New FarmBill

THE HEYDAY OF IOWA PHEASANT HARVEST WAS THE 1970'S. CRP was meant to help wildlife return to the numbers of the 1970's. It has failed. These are facts.

Actually if you do the research you will find that Iowa out harvested roosters over South Dakota even in the early 90's.

I hunted Iowa from 1980-2000. You will see the bird downturn in Iowa coincide with the upturn in crops prices in 2000's and also some poor weather.

CRP has not failed. Monsanto's Roundup Ready Corn and Soybean System has succeeded. Track what was grown on the acres this system has replaced and you will find you missing huns, quail, jackrabbits, pheasants, and all the other species of wildlife nobody is even talking about. Hmmm, have ther been any water quality issues associated with the last 2 decades?
 
I have had customers dogs get cut a few times but not mine, that is why I wonder if it is different when they grow up around it.

You might be on to something there.

With my own dogs, it's usually the young dog when first getting out into the field. Don't think I've ever had a dog get fence cut twice, so seems like they learn fast. My dogs grow up around fencing but not barb wire.

As far as the dogs my buddy has sewn up, no data. The question was never asked as to how many times or growing up around it.
 
As Far As CRP versus Outright Purchase....

...why not try both?

Set up competing programs. CRP like we have it now and something like what Tilkut is proposing. Split the money 50/50 for 5 years.

May the best program win. Competition usually improves the breed.

I'm open to new ideas.
 
Uguide, you make my point for me. If we are missing huns, quail, jack rabbits, pheasants, song birds, etc......then CRP has failed. It was designed to positively impact those species. It has not. Time to move on, but once people have a benefit paid for by others, it's very hard to take it away.
 
Uguide, you make my point for me. If we are missing huns, quail, jack rabbits, pheasants, song birds, etc......then CRP has failed. It was designed to positively impact those species. It has not. Time to move on, but once people have a benefit paid for by others, it's very hard to take it away.


CRP is not a habitat program, it has not failed.

Could it be better for wildlife ? Yes, but more money needs to be put into it for that.

Haying a portion of the CRP acres each year would increase the wildlife benefits.

'Course the hay producers wouldn't like that, and rightly so.
 
Wikipedia specifically mentions "increase wildlife habitat" and "Wildlife and pollinators food and shelter plantings". I think we could assume these goals would mesh with improving numbers of quail, pheasants, etc.... I know it's not the only goal, but at this goal it has failed. A permanent, well managed program would have been much more successful long term for wildlife and the taxpayer. And possibly the farmer. Taking the erodible lands out of production permanently would help to level crop prices. A rise in corn prices wouldn't result in a huge increase in land put into production, just to see harvest jump and prices crash.
 
Uguide, you make my point for me. If we are missing huns, quail, jack rabbits, pheasants, song birds, etc......then CRP has failed. It was designed to positively impact those species. It has not. Time to move on, but once people have a benefit paid for by others, it's very hard to take it away.

Tilkut, Iowa has roughly 500,000 more acres in CRP than South Dakota. Why don't they have more pheasants or even near the pheasants South Dakota has?

You make an argument that is all about CRP OR permanent solutions. The solutions are many and varied.

It will be CRP AND permanent AND many other things.
 
I have had customers dogs get cut a few times but not mine, that is why I wonder if it is different when they grow up around it.

Dennis:

Years ago a friend of mine's lab decided to scale a barbed fence - over the top!
Now this dog wasn't the brightest and he almost made it over, except his penis was impaled by one of the barbs.

There he hung, so to speak, wiggling to free himself from the wire. Of course whining with pain.

Fortunately my Veterinarian was with us and lifted him off the wire; dog continued to hunt, no worse for wear.

My Golden always goes under - only an occasional scrape on his back...
 
This is a pretty cool article I found and it sort of bears on this discussion.

https://webapps8.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer_index/past_issues/article_pdf?id=2724

This is from, I think, a Minnesota Conservation Volunteer magazine. From the latest dates they mention and graph it looks like it came out about 1962. There's a lot of things they mention that relate to us today in one way or another.

Can you believe this part?

The best year for a cocks-only season was 1942 when 1,749,000 roosters were taken by hunters. Our best year since then was 1958 when 1,562,000 cocks were bagged, In an average year Minnesota gunners take home a little over 1,000,000 cocks. The take in 1962 was 900,000.

So what happened since 1962?

Q. O.K., if hunting of cocks doesn't have much effect on the number of pheasants next year, what does?

A. Briefly, it is a matter of land use patterns and weather. Changes in land use in the main pheasant range since about 1940 have resulted in substantial loss of pheasant cover, especially of grassy types needed for nesting. Even small grain acreages, which are our most productive nesting cover, have declined 40 per cent since the early 1940s.

Mowing of hayland starts at such an early date that only about 5 per cent of the nests in hay hatch. Twenty years ago the figure was closer to 30 per cent. Nesting studies in south central Minnesota during the period 1958-62 showed that only 35 to 50 per cent of the hens were successful in hatching a nest.

Along with the long term but gradual decline in habitat, there is considerable variation in weather conditions from year to year. A warm and diy spring may produce a good hatch one year whereas the opposite may occur the following year when the spring is wet and cool.

Because of the short life span and high rate of population turnover, pheasant numbers vary considerable from one year to the next because of differences in the hatch and survival of both young and adults. Weather is especially important in determining population changes from one year to the next.

Sounds pretty familiar to me. I think the reasons for bird population swings haven't changed all that much.
 
I rest my case. Small grains and fewer hay cuttings. That is what is missing from wildlife populations.

Eat more Cheerios.

CRP, usually isn't that great for nesting.
 
So if we had permanent conservation land owned and managed by taxpayers we couldn't have some in hay ground, not cut until mid-july, or some in small grains? Im thinking we could, if we owned it, and it was permanent.
 
One more fact. If we took the $ 243,650,298 spent in Iowa on temporary CRP in 2016, used 1/2 to purchase land even at your outrageous $ 16,000 per acre, and 1/2 for land management, we could have purchased 7,614 acres per year, and had $ 16,000 an acre for management. We could spend $2,000 per acre for initial costs, and $420 annually from then on ( 14,000 x .03 return ). If we had done this since 1985, we would have 236,034 acres of PROPERLY MANAGED PUBLIC ground for recreation. CRP has failed. Hunting, hiking, bike trails, bird watching, fishing, etc...... creating tourism and tax base for the people who fund the program. Private individuals who benefit from public tax dollars wont want to give that up, but a different direction would be much more effective, and benefit those who pay.

I get it you are smarter than everyone else.


Your first year works.... how do you manage the next 7700 acres... the next ...the next....


Your purchase budget drops and your maintenance costs explode.... add in equipment .... add in the very little money PF or whoever has.

THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD OWN THE AMOUNT OF CRP ACRES AND MANAGE THEM CORRECTLY AT THE SAME DOLLAR OF CRP.

Please stop
 
So if we had permanent conservation land owned and managed by taxpayers we couldn't have some in hay ground, not cut until mid-july, or some in small grains? Im thinking we could, if we owned it, and it was permanent.


And a source of income. It's sustainable.

By golly, I think you've got it.
 
Mcfarmer, I agree there are many options to make the property as productive and wildlife friendly as possible. I would leave those decisions to the experts hired to manage the land. As long as it is owned by taxpayers and open to recreation. Permanently.

Petry, we would have half of the $243,650,298 for management every year. That is the annual budget on CRP in Iowa. Every year we would have another
$ 121,000,000 for land purchase, and $ 121,000,000 for management. Based on your $ 16,000 per acre, each new acre would have $ 2,000 the first year, and
$420 per year after that for management. That would be $ 420 forever. ( based on 3% return of the $ 14,000 left )
 
CRP is not a habitat program, it has not failed.

Could it be better for wildlife ? Yes, but more money needs to be put into it for that.

Haying a portion of the CRP acres each year would increase the wildlife benefits.

'Course the hay producers wouldn't like that, and rightly so.

You are right about the haying helping, even better would be grazing. That is not as easy though.
 
I think most agree that habitat is the key to more pheasants in any State. Weather is huge as well but good habitat helps whenever the weather is hard on the birds.

I think most also agree that today's CRP program could be improved with respect to pheasant habitat. Maybe that's what we should be working for, to get pressure on the CongressCritters. Somehow we need to get the CRP program to specify improved habitat.

Maybe they set up some deal where the CRP plot includes some alfalfa as a cover crop. As a payback to the farmer/rancher for putting it in, allow one cutting after mid-July but before the end of August as PF suggests. True, the alfalfa won't be high quality forage if its harvested that way but its something. Its somewhat of a win-win.

Include some "big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, or side-oats grama" in the same plot to provide some "outstanding nesting and brood-rearing cover." (Quotes from PF)

Lastly, let the farmer/rancer plant some small grains of his choice, leaving a decent percentage standing until after March 15 (again, a PF plan) and then let him harvest the remainder.

Heck of a deal for the farmer/rancher. CRP payment, some forage, some small grain acres. Not all of it prime, but not bad either. Its something.

On the hunter's side of it, you tie the improved CRP deal to allowing hunting.

A lot of farmers/ranchers won't go for the allowing hunting. No problem, let them have the old CRP deal.

Just spitballing here but I think we do need to do something to increase nesting/rearing/small grains.
 
Tilkut, Iowa has roughly 500,000 more acres in CRP than South Dakota. Why don't they have more pheasants or even near the pheasants South Dakota has?

You make an argument that is all about CRP OR permanent solutions. The solutions are many and varied.

It will be CRP AND permanent AND many other things.

No one will ever have near the pheasants as south dakota because no other state releases the amount of pheasants south dakota does. If missouri released a million pheasants every year no one would leave the state.
 
No one will ever have near the pheasants as south dakota because no other state releases the amount of pheasants south dakota does. If missouri released a million pheasants every year no one would leave the state.

We probably won't hear about any new legislation about released pheasants in the 2018 Farm Bill...

SD does have a brand issue related to released pheasants. Some think released birds took a sharp upturn when the CRP acres went south. Those in the biz had to start supplementing when their neighbors birds disappeared.

However, released pheasants is not the game changer when it comes to pheasants declining across the corn belt over the past 50 years. It is not on the acres where CRP is found. It is what has happened on the acres where CRP is not found. Hint hint...
 
So you're saying birds that are released dont find native grass? People release the birds on bare ground? Out of the unbelievable numbers that are released, people dont turn em out into their CRP? That's a tough sell.
 
Back
Top