What the KDWP Blames It On

BritChaser

BritChaser

Well-known member
In recent comms with the KDWP, I asked why pheasant numbers are near non-existent in KS. The response: habitat loss and drought primarily. More CRP is a big priority.

Interesting info: the KDWP fellow said habitat assistance including money is available to land owners from KDWP. Go get it, Kansans.
 
In the past I've posted links to the pages on their site that describe that program. But just because, here it is again:

Habitat First Program

The official website of the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks
ksoutdoors.com ksoutdoors.com

FWIW, the "Habitat First Gallery" is blank. :(

I've always wondered if how much land they sign up. Several of the practices are annual. Producers can get paid every year for brood strips (letting weeds grow in the wheat stubble), wheat stubble management (cutting so that stubble is at least 15" tall), prescribed burning, maybe a couple of others. Either the payment rates aren't motivating or the marketing is inadequate. I'd bet on a little of both.
 
I noticed the website had been stripped down as well. They used to have a list of payments for the various practices which I had a pdf of saved somewhere, but can’t find that either. Pretty sure it was $25/ac to leave wheat stubble unsprayed until Aug 1 with an 80 acre cap. For a while there that would’ve paid for a burndown/atrazine pass for most farmers prepping it for next years milo/corn. Seemed like a good trade off to me for letting weeds grow an extra 45 days, but I bet if I asked 10 family and friends that farm not one of them would say they’ve ever heard of the program. Needs to be a more proactive approach from the state and PF on digging up acres that lose money to implement habitat projects. Read a stat the other day that 60% of America’s farmland is responsible for 100% of the profits. The other 40% loses money or breaks even. That message sure isn’t going to come from the coop/ag retail, but habitat folks should be shouting it everywhere.
 
Last edited:
matto said:
Either the payment rates aren't motivating or the marketing is inadequate. I'd bet on a little of both.
Click to expand...
Yes, probably both.

If nothing is getting done at the current rate, up the rate and accept that they will get few projects accomplished. Some is better than none. No point in just sitting on the money.

As far as marketing, that’s squarely their job. Get after it. Maybe transfer some of the wizards that market the KS deer herd so well to marketing this habitat money to farmers.

Wishful thinking; nothing is going to change IMO.
 
Listened to a podcast the other day. KS upland game bio was on it. He said it was difficult to get farmers / landowners to sign up. I think maybe its the idea of the govt having some control of their land and that outweighs the check.
 
esetter said:
Listened to a podcast the other day. KS upland game bio was on it. He said it was difficult to get farmers / landowners to sign up. I think maybe its the idea of the govt having some control of their land and that outweighs the check.
Click to expand...
I understand and agree that this is probably part of it. Although producers deal with government "control" already and to a significant degree. ewg.org has a spooky, stalker-like database of farm subsidies that includes many of the farm programs, including CRP. All those programs have requirements and thus the same shadow of government control. So it's probably more about "enough already" than pure aversion to requirements for government benefits. Sounds like a pricing issue to me...
 
Let me clarify , The KDWP biologist said it was difficult to get producers / landowners to sign up. It was MY opinion that the govt role would scare people off. I look at it like this (personal thought and opinion) Im a welder by trade. Its not all that I do but its how I identify like a lot of us do by our chosen profession. Though it might sound great for the USDA or KDWP to pay me '' not to weld'' its what I do and who I am.
I can see how some farmers might see it the same way. They pay us not to farm , but its who they are and what they do. They have the land , equipment , and heritage to farm. Its tough to stop that drive with money. Im not political at all , hate it actually. However , if any government agency wanted a part of my welding shop and offered me good money not to work in that area of MY shop , I would pass.
Im an avid public land hunter and wish it were better. I do see the other side though.
 
esetter said:
Let me clarify , The KDWP biologist said it was difficult to get producers / landowners to sign up. It was MY opinion that the govt role would scare people off. I look at it like this (personal thought and opinion) Im a welder by trade. Its not all that I do but its how I identify like a lot of us do by our chosen profession. Though it might sound great for the USDA or KDWP to pay me '' not to weld'' its what I do and who I am.
I can see how some farmers might see it the same way. They pay us not to farm , but its who they are and what they do. They have the land , equipment , and heritage to farm. Its tough to stop that drive with money. Im not political at all , hate it actually. However , if any government agency wanted a part of my welding shop and offered me good money not to work in that area of MY shop , I would pass.
Im an avid public land hunter and wish it were better. I do see the other side though.
Click to expand...
Well said esetter.
 
esetter said:
Let me clarify , The KDWP biologist said it was difficult to get producers / landowners to sign up. It was MY opinion that the govt role would scare people off. I look at it like this (personal thought and opinion) Im a welder by trade. Its not all that I do but its how I identify like a lot of us do by our chosen profession. Though it might sound great for the USDA or KDWP to pay me '' not to weld'' its what I do and who I am.
I can see how some farmers might see it the same way. They pay us not to farm , but its who they are and what they do. They have the land , equipment , and heritage to farm. Its tough to stop that drive with money. Im not political at all , hate it actually. However , if any government agency wanted a part of my welding shop and offered me good money not to work in that area of MY shop , I would pass.
Im an avid public land hunter and wish it were better. I do see the other side though.
Click to expand...
I am in sales and have been for a long time. Most landowners ( other than corporate) care a great deal for their land and the future of it. If they are leading out with the money, that will always draw suspicion. It needs to be more of a holistic approach of this is how we are going to do our part to affect water, production, wildlife and the environment. Oh and BTW we are going to pay you X to do it. It will take a grassroots effort and the right people to do it.
 
The programs to set aside acres should be marketed to the retired farmer/landowners and absent owners, most active farmers/landowners are going to be a tough sell. Many people don't like these programs (the cost of them), even hunters here it seems. Where do we expect the wildlife to live and flourish if it were not for public (GOVERNMENT) owned lands and CRP (GOVERNMENT FUNDED) and similar programs? If the government didn't buy land and fund programs, we would all be paying someone else to hunt naturally occurring, unfit for farming, private ground, as all ground would be privately owned and there would be much less habitat than we currently have. I guess it is your tax dollars or your discretionary funds....I vote for tax dollars to be used, there are many, many more of those, everyone is kicking-in to make it happen.
 
remy3424 said:
The programs to set aside acres should be marketed to the retired farmer/landowners and absent owners, most active farmers/landowners are going to be a tough sell. Many people don't like these programs (the cost of them), even hunters here it seems. Where do we expect the wildlife to live and flourish if it were not for public (GOVERNMENT) owned lands and CRP (GOVERNMENT FUNDED) and similar programs? If the government didn't buy land and fund programs, we would all be paying someone else to hunt naturally occurring, unfit for farming, private ground, as all ground would be privately owned and there would be much less habitat than we currently have. I guess it is your tax dollars or your discretionary funds....I vote for tax dollars to be used, there are many, many more of those, everyone is kicking-in to make it happen.
Click to expand...
Great point. There would be little to no timber left in this country if it weren't for the State Forest Departments , US Forest Service and National Park Service. Wetlands would be fewer if not for the USFWS. All hunter and tax payer funded for sure. Im one of the people who would pay the habitat fee and have paid additional non res fees in 14 different states. I love the programs. Just glad We have places to go and appreciate those who have opened their lands to us.
 
They do a shit job of promoting programs. I live on acreage and am on the books with FSA with farmed acres and I've never been approached in my life about enrolling any acres into any type of program. Never seen any type of mailer explaining program options that I can remember either. When a state like Iowa is gaining crp acres back when they have land prices and crop revenue potential twice or more of Kansas it can be done.

And for loss of habitat, my ditches were just mowed by the county, in December mind you, for the 3rd time this year and I'm 2 miles from any blacktop. But no, no quail could of used that cover.
 
Last edited:
GTTP are your acres already in the CRP or similar....if not, why?? Sounds like the county boys have too much time on their hands.
 
remy3424 said:
The programs to set aside acres should be marketed to the retired farmer/landowners and absent owners, most active farmers/landowners are going to be a tough sell. Many people don't like these programs (the cost of them), even hunters here it seems. Where do we expect the wildlife to live and flourish if it were not for public (GOVERNMENT) owned lands and CRP (GOVERNMENT FUNDED) and similar programs? If the government didn't buy land and fund programs, we would all be paying someone else to hunt naturally occurring, unfit for farming, private ground, as all ground would be privately owned and there would be much less habitat than we currently have. I guess it is your tax dollars or your discretionary funds....I vote for tax dollars to be used, there are many, many more of those, everyone is kicking-in to make it happen.
Click to expand...
What I see here is that the active farmers and ranchers flock to the retired landowners and out of state landowners like flies on a rib roast as soon as the emergency grazing opens up. My landowner/neighbor is now nearing 80 and lives full time in Arizona. She has 6 sections of CRP. When emergency grazing opens, she gets dozens of phone calls from locals wanting to graze and bale. And now it is not just locals. Out of state swathers run like a prairie wildfire to the counties and states in drought as soon as emergency grazing opens up. Most of the hay bales in Kansas end up in Texas. There is so much hay available here that the price of bales has dropped considerably. Big bales of prairie hay is down to $50 a bale. The entire CRP program needs to be over hauled. If you are going to put ground in a conservation program, it needs to remain in the conservation program for the entirety of the contract. It's just another welfare program for the landowners.
 
Last edited:
We farm close to 20% of the 440 acres we own or lease. The rest is rotational grazed or just left alone. The crop benefits us by income yes, but mostly to me in wildlife feed. Now I'm not what should be the target for these programs as I'm going to farm for wildlife and my dogs to have a place to work no matter what.
 
Last edited:
remy3424 said:
GTTP are your acres already in the CRP or similar....if not, why?? Sounds like the county boys have too much time on their hands.
Click to expand...
We reluctantly broke out pasture slowly over a 3 yr period because we didn't have any feed on us. I'm not sorry we did it and we left more than adequate cover in my opinion while adding food sources. It has helped tremendously with the deer and turkey, not as much as I would have hoped on the quail but I can say I have quail when most in our region probably can't. I don't have enough we shoot them but enough I can play with them and keep keeping my fingers crossed.
 
GTTP, why don't you place it in CRP, or is it your livestock that graze? I have to think a stand that size of native grasses would be a pheasant production factory....if you didn't do the emergency haying/grazing. Getting a payment on the 440 acres would be more profitable than the profit from 20% of the acres that are farmed and a bit for grazing, wouldn't it?

EDIT: should have waited for that reply.

I do side with WKSBH, as it, if the CRP is hayed or grazed, it should affect the payment they have received...that would save some of those stands of grasses.
 
remy3424 said:
GTTP, why don't you place it in CRP, or is it your livestock that graze? I have to think a stand that size of native grasses would be a pheasant production factory....if you didn't do the emergency haying/grazing. Getting a payment on the 440 acres would be more profitable than the profit from 20% of the acres that are farmed and a bit for grazing, wouldn't it?

EDIT: should have waited for that reply.

I do side with WKSBH, as it, if the CRP is hayed or grazed, it should affect the payment they have received...that would save some of those stands of grasses.
Click to expand...
I'm too far east for pheasant unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top