New FarmBill

[UGUIDE]

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.

Chestle, everything you talk about is great optimization but did you know that these programs exist and are available today. I am just in the process myself of signing up for one to optimize 150 acres of CRP. Even on the cropping side of the house, NRCS has a great number of programs to incentivize producers to farm more sustainably (CSP, EQIP, etc).

IMO, the missing link is conservationists, environmentalists, sportsmen and more importantly - farm groups - are not engaging the producers that control the acres where the difference can be made. A significant investment in education could make a big difference. Lots of these producers would like nothing to do with the federal government or the state government for that matter. This fact supports the need for a privatization of solutions for these issues.

 

[Chestle]

Chestle, everything you talk about is great optimization but did you know that these programs exist and are available today.

No, I admit I didn't. I am not a farmer/rancher, nor do I own any acres in pheasant country. (And at my age and income, it doesn't look like I am going to! ) I wish that were not the case.

What I do know though is that most of the CRP I have seen in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and SD since the inception of the program in the '85 Farm Bill has been acres of brome and brome alone. Now something is better than nothing but I wish the program was set up to incentivize something along the lines of the PF recommendations.

In general, the suggestion is "about 70 percent cropland (approximately 30 percent row crop and 40 percent small grains) and 30 percent hayland or grassland, of which 10-15 percent is undisturbed nesting cover."

[https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/private-lands/docs/life-after-crp.pdf]

That much cropland probably conflicts with the idea of taking poor land out of production so obviously there needs to be modification and negotiation on the mix.

Also, the question of access is never addressed. I would love to see a linked program of CRP/PF type habitat improvement/Walk-in hunting. I wish they would incentivize that so much ($$$) that it becomes a deal that a landowner just can't refuse.

At the same time, I think experimenting a bit with Tilkut's idea is worthwhile as well. As Chairman Mao said "let a hundred flowers bloom". Let's not be afraid to try something new. Clearly, the current CRP program provides neither the optimum pheasant habitat nor as much public access as we'd like.

 

[haymaker]

No, I admit I didn't. I am not a farmer/rancher, nor do I own any acres in pheasant country. (And at my age and income, it doesn't look like I am going to! ) I wish that were not the case.

What I do know though is that most of the CRP I have seen in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and SD since the inception of the program in the '85 Farm Bill has been acres of brome and brome alone. Now something is better than nothing but I wish the program was set up to incentivize something along the lines of the PF recommendations.

In general, the suggestion is "about 70 percent cropland (approximately 30 percent row crop and 40 percent small grains) and 30 percent hayland or grassland, of which 10-15 percent is undisturbed nesting cover."

[https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/private-lands/docs/life-after-crp.pdf]

That much cropland probably conflicts with the idea of taking poor land out of production so obviously there needs to be modification and negotiation on the mix.

Also, the question of access is never addressed. I would love to see a linked program of CRP/PF type habitat improvement/Walk-in hunting. I wish they would incentivize that so much ($$$) that it becomes a deal that a landowner just can't refuse.

At the same time, I think experimenting a bit with Tilkut's idea is worthwhile as well. As Chairman Mao said "let a hundred flowers bloom". Let's not be afraid to try something new. Clearly, the current CRP program provides neither the optimum pheasant habitat nor as much public access as we'd like.

I like the creative thinking, but where is the money coming from, public or private? As a county commissioner I also think about what effect this would have on the taxes that fund our schools and the county.

 

[small munsterlander owner]

No, I admit I didn't. I am not a farmer/rancher, nor do I own any acres in pheasant country. (And at my age and income, it doesn't look like I am going to! ) I wish that were not the case.

What I do know though is that most of the CRP I have seen in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and SD since the inception of the program in the '85 Farm Bill has been acres of brome and brome alone. Now something is better than nothing but I wish the program was set up to incentivize something along the lines of the PF recommendations.

In general, the suggestion is "about 70 percent cropland (approximately 30 percent row crop and 40 percent small grains) and 30 percent hayland or grassland, of which 10-15 percent is undisturbed nesting cover."

[https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/private-lands/docs/life-after-crp.pdf]

That much cropland probably conflicts with the idea of taking poor land out of production so obviously there needs to be modification and negotiation on the mix.

Also, the question of access is never addressed. I would love to see a linked program of CRP/PF type habitat improvement/Walk-in hunting. I wish they would incentivize that so much ($$$) that it becomes a deal that a landowner just can't refuse.

At the same time, I think experimenting a bit with Tilkut's idea is worthwhile as well. As Chairman Mao said "let a hundred flowers bloom". Let's not be afraid to try something new. Clearly, the current CRP program provides neither the optimum pheasant habitat nor as much public access as we'd like.

Many programs in NE in recint years create incentive to plant pollinators into there crp stands brome does nothing now in MN I see brome all over we need more & better crp stands of grass & pollinators vs food plot food plot brome brome on our WMA public lands...

 

[Chestle]

I like the creative thinking, but where is the money coming from, public or private? As a county commissioner I also think about what effect this would have on the taxes that fund our schools and the county.

My thought would be that you use the public money (Farm Bill CRP) to fund an experiment or two. Couple that with a slight increase in license fees to be used to reimburse the counties for the loss of tax revenue.

Instead of just brome CRP, set aside a small percentage of the CRP money to fund a PF-type habitat CRP experiment. Pay a bit more for PF CRP; allow a one-time hay harvest after mid-July. Allow a small percentage of crop acreage in the parcel with a harvest of 80%, leaving 20% for harvest after winter eases. Incentivize the landowner to improve habitat. It has to be something of a win-win for both sides.

At the same time do a small experiment along the lines of what Tilkut has laid out. Use a small percentage of the Farm Bill CRP money to permanently idle...and manage...the worst erodible acres. Last numbers I can find were 2014 when SD got almost $71 million in CRP money. Seems like a little of that could go towards a Tilkut experiment.

Both of those experiments should be coupled to a Walk-In hunting agreement. That is, land in these experiments should/must be enrolled in Walk-In hunting. In the case of the PF CRP, the Walk-In pay rate would be higher than brome CRP type stuff. In the case of the permanently owned erodible Tilkut experiment, the Walk-In money would go to managing the land.

As to the county tax base, I see it as a form of Pay-To-Hunt. Scouting around the 'net I see numbers like (for example) 90,000 resident SD hunting licenses and 100,000 non-resident hunters. I suspect quite a few non-residents buy more than one 10 day license. So, for sport, let's say 250,000 license purchases total.

As a non-resident, I pay to hunt about $12 per day on a ten day license. If I had to pay another few bucks I'd still do the same amount of hunting.

So what if we added $20 (another $2/day for non-residents, less of course for residents) to every license? $20 x 250,000 = $5,000,000. So you use this $5 million to mitigate the loss of tax revenue to the counties losing land taxes due to land being permanently removed from the tax base in Tilkut's plan. How far that money would go, I admit I don't know. I don't know what average land taxes are in your counties.

The regular old brome CRP still pays taxes. The experimental PF CRP still pays taxes. So those aren't a problem for the counties.

Just blue-sky pure speculation here. I don't know how to get it started or if it would really work.

What I do know is I would sure like to have better CRP habitat that the public and hunt and lots more of it. I'm open to any ideas to make that happen

 

[haymaker]

My thought would be that you use the public money (Farm Bill CRP) to fund an experiment or two. Couple that with a slight increase in license fees to be used to reimburse the counties for the loss of tax revenue.

Instead of just brome CRP, set aside a small percentage of the CRP money to fund a PF-type habitat CRP experiment. Pay a bit more for PF CRP; allow a one-time hay harvest after mid-July. Allow a small percentage of crop acreage in the parcel with a harvest of 80%, leaving 20% for harvest after winter eases. Incentivize the landowner to improve habitat. It has to be something of a win-win for both sides.

At the same time do a small experiment along the lines of what Tilkut has laid out. Use a small percentage of the Farm Bill CRP money to permanently idle...and manage...the worst erodible acres. Last numbers I can find were 2014 when SD got almost $71 million in CRP money. Seems like a little of that could go towards a Tilkut experiment.

Both of those experiments should be coupled to a Walk-In hunting agreement. That is, land in these experiments should/must be enrolled in Walk-In hunting. In the case of the PF CRP, the Walk-In pay rate would be higher than brome CRP type stuff. In the case of the permanently owned erodible Tilkut experiment, the Walk-In money would go to managing the land.

As to the county tax base, I see it as a form of Pay-To-Hunt. Scouting around the 'net I see numbers like (for example) 90,000 resident SD hunting licenses and 100,000 non-resident hunters. I suspect quite a few non-residents buy more than one 10 day license. So, for sport, let's say 250,000 license purchases total.

As a non-resident, I pay to hunt about $12 per day on a ten day license. If I had to pay another few bucks I'd still do the same amount of hunting.

So what if we added $20 (another $2/day for non-residents, less of course for residents) to every license? $20 x 250,000 = $5,000,000. So you use this $5 million to mitigate the loss of tax revenue to the counties losing land taxes due to land being permanently removed from the tax base in Tilkut's plan. How far that money would go, I admit I don't know. I don't know what average land taxes are in your counties.

The regular old brome CRP still pays taxes. The experimental PF CRP still pays taxes. So those aren't a problem for the counties.

Just blue-sky pure speculation here. I don't know how to get it started or if it would really work.

What I do know is I would sure like to have better CRP habitat that the public and hunt and lots more of it. I'm open to any ideas to make that happen

That is pretty good blue sky thinking. One thing I would mention, I have been had CRP since the beginning and have never planted Brome. Intermediate wheat grass has been the grass component. By the end of the contract it is mostly Brome. Even our native has been invaded by Brome. So there might be a need to kill it all and start over from time to time. Again I like the creative thinking.

 

[jstevens]

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.

Mowing CRP for hay isn't going to help, unless you think running a mower over nests is good. I spent half of my life on a cattle operation when quail and pheasants were thick, your first two cuttings of hay are at the prime time for nesting quail and pheasants. I probably ran over 500 quail nests a year. The other oddity is that though pheasants are wilder, in general, the damn hens won't get off the nest, you usually cut the hens in two with the mower. The quail will often try again later, I've mowed hay in the summer as late as August and found nests in the hay, often it was hot enough, I would lift the mower up and before I left, the quail would be hatched out in the sun.

Another fallacy I've heard is that almost all the nests are within a few yards of the edge. You'll hit just as many nests in the middle of an 80-acre hay field as along the ditches, of course there will also be nests along roadsides, etc.

 

[McFarmer]

Mowing CRP for hay isn't going to help, unless you think running a mower over nests is good. I spent half of my life on a cattle operation when quail and pheasants were thick, your first two cuttings of hay are at the prime time for nesting quail and pheasants. I probably ran over 500 quail nests a year. The other oddity is that though pheasants are wilder, in general, the damn hens won't get off the nest, you usually cut the hens in two with the mower. The quail will often try again later, I've mowed hay in the summer as late as August and found nests in the hay, often it was hot enough, I would lift the mower up and before I left, the quail would be hatched out in the sun.

Another fallacy I've heard is that almost all the nests are within a few yards of the edge. You'll hit just as many nests in the middle of an 80-acre hay field as along the ditches, of course there will also be nests along roadsides, etc.

Many times the reason those nests were there is because it was hayed the year before. Birds like to be able to hide but yet see when they stand up. Six inches of stubble at the start of nesting seems to be what they like. Continuous growth or burning don't provide that.

Haying in my example would be around mid-July and then if conditions and species permit it, around September 1st.

 

[jstevens]

Many times the reason those nests were there is because it was hayed the year before. Birds like to be able to hide but yet see when they stand up. Six inches of stubble at the start of nesting seems to be what they like. Continuous growth or burning don't provide that.

Haying in my example would be around mid-July and then if conditions and species permit it, around September 1st.

I saw that answer coming, but realize that if you wait till mid-July, the hay will be good only for erosion control. In other words, you throw it in a ditch to stop it washing out. You mow hay when it's headed out, otherwise all you have are some stems.

Most CRP isn't fit for hay anyway. For what it's worth, when quail and pheasants are nesting, hay will be waist high, not six inches of stubble.

 

[McFarmer]

I saw that answer coming, but realize that if you wait till mid-July, the hay will be good only for erosion control. In other words, you throw it in a ditch to stop it washing out. You mow hay when it's headed out, otherwise all you have are some stems.

Most CRP isn't fit for hay anyway. For what it's worth, when quail and pheasants are nesting, hay will be waist high, not six inches of stubble.

My cows seemed to have eaten mine.

As to the height of hay at nesting initiation, laying a dozen eggs and 28 days incubation, I'll defer to your experience.

 

[jstevens]

McFarmer

I wasn't trying to be hard on you, but the hay will be cut at the prime nesting period, then we usually get at least two-three cuttings a year, usually four on alfalfa. On this I do have some experience, put up around 40000 square bales a year for 600 head from the time I was 13 till I left for college.

I am 60, this was in the heyday of quail in our neck of the woods. Just using a brush hog on the CRP in the fall would be better IMO.

The bad part is I have no idea why we don't have birds like we did then, our farm still has crops, weedy ditches and hedgerow cover, and where there were 10 coveys on a certain piece, we now have 2.

 

[McFarmer]

McFarmer

I wasn't trying to be hard on you, but the hay will be cut at the prime nesting period, then we usually get at least two-three cuttings a year, usually four on alfalfa. On this I do have some experience, put up around 40000 square bales a year for 600 head from the time I was 13 till I left for college.

I am 60, this was in the heyday of quail in our neck of the woods. Just using a brush hog on the CRP in the fall would be better IMO.

The bad part is I have no idea why we don't have birds like we did then, our farm still has crops, weedy ditches and hedgerow cover, and where there were 10 coveys on a certain piece, we now have 2.

I understood we were discussing haying CRP in which case prime quality hay is not the intent, getting that old growth off is. The hay would have value, heck, corn stalks have value. The hay producers would understandably have some reservations concerning the competition from CRP hay.

Do you still have small grains ?

 

[jstevens]

corn and beans, usually put out some milo for food plots in some areas. Quail and pheasants populations are a bit better than in the last few years, but still nowhere near the late 60's thru 70's.

It's along the same lines of trying to figure out why my neighbors in Iowa have very few pheasants, while SD has a lot. When we had lots of quail, southern Iowa had tons of pheasants, now they are in decline as well. At least now if we can't find some birds, I can buy some for my grandkids to shoot!

 

[M. R. Byrd]

I do not travel far from home, but to date I have not encountered any brome CRP fields. I am planting more CRP grass this year and as far as I remember the grass seed mix has been pretty much the same except the very first one(1986) may not have had any forbs in the mix, although re-enrollments have included interseeding forbs after prescribed burns.

Here is what I am planting again this year.

Those hunting in the state of Kansas seem, for the most part, to utilize the million acres of WIHA, which includes lots of CRP acres. Certainly, the CRP program is not perfect upland bird habitat for propagating birds, but it certainly is way better than the every acre farmed situation. I do some battles with FSA and NRCS for the birds benefit and am not always well liked in those circles, but wildlife is number one in my farming and ranching operation. I take care of those critters and it costs me, but I will continue to do it as long as I am able.

 

[UGUIDE]

I do not travel far from home, but to date I have not encountered any brome CRP fields. .

Mr. Bird,

That is a nice lookin mix. You bring up a good fact about brome. there is less and less around all the time. I do not think folks realize how much more optimized habitat has become over the years. The mixes and diversity is much much better.

I re-enrolled my first CRP contract which was 15 years old. No mid contract management on it and most had turned to brome. To re-enroll I had to agree to re-establish it in a better mix of seed.

 

[Chestle]

Mr. Bird,

That is a nice lookin mix. ...

...No mid contract management on it and most had turned to brome.

M.R. Byrd has a great mix. I think it goes right along with what PF recommends. I defer to PF as the 'experts'; I figure they are dedicated to doing the research necessary to finding what works best for the birds.

I also think a lot of CRP has and will turn to brome without management and it seems to happen fairly fast. That's been my experience.

We talk about the old days of the small farms where there was a mix of habitat types in a small area as the glory days. There were more birds.

Well, I doubt we'll get back to where the small farms are in the majority but we could change CRP to mimic them. An 80 or a quarter of CRP that combined nesting cover, brood habitat, winter cover and small food plots would be pretty similar, would it not?

It all takes money and I am certainly not against using the Farm Bill, license fees, habitat stamp fees, walk-in payments...whatever... to incentivize landowners to create the best possible pheasant/quail habitat possible. I would give a significantly higher return to those that would enroll such land in walk-in programs.

My 2 cents.

 

[UGUIDE]

Got word that the current administration is looking for 20% reduction to farmbill cost. Companies like Land O Lakes are looking at providing more conservation support in way of sustainable farming. Beware of marketing scams I say. While we can sure do lots more on the producer side, sustainable AG will not fix the loss of species and CRP acreage decline issues.

However, wherever the consumer $$ goes is a huge influence.

The rural folks don't see it as much but my experience in traveling between country and big city I have seen the interest in demand for more sustainable goods increase steadily from folks in the big city. Just wait till you see "GMO Free" toilet paper on the shelves at Walmart.:cheers:

 

[PheasantWhisperer]

Does that toilet paper produce a higher yield per sheet? Appreciate the update. Anything we as sportsman can do you think? Other than all out protest.

 

[haymaker]

Senator Thune is going to try to get SHIPP into the next farm bill. Soil Health income Protection Plan. Three to five year program that is a working lands program not a wildlife program, but I think it will help wildlife anyway.

 

[UGUIDE]

Senator Thune is going to try to get SHIPP into the next farm bill. Soil Health income Protection Plan. Three to five year program that is a working lands program not a wildlife program, but I think it will help wildlife anyway.

Dennis, gimme your take on SHIPP. I don't get it and I am afraid many producers will do the same making it ineffective. I am not finding the value.