Ideas??

0

0fer2

New member
Hi all

A lot of discussion about the future of wild pheasant hunting and the loss of grasslands-native and crp planted habitat to the plow.

We all know what the ag boom is doing.

So how about talking about solutions to save habitat, permanently, for EVERYONE to use and enjoy whether you hunt or hike.

Please do not not use this opportunity to just spew-there is no shortage of spewing online. How about ideas and solutions-from landowners who farm, raise cattle, residents, non residents?

Some ideas from me:

Form a new group to push for changes. The traditional ones DO NOT use their collective voices to push back fearlessly on development-the real culprit. The group should include farmers and cattlemen along with folks who appreciate and treasure the grasslands for what they are and what they give us. Many have the knowledge and experience to help, and the real role in subsidies-how they help and why, and how they are abused and why.

We MUST change the culture that the land and water is something for instant gratification.

We do want to be able to make a difference-don't we?

Dan

Please please please no rants and spewing here. Ideas are welcome! Creativity and outside the box! Woo hoo
 
spent the last 20 years in a few counties in SD...know the people real well...problem is I don't think many of them are that concerned about this...they are concerned about land prices, cash rent prices, input costs, crop prices, beef prices, etc. Not all of them, but most. I bought ground in 2000 and enrolled it in WRP...a permanent conservation easement, and got flak for that from some of the locals...I just took ground out of production forever, they tell me...yes, I did...anyway, if I won the lottery, I would buy land on the prairie and protect it. Not smart enough to come up with much else!
 
Ofer2, first of all getting idea generation means getting most visibility you can and seeing that this topic is not South Dakota specific I would see about having a moderator move this to the main pheasant forum where it will get more eyes and hopefully more input than putting it in a state forum.
 
Thanks OFER,

Here in Michigan our biggest issue is lack of good, sizeable nesting cover. In the agricultural southern 1/3 of the state, where the main pheasant range is, there are pockets of state land available to be managed for grassland wildlife. Much of the state land is un-managed for habitat and harbors deer, turkey, and fur-bearers. As an upland hunter I would have absolutely no problem if we were required to purchase a $50 or $100 upland habitat stamp IF the funds were guaranteed to go toward grassland habitat management of these state lands that are open to public hunting. Big Ag is here to stay so using resources available (current holdings of state land) combined with new revenue to facilitate habitat management for upland species, along with offering bounties to keep fur-bearing critters in check might be a reasonable compromise in the 21st century.

I'm afraid as upland hunters, we'll get what we're willing to pay for.

Frank
 
Chris-I guess if the moderator agrees, that for increased visibility to generate discussion on this thread, to move it to the main forum I am OK with that.

Frank and Benelli

Well BB don't sell yourself short. You were smart enough to control your own destiny in buying land when it was more affordable, and you did a great thing by putting it in a perpetual conservation easement.

The ag boom of course has generated fortune seekers and easy money to trash the land, and the reality is the the lure of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ however and wherever it flows is what wildlands are up against. Frank, my first thoughts to a surcharge on hunting licenses to buy grasslands is interesting. My own idea would be a onetime fee assessed to the corporate producers and big ag-Monsanto-Dow-Dupont Cargill-ADM JD-Cat etc. They put out these distracting ads showing how farmers are the original environmentalists, stewards of the land, less carbon foot print etc etc etc. I would rather have them put their money where their mouth is and do the right thing buy buying (and put into public hands) wild lands and grasslands.

Dan
 
it really is all about money....to get some permanent land set aside for grassland habitat and public use would take a lot of dollars...from a lot of people, land cost being what it is today...I just don't see that happening, most guys would rather pay to hunt wild birds each season they go...price of land has killed most options to do this........just sayin.
 
dollars

for one, dollars sure do talk and for sure there are not enough of them, how can you get them besides donating to groups such as pheasant forever. i think for the most part hunters don't belong to very many if any groups. as a start, the state law makers would be a place and they could ensure that the crp when planted be maintained and the mix of grass changed to provide a food source other than some bugs early in the year. the other major idea i have (howls) in the radical change in the fee structure that we currently have. i have an instate lic. and it is way too cheap. if i play golf one afternoon and walk, it is more than my small game lic. yet that lic. allows me in the field doz. and doz. of days and for me is is maybe as little as a dollar a day,, same thing with my kansas lic. sure it runs about $75 dollars and it works out to about $2 or less a day in the field. don't make sense to me. however if one were to take a poll, most so called hunters would tell you they were already being gouged, so there ya have it. the idiots in colorado have it so that i don't have to even buy a fishing lic cause i am too damn old so therefore i can murder fish about 365 days a year for nothing, yet the state always as too few dollars to run a good program. so for a starter, example kansas, could raise their fees say $50 and using a stipulations that earmarks that money for the field and not new trucks and administration or maybe hand the money over to groups like pheasants forever etc that have real programs in place that mostly are effective but short of funds. anyway, gotta start someplace and being kinda free is just going to get you where we already are, bitching about the conditions and spending too much time on this forum for gosh sakes

cheers
 
Mustistuff,

I agree with you. Somebody posted on another thread that $25 or $50 to PF isn't going to cut it. He's right - I think we all need to do more. Our resident licenses in Michigan are very low as well. But if the DNR GUARANTEED that addition funding charged to create and manage grassland habitat truly went toward that, I (and I am sure most other bird hunters) would support it wholeheartedly - especially if it was on huntable public land. I think Minnesota had a habitat stamp program back when PF was first formed that was quite successful, perhaps it can be looked upon as a great example of what can happen with a cooperative effort among organizations like PF, DU, and state DNR's.

I'm depressed about the state of affairs now and how great things "used to be." Things can and do change though...

Frank
 
Get Pheasants Forever to persuade farmers to put in shelter belts in their new (and old) fields.
 
BritChaser said:
Get Pheasants Forever to persuade farmers to put in shelter belts in their new (and old) fields.
Click to expand...

They have spent almost 75 years to get rid of the ones they have! They have been subsidized by the government to do it. Either with tax depreciation, and coop to "improve" the ground. Are we going to pay them again? All agriculture programs are temporary, based on the whims of the agricultural lobby. The rank and file have little use for it, or no nothing about it.....now when the farm bill increases the cost of milk and bread, they become interested.....as far as wildlife, they read about in the history books, and are glad to be out of the hot sun, and away from the ticks and mosquito's. So far, the current agricultural system has not, destroyed the potable water in the country, has not made the land so sterile that crops won't grow, and last but not least, we have not made food so expensive, that we have food riots. As a species, we have to bottom out, before there is any indication, that we might save us and our wildlife. Some people were sorry the Pony Express was supplanted by the railroad, as were the farrier because the automobile, as was the market hunter who presided over the buffalo near extinction. Well the horses survived, the buffalo too, sort of. Pony Express as a museum exhibit. Point is they were small groups, like hunters, who's lifestyle were sacrificed for a "common" advancement, transportation in this case, could we make a parallel to the advancement we hear the ag experts talk about, how bout the gas energy corporations? We need to make wildlife and hunting, a focus visible on front window, and discussed around the dinner table, for a lot of American's. Only thing that will stop it, is a climatological disaster. To stop it. Earthquake from fracking, poison water which is a constant threat to a large population, a dust bowl, for a period of years, thaw the polar caps. We might listen to that, the dead zone in the gulf, doesn't impress us much, about like the pheasants, quail, one bird at a time, here and there. A cover bulldozed out, a prairie tilled, a tiled waterway, a clear creek muddied to a waste water canal. A little gash here, a little gash there, neither one a catastrophe, all together a relentless assault on what we used to have. It will take person on person persuasion, like a traveling minister, to win the war. Any help by the politico's would help. I believe the constant failing of all our conservation organization are to broaden the reach, make every citizen a combatant to save the character of the country we remember. New blood, new energy, otherwise we drift away.
 
Brit chaser I think you are right, it is a shame we can not get some well know star, like some country western performer who is a hunter to speak out for us, I don't know if it would help or not just an idea, and if you could convince him/her to a charity riser for habitat, money goining to pheasnts forever or to help buy land. I would give pheasants forever $1000. to help buy land with the agreement that only people who domnated money at this level or above could hunt the land they perchased through the funds. I don't know.
 
mustistuff said:
for one, dollars sure do talk and for sure there are not enough of them, how can you get them besides donating to groups such as pheasant forever. i think for the most part hunters don't belong to very many if any groups. as a start, the state law makers would be a place and they could ensure that the crp when planted be maintained and the mix of grass changed to provide a food source other than some bugs early in the year. the other major idea i have (howls) in the radical change in the fee structure that we currently have. i have an instate lic. and it is way too cheap. if i play golf one afternoon and walk, it is more than my small game lic. yet that lic. allows me in the field doz. and doz. of days and for me is is maybe as little as a dollar a day,, same thing with my kansas lic. sure it runs about $75 dollars and it works out to about $2 or less a day in the field. don't make sense to me. however if one were to take a poll, most so called hunters would tell you they were already being gouged, so there ya have it. the idiots in colorado have it so that i don't have to even buy a fishing lic cause i am too damn old so therefore i can murder fish about 365 days a year for nothing, yet the state always as too few dollars to run a good program. so for a starter, example kansas, could raise their fees say $50 and using a stipulations that earmarks that money for the field and not new trucks and administration or maybe hand the money over to groups like pheasants forever etc that have real programs in place that mostly are effective but short of funds. anyway, gotta start someplace and being kinda free is just going to get you where we already are, bitching about the conditions and spending too much time on this forum for gosh sakes

cheers
Click to expand...

Amen Mustistuff! Colorado used to charge $20 Walk In Hunting stamp fee which would help the state lease up more land for pheasant and quail hunting. After a few years they axed the stamp away and now the walk in areas of eastern Colorado are a lot like there trout streams. Over crowded and full of unethical jacka$$8$. People must have been complaining about the really expensive $20 stamp. Is there anyone on this site that would mind paying an additional $20 for a license in any state (SD,ND,KS,NE,CO,MT) if you knew that the money was going dirtectly to conservation? I hope not.
 
They Axed the stamp because they received a huge grant from the feds. They couldn't have both!! Being so close to a major human population , walk- ins sometimes do not have a chance as armies of people descend upon them! Cover in most , is marginal at best. Smart with the money you have ,which now is probably going to bail out Parks since they merged. Even the Division employee's are pissed at that move. Not supposed to use wildlife dollars, but we all know how cooking the books can work. I think with all the extra taxes that sportsman have to pay too play is plenty. Let's look at where all that money goes and then see how much land they could lease or buy. If you keep wanting to jack the price up for licenses they will keep spending your money and you won't notice much difference in land to hunt. Some people seem to make 10 dollars go further then some people do with 1000 dollars!!!!!
 
BleuBijou said:
They Axed the stamp because they received a huge grant from the feds. They couldn't have both!! Being so close to a major human population , walk- ins sometimes do not have a chance as armies of people descend upon them! Cover in most , is marginal at best. Smart with the money you have ,which now is probably going to bail out Parks since they merged. Even the Division employee's are pissed at that move. Not supposed to use wildlife dollars, but we all know how cooking the books can work. I think with all the extra taxes that sportsman have to pay too play is plenty. Let's look at where all that money goes and then see how much land they could lease or buy. If you keep wanting to jack the price up for licenses they will keep spending your money and you won't notice much difference in land to hunt. Some people seem to make 10 dollars go further then some people do with 1000 dollars!!!!!
Click to expand...

BleuBijou, Maybe this is a stupid question but why couldn't they get the grant and charge for the walk in stamp?
 
0fer2 said:
Hi all

A lot of discussion about the future of wild pheasant hunting and the loss of grasslands-native and crp planted habitat to the plow.

We all know what the ag boom is doing.

So how about talking about solutions to save habitat, permanently, for EVERYONE to use and enjoy whether you hunt or hike. ...
Click to expand...


Lower expectations and understand change; accept the cyclical nature of gov't. programs and Public will; concentrate on water, both in quality and quantity; focus less on a game bird specie and more on species, game and not and, view acreage based less on any habitat and more on the diversity of habitats....especially those native to a region.
 
Im not sure if this is the same as what Bleu is talking about. But kansas walkin is funded by pittman roberts funds
Fedaral tax on firearms, ammuntions, Hunting and shooting related.

It Is then divied up based on area, license sales and population
So taxing someone and then telling them they have to pay again for access goes against why it was founded.

The only way I know to work within the system is to increase license sales. We pull like 8 million off of 125 thousand licenses.
So really your trippling your money? Wife, girlfriend, mother in law.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but everytime the topic comes up I look it over and come up with the same thing.:cheers:
 
money

BrownDogsCan2 said:
Im not sure if this is the same as what Bleu is talking about. But kansas walkin is funded by pittman roberts funds
Fedaral tax on firearms, ammuntions, Hunting and shooting related.

It Is then divied up based on area, license sales and population
So taxing someone and then telling them they have to pay again for access goes against why it was founded.

The only way I know to work within the system is to increase license sales. We pull like 8 million off of 125 thousand licenses.
So really your trippling your money? Wife, girlfriend, mother in law.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong but everytime the topic comes up I look it over and come up with the same thing.:cheers:
Click to expand...


what you are saying might be true, however for the most part those of us that hunt say, kansas, the land is there through several programs, what we need on that land and maybe other lands is improvement to the land/habitat, and i don't think that is the same as what you are stating. whether it is though groups such as pheasants forever or habit stamps that are earmarked for shelter and or feed is what is needed/ anyway

cheers
 
The government can't compete with crop prices by paying farmers to keep habitat intact. It'd cost way too much money. Look at CRP enrollment this year. My only (small) idea is to offer to take the farmers' kids out hunting with you wherever you go hunting. It seems that younger generations of farmers don't hunt as much as the older generations. Why would a farmer protect wildlife if its not important to him and he could make more money by farming every inch? Help turn the future farmers into hunters.
 
kids

this is just a guess but i'll bet that the average age of our current batch of farmers are way too old to have kids to go hunting, surely some do, i'll bet that most young farmers couldn't find the money to have both land and kids too. but it is of course a thought

cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top