Maybe new trespass laws and waterfowl tags for Non-Res

RK Special K said:
haymaker.......

I won't be "bored" until pheasant habitat and pheasasnt numbers are restored to the levels of at least the 50's and 60's.

When "million+ bird harvests" in the "western states" becomes again, yawn, routine and almost a virtual certainty - year after year after year........this WILL be "boring". But it will be the "good" kind of boring.

fsentkilr........

You seem to imply that "taking private property" is simply "stealing" property from landowners with no payment. That's NOT how it works.

Here's how it works:

A VAST public need or benefit is determined to be gained by PURCHASING private property for an overwhelmingly worthwhile public cause.

You seem to "deserve" the right to use and benefit by public facilities including roads, freeways, damns, National Parks, wetlands, etc. But you PAID for it with your tax dollars - so you DO deserve it.

Private funding of habitat projects is simply not going to stop the constant erosion of habitat. It's too expensive relative to what can be earned from it. Conservation habitat is a public need but there is VERY little private incentive to provide for it. Private interests will gravitate towards the highest paying activities on their property that provide the fastest return. Of course, there are always exceptions. I own 320 acres in ND and provide habitat exclusively on it. But me, you, and a thousand other landowners won't help the "grand scheme of things" in a vast landscape of millions of other landowners who are MUCH more interested in maximizing profits.

Good pheasant habitat will eventually shrink down to a point where only the highest paying, wealthy customers will offer enough private incentive to profitably provide for it. Just like wild quail hunting in Georgia and Alabama. Real EXCLUSIVE. $1,200+ per day. If the landowner can't get that kind of money, then they might just as well farm it or develop it. Pheasant hunting will be relegated to the "playground" of the wealthy. The top 5% income earners who, of course, enjoy $200 bottles of wine and $50 cigars after a gentlemans hunt for the " last true wild roosters". And this will correspond with the 95% drop in wild bird #'s - and hunters.

The above scenario is already well underway. The CRP program is the only thing stopping it from becoming a full-blown stampede.

Case in point: If we depended on private landowners to protect wetlands, it would rapidly disappear. There is little profit motive for individual landowners to provide this public benefit - so its use is restricted for public benefit. However, there is great private incentive to fill it, drain it, farm it, and develop it.

Again, most things are best left to private enterprise. But with a few things, it just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You have expressed your point well. I think you have accessed the situation well. I congratulate you. Now you need to think of some kind of solution that can happen that will contribute to making things better. No need to rehash what has already been said but you have shown the most cognitive ability in this last post of anything you have written so far.
 
Here is the issue, as I see it, there are quite a few of landowners here which have a reverence for the land, and a devotion to the bird. The frustration, as I see it, is shared by both sides, the caring landowner uses the CRP, other management techniques, to make the land better. It will not equate to the profit margin enjoyed by the road-center section around them. I assure you, as a small time landowner, they, and I, grit our teeth when we go by the neighbors who yank out hedgerows, till up prairie, tile waterways. Just as the seasonal hunter-visitor who see's it in the fall annually. We do not have solution, we might have some ideas, solution seems far away. A lot of us are old, recruitment is difficult, it's a difficult sport to aspire to, we have little political power the mainstream housewife is more concerned that bread or milk is a dime cheaper than to create more bird habitat. The seminal point for me dawned when I read a couple of articles one about quail habitat and lesser prairie chickens. It seems that quail need a habitat approximately of 32 block sections of more or less quail friendly habitat, to shuffle, avoid predators, allow for hunting harvest, to have sustaining population. It is a mammoth enterprise, one we had and took for granted, and due to the financial constraints all most impossible. With the Lesser chickens or sage grouse, Greater Chickens, any disruption, roads, livestock shelters, oil wells, power lines, destroy the habitat. Eventually pheasants with the fractured habitat, even the guys with the habitat will lose, though pheasants are more adaptable to proximity. Can the diehards who have ground survive the cost until the next agricultural revolution comes along more friendly to the birds, or are we the vanguard of the era of hunting upland birds, with small acreage parcel of reserves where quail or pheasants might be see, but not hunted. We have that now in Missouri with Greater Prairie Chickens, I believe Wisconsin, Illinois, (" the prairie state!"), have the same circumstance. As you say, it is economics which hold sway. Our future in upland hunting regards what the demand for commodities are. Interestingly enough, our salvation may be equipping the rest of the world to feed it's self, reduce our demand for fuel, destroying the need, and subsidy for ethanol, the endless quest for fossil fuels, pipelines, etc. By the way, if we do this, we might save the upland birds, but it will be more difficult for all of us to get there, very few are game for that, rather ride the horse till we are gone. Will we destroy the birds or die from excessive run of tainted water, from industry and farms first. With out us, I suspect the birds will get by without us!
 
oldandnew said:
Here is the issue, as I see it, there are quite a few of landowners here which have a reverence for the land, and a devotion to the bird. The frustration, as I see it, is shared by both sides, the caring landowner uses the CRP, other management techniques, to make the land better. It will not equate to the profit margin enjoyed by the road-center section around them. I assure you, as a small time landowner, they, and I, grit our teeth when we go by the neighbors who yank out hedgerows, till up prairie, tile waterways. Just as the seasonal hunter-visitor who see's it in the fall annually. We do not have solution, we might have some ideas, solution seems far away. A lot of us are old, recruitment is difficult, it's a difficult sport to aspire to, we have little political power the mainstream housewife is more concerned that bread or milk is a dime cheaper than to create more bird habitat. The seminal point for me dawned when I read a couple of articles one about quail habitat and lesser prairie chickens. It seems that quail need a habitat approximately of 32 block sections of more or less quail friendly habitat, to shuffle, avoid predators, allow for hunting harvest, to have sustaining population. It is a mammoth enterprise, one we had and took for granted, and due to the financial constraints all most impossible. With the Lesser chickens or sage grouse, Greater Chickens, any disruption, roads, livestock shelters, oil wells, power lines, destroy the habitat. Eventually pheasants with the fractured habitat, even the guys with the habitat will lose, though pheasants are more adaptable to proximity. Can the diehards who have ground survive the cost until the next agricultural revolution comes along more friendly to the birds, or are we the vanguard of the era of hunting upland birds, with small acreage parcel of reserves where quail or pheasants might be see, but not hunted. We have that now in Missouri with Greater Prairie Chickens, I believe Wisconsin, Illinois, (" the prairie state!"), have the same circumstance. As you say, it is economics which hold sway. Our future in upland hunting regards what the demand for commodities are. Interestingly enough, our salvation may be equipping the rest of the world to feed it's self, reduce our demand for fuel, destroying the need, and subsidy for ethanol, the endless quest for fossil fuels, pipelines, etc. By the way, if we do this, we might save the upland birds, but it will be more difficult for all of us to get there, very few are game for that, rather ride the horse till we are gone. Will we destroy the birds or die from excessive run of tainted water, from industry and farms first. With out us, I suspect the birds will get by without us!
Click to expand...


There are no subsidies for ethanol any longer. There is a mandate just as there was a mandate for an oxygenate (MTBE) before ethanol. I don't think doing away with ethanol will solve anything. High domestic grain prices is encouraging other countries to feed themselves. If you want the farmer to not look at ways to make every dollar, doing away with E isn't a good idea. That is a sure way to guarantee more pay to play.
 
I believe that the ethanol subsidy is still in play. Missouri for example mandates a quantity of "splash blended" ethanol be put into our pumps to subsidize the ethanol plants and their investors, the government officials and the providers who supply them. The bio-diesel subsidy ended. Ironically, Bio-diesel was a sound enterprise, regardless of it's benefit to someone, ethanol is bad, bad fuel, to costly in water consumption, and a Malthusian example of bad economy. But you don't have argue with me, due some research.
 
oldandnew said:
I believe that the ethanol subsidy is still in play. Missouri for example mandates a quantity of "splash blended" ethanol be put into our pumps to subsidize the ethanol plants and their investors, the government officials and the providers who supply them. The bio-diesel subsidy ended. Ironically, Bio-diesel was a sound enterprise, regardless of it's benefit to someone, ethanol is bad, bad fuel, to costly in water consumption, and a Malthusian example of bad economy. But you don't have argue with me, due some research.
Click to expand...

The blenders credit for ethanol ended 2 years ago. There is no blenders credit any longer. Google it, I'm to lazy to post links. There is no subsidy, O for ethanol any more. There is a mandate to use a certain amount.

Ok I spent 10 seconds to pull up a link for you Old and New.

http://www.agriculture.com/news/business/end-is-nigh-f-ethol-blenders-credit_5-ar21353

Here's another

http://www.agweb.com/article/end_of_blenders_tax_credit_to_shave_25_off_corn_price_/

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdige...jects-mccain-amendment-against-blender-pumps/
 
Last edited:
If you have to use it, because there is no free choice to buy another product, isn't that a subsidy? I agree there is no direct government subsidy, they transferred that to you at the pump because you HAVE to use it. It's still a flawed system both ecologically and in practice, in your car.
 
oldandnew said:
If you have to use it, because there is no free choice to buy another product, isn't that a subsidy? I agree there is no direct government subsidy, they transferred that to you at the pump because you HAVE to use it. It's still a flawed system both ecologically and in practice, in your car.
Click to expand...

How does ethanol make gas higher when its 1.00 a gallon cheaper than unleaded?
 
Haymaker........

The "Final and Permanent Solution" is not complicated:

The Federal Government quits pissing OUR money away on "foriegn do-goody-good, save-the-world programs and uses it instead to provide 50-75 million acres of PERMANENT CRP grass. Just like our freeway system - PERMANENT.

PF, State Game Depts, and the Feds would work to target the best acreage for conservation and pay the landowners for a PERMANENT easement.

The result: Better environment and pheasant numbers restored to at or near their all-time highs in many, many areas. Western Rural America BOOMS in the fall again for 3 months.

We already have a CRP program that puts about 30 million+/- acres to grass so its not a BIG stretch to double it and make it permanent.

I'm tired of all these fiddle-diddle "band-aid" ideas that really solve nothing and have been proven already NOT TO WORK.

Some things HAVE to be permanent.
 
RK Special K said:
Haymaker........

The "Final and Permanent Solution" is not complicated:

The Federal Government quits pissing OUR money away on "foriegn do-goody-good, save-the-world programs and uses it instead to provide 50-75 million acres of PERMANENT CRP grass. Just like our freeway system - PERMANENT.

PF, State Game Depts, and the Feds would work to target the best acreage for conservation and pay the landowners for a PERMANENT easement.

The result: Better environment and pheasant numbers restored to at or near their all-time highs in many, many areas. Western Rural America BOOMS in the fall again for 3 months.

We already have a CRP program that puts about 30 million+/- acres to grass so its not a BIG stretch to double it and make it permanent.

I'm tired of all these fiddle-diddle "band-aid" ideas that really solve nothing and have been proven already NOT TO WORK.

Some things HAVE to be permanent.
Click to expand...

If you can get the foolish government spending to stop, my hat is off to you. Then that money should go to deficit reduction so that maybe we can save this country. There are far bigger problems than whether you have great free hunting paid for by the taxpayers. There is lots of public hunting now and that is not good enough. What makes you think there will ever be enough for you. Find a way to raise some money and find a willing seller and presto you are part of the solution. As it is now you want badly needed tax dollars to placate you. Why? You seem to be working on the same philosophy as the people that are getting free obama phones.
 
haymaker said:
If you can get the foolish government spending to stop, my hat is off to you. Then that money should go to deficit reduction so that maybe we can save this country. There are far bigger problems than whether you have great free hunting paid for by the taxpayers. There is lots of public hunting now and that is not good enough. What makes you think there will ever be enough for you. Find a way to raise some money and find a willing seller and presto you are part of the solution. As it is now you want badly needed tax dollars to placate you. Why? You seem to be working on the same philosophy as the people that are getting free obama phones.
Click to expand...

Haymaker, how long has your farm been in the family?
 
fsentkilr said:
How does ethanol make gas higher when its 1.00 a gallon cheaper than unleaded?
Click to expand...

First of all, the difference in price is an aberration to the current situation, many times ethanol is less per gallon to fossil fuel, other times it is more from a retail delivery source. That is market to market variability. Not all gas is sold everywhere, it is formulated for each zone. Leading to different prices. Ethanol is a component which is mandated, which means refiners will use it regardless, and send you the bill. If ethanol is cheaper, refiners will use "splash blending", to increase the amount. Ethanol is about 85% as effective as fossil fuel, so your buck doesn't take you as far, the cost of burning it in equipment to make your car like it, cost a lot in the manufacturing cost of a car, that translates into what you pay in the showroom. It also uses between 6-8 gallons of water, to grow and use corn as a feeder stock to manufacturer. Not to mention the higher cost of meat, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, ( in almost everything, good or bad). None of your figures contemplate the real cost, only the marketing cost, as a triumph! This is exactly what I expect of ag publications, assuming we are going to take it verbatim, with out real investigation, and take time out of our schedule to do it. Again it takes an ill wind to blow, to not make somebody happy. As a national policy it is bad business.
 
Last edited:
haymaker said:
The original quarter was purchased in 1903. The house I live in was built in 1910 when my grandfather established the farm.
Click to expand...

It is a good feeling isn't it. The farm house here on the farm was built in 1911(my brother in law lives there) and the original quarter was homestead in 1887.:cheers:
 
Haymaker......

When you leave your driveway this morning you can enter a "free road" to get to a "free expressway" to get to a "free National Wildlife Refuge or Park". Then on your way back you can stop at the "free library" then to the FSA office to check on the "free farm subsidy program".

Some other "free" programs that, to some degree, we all benefit by are our National Defence(the military), NASA, etc, etc.

A National Habitat Program would vastly improve the environmemt, help rural America and preserve our National Hunting Treasure. I'd just be a lonely hunter in a vast ocean of benefit.

Nothing is "free". How we spend OUR money is based upon how we set priorities based upon overall benefit.
 
SDJIM said:
It is a good feeling isn't it. The farm house here on the farm was built in 1911(my brother in law lives there) and the original quarter was homestead in 1887.:cheers:
Click to expand...

Yes Jim it does feel good to walk through the same doors as my ancestors. I am very fortunate to have been able to do what I have for so long. I am the beneficiary of the labors of my ancestors. I have been working on this farm for 50 years or more and not much of it has felt like work.
 
RK Special K said:
Haymaker......

When you leave your driveway this morning you can enter a "free road" to get to a "free expressway" to get to a "free National Wildlife Refuge or Park". Then on your way back you can stop at the "free library" then to the FSA office to check on the "free farm subsidy program".

Some other "free" programs that, to some degree, we all benefit by are our National Defence(the military), NASA, etc, etc.

A National Habitat Program would vastly improve the environmemt, help rural America and preserve our National Hunting Treasure. I'd just be a lonely hunter in a vast ocean of benefit.

Nothing is "free". How we spend OUR money is based upon how we set priorities based upon overall benefit.
Click to expand...

When I leave my driveway I turn onto a gravel township road that I pay taxes to maintain. As a township supervisor we raised our own taxes the last two years to pay for past flood damage. We do recieve some funding from other sources but a couple of years ago I paid for some gravel for the road I drive on when the township was out of money. Yes I drive on federal and state hiways. I hope the national defense can keep us safe. Your last sentence said it well as far as what our priorities are. Yours are different than mine. I want the government to be financially sound, in our current position we can't afford what you are talking about and momma houswife can't afford what it would do to the food budget. We have hashed this to death and this is the end of this conversation for me. If you want to come up with a new topic, great. Good luck to you.
 
At an average price of $3,500 per acre, it would take $200 billion to put 57 million acres into permanent grass. I believe we spent over 3 times this amount on the Iraqi wars alone. Probably MUCH more.

We just sent Syria $250 million last week - a gift! On and on and on. Whenever another country has a big problem, we pick up the tab. They expect that from us now but it rarely is even appreciated. Our foriegn aid and foriegn military assistance bill each year must run in the hundreds and hundreds of BILLIONS!

A good foriegn policy: LEAVE everyone alone and they are much more likely to leave us alone. They will figure out there problems and realize we won't interfere with them. Wow. They might even start to trust us.

We should do trade with everyone and protect OUR borders only. In the long-run, this is the only rational policy. Works well for Switzerland and they run a TIGHT ship and take care of their country ONLY.
 
I will also say that buying our own land in our country is a HARD ASSET. We the people will own it. It's GREAT bargain. I'm an accountant - we simply exchange cash for land. Probably a decent investment in addition to all the other benefits.

95% of what we spend on overseas boondoggles is pissed away FOREVER - nothing much to show for it except a kick in the butt from those we gave it to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top