Future of CRP ?

Swampstink said:
We also have the lottery funds ie; LCMR but the spending seems to not be focused on acquisition these days which is disappointing Upland hunting has become a largely public assess game IMO and we have heavier pressure. As farms get larger and less family owned the hunters are getting pushed off and onto public. Walk on was better this year but we have a ways to go!
Click to expand...

I forgot about the lottery funding. Good call.

We also have the mandatory buffer strips now too, even though they are not open to public hunting. One can't argue against how much habitat that has added for various forms of wildlife though, and improved water quality. If Iowa did something like this, their bird numbers would explode. But it takes political will power in the form of taking on Big Ag. And Iowa is a Big Ag state. They have a lot of power there.
 
Bob Peters said:
My understanding is that pheasants forever can only own land in a trust. So if a parcel is bought, often by multiple groups i.e. PF, DU, local Sportsman's clubs, private individuals, they all pool money together, buy the parcel, PF holds it in trust for a limited time (seems 3-5 yrs is common). The habitat is improved and the land is given to the state dnr to become wma or other form of public hunting.
Click to expand...
They definitely did not give the KS parcel to the state -- it was given to them by someone as estate donation (Wichita Eagle had an article or two on it which is how I became aware -when Michael Pearce was their outdoor writer) -- then they later sold it I can only assume due to name change on parcel -- (Private name or biz entity) -- never enrolled in WIHA etc -- one of the many things that annoys me about PF hypocrisy.

I'd have to do my research again - but do not buy the argument about them not being able own land - I had found where they can and do own land and have multiple entities set up at their Corporate level -- I like researching this stuff but right now have other things going on to dig in again -- there's probably some old posts I replied on this topic with support. Would have to dig to find them.
 
Not sure how to feel about PF, and this post should not be construed as either supportive or critical of them. But here are at least a couple of facts about PF owning land in KS and SD. While OnX's files aren't always entirely up to date, it does show PF owning the following in KS and SD:
1737990978569.png
Both Kansas tracts are enrolled in WIHA. The Kingman county stuff adjoins Byron Walker Wildlife area. It's been that way for at least two seasons. The SD stuff also appears to be open to public hunting.
 
gim said:
I forgot about the lottery funding. Good call.

We also have the mandatory buffer strips now too, even though they are not open to public hunting. One can't argue against how much habitat that has added for various forms of wildlife though, and improved water quality. If Iowa did something like this, their bird numbers would explode. But it takes political will power in the form of taking on Big Ag. And Iowa is a Big Ag state. They have a lot of power there.
Click to expand...
Publicly funded and maintained ditches that benefits the surrounding land owners but provide no public access are a sweet deal that requires political clout. MN legislature historically has been made up of teachers, lawyers and farmers so not unexpected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gim
Swampstink said:
Publicly funded and maintained ditches that benefits the surrounding land owners but provide no public access are a sweet deal that requires political clout. MN legislature historically has been made up of teachers, lawyers and farmers so not unexpected.
Click to expand...

There was a LOT of opposition to it when it was first proposed. Then there was even more when it was implemented in phases over time.

It was accomplished with a democratic governor and a republican legislature.
 
So the S.D. land 1 is a Build A Wildlife Area that is adjacent to a parcel of currently existing public ground. New ground is to be turned over to the state. The other allows access to BLM land and also is being turned over to the state.

Now I don't know the details of change of ownership. I would guess private sale at a cost to P F.
 
Swampstink said:
Publicly funded and maintained ditches that benefits the surrounding land owners but provide no public access are a sweet deal that requires political clout. MN legislature historically has been made up of teachers, lawyers and farmers so not unexpected.
Click to expand...

In what county in MN are drainage ditches "publicly funded and maintained?"
 
matto said:
Not sure how to feel about PF, and this post should not be construed as either supportive or critical of them. But here are at least a couple of facts about PF owning land in KS and SD. While OnX's files aren't always entirely up to date, it does show PF owning the following in KS and SD:
View attachment 10433
Both Kansas tracts are enrolled in WIHA. The Kingman county stuff adjoins Byron Walker Wildlife area. It's been that way for at least two seasons. The SD stuff also appears to be open to public hunting.
Click to expand...
The parcel I'm referencing was a whole section and this was 10-15 yrs ago or so. I'm guessing PF will unload them soon after they've concluded whatever financial ponzi scheme they use to collect subsidy and easement payments, not keep it in compliance and then try to find a sucker to buy their dud. WAFLA has done the same with some others.

***BUT yes -- your screen shot calls into question those that stated PF does not own land or can't.
 
KsHusker said:
The parcel I'm referencing was a whole section and this was 10-15 yrs ago or so. I'm guessing PF will unload them soon after they've concluded whatever financial ponzi scheme they use to collect subsidy and easement payments, not keep it in compliance and then try to find a sucker to buy their dud. WAFLA has done the same with some others.

***BUT yes -- your screen shot calls into question those that stated PF does not own land or can't.
Click to expand...
Is the parcel you're referencing the one described here? https://ksoutdoors.com/KDWP-Info/Ne...S-FOREVER-LARGEST-DONATION-IN-26-YEAR-HISTORY

I've often wondered what happened to that piece of land. I'm pretty sure I saw it in KDWP's "Special Hunts" program for a couple of years, but it's gone now. OnX shows that Wallace Weber still owns 80 acres in Russell county. There is almost exactly 1700 acres of adjoining land owned by a Frank Joseph Weber. Relative maybe? Who knows what might have happened.
 
matto said:
Is the parcel you're referencing the one described here? https://ksoutdoors.com/KDWP-Info/Ne...S-FOREVER-LARGEST-DONATION-IN-26-YEAR-HISTORY

I've often wondered what happened to that piece of land. I'm pretty sure I saw it in KDWP's "Special Hunts" program for a couple of years, but it's gone now. OnX shows that Wallace Weber still owns 80 acres in Russell county. There is almost exactly 1700 acres of adjoining land owned by a Frank Joseph Weber. Relative maybe? Who knows what might have happened.
Click to expand...
That is not it -- Surprised I missed reading about that --

I do distinctly remember (I THINK) -- that Michael Pearce had written an article about it and think that is what brought my attention to it -- it was more in the direction of Pratt/Dodge city if I recall correctly -- was a section of land

The one you posted about is a relatively huge donation if it were to ever go through completely. If it is in a seeming relatives name now - wonder if some family stopped the donation.
 
My experience here is, if a field has PF signage…it’s leased out and no on permission . Almost always get a yes on permission anywhere else.
 
Swampstink said:
All of them.
Click to expand...
Swampstink said:
Most counties have state and county ditches.
Click to expand...
Nearly all drainage ditches in MN minus those built for specific flood control and storm water run-off projects are owned by the benefiting land owners and managed by a ditch authority or the county, with associated costs assessed to the land owners based on a determination of benefits. If your land does not benefit from a drainage ditch, you do not pay in for the maintenance costs.
 
Tomahawker said:
My experience here is, if a field has PF signage…it’s leased out and no on permission . Almost always get a yes on permission anywhere else.
Click to expand...
That makes some sence. Those orange signs you can purchase, such as PF Habitat Coordinator or similar, I think they have 3 different ones. A guy, such as myself, might post one on their habitat as noting their PF affiliation and probably some type of assistance that involved PF. The assistance could range from providing food plot seed to cost share on shelter belt plantings to possibly helping with the manpower to start or maintain habitat (burning). If I go through the effort to create habitat, it is very likely I am not inviting the public to come and hunt it, quite the contrary, if some one is hunting it, I will be with them. Letting other folks hunt without you is a good way invite unwanted issues, I try to avoid these issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top