Why those fence lines must go.

moellermd

Super Moderator
While we are sitting here lamenting the low pheasant numbers and lack of habitat he often point the finger at changing farm pratices for this loss. Such as the loss of fence lines. Certainly the loss of fence lines does not help the pheasant numbers, but lets look at it from the producers prospective.

A quarter of land has 2 miles of fence line.

One extra row of corn planted in place of that fence means an extra 6/10 of an acre of crop production.

At $5.50 corn thats an extra $300 per quarter.

The average SD farmer farms almost 10 quarters.

Thats $3000.

How many of us donate $3000 for pheasant habitat.
 
I hate it when you make sense. I still have the fences, in fact I am still building fences. For cows not pheasants. But if you don't have cows, and less people do all the time. Fences and shelterbelts are going away. Cattle are a pheasants best friend.
 
Funny you say that. I was up near Pollock last Jan and the number of pheasants living in feedlots was impressive. Just pick the corn out of the crap.
 
Absolutely. Cattle provide what pheasants need to survive the winter. If you add some nesting habitat to that you have a winner. I have said this before but it is true. SAVE A PHEASANT EAT A STEAK The new slogan for Pheasants Forever.
 
I'll rise to the bait so I don't disappoint anybody. Well the premise here assumes there is no value to the hedgerow or the fenceline. Possible benefits include soil conservation, also really have to consider the asthetic value as well. Now I realize you scoff at the asthetic value, but if asthetics have no value, then why buy a corvette when a Kia econobox will provide transportation, and save you a bundle in the bargain. You would also need to figure the expense of root-hogging out that fenceline, or hedge, and see how long it takes you to recover that cost. Maybe the government will cost share the improvement. Pay one guy to rip it out, down the road cost sharing the planting of a shelterbelt for conservation! We already have the model with wetlands. Spent the 70's tearing them up, the new century restoring them. In both cases wouldn't it have been simpler to just preserve them in the first place. My final thought is nobody lives on an island, I believe that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to do, as long as it does not infringe upon or threaten the quality of life of all the rest of us. We may well see another dust bowl, history has a way of repeating itself. If it happens, or maybe when it happens, just like the last time it will be encumbant upon the US taxpayers, to fund a fight to recover from a manmade, (farmer made), natural disaster. Last time we had catastrophic health issues, dramatic population shifts which the plains have yet to recover from, forced to commission an army of workers to achieve land restoration, all so some small percentage of individual Americans could milk a few extra dollars out of the land, that the land didn't have to give. All these lessons are forgotten, or passed off as ancient history, we are far to smart for that to happen again, really? As a guy who analyzes farm financial statements daily, I can assure you that 3000, pretax income will not make or break the bottom line of any farm operation. I would challenge your math as well, you assume 5.50 corn, historically using the last 10 year average it would be closer to $2.25. It will be again, how does that math figure in your equation? As an aside, I have quail living and eating with my pastured cattle and horses now, and can't remember a time when we did not. Reprocessing pass through grain, and bare spots around drinkers and loafing areas are the draw, but I also think they like the overhead cover and herd early alert warning system, and relative safety of being in the vicinity of the big animals.
 
I would challenge your math as well, you assume 5.50 corn, historically using the last 10 year average it would be closer to $2.25. It will be again, how does that math figure in your equation? .

$2.25 is fine, that would mean they are donating $1500 to pheasant habitat. Again how many of us donate that amount to the cause?
 
A dust bowl is possible but so is flooding. The amount of runoff from a soybean field compared to a well managed native pasture is staggering.
 
Probably not many of us make a donation of that size. On the other hand your figuring gross dollars not net dollars. I agree if the point is to motivate the faithful, and give us a perspective of what it will take to save the sport, it is certainly a sobering thought. Can or will pheasant and quail hunters pony up big bucks to save the habitat en mass. Maybe a topic for discussion, without governments CRP and it's associated programs, the amount raised by pheasants/ quail forever, and all the other upland groups from members is chump change in the grand scheme of things! Amount of actual habitat preserved on an annual basis wouldn't keep the members on this forum busy for opening weekend. We are looking down the barrel of land prices of $2500-$15000 per acre in some of what once was the prime pheasant belt. If quarter sections cost a million dollars, we have no options, short of some kind of mandatory conservation measures, which we are unlikely to see, and would probably have unforseen consequences we do not want. Short of some major national or state policy shift there is little that can be done. It's alarming that even the dove population is in a steep twenty year decline! Shooting preserves are probably the future, or tightly held horrendously expensive private shooting clubs, that own ground and produce wildlife with little concern for profit. I have mentioned this many times here but Great Britain had spectacular grey partridge, ( huns), pheasant, blackgame, and red grouse shooting right upto and including the 1980's, though in decline by then, now it's all put and take, with very limited natural production, pheasants are release birds, huns are nearly gone, blackgame on the endangered list. All this in thirty short years! What will we have in thirty years? A clue to the answer might be to compare what we had 30 years ago. A chilling thought to be sure.
 
Cost of CRP

Wow those are staggering figures. I did a little quick math and my best guess is that we are losing about $1000 to $1500 a year doing all the habatit work---but I would not trade it for anything, I've made to many new friends and just plain enjoyed all that comes with it. There is more to life than the bottom line. I would say that my life has been greatly improved because of it and I look forward to doing even more.:D
 
$2.25 is fine, that would mean they are donating $1500 to pheasant habitat. Again how many of us donate that amount to the cause?

I do (against my wife's will):D

"Make every bit of $ that you can regardless of consequences."

"Do everything you have to to make $"

"it's the customers problem"

Those are a few quotes from a minority of local business owners/managers that consulted me once I graduated collage. I've come to know that making every dollar possible is not necessary nor necessarily beneficial to my neighbor or myself.:)
 
$2.25 is fine, that would mean they are donating $1500 to pheasant habitat. Again how many of us donate that amount to the cause?

I do (against my wife's will):D

"Make every bit of $ that you can regardless of consequences."

"Do everything you have to to make $"

"it's the customers problem"

Those are a few quotes from a minority of local business owners/managers that consulted me once I graduated collage. I quickly acquired the invaluable knowledge that making every dollar possible is not necessary nor necessarily beneficial to my neighbor or myself.:)
 
Last edited:
I do (against my wife's will):D

"Make every bit of $ that you can regardless of consequences."

"Do everything you have to to make $"

"it's the customers problem"

Those are a few quotes from a minority of local business owners/managers that consulted me once I graduated collage. I've come to know that making every dollar possible is not necessary nor necessarily beneficial to my neighbor or myself.:)

Well said sir! I consider those to be wise words!
 
This is a complex situation, and will probably require a complex solution. Unfortunately, many farmers like to make things simple. That is why they farm quarters, halfs, and full sections. Driving in large squares or long back and forths is simple. Stocking cattle in April and going back to remove them in November is also simple. Frequently, farmers have unsatisfactory profits and often place blame without finding out what actually caused the loss. Grazing in that manner isn't range management, and often leads to losses, unsatisfactory gains, or range condition issues, yet rarely does the management get the blame. In order for farmers to get the maximum benefit from their land, they have to know what it is doing. They need to know this at a micro, not macro, level. To do that, they need to do a GPS harvest evaluation that maps the productivity of their fields using a combine that maps the productivity of the ground as it harvests the crop. The resultant map will show the variability of the field, and more importantly, the parts of the field that are responsible for net loss. Under the existing farm bill, these acres can be enrolled into a CRP practice to remove them from production and plant them into a perennial cover. The farmer will receive a per acre payment on those acres that will make them a positive on the ledger sheet instead of a negative. The cattle grazing will take time. Range management(proper) requires that the rancher evaluate the grass grazing and growth and make decisions on cattle movement or removal based on the balance between growth and consumption. This takes knowledge and time, something many operators don't have. It only takes a short drive in the country to see these problems first hand. There are ways to make them work, but on the modern farm, without the extended family involvement, there is often insufficient "time" to perform these needed tasks. The result is what we see today, degraded grasslands and large fields devoid of habitat.
 
Hunters should stop blaming farmers and start helping nature. I started building woodduck, mallard houses planting trees so wildlife can make it though the winter. I found out I get more enjoyment from watching successful hatches then I ever did shooting a duck. To bad it took me so long to figure that out. I still love to hunt guys not going peta on you:D
 
In a state like Kansas, that a hard thing to do Captaincoot. In Kansas, over 97% of the land is in private ownership. A short drive in the country will educate anyone that looks that there are significant problems with how much of that land is managed. Pastures in SC Kansas often look as if they belong in the NW corner, having been overgrazed for decades. Fields are farmed out into the right-of-way. Many drainages that should be planted waterways are rills several feet deep. Blowouts, that should have never been plowed, are bare almost all year. If you drive I35 from Wichita to Topeka, you will see thousands of acres invaded by eastern redcedar that are not only less able to sustain cattle, but also less beneficial to wildlife. All of these are a symptom of mismanagement. The only one to blame is the owner or renter of those acres. Many cover types, if managed well for their income purposes-grazing/crops, also provide exceptional habitat for our game species. Just getting landowners to manage our native habitats in good conditions could significantly increase our game populations and provide more sustainable income as well. Many operators do this already. However, there are enough that don't that it is a significant part of the reason game populations are in the slump that they are in.
 
According to the farmer that works for me, he gets 18-20 dollars per acre for being in the farm program. Now, a small farm around here may be 1000 acres, that's half the income of many people just for being in the biz. I think that is a lot of $.
 
To me farm program needs a big overhaul. And yes on my journeys though KS I've seen many bad farming pratices. Farmers want gov't Money make them set some ground aside for wildlife why give someone 1/4 of a million dollars for destroying nature? I look at it this way when I go to a national park why is everyone smiling because their seeing the gift of nature:)
 
Keep in mind that the only thing preventing farmers from tiling everything under the sun is the farm program. Participation in the program requires you to get prior approval before tiling or ditching. So that money farmers get is buying wildlife habitat.
 
Keep in mind that the only thing preventing farmers from tiling everything under the sun is the farm program. Participation in the program requires you to get prior approval before tiling or ditching. So that money farmers get is buying wildlife habitat.

That programs the biggest joke on earth. you could tile the great lakes and they wouldn't give a s@@t:eek: I've seen them in action:thumbsup: Only thing stoping farmers from tiling everything is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But I'm sure the gov't will find a way to help them.
 
Back
Top