Keep in mind the best habitat for pheasants and quail

Haymaker, if you're planting grass and other habitat on your own without any assistance at all, then you truly ARE a conservationist. If not, then you are a "profiteer" just like the rest of the "free enterprise" world. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. In fact, you should be commended for having a successful farm for all these years.

But here's the problem: There are VERY few diehard conservationists that want to donate their ground for habitat free of charge even if they expect some revenue from hunting fees. If there is one thing we've learned since the soil bank days, it is that. Eventually, the overwhelming landscape theme becomes so hostile to pheasants that the small amount of habitat provided by the diehards won't matter anymore. It's like trying to hold back a tidal wave. Their little dykes won't hold. Game over.

The OVERWHELMING landscape theme in "Pheasantland" must include at least 10% grass. Otherwise the island continues to shrink. The free market simply will REFUSE to supply this. There is not enough fast profit in it.
 
Our NATIONAL HUNTING TREASURE has to be supplied, provided for, preserved, protected, enhanced, and so forth, by the people as a whole who see it adding significantly to our quality of life and benefiting those of future generations. It's not in the nature of almost all sole individuals and businesses to operate this way on their own. Way to busy taking care of their immediate concerns, as they should.
 
RK Special K said:
Some problems are bigger and more important to solve than our private enterprise system can be expected to solve. It's way "over the head" of the private profit motive, which is, by its nature, selfish, nearsighted, and myopic. Still, many good things come from this. But not all.

If Teddy Roosevelt said: These are great areas that need preserving. Let's let private enterprise realize this, and if they do, it will be preserved. This would not have happened then and it will not happen now. The short-term profit motive would take its priority over long-term benefits. These areas would be exploited with intense uses such as farming, ranching, road and utility infrastructure, golf courses, housing, and assorted commercialization and development.

Again, a NATIONAL GRASSLAND PROGRAM is way beyond the ability of the private profit motive to solve. Its benefits are too abstract and long-term to motivate single persons and businesses. And it's too large of a problem for the few that might understand it. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN if demand is defined by short-term profits, which in our free enterprise system, IT IS.

The profit motive WILL NOT protect our NATIONAL HUNTING TREASURE - it has not in the past and it will not in the future.

Private enterprise does a lot of good but its ability to solve all of our problems is limited. Don't expect it to solve this one. Its way over its head.
Click to expand...

RK,

Wtf are you talking about? How much land do you own and farm? Not an attack just asking Because the above post quote makes no sense at all to me.
 
jmac said:
RK,

Wtf are you talking about? How much land do you own and farm? Not an attack just asking Because the above post quote makes no sense at all to me.
Click to expand...

We all know someone doesn't have to own land, or be a farmer to understand we have a problem out there. As you know, a problem in which seems to be growing at a trouble-sum rate and headed in the wrong direction:(.

Anyway, reading though RK's posts, it seems his view is that things aren't going to change much without the gov't intervening. A view, if ever implemented would have both positive and negative effects. At this point, even saying "more gov't" makes is a tough pill to swallow.:eek:
 
For the record, I own 320 acres near Bismarck, ND, all completely dedicated to habitat WITH government assistance, of course.

I'm for LESS government than we currently have but I am for BETTER governmental priorities that directly benefit Americans both now and in the future. I am for MUCH better use of OUR money when it comes to government projects. The real HARD asset stuff that produces "synergistic" multiple benefits.
 
Also, wtf I'm talking about is the same thing Teddy Roosevelt was talking about 100 years ago. And he implemented it! It's an old, almost boring concept.
 
Also, I'd sell 75 acres(or almost all of it, for that matter)) to the government if I knew my neighbor would be a permanent patch of CRP grass and the rest of "Pheasantland" was also having 10% put to grass. Wtf, that's an easy call.
 
RK Special K said:
Haymaker, if you're planting grass and other habitat on your own without any assistance at all, then you truly ARE a conservationist. If not, then you are a "profiteer" just like the rest of the "free enterprise" world. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. In fact, you should be commended for having a successful farm for all these years.

But here's the problem: There are VERY few diehard conservationists that want to donate their ground for habitat free of charge even if they expect some revenue from hunting fees. If there is one thing we've learned since the soil bank days, it is that. Eventually, the overwhelming landscape theme becomes so hostile to pheasants that the small amount of habitat provided by the diehards won't matter anymore. It's like trying to hold back a tidal wave. Their little dykes won't hold. Game over.

The OVERWHELMING landscape theme in "Pheasantland" must include at least 10% grass. Otherwise the island continues to shrink. The free market simply will REFUSE to supply this. There is not enough fast profit in it.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid I told myself that when I ran this place it would be hunting paradise, and that is what it has become. I did it because I wanted to have good hunting and for the most part I have had wonderful hunting for most of my life. It isn't just for pheasant hunting, we produce deer, ducks, geese rabbits,cottontails, coyotes and a multitude of birds. I have tried to establish partridge again but that has not worked, no profit motive, I just would like to have them back. We always have family and friends come hunt opening weekend. I used to have people stop in and hunt for free that would bring me a ham or a bottle of wine as a token of there appreciation. I did it because I wanted it that way. About the time it occurred to me that I was going to have three kids in college at the same time a guy offerd to pay me to bring hunters here. I agreed and it has changed and grown into a business. I rent out my habitat to people that want to enjoy it. So if I understand you correctly you are now talking about some type of permanent CRP type program with an annual payment the would be adjusted for inflation as time went on. If you can get the taxpayers to agree to that and have willing land owners that want to participate in that, I am OK with it. I don't think I want to do that because I want to do my own thing. If you have the number of pheasants that you are talking about your nieghbors will have to treat their seed corn with AVIPEL to keep the pheasants fron eating the seed out of the groud, but that can be handled.
 
I'm talking about a purchase of 10%, not rental. Just like National Parks and Refuges were purchased. Done deal - permanent. On the National balance sheet as an asset. Darn good investment - and would benefit LOTS of people now and far into the future.

You would do the same as always on the remaining 90% - status quo, do whatever you want, handle hunting, habitat, and farming as you wish. They probably would look for the lowest farming value property, highly erodible soil, buy it and plant grass. It would make sense to also be as far as possible from houses and homesteads. By my gosh, it's GRASS!
 
RK Special K said:
I'm talking about a purchase of 10%, not rental. Just like National Parks and Refuges were purchased. Done deal - permanent. On the National balance sheet as an asset. Darn good investment - and would benefit LOTS of people now and far into the future.

You would do the same as always on the remaining 90% - status quo, do whatever you want, handle hunting, habitat, and farming as you wish. They probably would look for the lowest farming value property, highly erodible soil, buy it and plant grass. It would make sense to also be as far as possible from houses and homesteads. By my gosh, it's GRASS!
Click to expand...

Why stop with 10%? If you think 10% maybe others will want 25% compelled into service! Or maybe a quota? Maybe state controlled wage freeze? No need to farm more, or buy more ground if you can only receive $60,000 per year? I think we call that collectivization. Or Monarchy. When Teddy R. had this vision, most of the ground was own by the government, a lot at the time was considered worthless. That day is passed. If you give your land to North Dakota, they will sell it or hay it, or graze it. South Dakota has a net public land policy. Many other states have the same practice without saying so. In Missouri, our conservation department agrees, unilaterally, but not in the state constitution, to pay the maximum tax to the county to avoid impacting local government. Even so, it's creates wails from lawmakers if they try to make a purchase. Last purchase of upland farmland was in the "dust bowl" days at the epicenter, SW Kansas, NW Oklahoma, SE Colorado, NE New Mexico. and NW Texas. All of these are reseeded and protected in national grasslands. It was voluntary, the previous owners wanted out, moved to California, or died with their boots on. In Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, the Corp. of Engineers have assembled a giant tract of ground, called "Missouri mitigation project", the end design is to replicate the normal flood plain of the Missouri River, and create The Big Muddy Wildlife Refuge. Voluntary, some by owners who were forced out by the floods! Now there is gigantic law suit claiming the Corps. fostered the floods along the Missouri, to "help" them get it done! This is the reality of conservation today.
 
Why stop at 10%? Because this is a proven "base" upon which decent bird numbers depend on. We can debate 8%, 10%, 12%, 14%. But 10% would probably be adequate. A HUGE improvement, especially in the outer core areas that have been neglected.

Who's talking "collectivization"? The free market takes care of the remaining 90%, as always. So there are patches of grass around. Is this an issue?

"Pheasandland" needs at least 10% grass on the ground. The past 50 years have proven that without a government program, pheasants are in real trouble.

Pheasants aren't native to North America. And for good reason. There was not the right kind of habitat. Ragged farming methods and the soil bank created the right habitat. For wild bird numbers to thrive, we've got to intervene and "inject" the landscape with habitat.

If you have an idea/plan to supply 10% of the "Pheasantland" landscape with permanent grass WITHOUT government involvement and totally by the free market, I'm all ears. Better be a NEW plan. Not more of the same stuff that doesn't work.

What's the plan.............
 
RK Special K said:
I'm talking about a purchase of 10%, not rental. Just like National Parks and Refuges were purchased. Done deal - permanent. On the National balance sheet as an asset. Darn good investment - and would benefit LOTS of people now and far into the future.

You would do the same as always on the remaining 90% - status quo, do whatever you want, handle hunting, habitat, and farming as you wish. They probably would look for the lowest farming value property, highly erodible soil, buy it and plant grass. It would make sense to also be as far as possible from houses and homesteads. By my gosh, it's GRASS!
Click to expand...

You just lost the majority of the landowners, I have no land for sale. This sounds like a plan to take care of the wants of a few at the expense of the many while taking land away from the private land owner. No thanks, we are getting redundant now as we have been over this many times. I thought maybe there was a new thought. This will not happen in your lifetime. If the idea took a serious turn it would be tied up in the courts for decades and might start a mini civil war. If you want to see what I am talking about on a personal level, book a hunt with me. I wish you well, I enjoyed the bantor once again.
 
Haymaker - your plan to solve the habitat problem is.............

And I mean for ALL of "Pheasantland", not just on the property of a few isolated "diehards" like you and I.

Again, I believe that I've adequately and reasonably answered most of your concerns in my previous posts. On the major one, selling of property, I'm quite sure that the majority of landowners didn't want to sell for the freeway system either. No "mini-civil wars". Private individuals and businesses are, by nature, selfish and short-sighted. We got that. That's where GOOD governing comes in. Otherwise, why have any government at all? The government gig is just us anyway if it's done right.

But I'm the first to admit, that right now, we have a LOT of BAD government that is focused on a LOT of wrong things. Setting aside habitat for all future generations to enjoy and benefit from would not be one of those. It's a hard asset that is a part of what benefits the majority.
 
RK Special K said:
Haymaker - your plan to solve the habitat problem is.............

And I mean for ALL of "Pheasantland", not just on the property of a few isolated "diehards" like you and I.

Again, I believe that I've adequately and reasonably answered most of your concerns in my previous posts. On the major one, selling of property, I'm quite sure that the majority of landowners didn't want to sell for the freeway system either. No "mini-civil wars". Private individuals and businesses are, by nature, selfish and short-sighted. We got that. That's where GOOD governing comes in. Otherwise, why have any government at all? The government gig is just us anyway if it's done right.

But I'm the first to admit, that right now, we have a LOT of BAD government that is focused on a LOT of wrong things. Setting aside habitat for all future generations to enjoy and benefit from would not be one of those. It's a hard asset that is a part of what benefits the majority.
Click to expand...

I don't have a solution for habitat, just like I don't have a solution for Huns.
I don't feel like I have to solve this problem. I have plenty of pheasants for my family and about 100 other hunters, and that is about all I am going to do. I have many more important issues to deal with that I will spend my energy on. The interstate hiway system is something that every living citezen in the country uses. There are already millions of acres to hunt on.
The end.
 
oldandnew said:
It was voluntary, the previous owners wanted out, moved to California, or died with their boots on. In Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa, the Corp. of Engineers have assembled a giant tract of ground, called "Missouri mitigation project", the end design is to replicate the normal flood plain of the Missouri River, and create The Big Muddy Wildlife Refuge. Voluntary, some by owners who were forced out by the floods! Now there is gigantic law suit claiming the Corps. fostered the floods along the Missouri, to "help" them get it done! This is the reality of conservation today.
Click to expand...

I think "voluntary" is key. But then again, even with such actions, as you mentioned, a whole host of other issues arise from that too.
 
We've tried "voluntary". Been there, done that. Not enough incentive in the free enterprise system. Read all my previous posts on this thread for my explanations on this. I submit as evidence the last 50 years. Without the soil bank or CRP, South Dakota's bird numbers would not be much better than Michigan or Ohio today. It would look like NE Nebraska at best - very poor, hardly worth hunting.

If you have a plan that WORKS under the "volunteer" system, I'm ready for its unveiling.

Drum roll please..................
 
I will add that, even under the CRP program, NE Nebraska has collapsed, especially during the last 5 years. Granted, partly weather, but MOSTLY because of the loss of grass. Even with CRP, there was little, if any, incentive from the private sector.

Even with CRP in place, the loss of grass in the Dakotas has been tremendous over the last few years. 25 million acres is not enough for "Pheasantland" and even that probably won't be put in the ground because of the economics.

Go look around NE Nebraska. That's the likely look of Central South Dakota in 3-5 years. Perhaps only SLIGHTLY better. The diehards will fight the good fight until the overwhelming landscape theme is sufficiently hostile to pheasants that even those little islands of habitat won't hold birds.
 
Oh, and land values? No surprise. They are much higher now than a 100 years ago. And they will be a lot higher 50 years from now. So will everything else.

So.................

Your point is?..............
 
Sportsmen contribute over $200 million for wildlife conservation programs.

As commendable as this is, it's a drop in the ocean.

To solve(and I mean REALLY solve the problem) without dancing around it, we need 50-60 million acres of grass on the ground. That's about $200 billion worth of land. Any volunteers?

And $200 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to our national debt. We SPEND way over this EACH YEAR on playing nanny for the world.

And "for lands sake", this is NOT an expense, it's an ASSET.

My Grandma used that expression all the time. I finally have a situation to use it.

She also liked "oh, for the love of Mike". Have no idea where these came from.
 
We don't need another $200 billion in debt, period.

Pheasant hunting is important to all of us here. But it is free enterprise, property rights, and the will of the citizens of this country that made all of this possible.

I could see where if you could have CRP and other governmental VOLUNTARY programs have some conservation strings attached. But it is the land owner deciding what is best for his family/ business.

Get rid of the ethanol fuel mandrates and you would see less marginal land coming out of grass and into row crop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top