Plowing up the Prairie-At A Price-Mpls Newspaper

0

0fer2

New member
Hi to all of you who love the grasslands and live or recreate there

Please take the time to click on the link to the Mpls Star Tribune story-which is actually a series of articles with the rapid destruction of our remaining grasslands.

http://www.startribune.com/local/170850241.html?page=1&c=y

It is factual and told from all perspectives-including a farmer in LQP county and what hes doing on land he buys.

Its a national tragedy-and as Dave Trauba points out, the country would be railing at the thought of destroying the Redwoods-but this gets barely noticed.

As I've said earier-agriculture gets a free pass.

Dan
 
Well we destroyed bird hunting in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, got a real good start in Iowa, a good foot hold in Eastern Kansas, South Dakota, oil fracking will make North Dakota a mess. Canada is following suit. As I reported many times, England and Scotland was bird hunter heaven, made it into the 1980's, supported by the landed gentry, well connected politically, taxes became outrageous, need added income to support it, spurred on by U.S. agriculture, and high supported crop value in the European Economic Union. Habitat and a small group existed to fight the change. Now, bird hunting is virtually gone, replaced with preserves, land of the setter, the pointer, unrivaled shotguns, our idea of sportsmanship in hunting, all on the pages of some dusty museum display. We followed them in tradition of hunting, and we are following again, in habitat destruction, and novelty. Well at least we have fishing and shooting preserves!
 
Hey old and new-I thought bird hunting always was for the upper crust in England-with the gamekeepers, the brush beaters, the dogsmen, the driven hunts-you telling me the average schmuck used to have a go of it??

Dan
 
0fer2 said:
Hey old and new-I thought bird hunting always was for the upper crust in England-with the gamekeepers, the brush beaters, the dogsmen, the driven hunts-you telling me the average schmuck used to have a go of it??

Dan
Click to expand...

The "new rich, were able to buy a concession or join a club, clear back in the post world war I. The land uses and cost is what the death knell. It is horrendously expensive now, I suspect it always was! The point is they had birds, where even a commoner feeding his family, a birdwatcher, or a poacher could get one here and there. Virtually lost the black cock grouse, huns are way down, pheasants are a released bird. I thank my lucky stars we have a few wild birds here, sometimes I am happy they give me the slip, and realize we might meet again later.
 
I think that in the USA, we had the freedom and inclination to hunt. All that was requested is a permission, which was usually granted. That became an issue when either by bad sportsmanship, from hunters, or the theory than everything has it's price, and in a capitalistic society, it's almost a sin against the system, if you don't charge somebody. In fact, I have neighbors who laugh at me, call me the "idle rich", because I let people hunt deer when ask, free.
 
Wow! Some pretty amazing facts in there. "How much do they need?" Pretty much sums it up. Keep plowing that native prarie, the viking inside you needs to be a conqueror.

"Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

"Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays."―*Aldo Leopold,
 
Great Quotes, Quail Hound

Well said!

The only other thing I could add is a complete disrespect for the land and water.
 
That guy seems pretty proud to have done all that work just to plow up native prairie. Does he even get covered by crop insurance for doing that? What a douche...
 
Well I bet he got paid for the rock he shipped out of the area-wholly crap I did not know the depth that some of these farmers-or as they like to refer to themselves as "stewards of the land" or "the original environmentalists" the depths they'll stoop to do as they damn well please destroying the land and water. And hes proud as hell about it.

You can be assured he will be compensated by us for his actions-be it crop insurance and/or subsidies.

The arrogance and behavior he showed is appalling at the least. And its more proof that in spite of the friendly ads-we've all seen by Monsanto-the destruction and arrogance (its my land and I'll do as I want) is there.

Dan
 
jpallen said:
There you go, nice come back. Lame at best
Click to expand...

I don't think that we need to make this personal. It cost money to preserve range land. Certainly we should all be doing our part to help preserve grassland. How can we ask a farmer to give up tens of thousands of dollars in revenue we we are not willing to pay the costs?
 
moellermd said:
I don't think that we need to make this personal. It cost money to preserve range land. Certainly we should all be doing our part to help preserve grassland. How can we ask a farmer to give up tens of thousands of dollars in revenue we we are not willing to pay the costs?
Click to expand...

They are not losing money on grassland, cattle are like gold right,I know plenty of ranchers that doing very very well. Your right though profit per acre most years would be higher with crop ground. However, even that is debatable in many portions of central SD. If it wasn?t for government Ag. entitlement programs many crop fields in central SD would go back to grass. WE ARE paying landowners in subsidies. Some large operations out here are receiving way more than tens of thousands each year. Some guys are straight government farmers, worst looking fields and yields but still building new houses/ buildings while riding in new trucks and equipment. It?s a broken system. Soil erosion in many newly planted acres that were previously grass is out of control. Last year and this spring was dust boil. When rain came the soils were washed away. What a waste. Many of the new generation of farmers are all about ME, ME, ME and instant gratification. All they talk about is max production and max profit nothing else matter no matter what the cost to others and fellow neighbors.
 
jpallen said:
They are not losing money on grassland, cattle are like gold right,I know plenty of ranchers that doing very very well. Your right though profit per acre most years would be higher with crop ground.
Click to expand...

Yes there is money in cattle right know but the rate of return is not that great. I run a few pairs and figure the ROI is around 4% not that great but it makes money. And you are correct you can make more on crop ground so by deciding to graze instead of cropping that is a loss of income.

jpallen said:
However, even that is debatable in many portions of central SD. If it wasn?t for government Ag. entitlement programs many crop fields in central SD would go back to grass. WE ARE paying landowners in subsidies. Some large operations out here are receiving way more than tens of thousands each year. Some guys are straight government farmers, worst looking fields and yields but still building new houses/ buildings while riding in new trucks and equipment.
Click to expand...

Direct payments are gone with the new farm bill. Yes the premium for crop insurance is subsidized. Yes some guys are farming ground that would not be farmed in my opinion but that is not the norm, which is the premise of the argument you are making. I know a lot of farmers and work with them everyday. I do not know a one who is making his way because of the government. Just because you see farmers buying stuff does not mean there balance sheet adds up. Many are making good money and should they have millions invested and generations of assets involved.


jpallen said:
It?s a broken system. Soil erosion in many newly planted acres that were previously grass is out of control. Last year and this spring was dust boil. When rain came the soils were washed away. What a waste. Many of the new generation of farmers are all about ME, ME, ME and instant gratification. All they talk about is max production and max profit nothing else matter no matter what the cost to others and fellow neighbors.
Click to expand...

I hear this a lot and do not know a farmer who is not concerned about long term sustainability. Most are concerned about being able to pass along a viable business to the next generation.

I do wonder how much of this concern is based on habitat loss and how much is based on the desire to kill a bird. If we could/did not shoot pheasants would we still be as concerned? Based on the comments made the major concern seems to be about inability to find places to hunt as opposed to the loss of natural habitat. The stuff were most birds are shot is far from natural.
 
Quote from Moellermd

"I do wonder how much of this concern is based on habitat loss and how much is based on the desire to kill a bird. If we could/did not shoot pheasants would we still be as concerned? Based on the comments made the major concern seems to be about inability to find places to hunt as opposed to the loss of natural habitat. The stuff were most birds are shot is far from natural. "

I couldn't agree with that statement more.
 
I personally have never seen a square foot of native prairie so to me maybe the remaining one percent may be as impressive as what Lewis and Clark described in their journals. I've also never seen the gulf of Mexico but the dead zone is definitely a concern and I don't hunt waterfowl but I would hate to see the "duck factory" of the prairie pothole region dry up. Flooding, water quality and soil erosion affect everyone. Some of us do care about conservation beyond shooting a bird and I'm sure most of us love and support our farmers but I think fighting for the remaining virgin prairie is a cause worth rallying for.
 
fsentkilr said:
Quote from Moellermd

"I do wonder how much of this concern is based on habitat loss and how much is based on the desire to kill a bird. If we could/did not shoot pheasants would we still be as concerned? Based on the comments made the major concern seems to be about inability to find places to hunt as opposed to the loss of natural habitat. The stuff were most birds are shot is far from natural. "

I couldn't agree with that statement more.
Click to expand...

For sure for sure.

this article is a typical stir-the-pot type article.

Note where author sites roundup ready corn and soybean seed as some "new" invention in the last year or two and that technology is destroying native prairie (thought it used to be the big bad plow????).
 
I own some native prairie, unfortunately it isn't all that native anymore. It is being invaded by bromegrass. The land is still virgin sod complete with tepee rings, but the native species are being crowded out. The last quarter that I broke up was because brome had dimished the yield and therefore the return. I went from generating enough income to pay the taxes to ground that I can rent out for more than $150 per acre because I broke it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top