2 day walk in trip

whatsnext said:
I don't think its about that, its more about paying for a renewable resource that we are using. While i agree with the sentiment of relying on the government for managing money and how to live, The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and The Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, and the duck stamps have been fairly successful . Why cant something like that be done for the uplands that would not just benefit bird hunting but also deer, grassland's, insects , water etc etc.
Click to expand...
I would love for something to happen like that. I think that we are too far away from the PR Wildlife act (1937) and the DJ Sport Fish Act (1950) to get something that wouldn't benefit the attorneys, government, and lobbyist more than it would the sportsman. Much different world today where politicians want to argue about which bathroom to use instead of actual issues at hand.
 
whatsnext said:
I don't think its about that, its more about paying for a renewable resource that we are using. While i agree with the sentiment of relying on the government for managing money and how to live, The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and The Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, and the duck stamps have been fairly successful . Why cant something like that be done for the uplands that would not just benefit bird hunting but also deer, grassland's, insects , water etc etc.
Click to expand...
It can happen… The problem is that those that can make it happen have little incentive to make it happen. We all sit on here and complain about it but meanwhile the calendar slides to another year. It all goes back to money. We are a very small demographic as upland hunters. Unless we can show those in charge how this benefits everyone especially them, nothing will change. I really don’t know how to start. I worked in government for awhile and I understand if there is no incentive to change then none will be made. They basically tell you from day one to make no waves and hold the status quo. We need to make some noise but I don’t know if there is enough of us anymore to make a difference. I think the feel good is to donate and support wildlife groups, but they often end up falling prey to the same issues as government and become too heavy. Meanwhile the sport dies a little more every day….
 
money and accountability for how those funds are spent are the core issues
that and enforcement on hunter access and land habitat development

those SD boys get well paid for habitat and access
why go anywhere else?
pay them now, pay them later?
 
allan savory has been leading the fight to convert desert back into grassland thru intensive grazing. its very interesting, and i think he has proved the theory in africa and new mexico. several years ago he quoted from an old book by an english lord that said something like this. you cannot change the policies of government, institutions, or universities by presenting facts or data. the only way to change policy is thru public opinion. wish i could find the actual quote. it is absolutely true
 
Weimdogman said:
You should know most of the time the farmer/rancher owns the land to the middle of the road so be careful about that argument. That is the #1 pet peeve of landowners and ditch hunting.
Click to expand...
We all own to the middle of the road -- I can't go out and tear up my ditch and start cultivating it or if you live in town - tear up the curb and plant grass there instead. All they have to do is have a familiarity with survey's and plat maps. Not really an argument.
 
carptom1 said:
It can happen… The problem is that those that can make it happen have little incentive to make it happen. We all sit on here and complain about it but meanwhile the calendar slides to another year. It all goes back to money. We are a very small demographic as upland hunters. Unless we can show those in charge how this benefits everyone especially them, nothing will change. I really don’t know how to start. I worked in government for awhile and I understand if there is no incentive to change then none will be made. They basically tell you from day one to make no waves and hold the status quo. We need to make some noise but I don’t know if there is enough of us anymore to make a difference. I think the feel good is to donate and support wildlife groups, but they often end up falling prey to the same issues as government and become too heavy. Meanwhile the sport dies a little more every day….
Click to expand...

I've brought up before that if PF had any brains - they'd use something like Butterflies or the Monarch as the focal point of any habitat restoration or any proposed new tax etc to help fund restoration --

I loved catching butterflies as a kid - we had gillions of them where I lived in Butler county a ways out of Wichita -- Monarchs up the wazoo when they'd migrate -- I loved catching them in the fall.

Anyways - regardless of my fondness of them as a kid - this is something EVERYONE can relate to and be emotional with most likely - Upland birds or hunting - won't move the needle -- focus the marketing of the programs on an animal in the biome that others can relate and have an emotional attachment to and many would support it --

If any of you have noticed there are virtually very little butterflies around anymore --- not AT all like it was in the 80s when I was in my single digits.

PF would also need to go up against Big Ag chemical and seed companies -- those companies have their head so far up all the elected officials butts and PF like you said nothing will change it seems like - about the only thing that may change things is a massive environmental disaster - but by then it will be too late save for later generations if restoration would work at that point.
 
Much of the cattle grazed CRP that has cattle on it isn't owned by the landowner. When they open up emergency grazing and haying, farmers and ranchers start calling everyone they know with ground enrolled in CRP to get their cattle and swathers on it. There is a lady that owns 5 quarter sections of CRP that I hunt. Ever since that ground was enrolled it was never grazed or hayed. Then 2 years, a local farmer got her to apply during drought and he gets his cattle on it every chance he gets. She has lived in Arizona for quite sometime but still keeps her house next to mine and comes back for a week each summer. Be nice if only the landowner can graze their own cattle and keep swathers from Texas out here Everytime we hit a D2 drought.
 
From what I've been told (at least in NWKS) the county mows the ditches in the late summer for weed control. No idea if that is true or not but I'm always sad when I see that prime habitat intact around July then gone by the end of August.
 
ben ji said:
From what I've been told (at least in NWKS) the county mows the ditches in the late summer for weed control. No idea if that is true or not but I'm always sad when I see that prime habitat intact around July then gone by the end of August.
Click to expand...

It helps keep some of the snow off of the road and gets some air to them so they dry out quicker. No growth around the edges probably prevents some fires. That’s what I always thought anyway.
Back when the ditches were unmowed I don’t remember there being as many oil trucks on the roads. Maybe I just wasn’t paying attention. But in a lot of areas I think that has something to do with it. Oil pays the taxes.
 
I hunt North Dakota, South Dakota (my state of residence) and Kansas. In all 3 there is considerable pressure on the game management agency to contract walk-in areas so that the state can advertise how much land it has available for public hunting. In all three states, the amount of WIA land that is actually upland game habitat is embarrassingly small. At least in the areas I hunt, the majority of WIA land is either (over) grazed or hayed. It seems like the agencies have the model wrong. If they paid landowners enough to make it worthwhile for them to sign a contract that prohibited grazing or haying, it would make their programs legitimate and worthwhile to hunters and landowners. Sure, the amount of WIA land would drop, probably a lot, but what remained would have habitat, not just be a statistic with no habitat value. I'm sure this would be a tough battle to fight, but one I believe would result in more actual hunting habitat available to sportsmen.
 
Powderhorn Jim said:
In all three states, the amount of WIA land that is actually upland game habitat is embarrassingly small.
Click to expand...
First, I have no opinion on North Dakota. I have never hunted there.

Second, with respect to Kansas, it's worth remembering that WIHA is not exclusively an upland bird program. KDWP enrolls land for a variety of species. Although I have hunted SD WIA/CREP, I've never read anything that addresses the targeted hunting opportunities of the program.

Third, while these programs are not perfect, the statement quoted above is way too strong IMO. Probably half of the birds we shot over 3.5 days in SD this year were on WIA and/or CREP. Half the birds we shot on opening day in Kansas were on WIHA. All the birds we shot on that Sunday were on WIHA. We've had more success since then. If you just pick one from the book and go, you're going to be disappointed once in a while, maybe more than that in years when emergency haying and grazing is widespread. But if you spend a little time in advance with the on-line maps, OnX, or even google earth, your odds go up a lot.
 
matto said:
First, I have no opinion on North Dakota. I have never hunted there.

Second, with respect to Kansas, it's worth remembering that WIHA is not exclusively an upland bird program. KDWP enrolls land for a variety of species. Although I have hunted SD WIA/CREP, I've never read anything that addresses the targeted hunting opportunities of the program.
Click to expand...

This is the pile of Bull poo the state tries to sell and pass off -

As a lot of us are upland bird hunters and either Deer, varmints, waterfowl etc -- What is good for the upland bird is ALMOST always good for the rest of the species anyone would hunt.

The same is not true in reverse. What's good for the deer is usually limited in what it's good for, what's good for raccoons is not good for much else etc.
 
KsHusker said:
This is the pile of Bull poo the state tries to sell and pass off -

As a lot of us are upland bird hunters and either Deer, varmints, waterfowl etc -- What is good for the upland bird is ALMOST always good for the rest of the species anyone would hunt.

The same is not true in reverse. What's good for the deer is usually limited in what it's good for, what's good for raccoons is not good for much else etc.
Click to expand...
Again, it is coincidence that the WIHA program and NR deer hunting began the same year? On the eastern side of the state there is much less WIHA than out west. Is this because the state targets pheasant hunters or is it because there are more outfitters and deer leases on the eastern side where a lease brings $25 and acre and WIHA brings $4? Hmmmmm? I think legislation thought more landowners on the eastern side would enroll in WIHA but it didn't work that way. The land I leased, the landowner was getting $4 an acre. It was tall thick CRP with a little bit of timber. Great for deer and full of pheasants.
 
Last edited:
Tomahawker said:
www.dtnpf.com

CRP Acreage is Highest in a Decade: Breaking Down Acreage and Rental Rates

The USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has reached its highest enrollment level since 2013, with a notable shift toward Grasslands CRP, which supports grazing operations. Under the Biden administration, CRP acreage has increased by 5.36 million acres, now totaling 25.86 million acres --...
www.dtnpf.com www.dtnpf.com
Click to expand...
As a Coloradoan, I'm staggered to see Colorado at the top of the total acreage list! And sad to see KS at the bottom of the top 5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top