Buffer Strips

I know about about 100 places right off the top of my head that this would add 100 feet of cover because they farm right up to the ditch. There are alot of ditches in southwest MN, farmers are going to be irrate.
 
I think from a pheasant population standpoint the impact will be relatively minimal. 50-feet is right at the margin for nesting success. IA & IL have miles upon miles of buffer strip habitat that replaced larger block CRP starting in the late 90's and their pheasant numbers have declined. It certainly won't hurt but in my mind the primary benefit to pheasants & other wildlife will be the habitat corridors connecting other more essential blocks of nesting cover and thermal winter cover.

From a clean water perspective this is pretty big. I applaud the governor for having the political stones to roll this out knowing there will be severe opposition & outright defiance from some very powerful groups in regards to actual implementation. It also sends the important message that property rights does not include the entitlement to pass the costs of pollution and soil erosion downstream for others to deal with or clean-up.
 
Downtown Bang! said:
IA & IL have miles upon miles of buffer strip habitat that replaced larger block CRP starting in the late 90's and their pheasant numbers have declined.
Click to expand...

I used to hunt buffer strips along ditches/water ways in central/north central IL.:) Up until the the "pheasant crash" around 1996, wild pheasant numbers were very good in such areas. I believe buffers made the difference. They had too. There wasn't anything else around for them to nest, rooster, or seek shelter in. To be honest, I always wondered how they survived in those areas:confused:

Nick
 
Its going to be a tuff go for Dayton. I think it would be the best thing that could happen right now. Connective habitat will make a huge increase in bird numbers here.
 
At the risk of infuriating one of the moderators, I was at the Pheasant Summit and those in attendance, by independent voting, ranked Buffer strips and reserves being ENFORCED as number 1 issue.

In other words, why haven't they been enforced? Why is it they farm where they like and push it to the limit and beyond?

The farmers giveth and taketh away. I can well imagine the caterwauling going on in the farm community. I was a DNR forester for 34 years, and while logging and forest management was drug through the mud, I can tell you we didn't drain the land, we DID leave buffers and reserves, we didn't apply a witches brew of chemicals and fertilizers every year, and we didn't get PAID to do the right thing.

Why is the ag community, including the giant ag businesses not capable of doing more and better-for us and themselves??

Dan
 
0fer2 said:
At the risk of infuriating one of the moderators, I was at the Pheasant Summit and those in attendance, by independent voting, ranked Buffer strips and reserves being ENFORCED as number 1 issue.

In other words, why haven't they been enforced? Why is it they farm where they like and push it to the limit and beyond?

The farmers giveth and taketh away. I can well imagine the caterwauling going on in the farm community. I was a DNR forester for 34 years, and while logging and forest management was drug through the mud, I can tell you we didn't drain the land, we DID leave buffers and reserves, we didn't apply a witches brew of chemicals and fertilizers every year, and we didn't get PAID to do the right thing.

Why is the ag community, including the giant ag businesses not capable of doing more and better-for us and themselves??

Dan
Click to expand...

Well spoken. I have decided that all rules or laws that are enacted, can be circumvented by nefarious individuals. One way of thinking about it, If only righteous individuals create and obey the rules, there would actually not need to be any rules at all! A lot of this behavior is the result of misinformation, following the siren call of the vast agri-business purveyors. Like the pharmaceutical companies, the agri-business advertisers, claim all good, with little or no costs. forget the fast voiced litany of excess bleeding, cancer causing, or should not be applied to ground water, wait X number of days to reseed. All might make an impact, but when you spend 5-7 thousand an acre..... It takes an a tremendous cash flow to make it. The niceties of charity, or making room for wildlife takes a back seat. I agree we should hold a rod against any contractor who disobeys the guidelines. Same with the arsenic polluters for mining, washing away harmful chemicals in water, or polluting the air with nasty power electric plants. I requires peer pressure, but you have to live in a glass house, as the bible says. Who complains about chemicals in farming, but applies dursban to the lawn, or plays on the pristine green of a local golf course? It gets harder to criticize. Conversation and friendly persussion with example has a powerful impact. It starts with one!
 
When the buffer strips went in in Nth IA near our farm I can tell you it worked. The birds sky rocketed. The only time they dwindle is from extreme winter with extreme conditions that line up right. Rain frozen food, followed up by deep snow and long sub 0 cold snaps. It does not matter what cover you have in some winters. It will kill nearly all of them. I cant remember the year but we lost almost all our population over night in one huge storm. Cattails were completely buried to the tops. Only a sprig here and there stuck out. You could walk on top of cattails it drifted so hard. It buried them alive. Deer were found by the dozens in standing corn froze solid standing up. But normal winters them buffer strips have done an amazing thing from my experience.:thumbsup: They have been doing it some in Wst MN as well in the red river valley. It has worked well there too. Just ask locals.:thumbsup:
 
So someone please help me on this. Currently there is a law about leaving a buffer strip around any waterway whether state or private land yet it's not enforced?

From the link that TBEAR posted it sounds like Dayton is proposing a 50 ft. buffer around all state waterways. So..... is he proposing an increase over the existing said buffer or what?


If i'm reading this correctly it seems to me the enforcement part of this issue is what needs to be taken care of. NO??
 
There is a law that land owners leave a buffer strip or natural area along streams and lakes. I see everywhere where lake homes and river homes have lawns irrigated and fertilized all the way to the shore. And driveways going to the shore.
Some of my favorite places to hunt pheasants are buffer strips along streams. Grass, brush, cattails along with a continuous source of water is great pheasant habitat. Add some heavy cover and a source of food during the heavy snow periods and there will be wild pheasants.
 
So there is a law stating a 50ft buffer currently in place. We'll IMO then it's an enforcement issue, which won't be that easy to enforce.
 
Is this a nation wide law or does it vary from state to state?

Nick
 
1pheas4 said:
Is this a nation wide law or does it vary from state to state?

Nick
Click to expand...

I heard about this last week. Definitely a state law. We have nothing like that in SD. If enacted, its going to be an enforcement nightmare. The NRCS is not an enforcement agency but the FWS is. The law is a state mandate so that should eliminate the FWS & NRCS. So that puts it back on the MNDNR I would think or a subdivision of it. ND has some private property with these "donuts" around the wetlands that need to be enforced by the FWS. The habitat benefits are negligible but the fallout from the public was huge. They were signing the edges of the wetlands with carsonite posts and every year the farmer would just hit them with their equipment. It was a constant battle and I think they almost gave up. Not sure were its at now. This could be a slippery slope that started out with good intentions.
 
MN Moderator makes a good point with lake property in MN. However, we need to quit pointing fingers and saying they are doing it so why can't I? All that does is take away from focus on the issue at hand-and right now, in particular, we need to focus on the ag issues and buffers etc.

Dan
 
Again if effectively enforced from a clean water & general conservation perspective this is an absolute win. I am 100% for it and feel if successful it could set the stage for other common sense conservation programs that would have much larger impact on upland species in farmland ecosystems.

The concept that this effort will have any real impact on pheasant populations is not supported by most research.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_009936.pdf

The link above estimates pheasant populations are three times higher in locales with 40-acre or larger block parcels of CRP vs. locales dominated by strip/buffer habitat.

It also states that IA Townships with buffer only habitat would only produce 5% more pheasants than townships with no CRP enrollment at all.

The study linked above also references a nest success rate of 45% for undisturbed linear habitat. A study linked below states that a nest success rate of 42% is necessary just to keep pheasant populations stable. It should also be noted that most of the buffers that will comply with the MN enforcement mandate will not be enrolled in any Conservation Program so they will be much more likely be mowed, hayed and disturbed in some way.

http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/Phst_WhatWeKnow_Nesting.pdf

In order to have a noticeable positive impact on upland populations stream/riparian buffers need to be a minimum of 100-feet wide and also have a diversity of habitat types including shrubs, trees and grassland plants. Google IA State & stream buffers and one can see a lot of good information on the topic.

I have no doubt that pheasants use the type of buffer habitat the MN DNR wants to see implemented. Particularly in the fall after crops have been harvested. What I have serious doubts about is that a very meaningful or impactful % those pheasants are actually born in nests in those same habitats and then successfully reared in these type habitats. The research doesn't really support that concept.
 
Last edited:
Downtown Bang! said:
Again if effectively enforced from a clean water & general conservation perspective this is an absolute win. I am 100% for it and feel if successful it could set the stage for other common sense conservation programs that would have much larger impact on upland species in farmland ecosystems.

The concept that this effort will have any real impact on pheasant populations is not supported by most research.

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_009936.pdf

The link above estimates pheasant populations are three times higher in locales with 40-acre or larger block parcels of CRP vs. locales dominated by strip/buffer habitat.

It also that IA Townships with buffer only habitat would only produce 5% more pheasants than townships with no CRP enrollment at all.

The study above also references a nest success rate of 45% for undisturbed linear habitat. A study below states that a nest success rate of 42% is necessary just to keep pheasant populations stable. It should also be noted that most of the buffers that will comply with the MN enforcement mandate will not be enrolled in any Conservation Program so they will be much more likely be mowed, hayed and disturbed in some way.

http://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/Phst_WhatWeKnow_Nesting.pdf

In order to have a noticeable positive impact on upland populations stream/riparian buffers need to be a minimum of 100-feet wide and also have a diversity of habitat types including shrubs, trees and grassland plants. Google IA State & stream buffers and one can see a lot of good information on the topic.

I have no doubt that pheasants use the type of habitat the MN DNR wants to see implemented. Particularly in the fall after crops have been harvested. What I have serious doubts about is that those pheasants are actually born in nests in those same habitats and then successfully reared in these type habitats. The research doesn't really support that concept.
Click to expand...

Good post. Its a good start at least. The Fws in ND already has to enforce buffer strips on some FmHA easements that they were given years ago from Farmer Home administration. The enforcement side has been really tough to say the least. I think what MN has going for it though is more people are in favor of conservation.

The MN DNR will be in for a real culture shock when they actually have to start knocking on doors and threatening prosecution for planting within the buffer strip area. If the supervisors and politicians back the field people, then it will work.

It will be fought as well from the agriculture side. Your potentially taking away crop ground from an individual producer. Lots of political issues with that.

Hopefully this doesn't turn into another conservation law that isn't enforced due to political fallout.
 
For land owners that are taxed on land according to its use also opens up another "can of worms"
For instance on my land, everything that is not into production is taxed as seasonal recreational.
Has nothing to do with those with lake lots or other types of small lots and non ag properties.
But for those of us with larger acres, how are we going to be taxed on the "buffers"
For me I like the leaving natural ares, has cost me more then you can imagine.
 
ahhhhhhhhhhhh the taxes, I know what you are saying MN Moderator, I have property on Upper Red lake, not developed, but my gosh the taxes went up astronomically the last 6 years.

I am not sure what the solution is, I can tell you that "no new taxes" and cutbacks have pushed the local government units to rely more and more on property taxes because that IS the end line.

There has got to be some middle ground, I think, its not right that you get a break if you use the land and don't if you don't.

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