Tbear
UPH Master
http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/288941071.html
This will definitely be a topic to keep an eye on! :cheers:
This will definitely be a topic to keep an eye on! :cheers:
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.
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
Is this a nation wide law or does it vary from state to state?
Nick
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.