Readers reveal how to replenish Minnesota's pheasant population

The most important move that could be made to improve habitat would be to lobby the Congress to eliminate the ethanol mandate in gasoline. This rule by the federal government has caused corn planting from fence row to fence row — except that there are no fences any more. Politicians talk of "renewables" as if ethanol has some beneficial effect on the environment, but there is no evidence this is true. Such a change would have corn producers clamoring to put land into the Conservation Reserve Program.

Bryan D. Emmel, Virginia, Minn.

• • •

To increase habitat and birds we need to get everyone involved, not just hunters. This can be accomplished by stressing the economic benefits to rural Minnesota. If you add up all the money spent on food, lodging, gas, etc., that comes to all the small towns in pheasant range, it's a big boost. Politicians need to recognize this and encourage more wildlife lands in their area.

Better management of the land we already have is important, too. Some of the public land I hunt hasn't been burned or mowed as long as I can remember. Also, the benefits to water quality, and reduced flooding, from more and better habitat need to be stressed. They are talking about spending $2 billion on a diversion project around Fargo. How many wetlands, to hold back the water, could be restored with a quarter of that money?

Mark Binder, Hutchinson

• • •

I have just recently put 165 acres in Stearns County into the RIM program. In the time it took to get this accomplished (more than 18 months), I could have bought 165 acres from 165 different landowners, drained 100 acres of wetlands legally, and harvested two years of crops! During that time, I lost my tax incentive on a 1031 land exchange, which the government said I had to complete in 180 days while I waited on the government for almost 600 days!

Now the county says I must pay back taxes for basically three years worth of "Green acres" tax breaks I received on the property, which should really be called "black acres," as it is only a tax break if you farm the land, not conserve the land. I was told this was the first RIM contract in Stearns County in over 10 years! With all the headaches I experienced and continue to experience over this process, I can see why people choose not to conserve.

Terry Miller, Stearns County

Focus, and grow support for the habitat

Here are a few ideas:

All conservation organizations, national, state and local, should pool their resources with one clear mission to improve habitat. We need synergy.

Emphasize benefits to general population to improve habitat: water quality, erosion prevention, flood prevention, improved air quality, millions of dollars saved annually fighting floods, improved long-term agriculture due to improved soil quality, improved pollination from bees due to more forbs and flowering plants, improved recreational opportunities. All wildlife would benefit from improved habitat.

Rick Petrekovic, Prior Lake

I am an old curmudgeon just south of 70 and have been in the fields, grasslands and cattails looking for pheasants for the better part of 60 years. We should never give up, but we almost have insurmountable odds in trying to re-establish The Wiley Ringneck in southwestern Minnesota.

1. Habitat, habitat, habitat.

3. Predators have a very easy time today destroying nests; the feral cat is one of the worst.

Dean Shaner, Shakopee

• • •

My view is pretty simple. Do a much better job on improving habitat in our WMAs. Develop a long-term land acquisition plan that creates contiguous wildlife corridors stretching from the Red River Valley thru Minnesota River Valley and into southern Minnesota, with a minimum width of one-quarter mile. Much of the money would come from the legacy funds. Get back into the business of raising some birds yearly to plant in our WMAs as we did back in the '50s. We do this for fish, why can't we do it for pheasants? Less focus on the farmer on improving habitat and more on what conservation groups are doing and can continue to do. Hunters, fishermen, conservationists together, as one, will get the job done.

I started hunting with my dad and friends in the late '50s in western Minnesota. Those are my fondest memories of growing up.

My suggestions:

• Manage state, county and township road rights of ways like they are native prairie lands instead of "golf course fairways."

• Stop the walk-in access program and cons ervation grazing on wildlife management areas immediately.

• Use the money from walk-in access program to buy land, which would be for wildlife and hunters forever.

• We are paying the farmers for the land they supposedly set aside, but often it gets hayed or is unsuitable for wildlife in the first place. I've seen it this year in Kandiyohi, Swift, and Lac qui Parle counties. No winter cover, no feed, no wildlife — it is as simple as that.

Thomas Alfred Hanson, Brooklyn Park

As a very simple and cheap way to increase grassland: Provide public service announcements to remind farmers that a 50-foot buffer strip is required by law around all water bodies, streams and rivers. According to the Star Tribune article, 80 percent of cropland adjacent to water bodies, streams and rivers is out of compliance with the law.

Chris McKenzie, New Hope

• • •

Do more predator control

• Encourage predator reduction through bounty payment.

• Begin an effort to legalize night vision equipment for the purpose of predator control.

• Stop the roadside cutting of grasses on rural roads, and the plowing up of the ditches. Begin a legislative campaign to make it illegal to cut rural road grasses until after Aug. 1.

• Change the mind-set that corn is the only product that can be used for ethanol. Switchgrass, or some other product that is environmentally acceptable, should be promoted to replace corn. The result would be better habitat for ground nesting birds, less chemical run off into our streams, lakes and rivers, and very likely a better cash position for the farmer.

Tom Anderson, Eden Prairie

Minnesota's climate is not too harsh for pheasants if they have food and cover. CRP payments have fallen below rent prices and marginal land can be drained and fertilized to become more productive. Today's farmer is not a steward of the land. Instead it has become a business. A well-subsidized business.

How to fix the problem? Enforce the laws we have. No more farming in the road right-of-ways. Tax land that is improved, drained and irrigated, at a high rate and use that money to acquire and improve existing public land. Limit the use of chemicals. We need some bugs for food, and maybe the honeybees and butterflies can benefit too. And stop cutting down all the trees.

Mikel B. Olson, Breckenridge

To help pheasants (and pheasant hunting) rebound:

• Enforce the ditch law that requires a grass buffer strip on each side of a county ditch. This will create miles of habitat, reduce runoff and improve water quality.

• Actively manage state WMA and federal WPA to maximize the productivity of these existing lands. Too many are overgrown with brush that is not productive for pheasants.

• Continue and expand the walk-in access program. There are some great pieces of habitat in this long overdue program that help contribute to linked blocks of habitat across counties and build on habitat from existing WMA and WPA in the state.

Tim Carlson, Austin

Where there is habitat, there are pheasants. If we felt as strongly about our water supply in this state as we do about ethanol, we would probably not have a pheasant population decline.

But there are more consequences. Chemicals are swept up in the field and carried to our creeks and streams and eventually down the Mississippi and out into the Gulf of Mexico. If we ever plan on cleaning our water supply for our legacy, we must think about changing our farming practices and giving incentive to farmers for saving our sloughs, planting sloughs, and filtering our water as it naturally was meant to be filtered.

John Davis, Eagan

I am 64, so in the early 1960s my father and a few friends went out around Winthrop and we bagged our limit both years. Snow hit in March 1965 and killed most of the pheasants, and it was never the same again. My three boys go out around Ortonville and Benson. And I went with them this year for opening weekend. We hunted hard both days and had two black labs and saw one bird. Driving around a couple hundred miles of cornfields and dirt roads, I noticed farmers landscaping alongside their cornfields. Nice grass like on a golf course. That was never the way it used to be. Pheasants used to hide in the weeds next to the cornfields. If all that area was still brush and weeds, then we would have more pheasants. I am getting too old to tramp around all day and not see one bird.

Jerry Johnson, Fridley

I grew up in the '50s pheasant hunting. I'm 71 and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly on pheasants. This is the ugly time. I went out today on a WMA by Green Isle. Excellent pheasant habitat. Water, CRP, shelter belts, etc. I walked about two miles, and not one pheasant track. My cousin in Sibley County has only 15 acres slough. In 2007 he released 39 birds, and banded them. In 2008 he released pen raised birds again. In 2009 he received a band back that was released in 2007. It was shot near Granite Fall. My point: I think too much is being put on habitat. Don't mistake me from not saying we need more habitat. That should be an ongoing thing. I believe we need to enhance the habitat we do have. Why not some sort of raise-and-release program to reinstate the pheasant to Minnesota again? Minnesota has a lot of service organizations that would help.

Don Smith, Cologne

Also, in Minnesota, I do not see nearly as many shelter belts as I have seen in North Dakota. Could there be a program similar to CRP that pays farmers to divide their fields up with tree shelter belts and leave them for so many years?

Patti Carr, Detroit Lakes