Ideas to get more habitat

C

captaincoot

Banned
I farm and I think it would be cool if farmers would take maybe one acre in the corner of there farm and make some sort of habitat out of it. If neighbors would get together you would have four acres in a corner if all particapated. I know of alot of half acre patches that hold alot of wildlife so this idea would probability help. Maybe they sould make this mandatory to be in the farm program farmers need to do there part and not just plow from fence row to fence row. Just my idea what you think and what ideas do you all have. We can always dream.:)
 
Good idea for sure. But you know, don't be to hard on the farmers. Most all of the surviving pheasants this year will have likely been helped one way or another by some sort of agriculture.
 
One thing I have seen done and it worked quite well. Only it does cost the farmer some money in lost crop. When plowing and planting leave/add about 5-10 feet more than normal on each side of that fence row. Make it a double wide buffer zone. It is surprising what a small strip like that can do for the birds and hunting.........Bob
 
bobeyerite said:
When plowing and planting leave/add about 5-10 feet more than normal on each side of that fence row.
Click to expand...

Fence row, what is a fence row? You need to vistit Iowa and SE South Dakota. Fence rows are few and far between.
 
Ok, Moeller, just leave a buffer strip 10 feet or so wide. That is what the farmers here do, we don't have many fence rows either........Bob
 
Lets be realistic about this guys. I am all for increasing pheasant habitat. But what you are suggesting is asking a lot from producers and I do not blame them one bit for not leaving sections of field un-farmed as long as it is tillable. If I farmed a 1/4 sections and left 10 feet of buffer in between my self and the neighbor I am leaving over an acre of ground un-productive. An acre of ground left un-farmed is $500 not earned, minus seed costs. Leaving a corner of a field not farmed or having a wide field boarder is not realistic. My outlaws who I work with farm 10 1/4 sections. Donating $5000 to the pheasant causes is asking a little much.
 
10 1/4 sections is 6560 acres. The goverment payment would be around $183000 asking for an acre in a corner is really to much. The payment could be higher or lower based on proven yield. I leave cornstalks uncut for the cows and that works really well for helping pheasants and there seems to be no yeild loss and i save a trip acroos the field. I appreciate all the ideas and decision. I did say I was dreaming.:)
 
Captin a couple things we need to correct. A section has 640 acres in it. A 1/4 section would be 160 acres. So they farm about 1600 acres. I guess looking at my post you must have thought it was 10 and 1/4 sections. You probably know how many acres are in a section but for the benefit of others I will through it out there. The government payment is no were near 183,000. It is much closer to about 20,000. Leaving stocks in the field does not work for all producers. We chop them and roll them up for bedding. A lot of guys have to chop stocks because with BT corn the stocks do not break down well in the soil. I do agree that a lot of guys seem to do way to much fall tillage, ripping bean stubble ect. But they have a lot to do in the spring and need to get as much done in the fall as they can. I wish more guys would take part in the programs for riparian buffers.
 
I just came back from the Kansas Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever State meeting. Wes Burger, research head from Mississippi State University talked about this very topic. The answer is to get farmers, NRCS agents, and Wildlife Biologists together to maximize each farmer/rancher's of the federal farm programs available to them. Farmers need to use GIS technology to evaluate the productivity of their fields so that they may remove acres from production that are costing them money and eliminating profit. These acres should be enrolled in appropriate programs where they can receive payments for wildlife friendly practices and maximize profit, not production; there is a difference. Ranchers need to meet with the same professionals and continuously evaluate how they graze and approach that practice with a profit/sustainablility viewpoint. Far too many grazers are trying to squeeze too much out for today at the expense of tomorrow. If we could do this on a landscape scale, our wildlife populaltions would swell and fill those now productive acres. The key is communication and getting wildlife and agriculture professionals to understand each other and work together.
 
FC, the cost of that is too high, especially in states like Kansas where 97-99% of the land is in private hands. That can be part of the answer, but the real answer will be on private land for the most part.
 
couple dollar tab extra on a lic would go along way toward land purchace. Yes in some states more then others. But if put away for 5 year periods or something, and teaming up with the 1,000's of sportsmens clubs we have and PF, it could be done easily here. It is going on already. And more and more land is set aside every year, that will remain that way. Wish it would work every where.
 
FC, you'll spend $900 to $2000 or more to purchase land ( no management included) where some of the management treatments can cost as little as $10 per acre. That's a 90 fold difference at least. If you're trying to affect a landscape scale, you have to play the numbers.
 
Don't mean to pick on farmers. How about when a farmer signs up for the farm program ask to donate or (make pay) 10 maybe 20 dollars per farm he owns or rents to go towards purchasing public hunting ground. Just the township I live in would be around 3600 a year it would be a start. Total for the county would be alot more. Maybe make it optional I bet must farmers would do it.
 
In long term, it should be public. IF you look at all the millions that was spent on CRP payments over the last 20+ yrs, that could have bought alot of ground. Open to everyone.
 
Well I think the CRP programs are very important. Especially now. And I agree with PD in certain States the revenue is not there yet. But if each county could get say 80 acres added this way every 5- 10 years even, years from now it's there. We can't just think in the here and now Idea of buying. Just bit by bit.
Maybe in those states instead of Crp type payment some perpetual type programs.
When purchasing, it is understood that you will pay a price for the land and set up costs. If it is done an 80 here and an 80 there, it will add up over a long time. When there is plenty, say 50 years from now, future generations $ could go to wards dolling them up. MN has other programs as well, like RIM, reinvest in MN. You get a one time payment per acre, and it becomes perpetual cover.But you still own it. And pay little taxes on it. These are just thoughts. There is a sportsmen club of fishermen here that are close to getting enough $ to buy a 40 after just 5 years, of fund raising. The state matched funds on another piece near my home town with a small club there as well, to get a nice sized piece. This kind of thing goes on all over in MN, and is building quite a pile of public land, Which is nesting. So it can happen, and in the long hall will pay off. There are 7 sportsman's clubs within 20 miles from my house in different towns. Not including DU or PF. The recourses are there to do both here. And it as said is going on and works. It wasn't that long ago when In ND I could buy huge tracts of land for 3-5 hundred an acre. The filter strip programs for water ways is another thing that is making a big difference.
 
Last edited:
Habitat is only productive if managed. Small pieces all over are very difficult and expensive to manage. We can't think more about access than wide spread habitat for our future. We have to have the birds, then acquire access. If we can maximize the federal programs on every farm, the birds will be there.
 
Prairie Drifter said:
Habitat is only productive if managed. Small pieces all over are very difficult and expensive to manage. We can't think more about access than wide spread habitat for our future. We have to have the birds, then acquire access. If we can maximize the federal programs on every farm, the birds will be there.
Click to expand...

Your right about that, I don't have any real good answer.
 
If every waterway is nesting or brood-rearing cover, if there is no brome, fescue, or pines planted as part of the programs, if unproductive acres are removed from production and planted to nesting or brood-rearing cover, etc. we wouldn't be worried about the bird numbers. There are programs to do just this in place, it's just not getting put on the ground where it could be. We have to maximize what we already have while working for better and more. Remember, in Kansas, 30 million acres of the 35 million acres of CRP are coming out in the next 5 years. Do the math. A patch here or there isn't going to replace that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top