impact of drought

benelli-banger said:
UGUIDE has been developing his land for wildlife for some time now...that stuff he mowed between tree rows is probably a "rounding error" in the grand scheme of that chunk of ground...good for him for thinking longer term...those trees will do some good some winter not that far down the road...my cedars are 8 years old, and even a few years ago they were holding birds in the winter...
Click to expand...

I agree, the land owner knows best. I would tell someone that wants to tell me what to do with my land to stick there head in the mower to see if it is working,LOL. Just kidding. Chris knows what he's doing folks.:thumbsup: My little slice was bailed a month ago at shoulder height. It is now belly button.;) No worries mates. It took all the remaining Crye heads and let all the indian, switch, big blue, little blue, side oats, slender weat and so on sprout more and that is seeding very well. It made it more diverse.:thumbsup:
It is full of insects...;):cool:
 
This is not an attack on UGUIDE, Chris has gotten TONS of complements from me with about one maybe two, you know?

I would for sure mow a bit around the new shrubs, get some sun in.
I was stumped by the 20 acre thing in severe drought conditions.

SD from what I understand from you guys SD is under some frightening conditions as far as the drought and Winter cover. Limited cover, probably weather will average out, Dry Hot Summer will likely be a cold snowy Winter.

I think:confused: Leave the Bush Hogs in the shed for the time being.:cheers:
 
MNMT no offense taken and I can understand why you think that way and so so I. I have to maintain a working relationship with NRCS and they are more concerned with weeds and the tree growth than pheasants.

Even though it is D2-3 drought where I am at I could barely get in the driveway as the kochia was lush and green and about 2 ' tall the whole way when there was none there when I left a month ago. Go figure.

I had to mow sweet clover with baby pheasants in it on memorial day.

Don't think for a minute it is easy to do or that I enjoy it or don't think there is a trade-off. It's called a management decision.
 
UGUIDE said:
MNMT no offense taken and I can understand why you think that way and so so I. I have to maintain a working relationship with NRCS and they are more concerned with weeds and the tree growth than pheasants.

Even though it is D2-3 drought where I am at I could barely get in the driveway as the kochia was lush and green and about 2 ' tall the whole way when there was none there when I left a month ago. Go figure.

I had to mow sweet clover with baby pheasants in it on memorial day.

Don't think for a minute it is easy to do or that I enjoy it or don't think there is a trade-off. It's called a management decision.
Click to expand...

The theory that government regulations can saves us from the peril put on by their own rules. Shows us a frightening mis- understanding of the national system, and it's ability to respond quickly to any response, good or bad. After the drought, flood, epidemic, or world confligration, gets us. The government will come in and save us all, restore order, and make millionaires out businesses who provide relief to the downtrodden..... if were still here at that point, have a crop to put in, livestock to feed, or have a blade of grass and a bird to put under it.
 
oldandnew said:
The theory that government regulations can saves us from the peril put on by their own rules. Shows us a frightening mis- understanding of the national system, and it's ability to respond quickly to any response, good or bad. After the drought, flood, epidemic, or world confligration, gets us. The government will come in and save us all, restore order, and make millionaires out businesses who provide relief to the downtrodden..... if were still here at that point, have a crop to put in, livestock to feed, or have a blade of grass and a bird to put under it.
Click to expand...

Help me out here because I ain't followin' ya........:confused:
 
UGUIDE said:
Help me out here because I ain't followin' ya........:confused:
Click to expand...

You said you mowed at government direction during brooding season your sweet clover. I was just saying that the government rules to make you mow an area that was in peril of drought, is a typical government boon-doogle. Later, after a year of drought, they will have a program to solve the problem. The reality is we need it now, not next year. Next year it might not be necessary or needed.
 
oldandnew said:
You said you mowed at government direction during brooding season your sweet clover. I was just saying that the government rules to make you mow an area that was in peril of drought, is a typical government boon-doogle. Later, after a year of drought, they will have a program to solve the problem. The reality is we need it now, not next year. Next year it might not be necessary or needed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying O&N. The NRCS will also tell you that there is no nesting value from the tree belt habitat so not a concern if you mow anytime.
 
I am not old enough to remember it, but they tell me that where I live was once covered with a glacier. If there was no global warming I guess it would still be here. I don't know what caused it then or now or in the 30's. I suspect that sunspot activity is involved somewhere but I can't prove that. The problem is that nobody can prove anything because scientists that might be able to prove something are biased one way or another so that their research is invalid.
 
haymaker said:
I am not old enough to remember it, but they tell me that where I live was once covered with a glacier. If there was no global warming I guess it would still be here. I don't know what caused it then or now or in the 30's. I suspect that sunspot activity is involved somewhere but I can't prove that. The problem is that nobody can prove anything because scientists that might be able to prove something are biased one way or another so that their research is invalid.
Click to expand...

haymaker: what you say, "scientists that might be able to prove something are biased one way or another so that their research is invalid" is simply not true.

Yes, there a few folks who claim to be scientists and who allow their opinions to be biased by predisposition. Those folks aren't really scientists, since real scientists examine facts first and come to conclusions later.

For you to claim that all scientists are biased is an insult to all scientists. It's an insult to the scientists who put a man on them moon, it's an insult to the scientists who banished smallpox, it's an insult to the scientists who created the internet, developed the atomic bomb, learned how to fly, invented the telephone, discovered electricity, learned calculus, navigation, explored the ends of the earth, discovered antibiotics, and a thousand others things from which you and I now benefit every day.

Scientists, by definition, are unbiased.

And, if you want to learn about global warming, you can listen to real scientists.

Or..you can dismiss them because you are unwilling to accept the truth.

Your choice.
 
of course the earth is now in a warming cycle, but the extremes have happened before. Ever wonder what caused the ice age? all anyone seems concerned with is global warming.....interesting.:cool:
 
jnormanh said:
haymaker: what you say, "scientists that might be able to prove something are biased one way or another so that their research is invalid" is simply not true.

Yes, there a few folks who claim to be scientists and who allow their opinions to be biased by predisposition. Those folks aren't really scientists, since real scientists examine facts first and come to conclusions later.

For you to claim that all scientists are biased is an insult to all scientists. It's an insult to the scientists who put a man on them moon, it's an insult to the scientists who banished smallpox, it's an insult to the scientists who created the internet, developed the atomic bomb, learned how to fly, invented the telephone, discovered electricity, learned calculus, navigation, explored the ends of the earth, discovered antibiotics, and a thousand others things from which you and I now benefit every day.

Scientists, by definition, are unbiased.

And, if you want to learn about global warming, you can listen to real scientists.

Or..you can dismiss them because you are unwilling to accept the truth.

Your choice.
Click to expand...

some scientists are very political too.....sorry, not an insult, just a real world observation.
 
jnormanh said:
haymaker: what you say, "scientists that might be able to prove something are biased one way or another so that their research is invalid" is simply not true.

Yes, there a few folks who claim to be scientists and who allow their opinions to be biased by predisposition. Those folks aren't really scientists, since real scientists examine facts first and come to conclusions later.

For you to claim that all scientists are biased is an insult to all scientists. It's an insult to the scientists who put a man on them moon, it's an insult to the scientists who banished smallpox, it's an insult to the scientists who created the internet, developed the atomic bomb, learned how to fly, invented the telephone, discovered electricity, learned calculus, navigation, explored the ends of the earth, discovered antibiotics, and a thousand others things from which you and I now benefit every day.

Scientists, by definition, are unbiased.

And, if you want to learn about global warming, you can listen to real scientists.

Or..you can dismiss them because you are unwilling to accept the truth.

Your choice.
Click to expand...

Remember I am not denying global warming. What I am saying is that there are "scientists" trying to prove both sides. There are probably some in the middle that might be looking just to see what they see. A friend of mine spends time in Alaska observing wildlife for the purpose of, as she put it trying to prove global warming. Much research is paid for by those that would like to achieve a certain result. There are those that say my cows are part of the problem. However there were more bison here than there are cows, not to mention the elk, deer and all the other ruminants. Nobody including you have been able to tell me why I am not living under a glacier. I am glad for the global warming that melted it, because it would be poor pheasant hunting if we were still under all that ice.
 
Classic jnormanh tactic-go to a hunting forum where hunters are discussing the impact of drought and attempt to change it to a debate on a left wing hot button issue. Many will remember jnormanh's rants and political diversions from the old site and don't want to hear it. Take your carbon footprint guilt somewhere else. TRUTH

jnormanh said:
haymaker: what you say, "scientists that might be able to prove something are biased one way or another so that their research is invalid" is simply not true.

Yes, there a few folks who claim to be scientists and who allow their opinions to be biased by predisposition. Those folks aren't really scientists, since real scientists examine facts first and come to conclusions later.

For you to claim that all scientists are biased is an insult to all scientists. It's an insult to the scientists who put a man on them moon, it's an insult to the scientists who banished smallpox, it's an insult to the scientists who created the internet, developed the atomic bomb, learned how to fly, invented the telephone, discovered electricity, learned calculus, navigation, explored the ends of the earth, discovered antibiotics, and a thousand others things from which you and I now benefit every day.

Scientists, by definition, are unbiased.

And, if you want to learn about global warming, you can listen to real scientists.

Or..you can dismiss them because you are unwilling to accept the truth.

Your choice.
Click to expand...
 
Truth said:
Classic jnormanh tactic-go to a hunting forum where hunters are discussing the impact of drought and attempt to change it to a debate on a left wing hot button issue. Many will remember jnormanh's rants and political diversions from the old site and don't want to hear it. Take your carbon footprint guilt somewhere else. TRUTH
Click to expand...

:10sign::cheers:
 
From the horse's mouth

I work on a large farm in North Central SD. We are now doing crop surveys, with rain so spotty some might make some may not. The new crops of birds is doing well, lots of grasshoppers. Of the 7,000 acres of corn we have in we normally do 50/50 silage to cut. We are THINKING 75/25, that's a hip shot. Wheat was good, and the sunflowers seem to be doing well. It is what it is, if farming was so certain we'd be picking checks off stalks. The bonus in this deal is insurance. Our adjusters is having us leave EXTRA in the field for claims. More standing crop to hunt. This year will shine on the good land stewarts, have faith and a good rolodex. SHANE
 
bshaneb73 said:
The bonus in this deal is insurance. Our adjusters is having us leave EXTRA in the field for claims. More standing crop to hunt. This year will shine on the good land stewarts, have faith and a good rolodex. SHANE
Click to expand...


So there may be crops left up until spring? This could make for an interesting late season hunting.:cheers:
 
Crops in the field

We are having to leave 4 rows stand for every 40 acres. Works out to about 200 chopped, 4 standing. That not scienitific, it's a WAG (Wild Ass Guess).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top