PF article on Fed funded hunting access

Rusty Trigger

Rusty Trigger

Member
Just read an interesting article in the latest PF magazine about the fedâ??s funding $50 million for hunting/fishing access to private lands. Looks like the states will have some help leasing more private lands real soon.
 
Rusty Trigger said:
Just read an interesting article in the latest PF magazine about the fedâ??s funding $50 million for hunting/fishing access to private lands. Looks like the states will have some help leasing more private lands real soon.
Click to expand...

Is this 50 million additional dollars on top of what they're already recieving? Do they give them 50 million a year already? My wife needs to hurry up and buy my membership so I can read these damn articles:mad:
 
I wonder if PF is finally going to do something out here in Washington. I must admit I gave up on them a long time ago........Bob
 
bobeyerite said:
I wonder if PF is finally going to do something out here in Washington. I must admit I gave up on them a long time ago........Bob
Click to expand...


PF does there best work in Washington. Washington DC.

The local chapter activity and local habitat work is important and beneficial but ultimately a drop in the bucket to the habitat created by the conservation title in the Farm Bill. PF is a key player in making sure conservation interests are heard and considered by the powers that be in DC.

Even if you don't have a chapter established locally a $50 membership with PF will do great things for pheasants and other upland wildlife. It's all the more important now because preparations will begin soon for the 2012 Farm Bill. Federal Deficits are high and I guarantee the "Big Ag" lobby is seeing this as a golden opportunity to kill CRP, up available acres for production and sell a whole lot of seed, chemicals and fertilizer.

DB
 
Rusty Trigger said:
Just read an interesting article in the latest PF magazine about the fedâ??s funding $50 million for hunting/fishing access to private lands. Looks like the states will have some help leasing more private lands real soon.
Click to expand...

I own an excavating company and was wanting info on helping with some habitat projects in Ohio and Kentucky. I have bobcats backhoes excavators dozers that could provide for some weekend projects. Any info would be great.
bobby g:D
 
Good way to put money in landowner's pockets through government funding and access for hunters. My only issue comes with individuals not respecting private lands. Good to see either way.
 
http://www.pheasantsforever.org/page/1/PressReleaseViewer.jsp?pressReleaseId=15700



More Hunting and Habitat Coming to 17 States Thanks to Open Fields Program
PF longtime supporter of effort to improve access and wildlife habitat on private lands
Not only finding places to hunt, but quality places to hunt, are the top concerns for many wingshooters.

Not only finding places to hunt, but quality places to hunt, are the top concerns for many wingshooters.
- October 05 -

At the first meeting of the newly-formed Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced "Open Fields" funding grants for 17 state public access programs yesterday. Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever, which pushed for Open Fields inclusion in the last federal Farm Bill, call it the nation's best effort to date to simultaneously bolster hunting opportunities and improve wildlife habitat.

Formally called the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP), Open Fields was authorized by Congress for the first time in the 2008 Farm Bill following coalition support that included Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever. Howard K. Vincent, Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever's National President and CEO, serves on the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council that advises the federal Agriculture and Interior Departments on hunting and conservation issues, and praised the Open Fields program. "Ask any hunter anywhere in the country, and they'll tell you two things concern them most. One, there's not enough public hunting opportunity; and two, it's got to be quality public hunting opportunity. With its wildlife habitat improvement component, Open Fields addresses both concerns."

A total of 17 state public access programs will receive grants totaling $11.76 million through the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program. This includes a mix of states developing new programs and states enhancing existing public access and habitat incentive programs. VPA-HIP incentivizes owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch and forest land to voluntarily give hunters, fishermen, hikers, bird watchers and other recreational outdoor enthusiasts access to land for their enjoyment. State programs that ensure land enrolled is viable wildlife habitat and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) lands were given priority.

"Some states in the pheasant range already have phenomenal public hunting access programs," Vincent said, citing Nebraska's CRP-Management Access Program, Kansas' Walk-in Hunting Access, South Dakota's Walk In Areas and North Dakota's Private Land Open to Sportsmen. "Through Open Fields, those programs can be even better. But it's equally important to expand the reach of hunting opportunities. Minnesota and Iowa have 100,000 pheasant hunters, respectively. Wisconsin has nearly 60,000. Illinois has 40,000 upland hunters. To date, those states haven't had 'walk in' programs, but not for a lack of trying. Thanks to Open Fields, such programs will finally become a reality across much of pheasant country."

The 17 states and their VPA-HIP grant amounts are:

* Arizona - $600,000
* Colorado - $445,318
* Idaho - $400,000
* Illinois - $525,250
* Iowa - $500,000
* Kansas - $1,500,000
* Kentucky - $651,515
* Michigan - $457,449
* Minnesota - $582,367
* Nebraska - $1,091,164
* North Dakota - $300,000
* Oregon - $786,795
* Pennsylvania - $1,500,000
* South Dakota - $558,325
* Utah - $84,837
* Washington - $836,999
* Wisconsin - $936,040

Anthony Hauck (651) 209-4972 AHauck@pheasantsforever.org

Pheasants Forever is a non-profit conservation organization dedicated to the protection and enhancement of pheasants, quail and other wildlife populations in North America through habitat improvement, land management, public awareness and education. Such efforts benefit landowners and wildlife alike.
 
Wow. Look at Nebraska & Kansas.

Both already have pretty well established programs and if they use this infusion of capitol well could be come serious contenders to the Dakota's as destination states for us freelancers.
 
Downtown Bang! said:
Wow. Look at Nebraska & Kansas.

Both already have pretty well established programs and if they use this infusion of capitol well could be come serious contenders to the Dakota's as destination states for us freelancers.
Click to expand...

I hope that happens. Call we selfish but I would be happy if everyone went some were else to hunt.
 
moellermd said:
I hope that happens. Call we selfish but I would be happy if everyone went some were else to hunt.
Click to expand...

Funny moellermd, every time my group is up in SD chasing birds the local business owners keep telling us "keep coming to SD". ;)

Rusty Trigger, great post my friend. I was wondering if one of the "higher ups" could get this post moved to the main forum to get more exposure?:)

--1pheas4
 
1pheas4, That is the business people looking for more money. Not the local hunter trying to practice some Resource Conservation. I have never seen many out of staters hunters practice true conservation, no matter what state it is or the game or fish they are after.........Bob
 
bobeyerite said:
1pheas4, That is the business people looking for more money. Not the local hunter trying to practice some Resource Conservation. I have never seen many out of staters hunters practice true conservation, no matter what state it is or the game or fish they are after.........Bob
Click to expand...

Bob, obviously SD business people want out of state folks to come back and spend out state $. But you mention the "local hunter trying to practice some resource conservation". Take this for example;

I've been hunting SD since 1993. In the past 10 years or so I've seen a rise in the number of out of state pheasant hunters in SD. With this rise Iâ??ve seen a strong demand for good/great pheasant hunting. With this demand, I've seen a HUGE increase in crop land converted into prime pheasant habitat. Some of these conversions are absolutely enormous areas of property. Is this conversion because of SD resident demand and dollars? In part yes, but in LARGE itâ??s due to non-resident pheasant hunters $$$$$$$.

Bob, Iâ??ll tell ya I personally wish I had the SD â??problemâ?� with out of state hunters here in Illinois. With this â??problemâ?� of â??absent habitat minded out of state huntersâ?� as you basically stated in your last post, in time I would no longer have to drive 9 hours for some good pheasant hunting because the $ and demand would be here instead and intern keep the â??habitat wheelâ?� turning. And thatâ??s fine with me.

Basically Bob, more hunters, more $, more $, more habitat, more habitat, more birds, more birds, even more hunters and so on. Good economic situations can do wonders for game populations and hunting opportunities.

Also, letâ??s remove those out of state hunters from the SD scenario all together. With the decline of CRP acres how long do you think those land/business owners would keep those acres of theirs in prime pheasant habitat? Obviously the â??businessâ?� end of things would fall out and $ would no longer flow to make it worthwhile to keep the habitat in the ground and now you have a â??well, I think Itâ??s time to plow it under honeyâ?� situation. Loose that "business habitat" along with the CRP losses and SD resident will be looking for some out of state hunting themselves.

We need to work together here folks. We are on the same team. Whichever state youâ??re in/from. --1pheas4
 
Quote 1pheas4
"I've seen a HUGE increase in crop land converted into prime pheasant habitat."

I don't know what you seeing but we are not gaining huge tracts of pheasant habitat. We have been loosing habitat in huge numbers of acres

http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/oct10/oct4/0916DucksUnlimitedConcerned.cfm?recomend=no

Ducks Unlimited concerned about loss of CRP acres



In spite of the good news that USDA is signing up nearly 32 million Conservation Reserve Program acres, Ducks Unlimited is concerned the Prairie Pothole Region will still be losing more than 250,000 acres of CRP this year. Those acres are especially important for duck production.

"Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack tried to keep environmentally sensitive land in CRP, but for a number of reasons, landowners in portions of the PPR were not as interested as we had hoped," said Scott McLeod, DU governmental affairs representative for agricultural policy. "The resulting loss of CRP acres in the PPR will mean fewer acres available for nesting ducks when they arrive on the breeding grounds next year."

DU scientists estimate a loss of 250,000 aces of CRP could reduce the fall flight by more than 100,000 ducks per year. Compounding the loss of CRP land is the ongoing conversion of native grassland to cropland, estimated at over 200,000 acres annually. Another 3.5 million, or 35 percent of the current CRP acres in the PPR, will expire in 2011-2012.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that slightly more than 4.3 million acres were enrolled in CRP in August. More than 4.8 million acres were offered nationwide by landowners during this general sign-up.

In the PPR, almost 674,000 acres were enrolled in the sign-up, while 973,000 are expiring at the end of this month. Some of those lost acres are likely to be offset by new enrollments in continuous CRP practices. McLeod says landowner interest may have been limited in the PPR by factors such as the sign-up coinciding with the peak of small grain harvest in the Dakotas, CRP rental payments still being too low and possible competition with continuous CRP practices, which provide greater financial incentives.

"Landowners did not receive points for wetlands in the Environmental Benefits Index during this sign-up like they have in the past, and this undoubtedly was a factor in the lower acceptance rates in portions of the PPR," he said. Only four states had a lower acceptance rate than North Dakota. CRP offers are given an EBI score that reflects the environmental sensitivity of the land and then compete nationally with all other offers. Offers receiving the highest scores are accepted for enrollment.

Ducks Unlimited is the world's largest nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving North America's continually disappearing waterfowl habitats. Established in 1937, Ducks Unlimited has conserved more than 12 million acres, thanks to contributions from more than a million supporters across the continent. Guided by science and dedicated to program efficiency, DU works toward the vision of wetlands sufficient to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever.

______________________________________________________

Some dirty politics from the last Admin that still may come out in the laundry

http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/16850/

WASHINGTON â?? Behind the long anticipated USDA announcement of a general signup for the Conservation Reserve Program on July 26 lies a convoluted tale of Washington budgetary politics from the Bush administration that has infuriated House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn.

At a June 17 hearing on the farm safety, Agriculture Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Jim Miller said USDA needed part of the $6 billion in savings from the agencyâ??s recent negotiations with crop insurance companies to pay for the CRP signup even though Congress had provided the money in the farm bill.

At the hearing, Peterson learned that the White House Office of Management and Budget had allowed the Bush administration in October 2008 to use $65 million in USDA mandatory Conservation Reserve Program money that was supposed to idle land for soil restoration and wildlife habitat purposes for an initiative to pay landowners to allow hunters on their land. When the Bush administration abandoned the idea of a huntersâ?? initiative, OMB assigned the budget authority to deficit reduction rather than give it back to USDA for its original purpose. When the Obama administration came into office and wanted to extend CRP contracts and hold a signup to put more land in the CRP, USDA found itself financially strapped.

Peterson is so incensed that he has ordered a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation and is considering holding a hearing to figure out if OMB is engaging in the same practice in other parts of the government.

â??We are not going to stand for them changing mandatory programs,â?� Peterson said. He added that he also is opposing Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsackâ??s recent request to OMB that USDA be allowed to propose cuts in mandatory programs in the fiscal year 2012 budget rather than comply with President Obamaâ??s order that Cabinet agencies cut 5 percent of discretionary programs.

Of Vilsackâ??s request, Peterson said, â??They canâ??t cut mandatory programs. Thatâ??s our responsibility.â?�

Fiddling with money

OMBâ??s fiddling with conservation money first came to light at the June 17 House Agriculture General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee hearing when Miller testified that the Obama administration planned to use some of the money being saved in a renegotiation of the standard reinsurance agreement with crop insurance companies to pay for a new signup for the CRP, which idles land for conservation and wildlife habitat purposes. Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., the subcommittee ranking member, told Miller that he could not understand why it was necessary to use the savings for a program that Congress had given mandatory funding.

Miller explained that when the Bush administration did not follow through with its huntersâ?? initiative and OMB assigned the CRP money to budget reduction, â??we lost it,â?� Miller said.

A USDA spokesman further explained in an e-mail that to come up with the $65 million the Bush administration had decided to forego a CRP signup in fiscal year 2009 and that when the Obama administration wanted to extend contracts on CRP acres in fiscal year 2009, the only way it could comply with OMB rules was to reduce the planned fiscal year signup from 4.4 million acres to 2.9 million acres.

By using the savings from the crop insurance negotiations, USDA will be able to sign up enough land to bring the CRP up to the full 32 million acres allowed under the 2008 farm bill. The exact number of acres to be signed up and the exact costs are impossible to determine before the signup is complete, a USDA spokesman said. At present, there are 31 million acres enrolled in the program, but contracts on about 4.5 million acres will expire this fall.

Calculations

A USDA spokesman said the cost of the CRP signup is impossible to calculate before the signup is complete. Miller told the House Agriculture subcommittee he expects the cost to be $300 million per year, but the spokesman said that estimate is based on the assumptions that farmers would sign up 4.2 million acres an average rental rate of $71.40 per acre or 4.5 million acres at $67 per acre. At the present time, the average annual rental rate is $50 per acre, but the agency anticipates offering an increase to get the land that will provide the maximum conservation benefits, the spokesman said. CRP rental rates vary from one part of the country to another depending on the rental rates for land that is in production.

In any case, OMB would not have allowed a full signup to 32 million acres without the savings from crop insurance. Peterson likened OMBâ??s practice to the way appropriators cut mandatory programs when the money has not been spent.

â??What good is mandatory (spending) if people can shiftâ?� the way the money is spent? Peterson asked.

A Peterson spokeswoman said he has asked the administration for a complete briefing on OMBâ??s policies, but has not received a response.

An OMB spokeswoman confirmed that OMB rules had forbidden a full CRP enrollment until after USDA saved money through crop insurance. An OMB administrative PAYGO rule, which requires that additional increases in mandatory spending above the baseline scoring estimate must be offset when a department is considering administrative actions that would result in increasing the costs of mandatory programs., originated under the Bush administration and has been continued under the Obama administration, the spokeswoman said. Because the 2008 farm bill did not require a 32 million-acre CRP, but said it could be up to 32 million acres and for a number of other â??economic and programmatic factors,â?� OMBâ??s baseline did not assume that CRP would be the full 32 million acres until some point in the future, she said. But upon completing the crop insurance agreement, the spokeswoman noted, â??USDA decided to spend a portion of the $2 billion allotted for additional agriculture spending to accelerate the enrollment of 32 million acres in CRP,â?� the spokeswoman concluded.
 
Onpoint, it's no secret that we are losing CRP habitat; and that was one of the main points of my last post. Sorry I wasn't clear on this.

Despite CRP loses, have you noticed that the state of SD has had at or near record pheasant numbers the past few years? This surly is not due to mild winters or temperate springs for Optimal hatching conditions. How are these at or near record pheasant numbers possible with the decline of CRP habitat?

Again, the point of my last post was not CRP gains (for they are in decline) but instead gains in large flat parcels of land ("habitat hubs") converted into habitat, much of which are on prime flat crop ground. These grounds are most likely not in CRP, but despite this they are still in prime habitat because the land owners are making $ from pheasant hunters to make it worth while to keep it in habitat. The business end of things are helping pheasant numbers in a Positive way out here.

Again sorry I wasn't clear enough in my last post. ;) --1pheas4

P.S.--I'm in the Mitchel area on a job for the week. Talking with pheasant hunters they are saying this years pheasant hunting is much better than it was last year at this time. I hope to get out to pop of few birds to see if this is true:cheers:
 
It must be nice to have a state that does what you say 1pheas4. I have to agree with onpoint on this one not in this state either. We are losing not gaining habitat. Consider yourself lucky to have such a good program. Believe me you are in the minority.......Bob
 
bobeyerite said:
It must be nice to have a state that does what you say 1pheas4. I have to agree with onpoint on this one not in this state either. We are losing not gaining habitat. Consider yourself lucky to have such a good program. Believe me you are in the minority.......Bob
Click to expand...


Bob, I too would agree with onpoint on the habitat (CRP) loses through out the country. I'm simply making the point that non-resident hunters in big #'s such as we see in SD have brought about more habitat because pheasants have become a "cash crop" if you will, therefore making it profitable for land owners to put more land into habitat. That's all Bob. I never disagreed with onpoint on habitat/CRP loses. I'm simply making the point that out of state hunters can and do make a positive impact on habitat because of the economic/business benefits such as we've seen in SD. That's all. Please don't misunderstand me. I know there is a MAJOR problem with habitat losses. My state (Illinios) is the poster child for habitat loss. I KNOW CRP is in DECLINE. --1pheas4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top