USFWS Easement Case in SD

3car

Active member
http://www.argusleader.com/story/ne...ted-disturbing-protected-wetlands/1065185001/

Volga farmer convicted of disturbing protected wetlands
Associated Press Published 9:44 a.m. CT Jan. 25, 2018
#CopsCourts - 3Buy Photo
(Photo: Argus Leader)
CONNECT
TWEET
LINKEDIN
COMMENT
EMAIL
MORE
An eastern South Dakota farmer faces up to six months in prison and a $10,000 fine after being convicted of disturbing protected wetlands.

A federal jury recently convicted 61-year-old Kevin Mast of Volga, following a trial in Sioux Falls.

U.S. Attorney Ron Parsons says Mast installed drain tile on some of his property despite selling an easement to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that prohibited draining any wetland areas on the property. Parsons says Mast was warned against the project but went ahead with it in 2013.

Mast is to be sentenced April 9.
 
Another reason to quit paying for easements, crp, etc..... and just buy erodible lands, and permanently manage the property. We would save billions in the long run, with much better results for wildlife, species, and hunters.
 
Another reason to quit paying for easements, crp, etc..... and just buy erodible lands, and permanently manage the property. We would save billions in the long run, with much better results for wildlife, species, and hunters.

Not sure I agree with you on that idea but its interesting to think about. FWS easements have protected millions of acres of prime waterfowl habitat at a fraction of the price of actually purchasing the land. Good for waterfowl and upland birds for example maybe pheasants?? The federal government is already stretched out trying to manage fee title land. FWS easements are almost 100% purchased with duck stamp dollars so its not really tax dollars paying for the easements either.
 
Another reason to quit paying for easements, crp, etc..... and just buy erodible lands, and permanently manage the property. We would save billions in the long run, with much better results for wildlife, species, and hunters.

That's what the easements are for.
 
Dude should have to repay every dollar the Gov gave him for the easement, pay restitution so the taxpayers don't have to pay for a DA to prosecute him, and tack on that $10,000 fine. Thats the only way to get the people's attention on this.

You wanna disrespect legal contracts and mother nature? Eat this, Mr. Farmer
 
My point was too often dollars are spent and in the end the easement is not followed, or the land ends up being mowed, or grazed, etc........... or land is in CRP for a few years, only to come out and be plowed. In the end, the benefits are temporary, and then we start over. Let’s think long term. Permanent. Well managed.
 
My point was too often dollars are spent and in the end the easement is not followed, or the land ends up being mowed, or grazed, etc........... or land is in CRP for a few years, only to come out and be plowed. In the end, the benefits are temporary, and then we start over. Let’s think long term. Permanent. Well managed.

They are permanent easements. All FWS easements are permanent. The habitat is protected perpetually. And very few FWS easements go to trial. As a matter of fact this is the first one in years that I can remember since the late 90's. A lot of the easements were purchased in the 60's.
 
Payments for conservation easements are part of a conservation program that has seen limited success. I would much prefer we put future dollars into permanent land acquisition and management, that would emphasize habitat management and recreation opportunities. Long term we would be much better off.
 
Payments for conservation easements are part of a conservation program that has seen limited success. I would much prefer we put future dollars into permanent land acquisition and management, that would emphasize habitat management and recreation opportunities. Long term we would be much better off.

I think I would respectfully disagree. The USFWS easement program has protected millions of acres of prime waterfowl habitat in the prairie pothole region. Not only wetlands have been saved but grasslands as well. I get what your saying with fee title land but the amount of private property protected is incredible. The federal government would never get approval for the purchase of fee title land on this scale in farm country, nor should they. Not only is it protected but its also in private ownership. How do you come to the conclusion of limited success? This program was started in the 60's and there are still landowners trying to get offers. I would also argue the administration and law enforcement costs are minimal considering the millions of acres involved.
 
I would never say there aren’t some good things going on with easements. My point is in the 40 years I have been hunting upland birds, game species are down, invasive species up, access falling. I think it’s time to completely, totally, rethink conservation and recreation policies. We need to re-allocate dollars to policies with better results. My belief is that we need a program with permanent ownership, and consistent management. May include federal dollars, but local control. Managed for wildlife and recreation. Not saying there aren’t some parts of some programs that have some success. I’m saying overall, the conservation and recreation programs we have in place are failing.
 
I would never say there aren’t some good things going on with easements. My point is in the 40 years I have been hunting upland birds, game species are down, invasive species up, access falling. I think it’s time to completely, totally, rethink conservation and recreation policies. We need to re-allocate dollars to policies with better results. My belief is that we need a program with permanent ownership, and consistent management. May include federal dollars, but local control. Managed for wildlife and recreation. Not saying there aren’t some parts of some programs that have some success. I’m saying overall, the conservation and recreation programs we have in place are failing.

Tough to argue that. The easement program was designed around waterfowl production not upland birds. I have been hoping this 2 dollar corn would get some grass back on the landscape. Maybe this administration sees the high supply of commodity prices and uses the CRP program to lower the supply and benefit wildlife. I doubt this administration would be a proponent of the government owning more land tho.
 
I would never say there aren’t some good things going on with easements. My point is in the 40 years I have been hunting upland birds, game species are down, invasive species up, access falling. I think it’s time to completely, totally, rethink conservation and recreation policies. We need to re-allocate dollars to policies with better results. My belief is that we need a program with permanent ownership, and consistent management. May include federal dollars, but local control. Managed for wildlife and recreation. Not saying there aren’t some parts of some programs that have some success. I’m saying overall, the conservation and recreation programs we have in place are failing.

We have waterfowl production areas, national parks, national grasslands, wildlife refuges and I am sure many other areas that I am unaware of in addition to areas that the states have set aside. Much of the west has BLM land and national forests and others areas. How much should a country that is $20 trillion in debt spend on more than already exists.
 
The 20 trillion dollar debt is a choice. The problem is passive leadership. The USFWS knew in advance this landowner was planning on violating the easement and let him do it. The cheapest, most functional response was to stop it before it happened. The landowner would have received the same penalties but both sides would have saved the costs of the project and the costs to undo it. Doesn't do much good to rush in to save the sheep after the wolf is digesting it. We have a lot of options. These "unproductive" acres that have better wildlife value than agricultural value are being managed and maintained all over the country by special interest groups, government entities, etc. and this can be done just about everywhere. I look at this country as having many heritages. We often get caught up on identifying with only one of those to the detriment of all the others. For example: Kansas can be seen as the wheat state, the sunflower state, a wildlife state, a cattle state, a cowboy state and the list goes on. Our farm program focuses on a single entity of those many times to the detriment of wildlife and any other non-ag use. Our plans need to be comprehensive and provide for all of those heritages so that our grandchildren can see this country as our grandparents saw it. Mining everything for one user's greatest $ income is wrong. We need to look farther down the road and protect what we have been as we move toward what we will become.
 
We have waterfowl production areas, national parks, national grasslands, wildlife refuges and I am sure many other areas that I am unaware of in addition to areas that the states have set aside. Much of the west has BLM land and national forests and others areas. How much should a country that is $20 trillion in debt spend on more than already exists.

I agree with this as well. Don't forget the private land were hunters have access as well and school land too. I am not familiar with WI at all so correct me if I am wrong Tilkut. SD has what I think is a lot of land in government ownership already. Our public land is good stuff and its quality as well. I shoot pheasants on public land throughout the entire season. Maybe WI does not have that type of public land and more ownership in that part of the US would be a good thing. The federal government already has difficulties managing what they have. More land in government ownership is not the answer. Maybe they need to have some sort of "No net Gain of federal land".
 
The 20 trillion dollar debt is a choice. The problem is passive leadership. The USFWS knew in advance this landowner was planning on violating the easement and let him do it. The cheapest, most functional response was to stop it before it happened. The landowner would have received the same penalties but both sides would have saved the costs of the project and the costs to undo it. Doesn't do much good to rush in to save the sheep after the wolf is digesting it. We have a lot of options. These "unproductive" acres that have better wildlife value than agricultural value are being managed and maintained all over the country by special interest groups, government entities, etc. and this can be done just about everywhere. I look at this country as having many heritages. We often get caught up on identifying with only one of those to the detriment of all the others. For example: Kansas can be seen as the wheat state, the sunflower state, a wildlife state, a cattle state, a cowboy state and the list goes on. Our farm program focuses on a single entity of those many times to the detriment of wildlife and any other non-ag use. Our plans need to be comprehensive and provide for all of those heritages so that our grandchildren can see this country as our grandparents saw it. Mining everything for one user's greatest $ income is wrong. We need to look farther down the road and protect what we have been as we move toward what we will become.
I agree with everything you said except I do not believe that our grandchildren will see this country as our grandparents did, that ship has sailed. We obviously don't have a food shortage so there is plenty of room for wildlife and agriculture. The choice going forward is do we ever get our spending under control?
 
I agree with everything you said except I do not believe that our grandchildren will see this country as our grandparents did, that ship has sailed. We obviously don't have a food shortage so there is plenty of room for wildlife and agriculture. The choice going forward is do we ever get our spending under control?

That's a big statement. Most producers I talk to think they are feeding the entire world and there is no room for wildlife. Why the disconnect?
 
That's a big statement. Most producers I talk to think they are feeding the entire world and there is no room for wildlife. Why the disconnect?

Have you seen the price of commodities? There is no shortage of food, there may be a shortage of the ability to pay for it. I need to produce a product that will provide a living while improving the resource. It is not my responsibility to feed the world. I produce a lot of food, I choose to produce mostly grass fed beef. That allows me to reduce chemicals and fertilizer, both benefit my soil. I am in the hunting business partly because it allows me to benefit wildlife, my land, water quality and still pay the bills. Every hunter that comes here helps the land, air and water resources while providing habitat for various types of wildlife.
 
Have you seen the price of commodities? There is no shortage of food, there may be a shortage of the ability to pay for it. I need to produce a product that will provide a living while improving the resource. It is not my responsibility to feed the world. I produce a lot of food, I choose to produce mostly grass fed beef. That allows me to reduce chemicals and fertilizer, both benefit my soil. I am in the hunting business partly because it allows me to benefit wildlife, my land, water quality and still pay the bills. Every hunter that comes here helps the land, air and water resources while providing habitat for various types of wildlife.

I know what commodity prices are and I applaud your attitude towards conservation and farming. I just see grass continuing to be broke up to grow 2.5 dollar corn. I hear all the time that guys need to farm every inch to feed the world. I know its crap. This is just the first time I have heard it.
 
Back
Top