps a little may even flow in from out of state. As it is now, name five people who bought out-of-state licenses to hunt pheasants in Minnesota. Everyone packs up and heads to South Dakota, Iowa and even North Dakota.

STEVE GELDERMAN, White Bear Lake

• • •

I've hunted pheasants and observed their dependence on climate and habitat in three states over a 16-year period. I've watched their ups and downs and tried to make some sense of the whole thing.

A restoration program is a must. By itself, not mowing roadside ditches certainly improves nesting sucess. But much more is needed, and the secret is year-round cover.

Also a change that could really help Minnesota pheasants would be widespread adoption of minimum tillage agriculture. In this practice, the preceding year's corn or wheat stubble is allowed to stand until spring. The farmer then uses a chisel plow to prepare the ground in the spring and plants the new seed amongst the residue from the preceding year.

When diesel fuel was skyrocketing in price a few years back, I thought we had it made. The less time in a tractor, the more chance a farmer had to make some money. But with the current oil glut, it now looks like business as usual. Too bad for the birds.

I think a combination of a restoration program, minimum tillage and habitat improvement on state lands could have desirable, quickly perceived results. But it won't be simple. Why? Because the Minnesota farmer just doesn't want us out there. On the average the Nebraska and South Dakota farmers are much more tolerant of hunters.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but it's at the core of our dilemma. That's why I only hunt grouse in this state. The hassle with the farmer just isn't worth my time. I pride myself on taking care of the land and other's property. I just wish our fellow hunters did the same, although I shouldn't call many of them hunters --it demeans the term.

WALT BRUNING, Golden Valley

• • •

I think a $5 pheasant stamp is a cheap price to pay to help bring back the ringneck.

RICHARD HUEFFMEIER, Oakdale

• • •

I think a restoration program is a very good idea to save our pheasants. I think we should have a stamp. One costing $5 or $6 would be about right, but it might be better to have a $10 stamp to hurry along the program. But I feel too many hunters might object to that higher fee.

Hope to get his program rolling as soon as possible.

• • •

I sounds great to me, and I'm not a hunter and don't intend to become one.

Habitat preservation would be beneficial to many other species of wildlife at the same time it preserves "target species." This is really what we need: the restoration of at least some wild prairie _ both in terms of vegetation and its wildlife. The natural beauty of our state would be preserved along with quarry for sportsmen.

THOMAS RUUD, St. Paul

• • •

DICK BARBARI, Minneapolis

• • •

I think the restoration idea for pheasants is a very good idea. I think someone should act now.

I would be willing to volunteer my time to help in some way. I think a lot of us "die hard" pheasant hunters would donate much more than five or six dollars to get the pheasant populations back up.

JACK HALLAMEK, Inver Grove Heights

Sportsmen as individuals feel small compared to the problems that face our game birds and animals.

We need to be organized and have organizations such as the DNR and sportsmen's groups to initiate some solutions whether it be by stamps or higher license fees or donated labor from groups to help with these problems.

Any true sportsman should be willing to pay and help in any possible way.

GENE PEDERSON, Stillwater

• • •

The great majority of sportsmen are not farmers or legislators and don't have the individual ability to make direct contributions to improving upland habitat. Collectively, we can. A habitat-improvement program costing the sportsman less than the price of a box of shells is an excellent answer.

If sportmen can work together and implement this, I will purchase my stamp with a smile and a strong hope for the future.

SCOTT DUNHAM, St. Paul

• • •

Great idea! The suggested cost of $5 or $6 for a special stamp is a pittance when related to the overall cost of most hunting trips. I don't believe there is a single sportsman who would squawk at the amount.

JOHN WITTIBSLAGER, Maplewood

• • •

I have long been concerned over the demise of the pheasant from the Minnesota landscape. But the pheasant restoration program idea provides renewed hope.

I think the South Dakota program is a sound one that also can succeed in Minnesota. I can think of no logical reason why we should allow the magnificent game-bird status of the wily "ringneck" to deteriorate any further.

I would like to be involved in any effort to establish a pheasant restoration program in Minnesota. I am confident that by working together we will succeed.

• • •

I'm a frustrated Minnesota bird hunter and would like to be an active participant in an upland bird restoration program. Any effort toward improving this problem -- even if it took several years -- has my full support. Let me know what I can to do further the cause.

DOUGLAS WOOD, Wyoming

• • •

Preserving habitat is the key to saving our birds and all wildlife. When we first moved to Roseville six years ago, I saw many pheasants. Now our park system seems to cater to "recreation" rather than wildlife protection.

HELEN BANKOS, Roseville

• • •

The time is now.

The idea of a program for the upland game bird has been on my mind and the minds of pheasant hunters in this state for some time. I do a lot of over-the-road driving throughout southern Minnesota and I'm sorry to say the few birds that I do see look like they're having a hard time finding food and cover.

The upland bird restoration idea has my support and I think the support of sportsmen everywhere.

• • •

The time is now to do something about the birds.

I am 33 years old and have hunted all my life. I'll never forget the thrill of those western Minnesota pheasant hunts with my father. I'd like to provide the same for my sons.

The restoration idea is excellent. I think Minnesota farmers are not indifferent to the plight of our birds. But like so many other things in our world, economics rules.

The sportsmen are willing to pay extra in a state license tax but, in the present financial condition of our state, I have my doubts if the Legislature will act. It's worth a try, though. Or perhaps we could form a citizens group like Ducks Unlimited.

• • •

As a sportsman and a person who works on a farm, I think the upland bird restoration idea is a very good one. I think the Legislature should adopt a bill to have a pheasant stamp in Minnesota.

I think if the DNR would get something going like they have in South Dakota, it would work.

ROBERT PIETROWSKI, Jackson

• • •

A lot of us down here in Rochester are behind the idea.

GINNY TOSTENSON, Rochester

• • •

Super idea! I am confident that a large number of sportsmen and landowners will be eager to make significant contributions of both time and money to this cause. There is more to being a sportsmen than simply buying a license.

HANK O'LEARY, Apple Valley

I am all in favor of a pheasant stamp. It should be a $10 stamp with a great majority of the funds going to the farmers since they are the prime holders of pheasant habitat.

I have talked with many farmers whose land I hunt and their biggest concern is the taxes they pay on slough land. To eliminate these taxes would be one step toward restoration.

To pay $10 for a stamp is nothing to a real pheasant hunter! To a one-weekend a year hunter it might seem like a lot, but those once-a-year hunters aren't out putting up feeders in the dead of winter like farmers and real pheasant hunters do.

I'm sure the sportsmen's club I belong to would be happy to contribute to a pheasant restoration fund when it is founded.

LARRY SCHOENECKER, New Prague

I feel most farmers would be more than willing to set aside an acre or two of land that would provide habitat for wildlife if there was some incentive for them to do it.

The reason ditches are being farmed and drainage ditches being drained is because the farmer needs the added income to pay for his ever-increasing operating costs. Somehow the farmer would have to be compensated for his agreement not to drain his slough land.